Burglar who will burgle no longer

[Seagull on the wing]

Burglar(s) had no right to be there...end of...suppose another court case drawn out,costing thousands and a let off...Judge says This should have never been bought to court.PC Brigade and Human rights have a lot to answer for.

 

[Bold Seagull]

On a slightly different subject

View attachment 25647

Ha ha that must have been one massive curb!!


Bloody Zumba classes taking of the world as well...

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Give the 3 of them medals and let them go.Simple.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Burglar(s) had no right to be there...end of...suppose another court case drawn out,costing thousands and a let off...Judge says This should have never been bought to court.PC Brigade and Human rights have a lot to answer for.

Get rid of the courts, they are a waste of tax payers money. In the words of the great thinker Alan Partridge, "well the police are hardly likely to have arrested him if he was innocent would they!?"..ah ha.

 

[Waynflete]

its easy when thinking straight in the cold light of day. However how easy is it to think of all options when scared out of your mind, caught by surprise and in middle of the night!!!

Absolutely. All of which should be taken into account when assessing whether the force used was 'reasonable' or not.

 

[cheeseroll]

I have a handy 3 iron available for such an occurrence...

 

[DTES]

Somehow I'm not surprised to see this being painted as black and white as usual on NSC. For what it's worth, my view as a left-handed, limp-wristed, flower-arranging, shandy-drinking, mazda-driving, hand-wringing, bleeding-heart, any-other-insult-you-want liberal is...

Of course you have the right to defend yourself and your family if your life is under threat. Despite the stereotype that gets thrown around by "the right" about "the left" wanting to let burglars do whatever they want, I don't know anyone that would disagree with this.

You obviously don't have carte-blanche to murder though - waiting until the burglar is finished, has left your house and presents no threat to you or family, then sneaking up on him and stabbing him repeatedly in the back is murder and absolutely nothing short of it. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn in this case, or any other case, until all information/evidence has been gathered and so obviously the police have to investigate.

You have the right to defend your family; you do not have the right to kill to defend your X-Box.

 

[fruitnveg]

My opinion:

By breaking into someone's property, (I'm well aware this is not law) you forfeit all rights. You cannot, if illegally trespassing, expect the law to protect you or your accomplices from land or house owners. If you don't want to die at the hands of a loon in their house protecting family, possessions etc, don't break in.

 

[The Spanish]

i thought most burglaries happen in the day when most people are erm out.

that said it does happen and is f***ing spooky - i have been burgled in the middle of the night after a bit of a session at the hartington and didnt hear a thing.

topping some smackhead might make people feel better about having the fright of their lives but lets face it most burglars do not want to top you they want to be i n and out as quick as f***ing possible. of course nowadays if i found someone i n my house i would go f***ing garrity but this is a bit of an iffy one. you just know that there are lunatics up and down the country that are going to f***ing love this.

 

[Waynflete]

My opinion:

By breaking into someone's property, (I'm well aware this is not law) you forfeit all rights. You cannot, if illegally trespassing, expect the law to protect you or your accomplices from land or house owners. If you don't want to die at the hands of a loon in their house protecting family, possessions etc, don't break in.

Does that mean that a farmer should be allowed to shoot a rambler who trespasses on his land? After all, by your logic, the rambler is illegally trespassing and should therefore forfeit all rights.

 

[Bold Seagull]

My opinion:

By breaking into someone's property, (I'm well aware this is not law) you forfeit all rights. You cannot, if illegally trespassing, expect the law to protect you or your accomplices from land or house owners. If you don't want to die at the hands of a loon in their house protecting family, possessions etc, don't break in.

and you end up with the 10 year old with his head blown off because he jumped over the neighbours fence to get his ball back...

 

[fruitnveg]

Does that mean that a farmer should be allowed to shoot a rambler who trespasses on his land? After all, by your logic, the rambler is illegally trespassing and should therefore forfeit all rights.

No. Nothing is as black and white as i have painted above in the real world. Which is almost certainly why it is not law and why I don't make the laws.

In my defense, I was referring more the to breaking in and steal-y types of burglars than the country rambling walker types, but I can see how my clumsy handling of the language could raise the question.

 

[fruitnveg]

and you end up with the 10 year old with his head blown off because he jumped over the neighbours fence to get his ball back...

As above.

 

[Waynflete]

No. Nothing is as black and white as i have painted above in the real world. Which is almost certainly why it is not law and why I don't make the laws.

In my defense, I was referring more the to breaking in and steal-y types of burglars than the country rambling walker types, but I can see how my clumsy handling of the language could raise the question.

Fair enough! I guess that the problem is, even with the breaking-in-and-stealy burglaries, there will be an infinite variety of different circumstances that could justify, or not, the homeowner taking particular action. Which is why the law states 'reasonable' force to take into account the unique circumstances of each case.

 

[Seasider78]

Its all fair and well debating what is and is not reasonable from the comfort of your keyboard but nobody knows how you would react until you are actually put in that situation.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

In English Law, you are only allowed to kill someone in self defence and no more than reasonable force in that self defence.

Not true.

I, like one of the previous posters, can't help feeling there is a lot more to this particular case than meets the eye.

I also think this stuff that David Cameron has come out with this week about homeowners and burglars is nothing more than PR crap aimed at raising his popularity level. If you read certain newspapers, you'd think homeowners were being locked up on a regular basis for giving burglars a slap, which is just not true. The only reason it makes the press in a case like this (or Tony Martin) is because it's so rare. I've dealt with plenty of victims of crime, not only of burglary, but of assaults and other stuff, who have taken whatever steps they deemed appropriate to defend themselves and their property, and I've never once thought to go after them for assaulting the offender. Your average copper has a home, and a family, and property, all of which we'd like to protect as much as the next person. We can actually empathise with other people, believe it or not.

Anyway, the point on Cameron is that the current law allows you to defend yourself and property perfectly well, so there's no need for any additional, vote-winning legislation simply because the Daily Express wants all its readers to believe that the residents of the UK are under siege in their own homes. The Criminal Law Act 1968 states that

a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large.

The key words are "reasonable" and "in the circumstances", which essentially is to say that the level of force you can use depends on your own personal viewpoint and circumstances at the time. If you genuinely perceive that your own life or that of some other person(s) is under threat, you can take all reasonable measures to defend yourself, and that could quite easily include killing the other person.

 

[Stoo82]

I agree with hitting a burglar or similar, but stabbing them, you ARE attempting to kill them, and imo, that is wrong. Unless of course you are being threatened yourselves...

Simple cause and affect.

Dont go burgling, dont get stabbed by the home owner.

 

[cunning fergus]

Somehow I'm not surprised to see this being painted as black and white as usual on NSC. For what it's worth, my view as a left-handed, limp-wristed, flower-arranging, shandy-drinking, mazda-driving, hand-wringing, bleeding-heart, any-other-insult-you-want liberal is...

Of course you have the right to defend yourself and your family if your life is under threat. Despite the stereotype that gets thrown around by "the right" about "the left" wanting to let burglars do whatever they want, I don't know anyone that would disagree with this.

You obviously don't have carte-blanche to murder though - waiting until the burglar is finished, has left your house and presents no threat to you or family, then sneaking up on him and stabbing him repeatedly in the back is murder and absolutely nothing short of it. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn in this case, or any other case, until all information/evidence has been gathered and so obviously the police have to investigate.

You have the right to defend your family; you do not have the right to kill to defend your X-Box.

So, to paraphrase..............as long as the victim has considered an intruder to represent a threat to their preson/family then you are OK with the victim being able to smash a criminal's skull in with a fireside poker? No hand wringing there.............I like your style.

 

[DTES]

So, to paraphrase..............as long as the victim has considered an intruder to represent a threat to their preson/family then you are OK with the victim being able to smash a criminal's skull in with a fireside poker? No hand wringing there.............I like your style.

Adding the key clause "has considered" isn't paraphrasing, it's utterly changing the meaning of my post. Nice try though.

No, you can't just think "they might be a bit dangerous, so I'll brutally smash their skull in just in case". If you're confronted with a madman with a knife, and it's your or them, then it's obviously going to be them. If their target is you TV, there is no justification for murder. "An Eye For An Eye" is bad enough; "A Life For A TV" is obscene.

 

[cunning fergus]

Adding the key clause "has considered" isn't paraphrasing, it's utterly changing the meaning of my post. Nice try though.

No, you can't just think "they might be a bit dangerous, so I'll brutally smash their skull in just in case". If you're confronted with a madman with a knife, and it's your or them, then it's obviously going to be them. If their target is you TV, there is no justification for murder. "An Eye For An Eye" is bad enough; "A Life For A TV" is obscene.

To be fair you have indicated that you were comfortable that a victim can robustly defend themselves against an intruder if their own or their families lives are threatened. I agree with you.

So, when faced with a situation where a criminal has broken into an occupied residential premises the victim (if aware) will have to contemplate that very situation.

If (after that moment) they conclude that their own (or another member of their family) life is under threat they can then justifiably stove the criminal's head in with a wheel brace. Like I say............I agree.

Next case please............................



I under threat or