RIGHTS OF BURGLARS

[Sam Slater]

Sorry Mr Dibble but I can't agree with you this time.

Barras, pikey scum? Yes. - Shipped back to Ireland? Maybe. - Longer sentances for repeat offenders? Yes. - Shooting a burglar running towards you with a weapon? No problem. But we can't live in a country where people are allowed to take 'pot shots' at burglars. The punishment of death is probably the ultimate price to pay, for a regular crime.

I'm not saying don't arm yourself upon hearing a burglar in your home, and I'm not saying you have to have a 'reasonable debate' over a cup of tea & cucumber sandwiches, with the intruder. What I'm saying is victims who start blasting away 'willy nilly' have no right to.

Did Barras deserve to die? Maybe. But Martin shouldn't have the right to decide who lives & dies on his property unless he was protecting his own immediate survival.

It's pretty obvious Martin shot the pikey through frustration & anger, and I feel sorry for the guy: the law let him down. But any story about it being dark and he was scared for his own life is bollox, and just a story to get him 'off the hook'.

I'll reiterate that once victims start shooting burglars, burglars will arm themselves to the teeth before going out on jobs. We'll then have burglars with guns who are scared of being shot, and two men who're scared, -with a loaded guns- is a scary prospect, and a position we're not in at the moment, for the majority of burglaries. Burglars kill victims in LA before robbing them because if they don't theres a good chance of them being killed themselves. Over here -for now- you're 100 times more likely to survive a burglary, so it would be dumb to start an arms race between victim & thief.

[Mysteryman]

I just hope, for you and your family's sake, that you never have to confront an intruder in the dark, not knowing his intentions or if he is armed (gun/knife/hammer/baseball bat).

If you don't believe that you should deal with the situation as it appears to you AT THAT INSTANT, without fear of retribution, you are saying to the criminal classes that they can do what they like in and with your property and with your family - in other words you will just lie down and roll over for them.

[Sam Slater]

Well, I've been in the situation you describe twice now. Once when I was 21 and had my first flat away from home on a shitty council estate, I caught a white 18 year old kid carrying my 'deep fat fryer' through the window. (don't even ask, maybe he wanted to make chips?) I shouted and he ran.

A second time -about 4 years ago- I was looking after my parents house and caught 3 asian youths taking my old PC downstairs. I rushed to the knife drawer as they barged their way past me and out through the back door. If they'd been armed I would have been in trouble, but I certainly wasn't going to knife them in the back for the fun of it.

Believe me, I'll defend myself -and my family-, but what I won't do is kill burglars who just want to get the fuck out before the police arrive. If they come towards me with a look of aggression in their eyes, I'll defend myself with any weapon handy. If they turn to run, I'll forbid myself to shoot/stab them in the back, on the way out.

Call me 'reasonable' if you want.

[Mysteryman]

I've never advocated (in this thread or elsewhere) shooting anyone in the back or killing anyone for killings sake.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think any intruder with criminal intent should lose all rights on illegally entering a premises.

The occupant should have the assumed right of defence, without reservation - but notice I say defence. If someone can be proved to be fleeing EMPTY HANDED there is nothing to defend at that instant and the acceptable method of stopping the miscreant then needs to be clarified as a crime has been committed and the offence is arrestable.

Prior to that it would seem you would do exactly as I and many others.

[Robches]

>Burglars kill victims in LA before robbing them because if they don't theres a good chance of them being killed themselves. Over here -for now- you're 100 times more likely to survive a burglary, so it would be dumb to start an arms race between victim & thief.

I don't know where you got this point, but in the States burglaries of occupied houses are less common than here for the very reason that burglars don't want to tackle armed citizens.

In 43 of the 50 states, citizens can actually get permits to carry concealed guns outside their property. I believe there are about 150,000 permit holders in Florida alone, and the real life evidence is that they cause no problem at all, despite scare stories that it would be like the wild west.

In the UK, about 10,000 people in Northern Ireland have permits for what are called "personal protection weapons", ie a pistol to you and me. That's quite a lot in a population of 1.5 million. Again, they can carry these pistols concealed as they go about their business, and the actual evidence over 30 years is that law abiding citizens can be armed and will cause no problems, which, when you think about it, makes sense.

People tend to be very frightened of guns in the UK because only about 1% of the public legally own guns, so 99% of people make judgments based on something they don't have experience of. I manage to go through life without stabbing anyone, or bashing them with a baseball bat, even though I own knives and a baseball bat. I've also owned several shotguns for clay pigeon shooting, and never got round to shooting anyone either.

By the way, if someone has invaded your home in the middle of the night, you cannot be expected to second guess his intentions. He may be a "decent ordinary criminal", he may be a psycho rapist. The only reasonable force in the circumstances is the force needed to incapacitate him, which may well be the maximum force you can employ.

As I have said, the police seem to get away with killing innocent people, because they "honestly thought" they were criminals, but when a citizen hurts or kills an actual criminal, all of a sudden higher standards seem to be employed. The system stinks.

[Sam Slater]

No problem. I also said I would never 'just lie down and roll over for them'. either, in any thread.

[Sam Slater]

Being killed by a burglar in LA is many times more likely than in th UK. I haven't the facts, but I'll put my house on it. Only this January while I was in LA -in January- the radio guy (forgot the station) gave daily warnings for people to lock their windows at night and turn the 'air con' on instead, due to the regular occurence of armed burglars -who had on a few occasions- killed the occupants. This is an everyday warning in LA, on the radio like a weather forcast would be over here.......no big deal.

[Robches]

>Being killed by a burglar in LA is many times more likely than in th UK. I haven't the facts, but I'll put my house on it.

Thought as much.

[Sam Slater]

If you do have the facts on 'percentage of burglaries, resulting in the death of the occupants in the USA compared to the UK.' then please post it and I'd happily read it with gusto.

Upon reading it, if the facts tell me that 'everyone having guns' results in a 'lesser chance of being killed' during a burglary then I'll apologise and join your side of the discussion, and back your opinion on this all the way.

Until then, common sense tells me that that regular victims shooting regular burglars, with the burglars shooting back, isn't a society anyone wants.