It looks more and more like Woods may actually have gone to wrong house. How can two articles be so different in tone?

Different article, different spin!

The character reference in the last story is so different to the others. Who knows what to believe?

In one article his flat mate sounds really supportive, in the other he makes him out to be a violent thug! This is why I don't trust the media. Just the way an article is worded can make a massive differance.

They're all about sensationalism and taking sides and less about actual fact. The facts are lacking in this case so they think they have to be there to fill in the gaps for you.

I cannot believe they differ so much though.

Why? Because the tabloids say so? All sources are fed the same information it just depends on how they interpret it. So no matter where you hear the story it will have the same facts in it will just have a different tone.

A number of articles have mentioned that he may have gone to the wrong house. Thats all.

Looking at all the articles, are you still so adamant that Woods deserved it?

I'm not too sure because I don't think we'll ever know what really happened or what he was doing there. However, I would like to apply my thoughts to similar situations where there has been clear intent of someone trying to rob someone else and they have ended up dead.

There are many who will agree with you. In fact I'm surprised you're the only forum member to post with that stance.

Because it's the most logical explanation, which is all we have to go on. Nobody has said anything about him being violent once he was in the house or evidence of him stealing anything so why else would he be there?

I read the article yesterday and it said nothing about Woods actually inside the house, just banging on it trying to get in. I agree that if somebody is actually in your house then you should defend yourself ... my grandad for instance has a baseball bat at the side of his bed as a precaution in case somebody did break in and came into the bedroom ... situations like that, I think hitting them is acceptable as you're defending your property but also yourself and family as you have no idea what the burglar could do. One strike to knock them out ... but to carry on untill they are dead ... yeah, you should be punished. If somebody was banging on my door then my first thought wouldn't be "knife, stab" ... in fact, I wouldn't even open the door.

However, the fact you said you'd get pleasure from it is pretty sick ... getting pleasure from taking somebody's life? Psychologists have a name for people like you. :wink: Plus, you said you'd get more pleasure doing it yourself ... who are you? Rambo?

Obviously he didn't kill him in cold blood but he went about "defending his property and family" all wrong because the article I read said Woods was trying to get into the house, not that he was actually in the house.

As for mistaking somebody's house for your own ... that is SO easily done. I've done it once. A taxi dropped me off at the wrong house and I assumed it was mine and tried to get into it because I was that drunk and didn't realise it weren't mine. This being in a road I'd lived in for years so of course it is possible ... it's hardly Balamory where every house is painted in a different bright colour.

People seem to have missed my last post about how I'm not sure about this particular case anymore but I'd apply it to others with clear intent of burglary ...

But if someone did break into my house then I would take pleasure in kicking the living daylights out of them. I don't care what psychologists call it, I call it revenge. I would be doing something I shouldn't be, but surely them breaking into in my house is just doing exactly the same?

Hmmmmmm!!!!!

Do you actually think its the same thing?

No, but they would have done something they shouldn't have, and to me. Therefore my natural response would just to attack them for doing it. As far as I'm concerned, all people who break into peoples houses lose their human rights the moment they break in. They shouldn't be doing it and deserve everything they get afterwards no matter how severe. When these people get attacked and survive, they complain and press charges. But they were the ones in the wrong in the first place! The people acting afterwards were doing it out of defense.

Why do you think that killing them is justified?

(Its easier to type using a hypothetical situation so bear with me :joker:)

Because they were acting in self defense to defend themselves, their properties and their families. If the person never broke in in the first place then they wouldn't have ended up injured or dead. Invading someones personal space IMO is one of the worst things you can do. Attacking and injuring them is perfectly justified but murder is not always perfectly justified. I think it depends on the extent and other factors surrounding the situation on whether murder is acceptable.

Murder is never acceptable. Your personal items can be replaced but another persons life cannot be replaced.

I agree that people should defend what is theres but that's it - defend. ie stop an attack and not initiate an attack. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding this. To kill someone accidentally while defending your property is acceptable, but to openly and brazenly take their life is not self defence. Its called assault with a deadly weapon and you get 20 years for that. No matter what the circumstances.

Quite a lot of items cannot be replaced because of sentimental value.

But I do agree that its not acceptable to kill someone purposely and its *acceptable* if by accident, like the person in the article. However upon reflection if the person in the article does go down them its his own fault for using a knife and not a baseball bat and whether he intentionally killed him or not? I suppose we'll never find out because we'll never get Wood's side of the story.

Agreed. This guy should go down for this.