To have no sympathy for the burglar

[Mitmoo]

Another burglar has been stabbed to death when he broke into a businessman's home. His wife and child were returning to the property. The details are very scant at the moment as it is early day.

But the burglars who were stabbed robbing a shop, and an edlerly shopkeeper killed one of them, he was not prosecuted. I think that's right.

It's on R5Live now being debated after another burglar was killed at the weekend.

Personally I think home burglars should take getting stabbed as a occupational hazard. I have no sympathy for them.

Homeowners should never have had to worry about possible assault/murder charges because the incidents of them facing assault/murder charges have always been next to nothing. The law has not changed one iota

YANBU. I expect the poor man who killed the burglar is pretty horrified himself - not that he had much choice after being jumped by two violent crims.

Top marks to the shameless family for springing into violent victim mode. Can't wait to see pix of the Di-style floral tributes - do you think they nicked those from local graves?

It sounds like he was stabbed with hs own knife, so no I have little sympathy as that indicates an intent on his part to harm anyone getting in his way.

I also felt a bit odd about his bereaved relatives stacking bouquets outside his victims home.

itisnearly, I was responding merely to the quoted statement.

I haven't expanded for two reasons. One, this is aibu and I've tried discussing similar topics on aibu before. Any alternative opinion has already been dismissed as 'pop psych', I've already had my opinion parodied before even giving it, labels like 'scum' 'dregs of society' etc are already flying around. It's not the place for discussion at all.

Two, am bfing ds and have one hand to type. It's frustrating and my thoughts on it complex. I may come back later when I have 2 hands and start a thread elsewhere. Ethical dilemmas probably.

The only thing that does irk me a little is this scenario. Someone has a grudge against someone, stabs them in their own home, says 'oh he/she was robbing me'. Ok so it'll probably be proven that killer knew victim etc.. but what that could happen no?

I still think when you're attacked you should be able to defend yourself though it's just something that niggled me that's all.

When I say their own home I mean killer's.

yanbu

Id have done exactly the same, break into someones home, face the consequences whatever they may be

"before where homeowners had to worry not only about the burglar stood in front of them but a possible assault/murder charge if they did anything more than help said burglar carrying their goods out."

When was this time? The law is the same as it always was.

Curious how showofhands is happy enough to drip a bit of wishy-washy let's-not-forget-the-rights-of-the-burglars crap into the thread but is unwilling or unable to expand upon that. I await the return of her two handed dexterity with interest.

just read about a man who got done for murder but then got it commuted down to manslaughter and still had to do 5 years. the police as a whole are not big fans of vigilantly style justice and i do believe it makes a big difference if the burglar is armed or not.

I cannot judge whether you are being reasonable or not.

You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. It may well be that the force used in this case was reasonable, but it should not be assumed that it was. It is not for example reasonable to stab someone who is fleeing.

I do not want to live in a vigilante society. I accept that people have the right to defend themselves, but that must be tempered by the demands of reasonableness. The law should be able to look objectively at the facts and determine whether, in the particular circumstances what happened was within the bounds of what we, as a civilised society with rules, consider reasonable. It should not have to have regard to the baying mob when doing so.

What bothers me is why the police arrest the homeowner on suspicion of murder.

Can they not ask the homeowner to be interviewed under caution rather than formally arrest them? The latter just seems to send out the wrong signals.

I'm all for police making sure the homeowner hasn't broken the law but I'd imagine the homeowner would be scared, quite possibly in shock and it seems the last thing you need is for the police to then come and arrest you!

ops that may have already been mentioned on here

I accept that people have the right to defend themselves, but that must be tempered by the demands of reasonableness. The law should be able to look objectively at the facts and determine whether, in the particular circumstances what happened was within the bounds of what we, as a civilised society with rules, consider reasonable. It should not have to have regard to the baying mob when doing so

Is it just me that thinks this approach is a tad impractical at 3am in the morning when there is an intruder in the house?

Do you propose that every burglar fills out a questionnaire before entry, stating objective of burglary, armament carried, approximate body height and weight, state of health, number of dependents etc so the householder can peruse it, cross reference to their legal encyclopedia and then decide on the appropriate response?

BatsUp, am not dripping anything. Have explained that my thoughts are quite complex about this and I can't type it all one-handed right now. And really, would you feel encouraged to express your opinions if people were already calling them 'wishy washy' and 'crap'. And I'm not unable or unwilling to expand just questioning the point of doing it on aibu when I've tried before and been met with exactly the sort of namecalling and dismissive remarks that have already started before I've said anything beyond 'I don't agree'.

And please note that I didn't make a single comment about whether I think a homeowner has rights to self defence (I do). The only statement I made is that I disagree that the burglar deserves no sympathy. I largely agree with Goosey if you want a starting point for where I stand.

The only statement I made is that I disagree that the burglar deserves no sympathy

Come on then. Let's hear it. Let's hear exactly why some low-life knife wielding scumbag scrote deserves sympathy. I'm all ears.

Whatmeworry - it is not the householder who has to assess this. It is we as a society who need to determine what we find acceptable - that is the point of the law. If we think the householder went too far, then we must apply sanctions. If we think in the heat of the moment that their actions were reasonable, then no sanctions are required. However, we should not pre-judge this without a careful consideration of the facts and that is precisely what is happening here.

i would believe that if you come across a burglar and they then attempt to flee your house and you then batter them or stab them, that is not reasonable force. hence why this tony martin guy got a prison sentence and i think that is fair they have made their intent pretty clear "oh crap, we are leaving" if you then do some thing its premeditated and not in self defence and a different matter.
in this instance if some one is waving a knife in your face its probably a whole other ball game.

batup yes thats the way to encourage an informed and nice discussion good for you keep it up
other people are allowed a differing opinion to yours you know.

"Do you propose that every burglar fills out a questionnaire before entry"

Why do people come out with this whenever discussing reasonable force?
All the law requires is that the force used is reasonable given the circumstances as the person perceives them to be. his will be judged by a jury as to whether or not it is reasonable, giving weight to all the factors including the fact that the person is likely to be in a state of distress as someone has invaded their home.
Thankfully the law does not agree with those who say "once they break into my home they lose their rights/all bets are off" etc.

sorry batsup