egafd.com

I was watching BBC news this morning and there they were discussing the rights of the burglar in your house.
A solicitor who admitted that a lot of hps clients were indeed burglars said that,"you certainly can't shoot one ," if he is in your house at night for example.If you did you were likely to be charged and taken before the courts!

I thought everybody is happy with this perverse arrangement, the burlgars, the Home Office,solicitors and so on except nine out of ten of the public!. The solicitor said we don't want vigilanteism one can only use reasonable force.
What is reasonable force when someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and your wife and kids are asleep in bed The reasonable man rule should be struck from the homicide acts.

I don't think that the burglars should have any rights whatsoever in your house. He is the instigator and the cause of whatever bad happens to him. The house is our refuge and should be sancrosanct. The message should go out to burglars that they risk getting killed if they break into another's house

What do you think?
Mike Freeman

Per Fuckingxactly Eroticartist.. THe fuckers should be deprived of their balls and then fucked with a giant fucking stick

Chop their Balls off with a Rusty Blunt Saw, then Sodmoize them with a White Hot Poker.

Mike is 100% correct. Why should someone breaking the law, often using threatening behaviour and/or causing damage and/or using violence to perpetrate a crime have any protection?

There should be one rule. If a person is on your property committing, or intending to commit, a crime you should be able to use whatever means you feel is necessary to remove them or the threat they represent - and if that is lethal or acute violence, reflecting your fear for your life and property, so be it.

Burglars have a choice and plan their actions, their victims can only react and there should be no judgement in the cold light of day as to how appropriate their reaction was in the heat of the moment.

I wonder how the powers that be can equate their acceptance of Israel's recent actions with their non acceptance of giving a burglar a similar beating in the cause of making them see the error of their ways.

So how many people keep a gun in the house?
Do we really want to go down the US road?
Btw, I find it really funny that so many posters on this topic assume that they are going to be the winner.

Mart

I can't agree at all. The laws can seem to be unfair on the victim, and need adjusting, but someone living or dying shouldn't be the choice of someone, who's having their VCR stolen at the time.

Shooting a burglar who's running towards you -or a member of your family- with a weapon, is definately justified, and understandable; and you'd get away with it in court, but killing a burglar who's been caught and willing to run away is a different matter.

A burglar deserves jailtime, and I don't mean jailtime in an open prison, with internet access, but a prison where you're locked up 18 hours a day. Having your DVD player and Playstation2 stolen is unjust, but death for stealing those items is more so.

Regardless of the moral issues about having the choice on whether someone lives or dies, there are the 'cause & affect' issues of such a policy. Shooting burglars won't stop burglary. Criminals will just arm themselves with guns like they do in Los Angeles. You buy the gun for protection and so do they. It's a mini arms race. Also once people know burglars are shooting back, it then becomes a race on 'who shoots first, lives'. We then get burglars coming through the windows and shooting families dead before even thinking about the burglary. Their first thought is to not get shot by the home owner, so they kill first before even knowing if there's anything worth stealing.

This is a set of circumstances that wouldn't occur if home owners just kept a baseball bat handy. A burglar can run away from a man with a bat, but cannot dodge bullets. If a man thinks he's gonna get beaten with a bat, he'll run at the first stirring of an owner. If he thinks he's gonna get shot, he arms himself, and shoots the owner first.

Killing a burglar in your house may seem fine at the time, but it's not the most sensible idea in the world....

i caught a 6ft guy trying to steal money out my jacket in another cafe about 3 yrs ago i just tackled him he denied it of course.

Its also established that if you tackle one of these pikey fuckers and to cut a long story short, he gets away with it apart from an inconvenience to his thieving ways for a few weeks, you can readily expect slashed tyres and maybe yer windows put through.
And of course, he'll have a cast iron alibi where he was at the time of these 'little inconveniences' to yourself.
My wife tells me lots of these dittys from the nick

Why mentioned guns and why do you assume that a burglar is just after a VCR? These days even DVD players aren't what most burglars are after - more likely cash and credit cards to feed a drug habit or they want your car keys. Hand guns are illegal in the UK - though that doesn't stop the criminal element using them.

You can do as much damage with a baseball bat, a hammer or other weapon as you can with a gun, i.e. you can kill or permanently maim.

Having been trained to use firearms, I can assure you that many untrained people, if they had a handgun, would probably miss the target in the heat of the moment.

The problem with the current laws are that they are biased toward the burglar. If you respond with force and the burglar is apprehended, it's odds on he'll try to sue on the basis that you over reacted and the lawyers, such as the one on the broadcast, abetted by some namby pamby judges, will find for him.

Let's get real. A burglar has no business on your property and has no business trying to relieve you of what is rightfully yours.

If someone wants to be a burglar they should be given no protection in law unless they are prepared to leave empty handed after a victim has confronted them.

Beating or shooting someone who is fleeing or has surrendered is a different matter but, even then, the balance should be in favour of the victim, not the intruder who has put himself in jeopardy as a deliberate act, rather than the position of the victim who is in jeopardy of the intruder's actions through no fault of their own.

he was outside queensway post office a few weeks after,i just got out his way.