to think it doesn't take four burglars to rob one small terraced house

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Burglar stabbed to death

... and they don't normally let themselves in when the place is full of people either. It's going to get played out as a 'homeowners entitled to defend themselves' story but there's something about this story that doesn't ring true.

This was a discussion on the radio this week. A chap called in to say he'd been given an 18 month sentence for attacking two men that broke into his house equipped with knives and a crowbar. His wife and 2 day old baby were in the house at the time. The reason he got so long was that he was a martial arts expert and he put one of the men in a wheelchair.

He sounded absolutely broken by it, plus the fact that he had missed the first 18 months of his child's life.

"so OP, how many burglars does it take to rob one small terraced house? Is it a sort of joke answer? Or does it involve a tricky equation??"

still waiting for the answer please?

TurkeyBurgerThing,

Are you proposing capital punishment for convicted burglars?

@AwesomePan.... (Sorry. Busy living.) I would think that for the average contents of one small, terraced house in the less fashionable end of Pendlebury you're looking at a sole operator, maybe two, so that one can carry the laptop whilst the other is keeping the dog quiet. Masked raiding gangs (if Crimewatch is to be believed) usually reserved for big houses in the country, off-duty jewelers/bank managers or those suspected of having stashes of cash.

"so OP, how many burglars does it take to rob one small terraced house? Is it a sort of joke answer? Or does it involve a tricky equation??"

still waiting for the answer please?

1 to rob the house and 4 to destroy core british values with their pc gone mad loony lefty human rights brigade

I have been burgled whilst in the house and whilst out of the house. Both of these things occurred when I was a child, my window was smashed and covered in blood. I was utterly traumatised and I can't forget about it even 20+ years on. TBH, I couldn't give a shit if burglars get killed by homeowners. Burglars are utter scum and deserve no sympathy whatsoever. It is utter lunacy to defend their "rights". You lose your "rights" when you break into someone's home IMO.

I'm not defending burglars rights or give them sympathy, I'm looking to prosecute anyone who takes the law in to their own hands

If you break into someone's house you deserve all you get.

Scum of the earth.

Quite.

so whats best is to bash em over the head bung them in a car and dump them in the park there not likely to say oi that man at no 12 coronation street beat me up cos i was in his house at 3am burgling him as if you did use what the jury say is excessive force its you who will be prosecuted wrong and sad as may be so i keep a golf club by my bed just in case (use it wisely)

A burglar by definition under the theft doesn not just have to enter a building with intent just to steal they can also enter the building with intent to commit grevious bodily harm .

Perhaps this may be what happened - so yes there were four burglars but they didn't want to 'rob '.

If someone breaks into my home they will get beat down sorry if they don't want to get a can of whoop ass they should not cross my door step

I can't believe the people defending the transgressor if they arnt in you home they won't get stabbed end of

The home owners haven't been convicted - they have only been arrested - no doubt they will get charged with murder etc - but the courts will decide whether they were right or wrong in what they did .

It all comes down to resonable force - was the force they used to defend themselves resonable in the situation.

We don't know what went on in that house so not necessarily right to make judgments that the houseowners were wrong or right in their actions.

Yes we do four people tried to rob a house hold and three came out alive, I had enough why have these people been arrested am I assume the 3 surviving have got away with the robbing and I assume as always they will sue the home owner for so human rights bull shit the guardian readers have a lot to answer for.

Their was a case just the other day were a boy robbed a shop the owner frogg marched the boy home you guessed it the parents called the police on the shop keeper and he was charged with kid napping

You can't judge whether the occupants were right or wroing in their actions . You dont know the intent of the burglars , you dont know what went on in that house.

Some one is killed in that hosue - do you really expect the policeto turn a blind eye ? It is only the start of the investigation so who knows what is going to happen.

Far too early to judge anyones actions.

1stly "human rights bullshit" doesn't come into it in any way shape or form, this is the rule of law in England as it always has been.
Secondly what do you mean by "i've had enough of...", there is not a trend of people being sued or prosecuted for using proportionate force in the defence of their home or property. In fact the only example anyone has given is the Tony Martin case. So that's one example, which is pretty evenly split as to whether people think the law prevailed or not, over a decade ago.

It was always curious that the householders were arrested so quickly. And now it's reported the dead intruder comes from Hyde, which is an area where I work, and Hyde is on the far eastern side of Manchester and Pendlebury lies in the west, in Salford. Most burglary is committed locally ( burglars walk to work, or drive round a few corners), so to attack a terraced house well off your manor ( getting a bit Sweeney there, I know) for the sake of committing a theft.... makes this case curiouser and curiouser.

maypole - quite right the shopkeeper was charged - he should have phoned the police - this is why we have them. Guessing he could have been charged with common assault, depending on the circs.

Morality is hardly relevant. If it were, British and American soldiers would be indicted daily.

Subjects like this make a lovely smokescreen story

In America (and other places) where a householder has the right to defend their property there are lots of stories about police and other innocent people getting injured when they have been mistaken for burglers (in some cases just being in the garden). Again most householders in America have been shot with their own guns. If you are asleep and they are wide awake, possibly on drugs who do you honestly think is going to come off better?, especially as the one doing the robbing has less morals to start with.

The law at present covers using reasonable force when you feel under threat of attack, so there is no real need to change it, accept to allow for the use of weapons. Each case has got to be decided individually, weighing up the reality of the situation. I believe that anything else is just adding to random violence that seems to be on the increase in our society.

Slightly off point but my DH was "jumped" by two blokes one wielding a knife. They were drunk and he fought them off, breaking a nose and damaging a kneecap in the process (theirs not his). Despite the two witnesses he was the one charged because they'd been injured/ the police couldn't find the knife. Police officer told him that if he had one mark on him then he wouldn't of been, so he's supposed to of just let them stab him the once then?

Everything was dropped in the end when the defense got the tape of original 999 call with the bloke saying "I'm going to stab you in the face" phone was dropped in kerfuffle and police were recalled. This was after months of stonewalling by CPS, court dates asking for postponement, only calling their witnesses (two blokes injured) not the two construction guys who saw it happen. Absolute nightmare.

My point is that normal people exercising reasonable force to get themselves out of a dangerous situation can find themselves being treated as criminals rather than as victims. Shocking and lazy policing IMO.