RIGHTS OF BURGLARS

[WJC]

Thanks for the welcome.

OK Sam, tell me what you would do if you were in my shoes. Let's set the scene for you:

I am about 6ft tall. I'm coming at you with a raised carving knife. You do not have a gun. I'm in your kitchen between you and the only kitchen exit. I'm telling you I'm going to kill you and your family. There are no kitchen utensils on the counter tops for you to grab. You have about two seconds before I reach you.

Sam would do:



JWC

[diplodocus]

sorry but that is nonsense - a case of perception becoming reality

quote from the CPS

the law understands that when people are under attack in their own homes they cannot judge precisely the level of their response. They are not expected to do so. So long as they do no more than they honestly and instinctively feel is necessary in the heat of the moment, that will be the strongest evidence that the householder has acted lawfully.

"Indeed we routinely refuse to prosecute those reacting in the heat of the moment to finding intruders within their homes. So householders who have killed burglars in this situation have not been prosecuted. Householders who have shot burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have stabbed burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have struck burglars on the head, fracturing their skulls, have not been not prosecuted.

"On an informal trawl the CPS has only been able to find 11 cases in the last 15 years where people have been prosecuted for attacking intruders into houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of these appear to have resulted from domestic household burglaries.

One man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him. One caught trespassers on private land and shot a boy in the back with 40 shotgun pellets as he ran away. Others shot burglars in the back as they were escaping. Another appears to have been a drug dealer involved in a knife fight on private premises.''


7 cases in 15 years, hardly supports the idea that the homeowner is likely to be prosecuted

full copy of the info

[Mysteryman]

"7 cases in 15 years, hardly supports the idea that the homeowner is likely to be prosecuted".

Taking the statement at face value, you are correct BUT the Police and Home Office spokesmen are forever cautioning people against taking the law into their own hands, even in defence of their own homes/property/families and, as numerous media discussions have shown in recent years, the honest, law abiding, citizen is totally perplexed as to exactly what they can and cannot do in such circumstances - the expression "reasonable force in the circumstances" means very little in reality.

Add in the attitude of the Police in dealing with complaints about minor illegal activities and you have plenty of room for nervousness in the citizenry. Two examples from personal experience:

In our area there was an outbreak of kids throwing eggs at houses. In my case the eggs hit the front door. I thought it was someone knocking so went to the door and opened it. The eggs (at least 6) ended up on the hall carpet which was irrepairable and was a matched hall/stair/landing carpet. Cost over ?1700 to replace, which the insurers paid and my next premium went up.

When the Police arrived their first question was "what have you done to upset someone". I reported the Constable to Police HQ but was told it was a fair question. Well maybe during an investigative conversation of an isolated incident, but as an opening gambit to a victim of crime which was being repeated around the area?

One of the kids was eventually caught. Another householder was "fortunate" enough to catch 3 of them outside his house when returning home. He detained one of the kids who was 15 and nearly 6 ft tall. As the householder was an ex Army boxer he was able to restrain the yob whilst his wife called the Police.

When they representative of the particular County's finest appeared, the first thing they did was to caution the householder as he'd kept the yob in an arm lock and this was construed as a possible assault on a minor - who'd just committed an arrestable offence, who eventually admitted to 30 other similar offences, wouldn't "grass up" his mates who got away.
He received nothing more than a conditional discharge for 12 months - the householder had to accept a police caution.

Now justify that.

[mart]

Thanks diplodocus but you mustn't present the reality.
I've just been accused on another thread of "constantly pouring cold water on interesting threads by implying they are not true."

Mart

[diplodocus]

I don't have to justify anything

I just presented the facts that it's not true that a homeowner defending themselves against a burglar in their own home is unlikely to be prosecuted - I wasn't making any statements about rights or wrongs

in any case the scenario you presented didn't involve a burglar but teenagers outside someones house, not really the same
and he didn't have to accept the caution, he could have gone for trial by jury which is his right, a case in the current climate I think he'd have a good chance of winning

[Mysteryman]

Doesn't matter that the teenagers weren't burglars - they were criminals causing damage which cost somebody money - and mine wasn't the only property to be damaged.

The reaction of the police was typical of the pathetic attitude to crime. BTW it took them 14 hours to arrive at my property after the report.

If the ex Army guy had refused the caution, he wouldn't have gone before a jury, it would have been dealt with by the magistracy - and appearing before the beaks in the UK is a total lottery

[Sam Slater]

[quote]OK Sam, tell me what you would do if you were in my shoes. Let's set the scene for you:

I am about 6ft tall. I'm coming at you with a raised carving knife. You do not have a gun. I'm in your kitchen between you and the only kitchen exit. I'm telling you I'm going to kill you and your family. There are no kitchen utensils on the counter tops for you to grab. You have about two seconds before I reach you.[/quote]

So you complain about my posts being slightly hypothetical, and then want me to give a hypothetical answer, to a hypothetical question? !laugh! Well thats no problem!

I could do nothing but try my best to disarm you. It's shitty, tough luck. At the time I'd wish I had a weapon......like a hangun. In that unlucky circumstance, a weapon may well be useful, but if I'm driving down the road in a Porche and see a Landrover hurtling towards me at 90mph, in the last moments of life, I may have the thoughts that I wish I'd purchased a bulldozer instead of a Porche as I'd have a better chance of surviving a crash. But thats life I'm afraid, I got a turn of bad luck.

Now here's my question to you....

If you were a burglar, would you be more likely to carry a handgun to a job, if it was usual that homeowners carry handguns also?

[diplodocus]

you are correct, he would have intially been tried in a magistrates court but does have the right to a jury trial. If the magistrate will not agree to passing the case on to crown court he can appeal (if found guilty) when the case will be tried by jury

the right of all to have trial by jury is something the government was attempting to block, not sure if they have got this passed though, hope not

[Officer Dibble]

"Now here's my question to you....

If you were a burglar, would you be more likely to carry a handgun to a job, if it was usual that homeowners carry handguns also?"

OK, I'll take that.

No, not really. Because I wouldn't want to chance getting into a gunfight or being shot dead for the sake of an Amstrad DVD player and a few Spice Girls CDs. I just wouldn't do it. However, if it was a security depot and I knew there was ?20,000,000 in used notes in there I might be tempted to have a punt. But if I was a simple chav burglar I think I would be a lot more circumspect if it came to pass that most householders were armed and empowered to use whatever force necessary to neutralise me. I wouldn?t automatically go and get a gun myself (to even things up), because it would be absurd. Even if I got into a gunfight with a householder, and came out on top, I would then be facing a murder wrap. The risk to reward ratio for burglary would be so out of kilter that it would just be a non-starter for any criminal who didn?t have shit for brains or who wasn?t insane.


Officer Dibble

[Officer Dibble]

So, now that we?ve identified what the problem is (not being able to give burglars the kicking they so richly deserve) what should we do about it? Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Who is maintaining the status quo - and are they even more deserving of a kicking than the burglars? How can we fuck them up and give them a taste of the pain, anguish and misery that they are condemning decent, poor folks, to face ? those that can?t afford to live in nice leafy suburbs, far removed from the chav/scumbag menace.

Officer Dibble