A suspected burglar is believed to have been stabbed to death by a homeowner trying to protect his property, it emerged today.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Q5pcHxPT
"They don't like it up 'em!"
Burglar Killed - Householder deserves a medal
A suspected burglar is believed to have been stabbed to death by a homeowner trying to protect his property, it emerged today.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Q5pcHxPT
"They don't like it up 'em!"
Great result
Now de-arrest the 3 people and give them a community reward for getting rid of more scum
David Cameron on Tuesday said : ‘We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted.’
The law is very clear and always has been. The important words being:- Reasonable force Every case is determined on the facts of that case.
Unfortunately many people, some here too, believe they should be allowed to take the law into their own hands and do whatever THEY think they should be allowed to. Big Mistake !
i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him
i have learnt to do what my wife says!
Yep john I do think I can defend my property with any force I can muster.Originally Posted by johncar54
For instance if I was woke up in middle of night, not with it for the first minute and I grabbed something and it resulted in the death of burglar tough ....
All human rights should be sacrificed when you illegally enter someones home with the intention to rob/attack the house holder
There is a solution to all this DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE!
FULLY AGREE WITH YOU LESYep john I do think I can defend my property with any force I can muster.
For instance if I was woke up in middle of night, not with it for the first minute and I grabbed something and it resulted in the death of burglar tough ....
All human rights should be sacrificed when you illegally enter someones home with the intention to rob/attack the house holder
There is a solution to all this DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE!
THE FEWER SCUM OF THIS KIND ON THE STREET THE BETTER
Providing the force use is considered as Reasonable then no charge. However, if for example you have advertised here what you would do, then like Tony Martin the Norfolk farmer, you will almost certainly be convicted.i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him
I have personal experience of a person who killed a man who was trying to rob him where the coroner's court found that he was killed as a result of 'justifiable homicide.'
If your actions were considered as Unreasonable then you would probably be convicted.Yep john I do think I can defend my property with any force I can muster.
For instance if I was woke up in middle of night, not with it for the first minute and I grabbed something and it resulted in the death of burglar tough ....
All human rights should be sacrificed when you illegally enter someones home with the intention to rob/attack the house holder
There is a solution to all this DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE!
As I said the important words are 'REASONALBE FORCE' in the particular circumstances.
ALL THE FORCE I CAN MUSTER would probably result in a conviction. And you have advertised your intentions here, they could be used to convict you. As in the Tony Martin case.
Tony Martin as far as I'm concerned did no wrong,he was sick and fed up of being burgled and since the law did little to help him took the law into his own hands.
Result one less robber on the streets even though the lad was only 16 he had been arrested 29 times
People like him seldom change and he won't be robbing anyone else ever again.
I think stabbing a hooded intruder is a very reasonable course of action. Cameron needs to listen to the voice of ordinary citizens and change the wording to "use deadly force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted"
Anyway this incident happened in Manchester where the crazed judiciary dish out ASBO's to multi repeat offending street robbers so I'd expect the householder to get nothing less than a life sentence with a thirty year tariff
The law needs changing to any force required to take out the intruder.
Protect the victim not the criminal
That is a different argument. I was pointing out the law as it is in UK.The law needs changing to any force required to take out the intruder.
Protect the victim not the criminal
But he did get convicted of murder and was probably fortunate that it was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He said before the event that he would kill burglars in future (thus he proved his intent to kill) and he shot the burglary in the back, so he was not being threatened. He also lied about the circumstances of the shooting.
Good on him, As usual we turn part of the blame onto the person who's home is being burgled.
He said all this as he was sick and tired of the number of burglaries and as mentioned before lack of policing.
I get sick of hearing the word "reasonable force" is it reasonable I break into your house with the intention to rob you,scare the crap out of you and your family,take away all you have worked for,give you and your family bloody nightmares for the rest of your life.(can't imagine how it affects young children)
It's not and I'm not afraid to say on here or anywhere else what i may do if it happened to me.
The law should protect me and my family full stop.
It is and that is why it protects burglars too and why it prosecutes burglars too.. At present within the UK people cannot take the law in to their own hands. If that changes so be it but until then the law is the law.
There is another side to this argument.
Some of those who shout the loudest that we should be allowed to kill people who commit crimes against us and that offenders should be sentenced to longer and tougher sentences, are often the same ones who shout the loudest about alleged police abuse of power and how they convict the wrong people.
De we really think that members of the public being allowed to take the law into their own hands would be more competent to judge who is guilty or not guilty?
It is difficult to be right in all cases.
not that far from me, so a gang of 4 men break into your property, i think its resonable to use what ever force you need to defend yourself, the home owner decided to defend himself, its the gang that broke in his house, they made that choice, he didn't know what they were going to do to his family and wasn't prepared to be a victim...
how many on a jury would find him guilty of murder or manslaughter?
Not meSome of those who shout the loudest that we should be allowed to kill people who commit crimes against us and that offenders should be sentenced to longer and tougher sentences, are often the same ones who shout the loudest about alleged police abuse of power and how they convict the wrong people.
Well from some of the ultra lenient sentencing by judges I think plenty of judges don't live in the real worldDo we really think that members of the public being allowed to take the law into their own hands would be more competent to judge who is guilty or not guilty?
But you have expanded the discussion now,of course there is a difference if someone nicks a bag of tangerines from asda I don't expect him to be gunned down by annoyed shoppers
Im refering to the dreaded burglar in the night scenario,you're scared shitless, non coherent so whatever you dish out so be it.
In such a case it might well be considered that ones actions amount to reasonable force, BUT if you have said prior to the event, that you will in effect use excessive force (kill the .......) then like Tony Martin that tends to prove that you intended to use excessive, rather than reasonable, force.Not me
I'm referring to the dreaded burglar in the night scenario,you're scared shitless, non coherent so whatever you dish out so be it.
The 'secret' is not to advertise what you would do, then it cannot be used against you when you explain how you were only being reasonable in the circumstances as they presented themselves to you, at the time, in the dead of night etc and that you were not using pre-meditated force. In law, they are very different.
In Texas a person committing any offence can be shot dead. So ASDA thieves in Texas, be warned !
I had a guy from Saudi Arabia in the car and asked him if they sill chopped off your hand for stealing-He said yes but it's very rare
He said you can leave you car unlocked no one will touch it
He then pissed me off by asking how much to fill my mondeo-I said about Ł80,He said he had a larger car than me and it was Ł4.00 to fill the tank
A lot of conclusions being jumped to here.
Yes, I know it appears to have been a bunch of hooded thugs carrying out a robbery/burglary, but who did the knife belong to ?
Were the visitors to the house known to the 'victims' ?
Who exactly is in custody ?
Many questions to be answered.
Not really.
All the comments have been on whether it is reasonable or not to attack burglars.
Dedworth merely started the thread referring to the newspaper article.
But I take the point, if we had been discussing this particular alleged crime.
Ok, yes it IS reasonable to attack burglars...IMO...as long as only 'reasonable' force is used to break their bloody necks.
Also, I'm in favour of amputation of limbs for PROVEN repeat offenders.
My bf's family was robbed last year. The balaclava-clad intruders broke down their front door and bashed into his parents' bedroom, threatening their lives if they didn't hand over whatever the robbers wanted. His dad had a club under the bed but because he couldn't do anything to those
Grr! This is a joke! Your government officials need to be replaced. And I suggest asking any potential candidate what they plan to do about the unfair advantage the crooks are getting. This is all a big crock of bull-
Sorry, I'm just fuming that the people who hurt Matt's family are still at large and there was nothing the family could do to protect themselves. I'd have broken both arms of the first guy to point a knife at my family and pulled his
I don't condone vigilantism or committing manslaughter even after you've already disarmed an intruder. But I will never support allowing homeowners to be terrorised left and right by intruders who feel smug because the law is on their side. NEVER.
Really great rant but a distortion of the facts.
The law in UK DOES ALLOW ONE TO PROTECT THEIR LIFE, THAT OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT OF ANOTHER.
What it does not allow is unreasonable force to do so. Reasonable force can include force which results in the death of the attacker, but as I said, each case is considered on the facts of that case.
Maybe you consider that a distortion of facts, but any time an intruder breaks into a home, the homeowner should never be more afraid of getting arrested for trying to defend himself. Breaking into a home, the intruder is more likely to be prepared for a dangerous encounter than the homeowner, especially if the intruder directly confronts and threatens the homeowner. Unfortunately, as you said, each case is different. "Unreasonable" is also subjective. If I were a father who had a knife at my throat while someone tried to rape my daughter, I'd rather be arrested for killing the two bags of sewer scum than let anyone destroy the life of my child by standing there mulling over the fact that someone in court could reason that simply twisting my attacker's arm to get myself and my daughter away would be more "reasonable" since neither of us actually got hurt in the encounter. Maybe it's just the 3 years I spent in southeastern USA (where everyone legally has at least one gun in his truck and/or house), or maybe it's just that I've always been taught to defend the weak, but I do not agree that your law is "reasonable".
I totally agree.
Unfortunately the voters keep electing pussies, thieves and upper class twits to councils and parliament, and that is where the interests of the MAJORITY of the electorate ends.
I wonder just how many here have ever spoken one-to -one to their MP and expressed their personal view about how they want their representative to represent them. Very few I suspect. So don't blame 'them' for not doing what we want, blame 'us'I totally agree.
Unfortunately the voters keep electing pussies, thieves and upper class twits to councils and parliament, and that is where the interests of the MAJORITY of the electorate ends.
(I say this as I am 'involved in mankind' although I have no say in UK, I just pay most of my tax there. I do speak quite often to my local Councillor in Spain)
I said, Distortion because, for example Quote "All I know is no UK residents are safe in the knowledge that they can protect themselves if they ever get threatened."
That is not correct because,
The law in UK DOES ALLOW ONE TO PROTECT THEIR LIFE, THAT OF ANOTHER PERSON, THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT OF ANOTHER and, as I said I worked on a case where a person killed one of three men who attempted to rob him and he was not prosecuted for anything.
My MP's Home Secretary Theresa May I've met her face to face 6 or 8 times over the last 10 years to discuss various issues and I regularly email her
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
