Burglar who will burgle no longer

[portlock seagull]

You have clearly failed to distinguish between my offering opinions about this specific case (about which none of us has any detailed information) and making a broader point about whether it is ALWAYS okay to kill a burglar who is on your property.

What if it's someone on your front drive or in your back garden whom you think might be a burglar? Do you stab them first and ask questions later?
What if you recognise the burglar the next day in the street? Is it okay to stab them to death then, just to make sure they don't come back?

My point is that your statement that 'any burglars are fair game, simple' is pathetically simplistic. There is an infinite variety of ways in which someone could be on your property. In some cases it will be legitimate to defend yourself, your family and your property, especially if you feel your life is at risk. If you're confronted by a violent burglar in your house then nobody sane would say you can't defend yourself.

But in other cases, violently attacking someone because you're angry with them is not acceptable. Do you really think that someone who has nicked your telly deserves to die? If you do, then I give up.

But others would claim your view is a good example of those who make law "pathetically" complicated, often to make money. Yes it's not black and white, yes you need to look at the circumstances. But the comparitive examples you're citing are if anything far more simplistic than the arguments you're challenging. I mean, 4 hooded strangers breaking into a house in a rough neighbourhood at midnight hardly compares with some ramblers crossing farmland my mistake, or the postman coming to your door at 9am, does it?

 

[Waynflete]

But others would claim your view is a good example of those who make law "pathetically" complicated, often to make money. Yes it's not black and white, yes you need to look at the circumstances. But the comparitive examples you're citing are if anything far more simplistic than the arguments you're challenging. I mean, 4 hooded strangers breaking into a house in a rough neighbourhood at midnight hardly compares with some ramblers crossing farmland my mistake, or the postman coming to your door at 9am, does it?

No, I agree with you. Which is why I've tried to be careful throughout to distinguish between this specific case and the more general argument about when/how it is okay to defend your property. In response to some people arguing that anyone who breaks the law deserves everything they get, I have been offering some examples of where I think that would be wrong. I've been choosing extreme examples to make a point, but I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's much more complicated than some seem to think, because every case will be different.

On this specific case, I don't know nearly enough about it to offer an opinion. Last I heard, we don't know whether they were inside the house or outside it. We don't know whether the person who died was trying to break in when he was stabbed, whether he was trying to run away... we have no idea. It may well turn out that the homeowners here have done nothing wrong, but I've generally been arguing about the broad principle rather than this case in particular, because I don't know enough about it.

 

[portlock seagull]

No, I agree with you. Which is why I've tried to be careful throughout to distinguish between this specific case and the more general argument about when/how it is okay to defend your property. In response to some people arguing that anyone who breaks the law deserves everything they get, I have been offering some examples of where I think that would be wrong. I've been choosing extreme examples to make a point, but I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's much more complicated than some seem to think, because every case will be different.

On this specific case, I don't know nearly enough about it to offer an opinion. Last I heard, we don't know whether they were inside the house or outside it. We don't know whether the person who died was trying to break in when he was stabbed, whether he was trying to run away... we have no idea. It may well turn out that the homeowners here have done nothing wrong, but I've generally been arguing about the broad principle rather than this case in particular, because I don't know enough about it.

Fair enough! Night night.....

.......BUT what was that noise downstairs...?!! Find out tomorrow, kids!

 

[Waynflete]

Fair enough! Night night.....

.......BUT what was that noise downstairs...?!! Find out tomorrow, kids!

 

[Jimbo.GRFC]

You have clearly failed to distinguish between my offering opinions about this specific case (about which none of us has any detailed information) and making a broader point about whether it is ALWAYS okay to kill a burglar who is on your property.

What if it's someone on your front drive or in your back garden whom you think might be a burglar? Do you stab them first and ask questions later?
What if you recognise the burglar the next day in the street? Is it okay to stab them to death then, just to make sure they don't come back?

My point is that your statement that 'any burglars are fair game, simple' is pathetically simplistic. There is an infinite variety of ways in which someone could be on your property. In some cases it will be legitimate to defend yourself, your family and your property, especially if you feel your life is at risk. If you're confronted by a violent burglar in your house then nobody sane would say you can't defend yourself.

But in other cases, violently attacking someone because you're angry with them is not acceptable. Do you really think that someone who has nicked your telly deserves to die? If you do, then I give up.

OMG, are you for real ? So how am I supposed to know if he/they are likely to be violent, do I ask him/them. As you clearly know, this debate was originally centered around burglars "inside" your house, you now start going off on a tangent offering different situations outside your property as your argument. If potential burglars were on your driveway/backgarden, I think that you would find they would scarper should you start switching lights on. In this scenario you call the police make sure all doors and windows are closed and locked. Enter my property then the original conclusion applies....Fair game

However if they dont enter your property, then no you don't in my eyes have the right to attack them, you phone 999 immediately. In answer to your 2nd point if you spotted who you thought was the burglar in the street, the question of mistaken identity comes into play. I would immediately call the police from my mobile (if it hasn't already been stolen) and follow the suspect from a safe distance in constant dialogue with their control room. The Police emergency call service are trained to do this typically sending a plain police car to execute an arrest, that's if they get there in time of course. You would also try to make a good note either by memory or written of what they are wearing at the time in case you lose sight of them. The chances of spotting a burglar in the street are pretty remote I would think, for the record they don't walk around with an eye mask, hooped jumper and a swag bag over their shoulder. Sorry to shatter that illusion

As for your point about my telly being stolen, firstly they'd have a job without waking me but their "in" my house so the original conclusions would again apply. Once inside they wont just nick your telly.

You quote that my statement "is pathetically simplistic" however it is simplistic if you stick to the point of the debate

 

[Captain Haddock]

Anyone enters my property uninvited I will immediately grab a weapon if available to hand and over-compensate for ANY threat...I'm not taking any chances - they invade my private space I'm fearing the worse and acting.

For once Cameron seems to have a decent initiative,". Now he has to put his money where his mouth is.

 

[Waynflete]

OMG, are you for real ? So how am I supposed to know if he/they are likely to be violent, do I ask him/them. As you clearly know, this debate was originally centered around burglars "inside" your house, you now start going off on a tangent offering different situations outside your property as your argument. If potential burglars were on your driveway/backgarden, I think that you would find they would scarper should you start switching lights on. In this scenario you call the police make sure all doors and windows are closed and locked. Enter my property then the original conclusion applies....Fair game

However if they dont enter your property, then no you don't in my eyes have the right to attack them, you phone 999 immediately. In answer to your 2nd point if you spotted who you thought was the burglar in the street, the question of mistaken identity comes into play. I would immediately call the police from my mobile (if it hasn't already been stolen) and follow the suspect from a safe distance in constant dialogue with their control room. The Police emergency call service are trained to do this typically sending a plain police car to execute an arrest, that's if they get there in time of course. You would also try to make a good note either by memory or written of what they are wearing at the time in case you lose sight of them. The chances of spotting a burglar in the street are pretty remote I would think, for the record they don't walk around with an eye mask, hooped jumper and a swag bag over their shoulder. Sorry to shatter that illusion

As for your point about my telly being stolen, firstly they'd have a job without waking me but their "in" my house so the original conclusions would again apply. Once inside they wont just nick your telly.

You quote that my statement "is pathetically simplistic" however it is simplistic if you stick to the point of the debate

The debate started about burglars breaking into your house. You will know if you have read the thread from the beginning that it then moved on to include other aspects of the issue.

Some people were arguing that it was okay to take serious action against someone who was on your property, i.e. not just inside your house but on your land. Hence my argument about whether it's okay to tackle someone on your front drive. Incidentally, this is potentially relevant regarding the case in Salford, as I don't think it's been confirmed whether the burglars were actually inside the house or not.

Other people were arguing that it was okay to go for a burglar even if he was leaving or trying to get away. Hence my point about whether it's okay to attack him if you recognise him in the street, i.e. he is no longer an apparent threat to you, but you attack him anyway because you're angry, rather than going to the police.

Finally, on your point about someone inside your house being 'fair game', I would just question what 'fair game' means. You might give the guy a bit of a beating and leave it at that. What if someone else decided to lock the guy up and torture him for a week, just to teach him a lesson? Once you've decided that burglars are 'fair game' it's difficult to know where it would stop. I'm sure we would disagree about where the line should be drawn, but I hope you would agree that a line should be drawn somewhere?

Just to emphasise once more, I am not suggesting for a moment that someone who has their home broken into in the middle of the night should not be allowed to defend themselves. What I am discussing is how far that right to defend yourself and your property extends, and under what circumstances it would no longer apply.

I feel I am now repeating myself, so I hope this clarifies what I have actually been saying.

 

[User removed 4]

I keep a sporting item in our bedroom

Whatever you and your wife get up to with a pingpong ball is best kept to yourselves !

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Anyone enters my property uninvited I will immediately grab a weapon if available to hand and over-compensate for ANY threat...I'm not taking any chances - they invade my private space I'm fearing the worse and acting.

For once Cameron seems to have a decent initiative,". Now he has to put his money where his mouth is.

Spot on,no time to stop and ask questions.

 

[Seagull1967]

At the end of the day anyone that breaks in to your house should not have any rights as they committed a crime. How you protect your family or house should be down to the individual. At the end of the day the burgular should not have been there and in which case the stabbing would not have taken place.

As our laws stand we are too soft and everyone has rights who commit a crime still has the same rights as the poor sod who was violated. When will this change!!

 

[DTES]

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.

As our laws stand we are too soft and everyone has rights who commit a crime still has the same rights as the poor sod who was violated. When will this change!!

Who says the facts get ignored on NSC, eh?

 

[portlock seagull]

Fair enough! Night night.....

.......BUT what was that noise downstairs...?!! Find out tomorrow, kids!

Just to say, because I know NSC has been wondering all morning, that it wasn't a burglar. It was a secret lemonade drinker.

 

[BadFish]

Just to say, because I know NSC has been wondering all morning, that it wasn't a burglar. It was a secret lemonade drinker.

That would be a dangerous pass time in some people on here's houses. Battered to death by sporting equipment while slugging your R whites.

 

[Waynflete]

Just to say, because I know NSC has been wondering all morning, that it wasn't a burglar. It was a secret lemonade drinker.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

If they are breaking into your house(full stop) kill the vermin, I am sick of all this , yeah but he might not mean harm, if he wasnt armed, more than one stab wound blah blah blah , bollocks, the little toad and his mates (remember four of the lil b'stards) tried to break in and steel your possessions, end of, glad the scumbag bite the dust and the human rights and law advisers who say otherwise are the reason this country is in such a pittiful state! you cant say certian people are in the wrong its not politicaly correct, its there fault they are terrible parents and still at school, its not their fault they are smack heads, its not their fault they beat their wife, its not their fault they steal etc etc etc Bollocks!!!! no morals thanks to the namby pampy nanny state



Breath in.......aaaaannnd relax

Rant over

 

[DTES]

this country is in such a pittiful state!

Is it?

(*lights touchpaper and retreats*)

 

[Waynflete]

Is it?

(*lights touchpaper and retreats*)

If Surrey Albion's spelling is any measure of the state of the country - yes.

(*awaits persecution amid accusations of spelling fascism*)

 

[Surrey_Albion]

Waynefleet, due to regulations you cannot comment on my spelling as you dont know if it is a medical or psychological problem and therefore I could Sue you and claim benefits for my disability

Yes this country is in a mess

 

[Falkor]

Seems the lad killed was out on bail for another burglary, knob head got what he deserved scum

 

[DTES]

Yes this country is in a mess

Can't argue with a well supported and evidenced post like that.