Burglars

[Zathras]

Let's just look at the law as it stands at the moment:

Asked whether the law made it clear that householders already had the right to defend themselves and their property, he said: 'Absolutely. That's what the law says. The actions you take, commensurate with reasonable [belief], will be justifiable, even if, in hindsight, you were wrong."

So there you go, if you have reasonable belief you're in danger, you can take the action necessary. If you hit someone who's in your home over the head with a baseball bat and break his skull because it was dark and you really thought he was about to stab you but it turns out he had something other than a knife, the law states you won't be done. That's right from the top legal bod in the country. If someone's seriously in your home and they're posing a direct threat to either yourself or your family, you wouldn't stop to think "what if I get sued", you'd defend yourself. I know I certainly would, and I'd say everyone else on here would. If I were in direct danger, I'd protect myself. Consequences of my actions wouldn't come into it. The idea that people are stopping to ponder the law and as a result are being put at risk is derisible.

We hear all sorts of stories about criminals' rights and how burglars are successfully suing homeowners for actions taken against them during a break-in, but how many actual convictions for this are there? The only one I can name is Tony Martin who shot a fleeing burglar in the back with an illegally-held shotgun, and we've done that to death already - it's hardly the ideal case to be debating really is it? What other cases are there? I'd be interested to see them and see if what looks like current hysteria about use of force is well-founded.

[Rave]

Allens point is that once they step outside the law, in this case to enter your home with the intent to steal, they should have no protection from the law, so you shouldn't be able to get done for GBH if you attack a burglar in your home.

How do you define someone as a burglar though? Is it against the law to leave your front door open? No. On one occasion (of which I am not proud), I got drunk with a friend of mine who'd come back with me for an after-pub snifter, and after a couple of hours of heavy boozing ended up getting so angry with him that I ejected him physically from my flat. Had I in my drunken rage decided to beat him up instead, what's to stop me claiming he was a burglar who had entered my house illegally? Happily for me (and him), when I drink enough to suffer from random rages I'm generally more interested in going to bed than beating someone up, but a law which gives you freedom to attack anyone who is in your house essentially gives you carte blanche to attack anyone you like unless there's a witness to say you invited them in. As such it's unworkable.

As I previously stated in the (now defunct) Tony Martin thread, there was a case in America (Texas?) where a Japanese tourist knocked on a guy's door to ask for directions, and then got fatally shot in the back as he walked back down the drive. Despite the fact that the homeowner was clearly a racist nutter who had shot him in cold blood, they couldn't prosecute him because the law in that state said that it was legal to attack people on your own property. Still, small price to pay eh?

Rich :¬)

[Allen]

Either way you'll lose.

And that is the point I'm making. The scum are protected by the law, and they know it! Why shouldn't we be able to defend our homes from people like that any way we can?

Well, I'm stepping out now, before I get more angered by this thread. People are taking what I say the wrong way and I just can't be arsed with it.

Again, so much for a discussion.....

[RVF500]

The law needs to be changed so that the onus of blame is shifted away from the homeowner. The outgoing chief of the metropolitan police had it right when he said that only if the damage to the offender is "grossly disproportionate" should the homeowner face prosecution. Rave's Texan nutter would obviously have fallen into this particular trap and joined the prison population. And rightly so.

The police have been proven to be unable to protect law abiding people in thier homes and the the popular perception is that the law is biased towards the criminal. That perception needs to be changed loudly and clearly. Either that or we will have more 'hot' burglaries such as the one that killed John Monckton and seriously injured his wife. No matter what sentance the scumbags that did this get it will not bring Monckton back nor will it remove the scars (physical and mental) from his wife and family. As Nicho mentioned in a previous thread, most crims are thick. So a nice easy message needs to be spread for them to understand. You intrude and you have no rights. End of.

[Rave]

Well, I'm stepping out now, before I get more angered by this thread. People are taking what I say the wrong way and I just can't be arsed with it.

Again, so much for a discussion.....

You are the one throwing your toys out of the pram, rather than staying around to try and argue your point reasonably. You have not explained how anyone has taken what you said the wrong way. I asked you very clearly to explain where I 'said it myself' and yet apparently you can't do that because you've got to go and have a lie down in a nice dark place in case you get too angry.

Rich :¬)

[RVF500]

Well I'll jump in instead rave. I think your analogy of getting drunk and harming your friend then getting away with it under the idea that you claimed he was an intruder would not have stood up to even the mildest scrutiny. If there is a body then the police are duty bound to investigate. No one is suggesting a carte blanche here. However, the law as it stands (or at least the perception of it) seems to encourage rather than discourage burglars.

There is the case of the lady who was beaten up in her own home by intruders who lay down and took a kicking thinking "if I fight back I'll go to jail" I can't remember if I saw that in the Telegraph or on Sky news. Either way that is an horrific indictment of the way the law is perceived by the public at large. It should have been the crim on the floor with the lady's stilletto heel firmly embedded in his scrotum thinking that. While she rested safe in the knowledge that the law would protect her for defending her home and self.

2 of my colleagues died in Northern Ireland primarily because they feared that by using lethal force to save themsleves they would be charged with murder. Such was the perception of how they would be treated under the law. So they opted for what they thought would be a beating. They were beaten to death. As far as I know, no one was ever brought to trial for that.

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[Rave]

Well I'll jump in instead rave. I think your analogy of getting drunk and harming your friend then getting away with it under the idea that you claimed he was an intruder would not have stood up to even the mildest scrutiny. If there is a body then the police are duty bound to investigate.

I wasn't saying that I'd beat him to death, what if I broke his arm? It's still unwarranted, but I could claim I was defending myself.

No one is suggesting a carte blanche here.

Actually as I understand it several people in this thread are.

However, the law as it stands (or at least the perception of it) seems to encourage rather than discourage burglars.

Well where has that perception come from? From the misinformation of the popular press, I reckon. Of course the examples you give are tragic, but as Zathras pointed out just a few posts ago, the law very clearly states that you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If a law is widely misinterpreted, that does not mean that the law needs to be changed, it means that people need to be better informed. If the government needs to spend some money on an information campaign, then I have no objection to that.

Rich :¬)

[BEANFro Elite]

Well where has that perception come from? From the misinformation of the popular press, I reckon. Of course the examples you give are tragic, but as Zathras pointed out just a few posts ago, the law very clearly states that you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If a law is widely misinterpreted, that does not mean that the law needs to be changed, it means that people need to be better informed.

Rich :¬)

STOP BEING SUCH A LEFTY MAN!! when you are blinded by rage its difficult to control yourself, furthermore, exactly how does one define or measure "reasonable force", it would be far easier to allow us to do what we have to do to protect our homes from burglars and if it means a burglar is going to die then that is tough...we'll would be doing everyone else a favour because at least there'll be one less burglar in the world.

[nichomach]

Well where has that perception come from? From the misinformation of the popular press, I reckon. Of course the examples you give are tragic, but as Zathras pointed out just a few posts ago, the law very clearly states that you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If a law is widely misinterpreted, that does not mean that the law needs to be changed, it means that people need to be better informed. If the government needs to spend some money on an information campaign, then I have no objection to that.

*Applauds Rave and Zathras*

Before Vaul jumps on me, I've made it clear previously that I have no problem with the use of reasonable force in defence of oneself, other people or one's property, and the current law explicitly allows that. There does appear to be a large degree of misunderstanding about the legal position, but in reality you're allowed to get away with some fairly disproportionate force if you believe yourself, another or your (or someone else's) property to be in danger even if you're mistaken. People talk about burglars suing for damages, and point to examples like Brendan Fearon suing Tony Martin; they're markedly quiet about the fact that he was laughed out of court as indeed are the vast majority of such cases, and that's where there was a criminal conviction for manslaughter on the part of Martin. You're not allowed to pursue a fleeing person and exact retribution upon them, but you ARE allowed to defend yourself.

edit: Do I take it that you've been hitting the Deus Ex a leetle hard, BEANFro?

[Rave]

STOP BEING SUCH A LEFTY MAN!! when you are blinded by rage its difficult to control yourself, furthermore, exactly how does one define or measure "reasonable force", it would be far easier to allow us to do what we have to do to protect our homes from burglars and if it means a burglar is going to die then that is tough...we'll would be doing everyone else a favour because at least there'll be one less burglar in the world.

It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds (I heard £600,000 once, not sure if it's true)to investigate an unnatural death, in police and coroner's time. You couldn't not investigate deaths in people's homes, since, as already stated, it would give killers carte blanche. So you wouldn't be doing everyone a favour, you'd be wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money.

I'm not much of a lefty, I'd just rather my tax money was spent on schools and hospitals rather than investigating violent deaths.

Rich :¬)

[BEANFro Elite]

The Police say it themselves that there isn't a lot they can do about burglary, so if the government pass a bill that said we could do whatever we saw fit to protect our homes I'm sure that burglars would be deterred from burgling.

The reason they do it is because they're all a bunch of crack heads that need to do it to pay for their disgusting habit and also because they know they won't be caught because the Police forc...I mean service can't be bothered to do anything about it.

God, I am so sorry to say this but England has become such a terrible place to live in...

Theres nothing but a tax on everything, sky high taxes, sky high house prices, dirty streets, selfish motorists, crap public transport, sleazy/scandalous/dishonest politicians, predominant non-voting public, red tape, pollitical correctness, lefties, too much focus on religion and BOGUS assylum seekers (by that I mean people who come over to the UK illegally and not fleeing persecution knowing they can get free money and benefits).

[Stewart]

I can just see Bill Gates, Eminem or some other music star or software producer coming round to Vaul's house and enacting the gimp routine from Pulp Fiction. After all Vaul, you're telling me you've never done anything illegal such as download an MP3, burn a copied CD or install some software you don't have the license for?

Well, my large paragraph writing friend - of course not! No-one in anyway associated with Hexus, Mod, Admin or otherwise, has ever transgressed the law, in anyway, at any time, for any reason.

As for hoisting me by my own petard, surely what I said still holds up? If you step outside the law, i.e. download an illegal copy of some software, when caught, you have no protection from the law. You don't really have a defense; you get done, and fined. You don't somehow find a way to make it all Microsoft's fault and find Mr. Gates doing time in the next cell.

I'm not seriously suggesting this, or saying you're suggesting it, but after all, you'll have "stepped outside the law" won't you, and by your very own definitions... Ah, now you'll start to try to define what crimes are suitably bad for this "outside the protection of the law" to apply.

No I wont, the simple - 'break the law and be punished' core argument still holds water. As I said, download software illegally and you should be fined, break into someone's house with the intent to steal, and you should be incapacitated and arrested.

I'm not saying you have a right to beat a burglar to death, in the same way as I don't expect to be imprisoned for life with no parole for downloading an illegal MP3, but the law should be overwhelmingly on the side of the person who is in their own home trying to defend their belongings. People seem to think (some know it from experience) that this doesn't seem to be the case.

There are many examples of this - people who cause death by dangerous driving should be given a life sentence. What right thinking person isn't disgusted when they read in the paper about people getting ran over and killed (kids included) by someone usually without insurance, or with previous convictions, and they get a few years? That's for another thread though, perhaps.

Not quite what you said tho is it? Proportionality is what's needed. Now what you consider appropriate and I consider appropriate may be different things, but my point is it is very very difficult to have completely black and white statements like the one you propose.

Proportionality, providing it is overwhelmingly bias in favor of the law abiding citizen.

[Stewart]

*Applauds Rave and Zathras*

Before Vaul jumps on me...

I've not jumped on anyone so far, have I?

Anyway, I'm now moving this thread to Question Time. I think its more suited to that forum now.

I'm sure you will continue the discussion there.

[Rave]

You seem to keep repeating the same stuff. Would you mind substantiating it with some evidence?

The Police say it themselves that there isn't a lot they can do about burglary,

Do they? Where? In fact the number of burglaries recorded is going down at the moment.

so if the government pass a bill that said we could do whatever we saw fit to protect our homes I'm sure that burglars would be deterred from burgling.

Well, I think they'll just carry on burgling, but they'll be more inclined to go in carrying knives and guns.

The reason they do it is because they're all a bunch of crack heads

Hmm, debatable, but anyway:

that need to do it to pay for their disgusting habit and also because they know they won't be caught because the Police forc...I mean service can't be bothered to do anything about it.

Crack is one of the most addictive substances known to man, and it can profoundly affect people's behaviour. A crack addict needing a fix will do pretty much anything to get it, the risk of being caught doesn't enter into it.

Theres nothing but red tape pollitical correctness

Examples please.

lefties

Yeah, lefties, they're scum aren't they? It's not like crime doubled under Mrs Thatcher is it? She obviously wasn't to blame for the destruction of working communities which has led to this crime 'epidemic' either.

too much focus on religion

BOGUS assylum seekers (by that I mean people who come over to the UK illegally and not fleeing persecution knowing they can get free money and benefits).

I live in London, and I've never met a bogus asylum seeker. So yeah, they must be another huge problem.

Rich :¬)

[Lee H]

Covers 7-8 hours response time, 4-24 weeks analyisis, 2-3 years for your items to be returned.

Thats right for Greater manchester Police in the walkden area

When we got burgled last year, the police took 4 DAYS to come and actually start looking into what had happened. The buggers got in through the window by popping the frame, and when the police came they questioned US rather than actually look for any evidence as towards the burglary taking place. Take about feeling victimised and made to feel like the one in the wrong.

If it wasn't the fact that there were GLOVE prints all over the window and woodwork in the dining room where they had bumped stuff while walking in the dark and a few hairs stuck in the frame the police would have done NOTHING as they probably thought it was an insurance job.

[Zathras]

As for hoisting me by my own petard, surely what I said still holds up? If you step outside the law, i.e. download an illegal copy of some software, when caught, you have no protection from the law. You don't really have a defense; you get done, and fined.

The actions taken against you have to be lawful though, and that is my point. Mr Gates et al can't come round, rape your wife and kill your children just because you've stolen some software from them.

No I wont, the simple - 'break the law and be punished' core argument still holds water.... I'm not saying you have a right to beat a burglar to death, in the same way as I don't expect to be imprisoned for life with no parole for downloading an illegal MP3....
Proportionality, providing it is overwhelmingly bias in favor of the law abiding citizen.

I hope you don't mind a bit of snipping, but I actually agree with what you've said in the quote above, so long as the 'being punished' is done by the right authorities and is not dealt out. However what you've advocated above is quite a bit different from your previous statement which is the one I was questioning, where you said "Step outside the law, and you step outside the protection of the law" and you and others have advocated the "burglars should automatically forfeit ALL human rights upon entering properties". I'm just saying it's not that simple. However I agree that we have an issue with the public and media interpretation of the law and that statements like the one I quoted from Goldsmith are needed to help prevent the hysteria going on at the moment.