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
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Flak999

As far as I'm aware there is no convention that requires editors to adopt what you refer to as "some sort of middle of the road attitude", nor do I see any reason why that should be the case, as far as self-censorship goes however, all of us are required to operate that.

I am certainly moved to extremes of emotion, I'm 50% Welsh, and we're famous for it, but I fail to see what that has to do with what's being discussed here. We're talking about the law, and the law is famously based on common-sense, unless it's being an ass, and when that happens we have a history of putting it right.

What you have tried to do is make a legal issue into an emotive one with your talk of blowing someone's head off, and when you do that your argument falls flat on its face. Sheer injustice, where it exists, is usually the result of the judiciary acting in error, or a jury acting unpredictably, or both, rather than being brought about by a bad law. It isn't the law that's making you angry, it's your perception that the victims of crime are being treated less favourably than the perpetrators. If you argued that line with a degree of restraint you might find that you get an equal degree of support from me.

Less talk of taking the law into your own hands, and more of a call for the balance to be redressed by the judiciary would have me on your side. The problem - the real one, if we look carefully, is the way that the Human Rights Act - admirable as it is - has turned out to be a mill-stone around the necks of our judges, magistrates, and police forces.

That has to be another discussion, because the battery on my iPad is about to run out - more sheer injustice!

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

spider9 don't get clever with me, you suspect wrong, it is no boast, if something is at hand to defend myself with then I use it.

The items were not obtained to use as defence weapons, but are souvenirs given to me as presents from various trips. Would you have it that every item in a house had to be 'police approved'?

On a lighter note I did once soak a supposedly double glazing window salesman. I was watering the garden at the time and he just wouldn't go away. I did ask him three times and tell him I'd give him a soaking if he wouldn't take no for an answer. He still insisted on 'inspecting my windows to give me a quote' (looking through them from the outside). So I turned the hosepipe on him.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"don't get clever with me"

If I see that kind of aggressive comment again it will be deleted immediately.

As for "if something is at hand to defend myself with then I use it." the Crown Prosecution service would support you, provided that the item really was 'at hand', and not deliberately obtained and made ready, and provided you used reasonable force to defend yourself.

You didn't suggest it, but you would obviously be on the wrong side of the law if you used a gun, unless one was about to be used on you, and unless you had a valid firearms certificate. The fact that you obtained any kind of a weapon as a souvenir or gift is irrelevant, an offensive weapon is an offensive weapon.

This discussion can (and has) gone around and around, but the central point remains the same - you may legally use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself, or other people in your house if you believe them to be in danger. You may do so in order to incapacitate or deter an assailant, but you may not continue your 'defence' if that person is unconscious, and you may not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Beating an unarmed person senseless with a baseball bat as he tried to escape through a window would almost certainly land you in court.

Like this post
wee eddie

Likes # 0

FE raised a point there that, I seem to remember, we hammered out several years ago.

'As for "if something is at hand to defend myself with then I use it." the Crown Prosecution service would support you, provided that the item really was 'at hand', and not deliberately obtained and made ready, and provided you used reasonable force to defend yourself.'

If you keep an offencive item, say a Baseball Bat or similar, under the bed or handy in some way, in preparation for just such an occasion and then used it on a miscreant. The law could potentially to find you Guilty.

Whereas, had you grabbed a Rolling Pin, from the Kitchen Drawer, the Law would be likely to find in your favour.

I don't really understand why but it has something to do with your initial intention.

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

FE my comment of "don't get clever with me" referred to the tone of post directed at myself in which spider9 was attempting to put words into my mouth and the comment "But it's easy to boast what you would do on a forum, I suspect" I objected to that - I have no need to boast.

I have not encouraged anyone to gather 'weapons' I do not have a gun and one of the items I have is an old frying pan that I have on display on the wall.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

lotvic "- I have no need to boast."

Yet, not only do you say you would use a baseball bat - but then go on to describe where you would hit them, and not with the intention of 'disabling' them by hitting their legs but, by implication, you would be going for their head, presumably!!

In other words the intention seems to be to try and kill - if that's your justice then I thank God you are not in charge of these matters.

(you really are living out your fantasy by talking about how 'going low' would leave you open to a kicking!!).Sorry, it's Walter Mitty stuff.

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

Forum Editor

The trouble is, this subject is one that does move people to extremes of emotion! I know that you say we should all remain cool headed about this subject and debate the points at issue in a measured dispassionate way.

But, I cannot help putting myself into the position of some of the people we read about in the news. People who through no fault of their own have found themselves caught up in the most nightmarish of circumstances.

The Dowler's for instance have had their daughter taken from them in the most despicable and horrifying of circumstances. That, you would have imagined was bad enough, but to witness the disgusting creature that took their daughter from them, treat them and the law with utter contempt must be to much to bear.

We see reported virtually on a daily basis, ordinary members of the public treated worse than the criminals that have offended against them, and it does make ones blood boil. That is where the emotion comes from, the shear frustration that there is nothing that you as an ordinary citizen can do to redress the balance.

This is why people are tempted to take the law into their own hands, because they see the law as having failed them completely!

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

spider9, yet again you attempt to read my mind and imply/invent actions that you presume I would carry out. Give it up, it's futile. As I have made clear, if I was threatened by an intruder any action on my part would be in self-defence and reasonable to me in the circumstances. Circumstances which are too varied to say for definite what I would do, there can be no set course of action.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Flak999

Like you, I (and I imagine the whole country) sympathise with the Dowlers. As a father of daughters I can only begin to imagine the anguish they have endured, and will continue to endure. I share the feeling of distaste that prevails over the way that the family was subjected to a second ordeal in the witness box. It was an unwarranted intrusion into their private lives - I don't think there can be any argument over that.

That however is a separate matter to the one being discussed here, and in fact it isn't relevant to the law that governs the actions of householders towards intruders. It's important not to let one set of circumstances get mixed with another, entirely different matter. I think we'll see rapid and sweeping changes in the way family witnesses are treated in court in the future.

The issue of 'reasonable force' is something else, and the CPS has already recognised that we need some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes 'reasonable' in this context, although in the end it will come down to individual judgements being made by people in their own homes, and by the CPS when it decides whether or not to prosecute.

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

" I think we'll see rapid and sweeping changes in the way family witnesses are treated in court in the future"

That statement as been used on many occasions in the past, when promises have been made, but never kept. The only differences that have been made for improvements over the past few years are video links and screens. Video links are mainly cost related, in adult cases.

In some court buildings there are or were not facilities for dividing witnesses for the prosecution or defense. This was another problem that was often brought to the attention of the authorities, but very little was done.

From personal experiences, seeing a QC 'sharpening' their teeth on a witness can be a very intimidating experience, because that is what they are part trained to do. Breaking the mould will take a lot of doing?.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

Chromebooks: ready for the prime time (but not for everybody)

IDG UK Sites

Hands-on with Sony's latest smartglasses

IDG UK Sites

Apple TV setup advice: Apple TV hacks to help you create the ultimate Apple TV hub in your home