Finland home invasion. Homeowner sentenced to 4 years. Criminal invaders sentenced to house arrest.

a reply to: gladtobehere

My step father was full blooded Finn, and judging by him...it's a wonder the poor homeowner didn't get the death penalty. Finn + AF officer= Full blooded BASTARD!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nightbringr

That not what I meant at all, but you probably know the difference between self defense and pay back.

I do. But we don't know if there was any 'payback' involved.

If he tortured them after subduing them, i agree its a crime. But we don't know that, do we?

I'll present this question to you then. If someone armed with a gun were to break into your house with your family present, would you stand passively by, or would you defend your loved ones?

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nightbringr

That not what I meant at all, but you probably know the difference between self defense and pay back.

I do. But we don't know if there was any 'payback' involved.

If he tortured them after subduing them, i agree its a crime. But we don't know that, do we?

I'll present this question to you then. If someone armed with a gun were to break into your house with your family present, would you stand passively by, or would you defend your loved ones with deadly force if necessary?

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nightbringr

That not what I meant at all, but you probably know the difference between self defense and pay back.

I do. But we don't know if there was any 'payback' involved.

If he tortured them after subduing them, i agree its a crime. But we don't know that, do we?

I'll present this question to you then. If someone armed with a gun were to break into your house with your family present, would you stand passively by, or would you defend your loved ones with deadly force if necessary?

a reply to: gladtobehere

Sounds like a compromised judge that doesn't know how to run a courtroom and a compromised trial. The missing information in the media fits right in with the 'compromised' part. Needs some investigating, from the Finn's.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I am reminded of the mythical land known to me as Badwardsassville, it's like opposite land but stupider.

HOWEVER, in a scale of comparisons, if you look up the term "excessive self defense" in the dictionary, there's a picture of the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and base camps surrounding Iran so on that basis and in keeping with the philosophy of this ruling, the US government should be jailed for 4 billion years.

Funny how different cultures interpret things innit?

Every free country's self defense laws should read like this.....

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 13. Criminal Code Chapter 4. Justification 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person’s home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

lawofselfdefense.com...

That man's family has got to refuse to pay them. AND to SUE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. THE JUDGE, EXCEPT FOR SOME ASSANINE REASON THE PUBLIC HAS ALLOWED JUDGES TO IMMUNE.

I WOULDN'T ALLOW THIS AND WOULD SUE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WITH REAL NAMES, TO ENSURE THIS IS STOPPED< AND THE COST PAID IN FULL BY THE JUDGE AND THE NAMES RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING SUCH THINGS TO TAKE PLACE,, X 100000.

I WOULDN'T STOP BULLHORN AND TARGET THEIR BEDROOMS NO SLEEP fOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

AND YES, SO MAD I CAN't EVEN TYPE!

DO NOT ACCEPT IT AND DO SOMETHING BIG REAL BIG FOREVER BIG MEAN IT DO IT !

And for the record, Mr JUDGE IN FINLAND. IF ANYONE WITH BATS OR LETHAL WEAPONS BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE, I WOULDN't LEAVE THEM WOUNDED. I BELIEVE LIKE IN EVERY SCARY MOVIE, THEY CAN RECOVER AND ATTACK AGAIN. I WOULD SMEAR THEM TO BEYOND THE GRAVE! BECAUSE I DON'T TAKE CHANCES WITH MY LIFE OR MY FAMILIES.

THE ONLY ODDS I GO WITH IS 100% SAFETY FOR US AND THAT IS THE MOST LEGAL LAWFUL COSMIC REALITY.

YOU ARE A SERVANT TO THE PEOPLE AND IF ROGUE NEED TO BE DESTROYED!

AND MY FRIENDS AND I WOULD GET A BULLDOZER AND GET HIM OUT OF YOUR KIDNAPPING AND CRIMINAL IMPRISONMENT AND YOU CAN TAKE A LEAP OUT OF THIS DIMENSION INTO HELL YOU CRIMINAL.

Abuse of power is the most repulsive thing going and by golly people have to start to wake up. You are the power, you are the consciousness of the planet and you cannot pass this injustice onto your children.

You stand strong, LOUD, and powerful against them and you never never never never (a thousand times never) back down, not even once, not for anything ever.

You never let them abuse their positions at all ever.

AND know, that if you wake up and answer the inner call you'll be on that arrest team too. You're going to be the judge of them, and they answer to you.

This judge I'm watching, because he is such a shriveled puny soul now, he'd fit nicely in those little petri dishes we get to haul them away before the council for remedial work, because the universe doesn't let you stay small, you are forced to grow up if you're so derelict you don't even try.

yup...in Texas, our wives will blow holes in them as big in the front as the back....

most have 41's or 44's'''''''''''''''''''''the little women have 38's and uzi's

uzi does it....is Finland full of metro men?

a reply to: Unity_99

a reply to: gladtobehere

This is denying our true nature.

"But we're better than that!". No. The only way people like this learn, is to be treated as they treated others. There are those in society who would have you believe you should lay back, lay down. Accept whatever is done to you. "Turn the other Cheek!". No. Regardless of what celestial beings people claim exist. Angels. Karma. If you allow yourself to be cowered, to take it, they'll come back.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: gladtobehere

There is no situation in which a man can legitimately be convicted of excessive use of force for self defensive puposes, when attacked in his own home, by three armed opponents, one of whom is carrying a gun.

I honestly do not care if he made the bastards suffer, crippled all three of them, cut the tendons to their lower extremities, put out an eye each, or made them all smile like the bloody joker. Three people trying to rob a man in his own home, should be expected to accept whatever consequences come of it, including being dismembered and displayed on pikes out the front of their intended victims house.

Scumbags. The homeowner simply should not be going to jail.

Well said, as always! In my opinion, when you make an attempt on someone's home or person, that person rightfully owns you. If anyone came through my door like that, they'd better plan on killing me (and my dogs.)

I'd cooperate if I didn't think Los Tres Perros, myself and my trusty baseball bat couldn't overcome them, but there's nothing in my home worth sending that much muscle/skill through the door, so I'm pretty confident I'd be playing mad scientist with them inno time. Too bad the laws are stupid.

If the law allowed unlimited torture/killing of home invaders, not only would home invasion be much more rare, but some of us would learn a lot more about internal human anatomy. Win-win!!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, guess I better mark off Finland from my reasonable and good places to live.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: nightbringr

If he tortured them after subduing them, i agree its a crime.

Nothing less.

But we don't know that, do we?

Then why did they sentence him to four years?

The presumption has to be he went too far, not just in self defense.

I'll present this question to you then. If someone armed with a gun were to break into your house with your family present, would you stand passively by, or would you defend your loved ones?

You keep asking me that. Obviously you aren't familiar with my posting history about firearms and self defense.

This is hard to judge without knowing all the facts.

But, a key point is that the suspects brought a gun, but it seems they didn't shoot the homeowner.

So, the gun was brought to be used as a visible threat, without intent to actually harm.

The homeowner, on the other hand, used a knife with intent to harm, and did so harm and wound the suspects.

Normally, you'd think the homeowner should be in the right, since it's his home, and they are the invaders.

However, depending on the actual sequence of events that took place in the home, things could be viewed differently.

How come the homeowner was able to overpower all the suspects with just a knife, when they had the upper hand in numbers and had a gun?

Did they give up, turn to run, and then the homeowner went after them to "punish them?"

If the homeowner was clearly no longer under threat from the suspects, and still acted for vengeance, then we could understand the judges order.

The homeowner is allowed "self defense", but "punishment" is for the courts.

Too bad they didn't name the perps. 10 to 1 they had an "immigrant background," as they call it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I can't believe what is happening to the world right now. A man gets put in jail for defending himself? So that the people will be meek and frightened when, someday, it is the government itself invading all of it's citizens property? (it will happen) Disgusting.

a reply to: gladtobehere

House arrest? Who's house, the home owners?

what was the judge smoking when he handed down this sentance? if this would happen in america I could understand but finland? wow.