We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Burglar stabbed to death!


Autoschediastic

Likes # 0

Having been a victim of a terrible burglary some years ago my grandma had just died and we was storing all her pre WW2 and family photos/clothes and personal things, the photos was thrown out on the garden where it rained all night and they was unrecoverable! that hurt more than the things they took, I lost absolutely everything they even took my socks? and my suits?

i had been staying away for the night and my mother (I was living with her for a month) had stayed out for the night so no one was at home, we left the tv on curtains closed and lights on basically what a lot of people do and they ripped the kitchen window off its frame costing us quite a bit, i had also just lost my job and we couldnt afford the insurance for the house so really the burglar couldnt of picked a worse time to hit us!

After having a solid tipoff i took his binbags from his wheelie bin and found some of my things like my ID so i called the police and they said they knew of the guy he was known for aggravated burglaries and had just got out of prison for beating up a 85 year old man up he was trying to his house, the police stated they would send someone in the next hour to search his house....10 years later i am STILL waiting?? no call back from the police no knock on the door...

I hope the person who was in this house who was living here doesnt get a custodial sentence! IMHO if someone is about to rob another person or burgle a house they simply deserve ALL they get! whilst they may use the "I need the money for drugs" gaffe well there is plenty of people that need money but dont turn to crime...!

READ HERE

Like this post
woody

Likes # 0

"spider9" I did not think I had to go into the whole train of thought. You stated an excuse which was rubbish - I agree. BUT you have - collectively - allowed that type of excuse in other cases. I am not suggesting we copy films - but in the Clint case he had a good excuse even though the man had not committed the deed. At home would you wait till your partner is dead before you took action - do you wait while they remove your wallet when you know they have a hand in your pocket!.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

woody

"You stated an excuse which was rubbish - I agree. BUT you have - collectively - allowed that type of excuse in other cases"

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about with that statement.

With regard to the ficticious film you keep refering to, I'm not familiar with it - but would not let fiction influence me in the manner you suggest we should.

Finally, if someone is 'in the act' of a crime then of course you try to prevent it - and if this means using force then so be it.

BUT the amount of this force must be reasonable, and therein lies all the problems. Would it be reasonable to shoot dead a pickpocket, for example? You may feel you want to, at the time, but even 'Clint' might baulk at that, surely?

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"...they need to be aware the occupants may use ANY means necessary to fend off the robbers"

The problem associated with any such licence is that it involves judgment, and your idea of what constitutes an appropriate degree of force may not by the next person's.

Allowing people to use "any means necessary" would be very rash; it would undoubtedly lead to people being seriously injured, or even killed - both burglars and householders. Criminals would go into houses prepared to meet violence with violence.

Like this post
¿ unsure ¿

Likes # 0

Criminals would go into houses prepared to meet violence with violence.

At last a posting that makes sense.

Like this post
rdave13

Likes # 0

Trouble is that as the Law stands home-owners don't have the same rights as criminals that burgle properties.

I believe that anyone breaks in to a property with unlawful intent are solely responsible for the outcome they receive. Whether they fall through a roof, cut them selves on glass or face a twelve bore.

Like this post
rdave13

Likes # 0

Either we speak of justice and uphold the law for everyone or we ignore it. Soft justice means more crime in my very humble opinion.

I'm paying enough through taxes for heaven's sake.

Like this post
zzzz999

Likes # 0

Rdave13, upholding the law, means upholding the law for everyone, miscreant as well as law abiding.

Like this post
userious?

Likes # 0

"upholding the law, means upholding the law for everyone, miscreant as well as law abiding" The miscreant doesnt deserve the same protection as the law abiding. Once they step outside the law why should the law protect them? If someone breaks into your house trying to steal the things you've worked hard for they deserve everything they get.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"I believe that anyone breaks in to a property with unlawful intent are solely responsible for the outcome they receive. Whether they fall through a roof, cut them selves on glass or face a twelve bore."

Thank goodness that view is never going to prevail. Firing a 12-bore shotgun at someone because he/she is present in your house without your consent would be the most ridiculous kind of knee-jerk response possible. Like it or not, we have a legal system which functions on the basis of presumed innocence, and not on summary execution. As a householder you are permitted by law to use reasonable force if you are faced with an intruder in your home, and that includes the use of a weapon if one is 'to hand'. The more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

However.... such force must be used in 'the heat of the moment' - you would be in trouble if it was discovered that you heard an intruder, unlocked a gun cabinet, and went quietly downstairs with a shotgun in your hand and fired it. You have to be a able to say that you were in fear for yourself or others in the house before you used any kind of weapon, and you must only use reasonable force in the circumstances. You would again be in trouble if you knocked a burglar out with a chair leg, and then set about kicking and beating him about the head when he was unconscious.

The whole thing revolves around the use of that word 'reasonable', and unfortunately (as some of the extreme responses here demonstrate) lots of people have no conception of what 'reasonable' means in this context, and little understanding for the need to act reasonably, even if the criminal doesn't.

Like this post
zzzz999

Likes # 0

Userious? Thankfully the law agrees with me on this one. The law you describe belongs to the wild west of 150 years ago.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Amazon Fire HD 6 is a really good value tablet. The Amazon Fire HD 7 isn't. Amazon Fire HD 6 and...

IDG UK Sites

Why Sony's PS4 2.0 update is every gamer's dream (well, mine at least)

IDG UK Sites

ACLU's Halloween-themed animation warns of dangers of ignoring threats to your privacy

IDG UK Sites

20 lesser-known tips for Mac OS X Yosemite: use Yosemite like an expert