Uk farmer who shot burglar freed

[denoir 0]

@ Aug. 02 2003,03:25)]I knew we'd hit this barrier, I just didn't think we'd hit it so soon. Our philosophies are fundamentally different- you're willing to sacrifice rights to the government in hopes that the government will return the favor by taking care of you. I, on the other hand, will tolerate government only to the point where it starts infringing on my rights. And keep in mind that social evolution is a divergent process, and the socialist state isn't the only result. I recognize one fundamental truth about the workings of government: more often than not, the government doesn't work for anyone but itself. It's sprawling, it's self-perpetuating, and given half the chance, will set itself up in your living room and keep you company at night just to make sure you comply with social evolution's flavor of the week, whether it's enforced religion or mass murder. I want no part of that.

Ok, then get a new political system, since you seem to be very cynical about your current one. I suppose it's your history with the British that makes you so paranoid about government control. I can't say that I share that sentiment about my government. I may disagree with those who are currently in power but I am also 100% certain that they are not going to pull off anything extreme and that they do try to run the country in a way that benefits the citizens. I

First, what are your so called "rights"? Are you refering to what's written in your constitution? In that case you should also be aware of the fact that it's a 200 year old political document, drafted by your government, defining what "rights" it felt then that you should have or not have. Also you should consider the fact that it was written when the main worry was of the British king coming back and reclaiming his colony. Now perhaps it's just me, but Queen Elizabeth II does not seem too much of a threat to me. And the modern day interpretations of the US constitution are at best far-fetched. Claiming that gun control is an infringement of your constitutional rights is about as sane as arguing that the laws that say that you have to drive on the left side on the road are an infringement of your freedom of movement rights.

Where are your "kill the people that you don't like" rights? Where are your "walk nude in the street" rights? Where are your "use any narcotic substance that you want" rights? Etc etc etc

The point of having a state and a government is to impose a set of rules that benefit the people as a whole. Any form of laws is an infringement of your individual "rights". The alternative is anarchy.

Quote[/b] ]Wrong. A criminal breaking into your house is not part of a long-term social condition, it's part of a short term desire to relieve you of your property. Noone makes a criminal pull the trigger or pick the lock, other than the criminal itself. And the way I see it, your willingness to relieve the criminal of that responsibility is an offshoot of your own willingness to let the government take responsibility for you. Nothing is anybody's fault anymore, all forms of activity are part of a 'long term social trend', whether it's positive or negative. That loses sight of the fact that on the business end of all these trends are individuals, each of which makes a conscious decision to act or not to act.

Everything has to be put in a situation and social context. What you are saying is:

Rule: Killing is bad.

Situation: Somebody shoots at you and you shoot back, killing that person.

Your logic: It does not matter if somebody else shot at you. In the end, you made a conscious decision to act or not to act. You knowingly and willingly violated the rule.

Social context is very important. First of all there are a lot of people who are looking for the most easy way out in any situation. Most of them are born in good social conditions where they can practice that principle without violating any laws. Some are not and "the easy way out" is crime. Individual responsibility, sure, but the society has to take some responsibility too.

Not to mention that one could argue that criminals most strongly advocate the principles you like so much: individual freedom over accountability to the collective.

Quote[/b] ]It's very simple- we don't feel that the society can't protect us. It's simply a fact that some of us have not surrendered our individuality or our responsibility. Why should I rely on someone else to protect me?

That kind of mentality makes a person weak and stupid, because everything is someone else's problem.

Yes indeed! Why the hell should you rely on someone else to protect you. Why don't you stock-pile some thermonuclear weapons? It's really a weak and stupid thing to let the so-called "military" handle your protection. And why the hell should you rely on somebody else to do anything? Shoot your own food! Build your own house! Construct your own power plant! Design your own toaster!

The basic principle of any organized society is the delegation of work to individuals or groups that are more qualified. If you don't trust your society to protect you then either you are being paranoid or your society is defunct.

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't work like that. Criminals do not act like a normal enemy. The fact that they have sunk to crime indicates that there is something fundamentally messed up about their character, whether they're lazy, cowards, or genuine hard cases.

There are very few pathological criminals. Most are created because of a lack of social integration that would prevent them turing to crime. Call it extreme individuality. They don't give a flying fuck about the state and take what they want.

If it's not a question of social integration, how would you explain it? Are you saying that poor people are by birth more prone to become career criminals? Are you saying that black people have a "crime gene"?

[crashdome 3]

As much as I like to listen to Tex and Denoir banter back and forth from their prospective places on the left and right, I think I might just add a little insight to a more balanced argument:

Tex said:

Quote[/b] ]you're willing to sacrifice rights to the government in hopes that the government will return the favor by taking care of you. I, on the other hand, will tolerate government only to the point where it starts infringing on my rights.

I never once read in Denoir's post a mention of government involvement in the way you mention. Not that he may have meant it that way... I am just saying... he might have meant differently.

Quote[/b] ]It's very simple- we don't feel that the society can't protect us. It's simply a fact that some of us have not surrendered our individuality or our responsibility. Why should I rely on someone else to protect me? That kind of mentality makes a person weak and stupid, because everything is someone else's problem.

What makes a person weak and stupid is a lack of faith in the society they have chosen to live in. I am sorry, but that is what make criminals, well... criminals.

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't work like that. Criminals do not act like a normal enemy. The fact that they have sunk to crime indicates that there is something fundamentally messed up about their character, whether they're lazy, cowards, or genuine hard cases. The lazy ones and the cowardly ones, which make up the vast majority of criminals, are not willing to engage in an arms race with law abiding citizens. They have a certain means they live within- they've got a lead pipe, so they'll attack folks who they can overpower or intimidate with that weapon. If they run into a citizen with a gun (and survive), they'll make a note to be more careful and be more careful about what qualifies as an easy target. Only the most dedicated criminals will get shot at one day and be out in the same backalley the next day with kevlar and an assault rifle. They're out there, but they aren't numerous, and they aren't worth cowtowing to the entire criminal element.

So if I see a clerk accidentally give me back one dollar more in change than I should get (or a pound, franc, DM whatever) and I, just once, decide to walk away with it makes me fundamentally messed up? What about white collar crime? They are usually not violent... you associate violence and psychological disorders with crime. I'll have you know that there are plenty of non-violent and very intelligent and psychologically adept criminals out there.

Some advice, stop thinking of criminals as scum. Most aren't. I agree some are, but you ARE being fascist when you stereo-type like that.

Now on to Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]Vigilantes and lynch mobs do not have a place in a civilized society. In such societies we say that killings over material posessions is not acceptable. Your home is not some form of private kingdom of yours, it's a part of the society that sets those rules.

I agree to some extent, but you are fantasizing a little. Killing over material possesions not acceptable - ok... but killing over defense of your own life IS acceptable in parts of this country and in those same parts under "privacy" laws in some states, a home is considered untouchable by government prosecution for certain actions. I am refering to a huge controversy right now on enforcing "old" sodomy laws in the United States. This goes back to 1950's and involves the work of H.L.A. Hart.... a good source on this subject IMO.

Your arguments touch base alot with Lord Patrick Devlin's arguments. This I don't like and think his argument is viable, because it promotes a structured society that can be changed via government involvement and coersion. This could lead to Totalitarianism long and short.

To wrap this up...IMO

Putting six holes in a guy because he tries to take your stuff is wrong. Putting six holes in a guy because he threatens your life to do so is ok by me.

I too, have the right to live.

edit: Damn I missed some of these posts... how'd that happen

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, then get a new political system, since you seem to be very cynical about your current one. I suppose it's your history with the British that makes you so paranoid about government control. I can't say that I share that sentiment about my government. I may disagree with those who are currently in power but I am also 100% certain that they are not going to pull off anything extreme and that they do try to run the country in a way that benefits the citizens. I

I'm cynical about a lot of stuff maybe I just like bitching

Quote[/b] ]First, what are your so called "rights"? Are you refering to what's written in your constitution? In that case you should also be aware of the fact that it's a 200 year old political document, drafted by your government, defining what "rights" it felt then that you should have or not have. Also you should consider the fact that it was written when the main worry was of the British king coming back and reclaiming his colony. Now perhaps it's just me, but Queen Elizabeth II does not seem too much of a threat to me. And the modern day interpretations of the US constitution are at best far-fetched. Claiming that gun control is an infringement of your constitutional rights is about as sane as arguing that the laws that say that you have to drive on the left side on the road are an infringement of your freedom of movement rights.

Yup, them's the ones. And the current interpretation of the Second Ammendment is not at all loony.

Quote[/b] ]Where are your "kill the people that you don't like" rights? Where are your "walk nude in the street" rights? Where are your "use any narcotic substance that you want" rights? Etc etc etc

*sigh*, do we really want to get into that one?

Quote[/b] ]The point of having a state and a government is to impose a set of rules that benefit the people as a whole. Any form of laws is an infringement of your individual "rights". The alternative is anarchy.

Immaterial. I've all ready defined what my rights are, and whether you think they're silly or not has no bearing on the conversation.

Quote[/b] ]Everything has to be put in a situation and social context. What you are saying is:

Rule: Killing is bad.

Situation: Somebody shoots at you and you shoot back, killing that person.

Your logic: It does not matter if somebody else shot at you. In the end, you made a conscious decision to act or not to act. You knowingly and willingly violated the rule.

That's a manipulative and innacurate example. If it were accurate, then the original scenario would be this: "The homeowner was trying to steal from the robber, so the robber stole from the homeowner first. He had no other choice, after all."

You have yet to show me how socio-economic factors force people to break the law. Sure it makes it more tempting, but what the hell? There are many temptations in life, and you don't have to be poor to briefly consider shoplifting a candy bar from a grocery store.

Quote[/b] ]Social context is very important. First of all there are a lot of people who are looking for the most easy way out in any situation. Most of them are born in good social conditions where they can practice that principle without violating any laws. Some are not and "the easy way out" is crime. Individual responsibility, sure, but the society has to take some responsibility too.

What kind of bullshit is this? People are lazy, and society has to take the blame for that? Huh?

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention that one could argue that criminals most strongly advocate the principles you like so much: individual freedom over accountability to the collective.

Nope. My actions are always within a moral/societal framework, but I do them because they're good or right from an existential point of view, not because anyone's telling me to do it. I admire a person who can act as kindly and compassionately without any incentive or threat.

Quote[/b] ]Yes indeed! Why the hell should you rely on someone else to protect you. Why don't you stock-pile some thermonuclear weapons? It's really a weak and stupid thing to let the so-called "military" handle your protection. And why the hell should you rely on somebody else to do anything? Shoot your own food! Build your own house! Construct your own power plant! Design your own toaster!

That's an awful puerile way to look at it. I'm advocating the ability to protect my own property, not a rugged individualist existence. There can be a happy middle ground, ya know?

Quote[/b] ]The basic principle of any organized society is the delegation of work to individuals or groups that are more qualified. If you don't trust your society to protect you then either you are being paranoid or your society is defunct.

*bangs head against wall*

My society is not defunct just because it is a fact of nature that no police force will ever respond to a call in under 5 minutes, and that's under the best circumstances! What the hell do you think happens inside those 5 minutes? Freeze frame? No, you lose your stuff, and possibly your life. And I don't know what goes on in Sweden, but not everybody in America has homeowner's insurance, because it isn't possible to subsidize insurance in a country of over 300 million people.

Quote[/b] ]There are very few pathological criminals. Most are created because of a lack of social integration that would prevent them turing to crime. Call it extreme individuality. They don't give a flying fuck about the state and take what they want.

If it's not a question of social integration, how would you explain it? Are you saying that poor people are by birth more prone to become career criminals? Are you saying that black people have a "crime gene"?

Don't do that, Denoir, you're better than that and you know it. It's very simple: criminals want the easy way out. Why pay for it when you can steal it? Why face poverty when you can get high? Why run a legit business when I can rip off my investors and get rich? It has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity, and it has everything to do with not being willing to work hard.

Of course there are more criminals in the lower socio-economic classes, not because poor people are more prone to crime, but because it's not as easy to coast when you're poor. People are often very similar in the way they behave, which is why things like statistics and psychology work. There are criminals in all classes; just look at any of the recent corporate scandals- those guys are worse than a house robber in my view, but you know what a knee-jerk reactionary I am .

It's all about the choice. You have the misfortune to be born poor. It's noone's fault, really. So you can choose what you want to do: do you want to work your way out of poverty so that your kids dont have to deal with the same shit. And that is really hard, but it isn't impossible- that's what my family did. Or you can choose to break the law, shoplift, rob, sell drugs, all of which are profitable if you don't get caught. Noone can force you into being a criminal. But what you're saying is that poor people don't possess the self-control and discipline that you or I have; wha? Who's being bigotted here? I hold all humans to the same expectations- you, however, think that some simply aren't as capable. Read Oligo's sig

[Milkman 1]

If we can't shoot them, howbout a nice handy metal baseball bat? It works for me, although there are 4 firearms in the house, I think a simple baseball bat does the job nicely.

PS: And it won't be filled with cork!

[denoir 0]

I agree to some extent, but you are fantasizing a little. Killing over material possesions not acceptable - ok... but killing over defense of your own life IS acceptable in parts of this country and in those same parts under "privacy" laws in some states, a home is considered untouchable by government prosecution for certain actions. I am refering to a huge controversy right now on enforcing "old" sodomy laws in the United States. This goes back to 1950's and involves the work of H.L.A. Hart.... a good source on this subject IMO.

Your arguments touch base alot with Lord Patrick Devlin's arguments.

Devlin advocated that a state defined morality code should govern the laws. My position could not be further from that.

My general position is to minimize government influence in matters that are not of public interest (like who you shag). Matters that affect other people and are of public interest (like who you shoot) need to be discussed and some common ground has to be found. I think this applies to the whole society, not just when you are at home.

Apart from that I think there is a social component to the issue. Just like we would not hesitate to help a family member in trouble, we should not hesitate to help the weaker in our society. The government/state has a responsibility towards all its citizens, even those that do not accept the rules of the society.

[denoir 0]

@ Aug. 02 2003,05:29)]Immaterial. I've all ready defined what my rights are, and whether you think they're silly or not has no bearing on the conversation.

What's relevant is not what you think, but what your society thinks. What your society thinks is represented by your government that is (well, should be in theory at least) democratically elected.

So if you feel that carrying a gun and shooting criminals is right and the society does not agree, then you'll be the criminal and locked up.

This is not a matter of individualism, it's a question of a social agreement and it's the government that represents that social agreement.

Quote[/b] ]You have yet to show me how socio-economic factors force people to break the law. Sure it makes it more tempting, but what the hell? There are many temptations in life, and you don't have to be poor to briefly consider shoplifting a candy bar from a grocery store.

Each to its own. In your socio-economc class it's no different when you download that mp3.

Quote[/b] ]What kind of bullshit is this? People are lazy, and society has to take the blame for that? Huh?

Lazy people are part of the society. As are stupid people, smart people, tall people, short people etc The society has to be organized that way that it can provide a safe structure and existance for all of them. Today some lazy people pick up a gun and rob 7-11. Other lazy spend 5 years at Yale drinking and partying because their daddy pays for it. And then they become the president.

If you take away the social context, you'll see the same distribution of individuals in all socio-economic layers. The social context is defined by the society hence it's responsibility. It is responsible to provide the social context that even very lazy people don't become criminals.

Quote[/b] ]Nope. My actions are always within a moral/societal framework, but I do them because they're good or right from an existential point of view, not because anyone's telling me to do it.

Eh? Moral absolutism?

Quote[/b] ]That's an awful puerile way to look at it. I'm advocating the ability to protect my own property, not a rugged individualist existence. There can be a happy middle ground, ya know?

So where is that middle ground. From my point of view (and for the most part European, I dare to say) your distrust of your government's ability to protect you is extreme individualism. The need to have a gun at home to ensure your survival is IMO telling a lot about the safety in your country.

Quote[/b] ]*bangs head against wall*

My society is not defunct just because it is a fact of nature that no police force will ever respond to a call in under 5 minutes, and that's under the best circumstances! What the hell do you think happens inside those 5 minutes? Freeze frame? No, you lose your stuff, and possibly your life. And I don't know what goes on in Sweden, but not everybody in America has homeowner's insurance, because it isn't possible to subsidize insurance in a country of over 300 million people.

If the criminals are effectivly apperhended after the fact there will be very little reason for comitting crimes. If all the criminals are in jail or rehabilitation then there is very little to be afraid of. A burglar wants your stuff yes. Unless he is a psycho (very few are), he has no real interest in killing you. The only motivation that he has for that is that you might kill him first. So why take any chances. I know that if I was planning a robbery, I'd make sure to have enough fire power to survive. So because every yahoo in your country owns a gun, the burgler will play it safe. He might harm you so that you won't harm him. And you'll end up loosing your stuff, apart from being dead that is. And should you be succesful then you have defended your TV by spraying another human being's brains on your wall. Really a successful concept.

Quote[/b] ]It's all about the choice. You have the misfortune to be born poor. It's noone's fault, really.

That's where you are wrong. It's the responsibility of the society to make sure that its members are provided a good-enough social context for them not to develop into heartless criminals that will have no second thoughts about killing a fellow human being for his stereo and TV. And as I said, that's intimately connected to poverty. More than a tenth of your citizens is poorer than the average citizen of Tanzania. That poverty is a spawning ground for criminals. And you ain't going to solve it by shooting them; they reproduce and adapt.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]Although I understand that it's a part of your culture to shoot at other people,...

You lookin at me funny? Boy..!

Quote[/b] ]If we can't shoot them, howbout a nice handy metal baseball bat? It works for me, although there are 4 firearms in the house, I think a simple baseball bat does the job nicely.

PS: And it won't be filled with cork!

I've got an aluminum baseball bat in quick reach under my bed. Two and a half feet, about three to four pounds. I can hold that thing half way up and get some quick swings for CQB

And if I'm sleeping in the back room, theres a hatchet a few feet from the couch in a closet.

Bring it on

Although I live in a very safe south suburb of Chicago (Oxy moron anyone? ) it's always good to have something... just in case.

On the subject of the original topic:

I think the farmowner had every right to shoot the intruders. Since he didn't know what, if any weapons they had. It's bad that it happened, but it wouldn't have happened if the kids weren't breaking the law in the first place.

[FSPilot 0]

look at it this way.  say that 16 year old was a 25 year old drug addict who needed all the money he could find to support his habit.  say he shot the homeowner who hesitated because defending his home was illegal because some 16 year old kid got the .357 side of the law. would you support making this illegal then?

I'd rather have a guilty 16 year old intruder dead than an innocent 30 year old home owner.

[Phleep 0]

If I accidently removed an intruder's life I think he would probably not be sent away in an ambulance but "insinkerated".

Who knew he was there? I'd feel bad about it whether or not I confessed to the crime.

I have a family and wouldn't hold back if I started to defend myself as I wouldn't want to find out what he was planning on doing.

In saying that though, I have no guns in the house (bar bb guns) and apart from kitchen knives the only thing that could be considered a weapon, I suppose, would be the 6ft halberd in the garage (didn't fit under the bed ).

[Major Fubar 0]

Well, I don't own any firearms, but I sleep with a foot-long Kukri within reach of my bed:

[Balschoiw 0]

Why gun ?

Buy a dog.

[Crazysheep 1]

There's a big difference between shooting a criminal out of self defense, and shooting one in the back without warning and injuring another who was already out the house and running away. Martin was a clinical psychopath, he's a lot more dangerous than any petty teenage thief.

[colonel_klink 0]

You fire two shots.. One in the air as a warning, the other at the burglar.. Its up to the police to prove which shot was fired first.

We've had a similar situation here.

I'm on the side of the farmer. Anybody who trespasses on private property deserves what they get. Forget the courts.. 3 years for invading your property wit the intent of God knows what and out in 18 months.. thats a laugh. the moment a person embarks on a career of crime, his/her rights should be forfeited. There is no reason why the victim of a crime should be worse off after the offender has been caught. Bring back the pillory!

[Tamme 0]

I'm too tired to read the whole topic so I'll just say what I think.

If the burglar dude does not threaten me or anyone else in anyway, then I subdue him with minimal violence, but if he even hits my dog..I shoot/stab the bastard in the arm/leg so the paramedics can pick him up, but I try not to kill him.

Reasons being:

1. He suffers more in prison

2. If I kill him It's me who goes to prison

[Tamme 0]

Why gun ?

Buy a dog.

Dobermann!

[Koolkid101 0]

Hmm, sometimes its not societies fault, the 2 dartmouth professors killed where killed by a bunch of "regular" middle class teens.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You don't know the half of it, now in England if you are caught breaking in for the first time, all you need to do is write an apology letter to the affected family and you get off for free

[Tamme 0]

You don't know the half of it, now in England if you are caught breaking in for the first time, all you need to do is write an apology letter to the affected family and you get off for free

So even if the family does not forgive you still get off?

[Shashman 0]

I'm becoming less and less proud of my country by the day

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I'm becoming less and less proud of my country by the day  

[off-topic]in your sig You have quoted one of the best lines in one of the best movies out there [/off-topic]

Tamme, the very idea of being let off after writing an apology letter (irregardless of whether the family accept ur apology or not) is laughable, if you commit a crime you should lose your rights as long as you are committing a crime, and once you have been apprehended you should be trialled in a court of law, regardless of your apology.

[Tamme 0]

I'm becoming less and less proud of my country by the day  

[off-topic]in your sig You have quoted one of the best lines in one of the best movies out there [/off-topic]

Tamme, the very idea of being let off after writing an apology letter (irregardless of whether the family accept ur apology or not) is laughable, if you commit a crime you should lose your rights as long as you are committing a crime, and once you have been apprehended you should be trialled in a court of law, regardless of your apology.

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to know excactly how easy you can get off.

[Renagade 0]

There's a big difference between shooting a criminal out of self defense, and shooting one in the back without warning and injuring another who was already out the house and running away. Martin was a clinical psychopath, he's a lot more dangerous than any petty teenage thief.

Im sure the fatal shot was on the premises in dark light conditions.

I`ll find the link to the details in a jiffy.

[Renagade 0]

I'm becoming less and less proud of my country by the day  

[off-topic]in your sig You have quoted one of the best lines in one of the best movies out there [/off-topic]

Tamme, the very idea of being let off after writing an apology letter (irregardless of whether the family accept ur apology or not) is laughable, if you commit a crime you should lose your rights as long as you are committing a crime, and once you have been apprehended you should be trialled in a court of law, regardless of your apology.

What if the laws were stupid and ur only crime was to defend urself,u can easily become a criminal even if ur a good guy

[Renagade 0]

Ill some up my opinion rather than quoting and answering as its easier on the eyes

the point about societies responsibilty is true in a sense,take this example for instance.

Some bigshot company exec sucks up all the buisness in t he area and spits out crappy jobs in return and makin a lot of ppl in a rubbish situation so they turn to crime to get ahead.

A very simple situation but illustrates the point that it just isn`t because ppl are lazy etc that they turn to crime.

Quote[/b] ]If the criminals are effectivly apperhended after the fact there will be very little reason for comitting crimes. If all the criminals are in jail or rehabilitation then there is very little to be afraid of. A burglar wants your stuff yes. Unless he is a psycho (very few are), he has no real interest in killing you. The only motivation that he has for that is that you might kill him first. So why take any chances. I know that if I was planning a robbery, I'd make sure to have enough fire power to survive. So because every yahoo in your country owns a gun, the burgler will play it safe. He might harm you so that you won't harm him. And you'll end up loosing your stuff, apart from being dead that is. And should you be succesful then you have defended your TV by spraying another human being's brains on your wall. Really a successful concept.

The point made about burglers just wanting the gear is not true and burglars not attacking if they aren`t threatened is bullshit.

Why do u hear of old folks getting beaten to a pulp for a very little cash?The issue is self defense not just robbery.

Junkies,psychos,muggers,petty thiefs, general scumbags are the types u might run into one day on the street and in ur homes then u may acually think it might have been a good idea to have a weapon handy or a better security system.

Quote[/b] ]1) Get a better police force. Make crime a difficult task and make sure that you catch the criminals.

no thanks i`d rather not have a police state

Quote[/b] ]2) Chill out. Don't be so hysterical. It's only stuff after all, covered by your insurance.

so is my personal safety but i don`t want that "stolen"

Quote[/b] ]3) Invest in long term society stabilizing projects. Crime is linked to poverty. 13% of the US population lives under the poverty line (src: CIA World Fact Book). Fix that and you'll fix a lot of your problems long term.

I guess i probably agree on some level with that one.

Tell me ,how many of u here have personal experiences of robbery or muggings etc?

[Frisbee 0]

Here in Belgium there's a case where some poor guy (minimum wage of +-500€) stole some tomatoes and carrots out of a garden.

The older (52) owner of the garden waited in ambush the next night,the poor guy came back,then the owner came up to him,yelled at him,and shot him with his longrifle as he ran.

One side : extreme violence at some poor,hapless guy,who only wanted some carrots to feed himself

quote : 'I didn't even know it was a crime'

Other side : How could my client have known he only wanted to steal carrots,that's a ridiculous excuse,he could have wanted to kill my client just as well

It's hard to decide,but in this case i think they're both equally responsible