Stealing followed by death ...

My cousin had his house broken into recently by a burglar, Adam Lewis, who on a subsequent burglary against someone else ... well I'll quote this news article:

Quote:

---

Killer of Wirral teenager is jailed for life

THE killer of a Wirral teenager will serve a minimum of 22 years in prison, a court heard today.

Adam Lewis, of Fairmead Road, Moreton, had pleaded guilty to murder, two charges of assault by penetration, burglary, and arson. He denied two charges of rape.

Former Wirral Met student Hannah was repeatedly stabbed and slashed by her attacker.

He also seriously sexually assaulted her during her ordeal at the isolated Wirral beauty spot and the teenager was unable scream for help because of tape over her mouth.

18-year-old Lewis continued to injure her after she had died from a combination of asphyxiation caused by strangulation, the tape over her mouth and a stab wound to her thigh penetrating her femoral vein.

---

Wow, glad this didn't happen to your cousin.

Seconded. How did your cousin know who robbed him/her? Clearly your cousin's place was just an earlier stop on a sociopath's journey.

What a terrible story. :(

I don't know all the details (him and his girlfriend are very shaken up about it and don't like talking about it) but I believe he witnessed the break in at his own place. He was going to be called as a witness at the trial until the guy changed his plea from Not Guilty to Guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

My cousin had his house broken into recently by a burglar, Adam Lewis, who on a subsequent burglary against someone else ... well I'll quote this news article:

---

Not trying to derail your thread but this is exactly why any action taken against thieves should be legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Not trying to derail your thread but this is exactly why any action taken against thieves should be legit.

---

If murderers were also found to have been frequent violators of traffic law, would that then legitimize any action taken against them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

If murderers were also found to have been frequent violators of traffic law, would that then legitimize any action taken against them?

---

Nope. There is a world of difference in violating a traffic law and the violation of another's property.

You can't take these anectdotal examples and base a judgment on them that affects all thieves. Plenty of thieves are just thieves. Do they likely have lower moral standards in general than others, probably a connection there. However, it doesn't mean they are going to murder innocent people, or people who won't go out with them (or whatever the situation was in this case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

You can't take these anectdotal examples and base a judgment on them that affects all thieves. Plenty of thieves are just thieves. Do they likely have lower moral standards in general than others, probably a connection there. However, it doesn't mean they are going to murder innocent people, or people who won't go out with them (or whatever the situation was in this case).

---

Even if they never murder anyone they are still thieves and should be put down.

I'm sorry I say some hurtful things toward you at times, luckily I know you have thick skin, and sometimes you need a dagger like comment just for you to feel anything. I hope I can think of a thorough way to really reason with you on why this thinking is wrong (morally for sure), but also as a path for our society to take. Lastly, you can't seperate so distinctly what you believe morally and what you support in society. What you're supporting is the taking away of some vital rights, that you believe are forfieted when people decide to steal. I know for a fact I would not kill someone for stealing my stuff, most of it is useless anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nope. There is a world of difference in violating a traffic law and the violation of another's property.

---

What possessions do you own that you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for? What about the life of your wife? Your children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Nope. There is a world of difference in violating a traffic law and the violation of another's property.

---

Violation of traffic law directly endangers the lives of the people that are abiding by it you do realize that? I just want to understand the moral ladder here a drunk teenager cutting a bicycle chain to ride home should pay with his life. Where is a driver not respecting priorities thus accepting the fact that he can cause death or serious injury to several people is apparently a less important offense or can the person that barely avoids collision with such individual follow him home and shoot him dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What possessions do you own that you'd be willing to sacrifice your life for? What about the life of your wife? Your children?

---

My house was broken into two years ago while my girlfriend and I were upstairs. I woke up from the noise of it, went downstairs and chased him out the house and down the street (despite only wearing my boxers).

In that instance, I never stopped to think about the legality of anything - I was shocked, angry, scared and violated all in one. If we'd fought instead of him driving away I can't guarantee I wouldn't have hurt him.

Because he drove away I got his reg plate. Combined with muddy footprints left in my kitchen (where he'd forced his way in through a window) he was caught. He was actually physically caught red handed in another burglary and pled guilty to 18 more. His sentence was a suspended sentence and was released without any jail sentence. I'd like to know how the judge was convinced that no burglaries or worse would be committed again by the criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Even if they never murder anyone they are still thieves and should be put down.

---

Either you're a Troll or morally deficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

My house was broken into two years ago while my girlfriend and I were upstairs. I woke up from the noise of it, went downstairs and chased him out the house and down the street (despite only wearing my boxers).

In that instance, I never stopped to think about the legality of anything - I was shocked, angry, scared and violated all in one. If we'd fought instead of him driving away I can't guarantee I wouldn't have hurt him.

Because he drove away I got his reg plate. Combined with muddy footprints left in my kitchen (where he'd forced his way in through a window) he was caught. He was actually physically caught red handed in another burglary and pled guilty to 18 more. His sentence was a suspended sentence and was released without any jail sentence. I'd like to know how the judge was convinced that no burglaries or worse would be committed again by the criminal.

---

The suspended sentence and no jail time is problematic. What's up with that?

Regarding the OP.....if he'd been in jail for robbing your cousin, maybe that would have saved that young girl her horrible death. :(

Also, what's the difference between "assault by penetration" and "rape"?

It would be nice if judges had some kind of an overarching organization that monitored the reconviction rate of people their members let off without a real sentence, and then call for the dismissal of those judges with a particularly bad rate.

The Brits like to have descirpitve text for everything? :)

I think that is the term for B&E over there not a sexual act.

No assault by penetration is a sexual assault where either the vagina or anus in penetrated. Rape can cover other forms of sexual assault not involving penetration.

EDIT: No I'm wrong. Rape is exclusively non-consensual assault with a penis penetrating the vagina/anus/mouth (so women by definition can't rape in the UK) whereas assault by penetration is the assault of either the vagina or anus (not mouth it seems) with any object other than a penis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Violation of traffic law directly endangers the lives of the people that are abiding by it you do realize that? I just want to understand the moral ladder here a drunk teenager cutting a bicycle chain to ride home should pay with his life. Where is a driver not respecting priorities thus accepting the fact that he can cause death or serious injury to several people is apparently a less important offense or can the person that barely avoids collision with such individual follow him home and shoot him dead?

---

Traffic violations are a bit generic. A rolling stop on a non-busy street at the stop sign is very different then reckless driving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

My house was broken into two years ago while my girlfriend and I were upstairs. I woke up from the noise of it, went downstairs and chased him out the house and down the street (despite only wearing my boxers).

In that instance, I never stopped to think about the legality of anything - I was shocked, angry, scared and violated all in one. If we'd fought instead of him driving away I can't guarantee I wouldn't have hurt him.

Because he drove away I got his reg plate. Combined with muddy footprints left in my kitchen (where he'd forced his way in through a window) he was caught. He was actually physically caught red handed in another burglary and pled guilty to 18 more. His sentence was a suspended sentence and was released without any jail sentence. I'd like to know how the judge was convinced that no burglaries or worse would be committed again by the criminal.

---

I remember the story, and I don't believe you did anything wrong, legally or ethically. I also don't think it's right to be an arm chair quarterback when a startled, frightened person reacts like a startled, frightened person when someone forces their way into their home. That being said, I don't understand the lengths with which Lewk is wanting to go to protect any and all property regardless of the situation. I don't believe capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for theft, and I want to know why Lewk believes it is.

No I didn't do anything wrong. I'm also very glad the other person ran away and got away but got caught (even if not sentenced properly) by the proper authorities not me. I would never take the pleasure Lewk does in someone's improper death.

But if the guy hadn't ran away but instead ran towards me then I've no idea what would have happened. Most likely would have led to me being stabbed not him though. For those who confront a burglar they've interrupted I feel sympathy to, not pleasure from. Most in the links Lewk spams us with say they feel regret to - nobody but Lewk it seems wants the situation to happen, but those who end up in it through no fault of their own should be looked after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I remember the story, and I don't believe you did anything wrong, legally or ethically. I also don't think it's right to be an arm chair quarterback when a startled, frightened person reacts like a startled, frightened person when someone forces their way into their home. That being said, I don't understand the lengths with which Lewk is wanting to go to protect any and all property regardless of the situation. I don't believe capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for theft, and I want to know why Lewk believes it is.

---

The purpose of government is to protect us from each other and outside threats (like other nations). Based on the amount of theft and robbery its clear that government has failed to do a good job with this. At the very LEAST the government should then stay out of the way of people take it upon themselves to defend their property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No assault by penetration is a sexual assault where either the vagina or anus in penetrated. Rape can cover other forms of sexual assault not involving penetration.

EDIT: No I'm wrong. Rape is exclusively non-consensual assault with a penis penetrating the vagina/anus/mouth (so women by definition can't rape in the UK) whereas assault by penetration is the assault of either the vagina or anus (not mouth it seems) with any object other than a penis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

---

Seems to me Rape is overly parsed in the UK. Anyone who's been violated in their vagina/anus/mouth by an object would probably consider that Rape...and something even women can commit. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The purpose of government is to protect us from each other and outside threats (like other nations). Based on the amount of theft and robbery its clear that government has failed to do a good job with this. At the very LEAST the government should then stay out of the way of people take it upon themselves to defend their property.

---

Do you have a citation for the number of thefts and robberies being higher than previous decades....or 'ineffective' police forces? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Do you have a citation for the number of thefts and robberies being higher than previous decades....or 'ineffective' police forces? :donkey:

---

Pfft, another dumb lieberal. It's just common sense! The police are busy rounding up as many blacks and drug addicts as they possibly can to be used as labour in the for-profit prison industry. The inmates per capita ratio is still not as good as it was in Berija's Gardens! There's a prisoner labour gap! The police don't have time for thieves and burglars, fine up-standing citizens need to pick up their share of the burden and wantonly execute anyone that needs to be put down. The cops don't have time as taxes have to go down down down for the economy, dontcha kno', and wouldn't it be better and more efficient anyway just to privatize the police? Those guys got unions, man, you know the kinds of thugs that sort of establishment attracts.

Well, it is typical for someone like Lewk, isn't it? He wants to cut taxes that fund public services, including police or street lights, schools or teachers, youth programs or food assistance, even unemployment insurance. Privatize everything. Force communities to adopt a "fend for yourself" philosophy, whereby gun-toting vigilantes bring back the Old Wild West style of justice. Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Based on the amount of theft and robbery its clear that government has failed to do a good job with this.

---

Based upon the amount of horrible, dangerous driving then the government hasn't done enough in this regard either. Should we start murdering people who excessively speed, tailgate, and cut drivers off?

Why would it matter if the theft cases were higher in the past? Almost everyone personally knows someone who has been the victim of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Almost everyone personally knows someone who has been the victim of it.

---

This can be applied to dangerous driving too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Traffic violations are a bit generic. A rolling stop on a non-busy street at the stop sign is very different then reckless driving.

---

I don't understand there are degrees of gravity when violating traffic law but not with stealing? All Traffic laws are supposedly created with safety of drivers in mind so any violation can potentially lead to loss of life or damage of property. I understood that stealing in all forms is evil and next time my secretary takes a chocolate from my desk without permission and proceeds to brazenly chew it in front of my face I will be sure to shoot her in the face, but why can I not open fire on the driver that did something unexpected and unlawful on the road causing my heart rate to skip potentially contributing to health problems years down the road from increased stress.