Burglar who will burgle no longer

[binky]

NOBODY has argued that a burglar didn't deserve "some sort of punishment". People are talking about whether committing burglary means you deserve to die.

I haven't read that into this thread.

I think people are arguing about whether a burglar still retains any rights after he has chosen to step outside of recognised societal norms by entering another’s private dwelling with the intent to deprive that person of their lawful property.

If we agree that the burglar HAS abdicated rights by his CHOICE of actions, then the questions become interesting as to which rights he forfeits.

Personally, I believe he doesn't automatically lose his right to life.
However, I believe he should lose his right to protection under the law of the land.

You can bring up any number of reducto-ad-absurdum examples to argue against this stance.
e.g. If I'm speeding, doing 40 in a 30 limit, does that give someone the right to bring me down with a sniper rifle?

However, in my mind, the principle stands, that if I choose to step outside of the law, then the protection I receive from the law is commensurately reduced.

 

[DTES]

I haven't read that into this thread.

Really? I'm basing that on statements like this, that have all been written in this thread:

"If they are breaking into your house(full stop) kill the vermin"

"knob head got what he deserved scum"

"Kill the dirty f***ing wankers"

What other way is there to read these?

I think people are arguing about whether a burglar still retains any rights after he has chosen to step outside of recognised societal norms by entering another's private dwelling with the intent to deprive that person of their lawful property.

If we agree that the burglar HAS abdicated rights by his CHOICE of actions, then the questions become interesting as to which rights he forfeits.

Personally, I believe he doesn't automatically lose his right to life.
However, I believe he should lose his right to protection under the law of the land.

You can bring up any number of reducto-ad-absurdum examples to argue against this stance.
e.g. If I'm speeding, doing 40 in a 30 limit, does that give someone the right to bring me down with a sniper rifle?

However, in my mind, the principle stands, that if I choose to step outside of the law, then the protection I receive from the law is commensurately reduced.

An interesting debate, and as a general principle, something that to be honest I'd need to think about. I'm not going any further at 5:45 on a Friday than saying that burglary alone (i.e. no intent to harm the occupant) does not itself remove the right to not be murdered.

 

[Waynflete]

I haven't read that into this thread.

I think people are arguing about whether a burglar still retains any rights after he has chosen to step outside of recognised societal norms by entering another’s private dwelling with the intent to deprive that person of their lawful property.

If we agree that the burglar HAS abdicated rights by his CHOICE of actions, then the questions become interesting as to which rights he forfeits.

Personally, I believe he doesn't automatically lose his right to life.
However, I believe he should lose his right to protection under the law of the land.

You can bring up any number of reducto-ad-absurdum examples to argue against this stance.
e.g. If I'm speeding, doing 40 in a 30 limit, does that give someone the right to bring me down with a sniper rifle?

However, in my mind, the principle stands, that if I choose to step outside of the law, then the protection I receive from the law is commensurately reduced.

Really interesting post.

You've already raised the main question, which I think is the critical point of this whole debate. Assuming one accepts that someone who breaks the law by entering someone else's house thereby abdicates SOME of their rights under the law, how is the extent of that reduction decided? Who decides what is 'commensurately reduced' and how?

In principle, I think we already have this system in place. The question, as you said, is where on a sliding scale between 'no rights at all' and 'full rights' do you draw the line?

 

[binky]

Really interesting post.

You've already raised the main question, which I think is the critical point of this whole debate. Assuming one accepts that someone who breaks the law by entering someone else's house thereby abdicates SOME of their rights under the law, how is the extent of that reduction decided? Who decides what is 'commensurately reduced' and how?

In principle, I think we already have this system in place. The question, as you said, is where on a sliding scale between 'no rights at all' and 'full rights' do you draw the line?

At present, we do have a system/process in place to decide where that line is drawn.
That process is fed by a series of "Rules" and "Guidelines", some from acts of parliament, and some from common law, and an increasing number from the EU as dictats, and from European court rulings.

It is these rules which, to my mind have become increasingly skewed towards the perp. over the past couple of decades.

Until we understand how these rules get put in place, and which are mandatory, and which are guidance, we will not be able to have a constructive debate.

 

[Football_Friends]

Forgive me if i come across as a bit of a tw@ but after reading half of this thread I'm getting slightly peeved with some of the posts defending burglars?!? Have any of you been burgled recently?? I live in Salford, albeit a nice part, and only last week was my parents house was burgled! They came back 3 times in one night! The first time we didn't notice, but they came in when my 14yr old sister was in on her own and took the spare house keys! Then wen everyone was asleep came back and tried coming in the house....saw my mum in the window upstairs and left. We then rang the police who called round and an hr later 8 lads came in the front door with balaclavas. My mum and little sister were stood on the stairs when these 8, yes 8 lads walked straight in and took the car keys and left in the car!!!

Fortunately the keys were downstairs and there was no confrontation as they both froze!! But would things be different if my dad was awake and there was only 4 of them. Almost certainly! And for those saying it's only property....how do you know how far they would go to get that property?! Our car was stolen to order it was believed so they would have certainly been up for confrontation! fortunately the car was found the next day, 1 road away from where this lads body was found!

Oh and the insurance isn't paying out cos there is no break in as a door was open...good job it's only a £1400 lock change and we got the car back! This could have ruined my familys life. All for some scroat! As far as I'm concerned they deserved everything they got and more. It's just a shame he didn't kill the other 3!

Rant over.....sorry

 

[Football_Friends]

Oh and for what it's worth I'm fairly certain there's more to this case than meets the eye....the house was in Swinton and the lads came from Hyde apparently. Seems along way to come for a standard day robbery. We will wait and see

 

[BadFish]

Forgive me if i come across as a bit of a tw@ but after reading half of this thread I'm getting slightly peeved with some of the posts defending burglars?!? Have any of you been burgled recently?? I live in Salford, albeit a nice part, and only last week was my parents house was burgled! They came back 3 times in one night! The first time we didn't notice, but they came in when my 14yr old sister was in on her own and took the spare house keys! Then wen everyone was asleep came back and tried coming in the house....saw my mum in the window upstairs and left. We then rang the police who called round and an hr later 8 lads came in the front door with balaclavas. My mum and little sister were stood on the stairs when these 8, yes 8 lads walked straight in and took the car keys and left in the car!!!

Fortunately the keys were downstairs and there was no confrontation as they both froze!! But would things be different if my dad was awake and there was only 4 of them. Almost certainly! And for those saying it's only property....how do you know how far they would go to get that property?! Our car was stolen to order it was believed so they would have certainly been up for confrontation! fortunately the car was found the next day, 1 road away from where this lads body was found!

Oh and the insurance isn't paying out cos there is no break in as a door was open...good job it's only a £1400 lock change and we got the car back! This could have ruined my familys life. All for some scroat! As far as I'm concerned they deserved everything they got and more. It's just a shame he didn't kill the other 3!

Rant over.....sorry

could you quote the posts defending burglars? I must have missed them. I noticed a few people suggesting that we should have the right to kill someone because they are on our property but no one defending burglars.

 

[DT Withdean]

Forgive me if i come across as a bit of a tw@ but after reading half of this thread I'm getting slightly peeved with some of the posts defending burglars?!? Have any of you been burgled recently?? I live in Salford, albeit a nice part, and only last week was my parents house was burgled! They came back 3 times in one night! The first time we didn't notice, but they came in when my 14yr old sister was in on her own and took the spare house keys! Then wen everyone was asleep came back and tried coming in the house....saw my mum in the window upstairs and left. We then rang the police who called round and an hr later 8 lads came in the front door with balaclavas. My mum and little sister were stood on the stairs when these 8, yes 8 lads walked straight in and took the car keys and left in the car!!!

Fortunately the keys were downstairs and there was no confrontation as they both froze!! But would things be different if my dad was awake and there was only 4 of them. Almost certainly! And for those saying it's only property....how do you know how far they would go to get that property?! Our car was stolen to order it was believed so they would have certainly been up for confrontation! fortunately the car was found the next day, 1 road away from where this lads body was found!

Oh and the insurance isn't paying out cos there is no break in as a door was open...good job it's only a £1400 lock change and we got the car back! This could have ruined my familys life. All for some scroat! As far as I'm concerned they deserved everything they got and more. It's just a shame he didn't kill the other 3!

Rant over.....sorry

Your expressions are normal. You and your extended family have worked for what you have, stick to rules of society, and just want a peaceful and safe life.
Gangs of 4 and 8 smack of organised cowardice in numbers, rather than a nervous 15 year old burglar feeding a drug habit.
This time, it went wrong for the scum from Hyde.

 

[Football_Friends]

could you quote the posts defending burglars? I must have missed them. I noticed a few people suggesting that we should have the right to kill someone because they are on our property but no one defending burglars.

Ok maybe not defending burglars, but those suggesting a real need for outlines in what is reasonable force etc. If they are in your house they are a threat to your life, how do you know of their intentions?? I worked in a mans house the other week whose brother was murdered at night by a neighbour to steal £1000!!! If someone comes in your house, you definitely don't expect it and depending on te type of person you are may either freeze like my mum and sister, or instinctively react with whatever could be used as a weapon is close by.

Like I said I may have missed a lot of posts, and maybe misjudged the intentions of posters, after page 5 I was getting rather frustrated with the read, but there does appear to be people who probably haven't been victims of crimes like this and think they can say what should and shouldn't be allowed and make judgements that they aren't really in a position to make.

 

[BadFish]

Ok maybe not defending burglars, but those suggesting a real need for outlines in what is reasonable force etc. If they are in your house they are a threat to your life, how do you know of their intentions?? I worked in a mans house the other week whose brother was murdered at night by a neighbour to steal £1000!!! If someone comes in your house, you definitely don't expect it and depending on te type of person you are may either freeze like my mum and sister, or instinctively react with whatever could be used as a weapon is close by.

Like I said I may have missed a lot of posts, and maybe misjudged the intentions of posters, after page 5 I was getting rather frustrated with the read, but there does appear to be people who probably haven't been victims of crimes like this and think they can say what should and shouldn't be allowed and make judgements that they aren't really in a position to make.

Some people are suggesting that you should be allowed to murder someone who is on your house. I just can't agree with that.

Does a 15 year old smack head who has made man bad choices (but essentially has enough chance to sort his life out) deserve to die for robbing to feed his habit? Can someone really justify that?

There are so many variable in this discussion and I think most on here agree that there is a need for an outline of what is reasonable force, the discussion lays with where you draw the line.

 

[8ace]

I was once told by a
legal type person that the best weapon to have by your bed was a putter. If you had to hit a burglar with it you could claim you had it there as you liked to practice your putting before bed. You couldn't make a similar claim of a sand iron or baseball bat.

 

[Waynflete]

Ok maybe not defending burglars, but those suggesting a real need for outlines in what is reasonable force etc. If they are in your house they are a threat to your life, how do you know of their intentions?? I worked in a mans house the other week whose brother was murdered at night by a neighbour to steal £1000!!! If someone comes in your house, you definitely don't expect it and depending on te type of person you are may either freeze like my mum and sister, or instinctively react with whatever could be used as a weapon is close by.

Like I said I may have missed a lot of posts, and maybe misjudged the intentions of posters, after page 5 I was getting rather frustrated with the read, but there does appear to be people who probably haven't been victims of crimes like this and think they can say what should and shouldn't be allowed and make judgements that they aren't really in a position to make.

I completely understand your position, and agree with much of what you say. I've been one of those arguing for the need for outlines of what constitutes 'reasonable force' against some others who have effectively been arguing that if a burglar is in your house you are entitled to do basically anything you like to him.

In my view, if you don't have guidance of what constitutes 'reasonable force' then you open things up in a very dangerous way.

For example, what if a burglar breaks in and you hit him with a golf club because you're afraid for the safety of yourself and your family. If he's then lying hurt on the floor, do you also have the right to stab him, or even shoot him?

Some on here have been arguing that you should be allowed to do whatever you like. I'd definitely argue that there's a limit to what is 'reasonable'. If you accept that, then outlines and guidance are needed, based always on the specific circumstances of the case, as Viney says.

This is in no way 'defending burglars' (I have been burgled, by the way), just making sure we don't end up with people taking the law into their own hands in excess of what is needed to defend themselves.

 

[Acker79]

In my view, if you don't have guidance of what constitutes 'reasonable force' then you open things up in a very dangerous way.

There are problems with reasonable force. Even if we have a baseline that killing is unacceptable, we wouldn't say one punch is unreasonable, would we? But how do you avoid the possible repercussions of one punch?

 

[NMH]

Is it legal to have mace in your own home?
Tazer?

 

[Waynflete]

There are problems with reasonable force. Even if we have a baseline that killing is unacceptable, we wouldn't say one punch is unreasonable, would we? But how do you avoid the possible repercussions of one punch?

Yes, clearly the person defending themselves won't be in complete control of the repercussions of their actions. However, when assessing 'reasonable force' there is a distinction to make between the 'action' and the 'outcome'.

One punch would, in most people's eyes, be a reasonable action if a burglar breaks into your house. If the outcome is that he dies, then I'd argue that is tragic, but does not necessarily make the action of punching him 'unreasonable'. All this would have to be taken into account by the police or the courts.

Incidentally, the fact that one punch can kill is, I think, a very strong argument in favour of the idea that there should be limits to the use of force by homeowners on burglars, because no-one can completely control the repercussions of their actions.

 

[Acker79]

Yes, clearly the person defending themselves won't be in complete control of the repercussions of their actions. However, when assessing 'reasonable force' there is a distinction to make between the 'action' and the 'outcome'.

One punch would, in most people's eyes, be a reasonable action if a burglar breaks into your house. If the outcome is that he dies, then I'd argue that is tragic, but does not necessarily make the action of punching him 'unreasonable'. All this would have to be taken into account by the police or the courts.

Incidentally, the fact that one punch can kill is, I think, a very strong argument in favour of the idea that there should be limits to the use of force by homeowners on burglars, because no-one can completely control the repercussions of their actions.

It is quite easy to say it will be taken into consideration, but look at the case of the cyclist who punched tony magdi, and that single punch led to Tony's death:

The cyclist threw a single punch at the man who opened a car door into his path, which could have had severe repercussions. Is it unreasonable, if you fear someone's actions could have potentially killed you, or left you a vegetable to punch them in retribution?

This thread has been talking about people being allowed to use reasonable action if they fear for their lives, and how they should be allowed. I know, we can look at it as an ousider and say the opening of the door was an accident, there was no intent to endanger the cyclist, but then is there a double standard? We're absolving the victims of burglaries of the responsibility to think through the consequences of their actions, because in that moment there is a fight or flight reaction, and instinctive reaction to a situation. The same thing happens if you go through a life threatening situation, you are equally incapable of reason because the emotions take over.

That cyclist got 18 months in prison. For punching a man who he feared could have seriously injured him because the man he punched died from that single strike. And still many people argue it is a light sentence. If Tony Magdi hadn't died, would the cyclist be in prison? Would it have even gone to court? The law takes into account the outcome of the action, not just the action itself.



The problem is that the whole point of introducing "reasonable force" is to prevent such extreme outcomes. If you allow a single punch, something that has been shown to cause deaths, aren't you effectively giving people a way to kill someone legally making the whole point of "reasonable force" moot? Catch the burglar close to a wall, punch him hard and he doesn't just get a punch, you orchestrated it so the back of his head bashes against a brick wall, for example.


I don't know exactly where I stand, I think it's a complex issue, perhaps moreso because of this very aspect that isn't always considered. I just thought it was something to add to the debate.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

So you could in theory get somebody you dislike and kill them in your house and call it self defence against being burgled -

edit-does the law not say reasonable-i'm not sure
also administering pay back outside the property is a no no

 

[Waynflete]

It is quite easy to say it will be taken into consideration, but look at the case of the cyclist who punched tony magdi, and that single punch led to Tony's death:

The cyclist threw a single punch at the man who opened a car door into his path, which could have had severe repercussions. Is it unreasonable, if you fear someone's actions could have potentially killed you, or left you a vegetable to punch them in retribution?

This thread has been talking about people being allowed to use reasonable action if they fear for their lives, and how they should be allowed. I know, we can look at it as an ousider and say the opening of the door was an accident, there was no intent to endanger the cyclist, but then is there a double standard? We're absolving the victims of burglaries of the responsibility to think through the consequences of their actions, because in that moment there is a fight or flight reaction, and instinctive reaction to a situation. The same thing happens if you go through a life threatening situation, you are equally incapable of reason because the emotions take over.

That cyclist got 18 months in prison. For punching a man who he feared could have seriously injured him because the man he punched died from that single strike. And still many people argue it is a light sentence. If Tony Magdi hadn't died, would the cyclist be in prison? Would it have even gone to court? The law takes into account the outcome of the action, not just the action itself.



The problem is that the whole point of introducing "reasonable force" is to prevent such extreme outcomes. If you allow a single punch, something that has been shown to cause deaths, aren't you effectively giving people a way to kill someone legally making the whole point of "reasonable force" moot? Catch the burglar close to a wall, punch him hard and he doesn't just get a punch, you orchestrated it so the back of his head bashes against a brick wall, for example.


I don't know exactly where I stand, I think it's a complex issue, perhaps moreso because of this very aspect that isn't always considered. I just thought it was something to add to the debate.

Interesting! I just posted on the Death Penalty thread about whether the outcomes of crimes should be taken into account as well as the actions. I find it a bit strange that the outcomes are taken into account, but I understand why they are.

Where I particularly agree with you is that the whole thing is incredibly complex, and not something to make simplistic black and white statements about.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I was once told by a
legal type person that the best weapon to have by your bed was a putter. If you had to hit a burglar with it you could claim you had it there as you liked to practice your putting before bed. You couldn't make a similar claim of a sand iron or baseball bat.

couple of balls that you happen to keep in a sock before putting practice is well under the pillow!

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Just as an aside, thanks for posting the link to the 'one punch can kill' and the origional incident was debated on here some years ago, quite a tragic outcome.