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.

[BupcakesandCunting]

"Maybe, as far as they know, turning up with a knife isn't his usual style"

Quite.

According to reports, the skullfuck's usual style involved a shotgun.

[TotemPole]

OhDearNigel, what I meant by, 'as far as they know', is he could have committed other similar crimes and not been caught so they don't know about them.

Yes, I see he could also have got as far as being arrested for crimes involving guns or knives but not taken further. But then the family would likely know about this and maybe wouldn't think he is innocent.

My point was there could be a valid reason why they think he is innocent. I was just putting forward an example.

[JillySnooper]

It's completely irrelevant whether the scumscrote had a knife with him or not. A householdre is legally entitled to self defence.

Stabbing someone in the leg to get away when you have been dragged around your own how is reasonable and I doubt there's a court in the land would think differently.

[bemybebe]

my father was burgled a few years back whilst asleep in his flat. stuff was taken including something that was in the family for 6 generations (beside the point). the bastards took his kitchen knife and left it in the entrance area on the floor by the door. i can only imagine that they were preparing themselves in case my df would wake up and disturb them.

so agree with jilly - completely irrelevant if this burglar had a knife with him or not, people should be allowed to protect themselves when the other person gains unlawful entry and poses percieved threat to their safety

in my df case would you think the burglar came into the flat unarmed??

[bemybebe]

last sentence - not "think" but "argue"

[Andrewofgg]

From a character in one of Charles Dickens's novels:

There are people (men and women both, unfortunately) who have no good in them - none. There are people whom it is necessary to detest without compromise. There are people who must be dealt with as enemies of the human race. There are people who have no human heart and who must be crushed like savage beasts and cleared out of the way.

Dickens believed in the death penalty and I don't. But apart from that he (speaking through his character) was bang on, and it is easy to nominate some of them.

Rapists, armed street robbers, armed burglars (and "armed" includes any sort of weapon), anyone who injures a child - others may have other candidates but I doubt whether anyone will disagree with including any of those.

Of course anyone accused of those crimes must get a fair trial, a proper defence, and the presumption of innocence; and prison must be where you go as punishment, not for punishment. But on conviction that person's interests come behind those of the rest of us.

[hermionestranger]

MIFLAW, the Police wouldn't come out and deal with it, so really there was no choice but to take it into my own hands. My family and home are more important than the little shit who was breaking in. I felt I had no choice, but to take the law into my own hands. Funnily enough the coppers agreed with me.

[MIFLAW]

" I felt I had no choice, but to take the law into my own hands."

you weren't taking the law into your own hands (which is a bad thing); you were defending yourself within the law (which is a good thing.)

And I still don't see that, on this point at least, we disagree. I think it is right that people defend themselves within the law.

What I was talking about is completely different - someone asked, essentially, if I would feel GUILTY leaving it to the police 9assuming, as you say, that they turned up in time, or at all.) And, no, I wouldn't feel at all guilty about that.

But, while waiting, or if I had to, of course I would defend myself, if, in my view, that was the most sensible and safest course of action.

[kelly2000]

Can I just ask if you would consider the safety of the intruder as much as your own. If say you knew they were going to rape you, but not do anything else to you, would you risk the intruders life to stop him raping you even though you knew your life was not in danger?

[kelly2000]

custard,
I know, it was a hypothetical/ethical question rather than an actual practical one.

[bemybebe]

kelly what's the use of answering your "hypothetical ethical" questions if this is not what ever happens in real life? what point are you trying to make?

[kelly2000]

bemy,
Not really trying to make a point, just interested in people's views. rather off topic I admit.

Apparently in England if someone is being attacked, they are only allowed to use one level up to defend themselves i.e if they use their fists you can use a knife, but not a gun (which is a bit unfair if you do not have a knife handy, but do have a gun), but I was told by someone that if a woman is about to be raped, she can use any force she like to stop it.

Was having a conversation about this the other day (got onto subject after talking about this case), and someone was telling me that this was wrong, and that people who were trying to fight off a rapist did not have the right to use lethal force even if it was their only option to stop the rape, unless they honestly believed they would be killed as well which i thought was rather odd. I know in reality it would be impossible to prove someone did not believe they were going to be killed as well, but that seems beside the point.

So again no point, just interested in what the law was in these cases, and what people thought.

[kelly2000]

ah, thanks custard it seemed very odd. If I was beingattacked I am going to grab whatever not make an assesment of the comparitive force.

[mayorquimby]

yeah you've been misinformed on both of those counts Kelly. It's all about reasonable force, there's not a scale of what weapons trump others etc. The law simply sets out the principle of reasonable force, it is a matter for the jury to decide as a matter of fact what constitutes reasonable force in particular circumstances of a crime.

[Rhinestone]

If you break in to someone's house then you leave your human rights behind you as far as I'm concerned.

How does the innocent victim know if the burglar is there to nick a DVD player or rape their wife or daughter? Home invasions even for the ostensible purpose of stealing something can take horrific turns - just Google 'Petit family Connecticut' but be warned, the details are extremely upsetting.

Householders who kill burglars should be completely exempt from any legal action in my view.

[mayorquimby]

Same question to you then rhinestone. If you incapacitate a burglar are you then allowed to rape and torture them, enslave them for a few years to work your fields before selling them to another person for profit?

[kelly2000]

the petit case is not even an isolate dicident, this has been going on for years. The case the book "in cold blood" is based on happened in the 1950's a whole family murdered for a few dollars, and then there was a fairly recent case where the family were killed by a paedophile who then kidnapped the two youngest children, later killing one. Thats just two I can think of off the top of my head There have been some really horrific home invasions.

I think there nees to be an investigation to ensure the person who was killed was an actual burgular - there was a case in America where a guy invited someone he had just met over, and then killed him and his own wife, claiming the guy attacked them. he was hailed as a hero for killing the guy and then trying to save his wife for two or three years before the truth was discovered. I think CSI nicked this idea for a show. But once it is establishe dthey were a burgular and were not running away then the homeowner shoudl nto face any prosecution.

[TotemPole]

If someone commits murder they should be prosecuted. If it's shown to be in self defence then they shouldn't face legal action.

[Rhinestone]

Totally stupid and pointless question Mayorquimby

I believe you should be allowed to use as much force as you feel necessary, including killing them, on anyone who invades your home.

[SindyW]

I'm all for this (lynchmob) type of justice. If paedos or rapists need dealing with they could be kidnapped and brought around then murdered for being a burgular. Now that would be justice. Shame there wouldn't be a trial though. Hope the mob get it right.