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.

"I'll also bet that the residents of that house will now be harassed by the relatives and friends of the dead burglar. Any takers?."

Exactly - my first thoughts when I saw it on the news was - they're going to have to sell up and move house.

"But yunno, you've seen his face and he's high on drugs and you have just got out of his way in a house with layout he doesn't know and you may have gone to summon help." More made-up bollocks bearing no relation to the case.

"You are extraordinarily naiive at best." As I said, no I am not, because I have been threatened at knife point twice in my life, which I am guessing is twice more than you.

i believe that the reason I am alive to wait for a third occurence is that I got WELL out of the way of the blade and waited for the other bloke to calm down or fuck off. There is a reason that many heroes are dead people.

That quote is my Quote of The Year, it's utterly, completely fucking priceless.

Violent homeowner, you couldn't make it up

"Would it be ok for criminals to carry guns but not intend to hurt anyone, as self defense against armed police?"

Not okay, but extremely predictable. Which is why there are more crimes involving guns in America than here. Which means more dead criminals, more dead shopkeepers and householders, and more dead police.

MIFLAW, don't make assumptions about me, bad idea.

I have had a knife pulled on me and the last thing I would have done is turn my back and run.

"I'll also bet that the residents of that house will now be harassed by the relatives and friends of the dead burglar. Any takers?."

I thought that too but didn't want to say as much here for fear of being branded judgy.

I too am psml at the thought of a poor burglar having to defend himself against some selfish homeowner who doesn't even have the decency to leave their door unlocked,and to leave notes to tell them where to find the most valuable goods. They probably didn't even leave tea and biscuits out either.

JillySnooper, if the second knife belonged to the homeowner, then it's likely he had it with him when he answered the door.

"I think you'd have a hard job proving "provocation" if the victim of your knife attack had his back to you. Your defence would be self-defence and you can't very well be defending yourself from someone who was running away.
"

Why would provocation be so hard to prove in your opinion? I wouldn't argue self-defence as it wouldn't be successful as you say, if I was defending a client I'd raise a defence of provocation which is a partial defence to a charge of murder which reduces it to manslaughter. For a defence of provocation to be successful what needs to be established is that the deceased engaged in an act or series of acts which caused the accused to lose self control. If someone has lashed out or reacted due to being the victim of a crime then I'd see this as the proper defence. If they have simply stabbed them in the back as a means of vengance or they have done so when they feel in control and do not perceive any threat then that would and should be murder.

"
Of COURSE a burglary CAN include rape/gbh/murder. So can asking someone for a light at a bus stop. "
My point was that the crime of burglary has nothing to do with theft or stealing, it just so happens that this is the most common type of offence which a burglar commits. So when someone is described as a burglar we should not automatically assume that theft was their intended offence, as such what constitutes reasonable force should not only be considered in respect of property.

"
You say that "any of your property" is worth more than a life. Stabbing someone to death is NOT reasonable force for defending property - it is only reasonable force for defending yourself against a perceived threat to one's life."

Well that depends completely on the circumstances, self defence relates not only to defence of a person but also to property and the prevention of a crime (in this case theft,robbery,burglary or possibly all 3). I said that I would value any of my property more than someones life if they were putting me in a position where by my 2 options were to either allow them to take my property illegally or to use reasonable force to stop them which may lead to their death.
The reality is that such a situation is unlikely to occur without them using a threat of violence to either myself or someone else. So if a someone was attempting to rob me and said "give me your ipod/wallet/cup of coffee" I am not yet in a position where my only options are to use force or give them what they want. I can say no. What would most likely happen then would be that I'd be told "give me X or else I'll stab you etc" at this point a person is in a position where by in the course of attempting to commit a crime and what is reasonable to stop the commission of the crime will depend completely on the circumstances of the specific crime. If it is someone with a knife,gun or someone who is of a greater physical stature hitting them over the head or stabbing them may consitute reasonable force.

Jilly, I do see the irony! But it was entirely in response to claims that because he was carrying a knife, he was intending to do physical harm to the residents. And that doesn't necessarily follow. He could, genuinely, have merely be intending to burgle them but the knife was there in case of a need for self defence.

Look, obviously, that doesn't make the burglar a good person. I don't think anyone's saying he's a good person! But carrying a knife does not, de facto, imply intent to do harm.

There is no way to know a burglar's intentions. He/she may intend to kill your children. Therefore you must stop him by any available means before he gets the upper hand. You can't wait and see if he is going to kill, rape or rob.

If he turns his back to go to another bedroom that doesn't mean he is no longer a danger. It just gives you a greater chance of succeeding.

It's not about property and it's not about punishment - it's about stopping him from doing what he came here for whatever that might be.

All burglars now know that they may be killed so if they do it again they are accepting that chance. No one is making them do it. Think of it as suicide.

I don't have sympathy for the scumbag burglar.

I do have sympathy for the home owner who is perhaps devastated that he has taken someone's life as the result of trying to defend himself/his home.

I might well have scant sympathy.

That doesn't make me feel any more sympathy for the man who stabbed and killed him. Burglar has already been punished. His killer has to be punished too.

" If someone has lashed out or reacted due to being the victim of a crime then I'd see this as the proper defence." So would I - but it's hard to "lash out" and get a knife deep into the back of someone moving in the opposite direction!

Also, if i've got a knife to lash out with, presumably the intruder has dropped his - in which case he is unarmed - or I've brought my own along.

I'd say both of those make me a bit less convincing in the "innocent victim in fear of my life" stakes.

I suppose he could be planning on making himself a sandwich with the knife while he's there.

But carrying a knife does not, de facto, imply intent to do harm
It implies exactly that to me at 2am, in my home!

"Well, there are many plausible reasons why he was carrying a knife but didn't intend to hurt anyone. Self defense against a violent home owner comes to mind."

That's not a plausible reason. It's ridiculous. Are you being sarky? You are, aren't you?

"Look, I've only come to burgle your house, mate. I've brought me knife along just in case you decide that you don't much like what I do for a living and decide to take it out on me face, like. Just let me get on with my job and I'll be out of your way in two shakes of a lamb's tail..." Whatever next? I reckon burglars should start wearing t-shirts bearing the warning that you see above counters in post offices/banks etc. "We have the right to work without fear of being attacked or verbally abused. We will actively prosecute anyone who does not obey this."

I bet he brought the knife for religious reasons. He could have been doing that.

Have we had that one yet?

there needs to be clear evidence that he used the knife to injure the homeowner, and was also going to use the knife with intent to harm.

You don't need to prove any of that to exonerate the home-owner if that's what you mean.

"I have had a knife pulled on me and the last thing I would have done is turn my back and run" - I'm not suggesting ANYONE turns their back on someone wielding a knife - including (as it turns out) the burglar.

So what DID you do when it was you? Disarm the other person? Stab them to death like the homeowner? Or, as I suggest, stay away from the blade?

Incidentally, I reiterate that it is apparently bollocks that this burglar was high on drugs. But if he WAS, are you honestly suggesting that it is sensible to confront him in hand-to-hand combat?

havent actually read all of the posts but if someone burgled my home i would take a hammer to their knee caps and forever they can walk with a limp to remind them of the scum they are :) no way would i let someone get away with burgling me and stealing all the things i've worked so hard to pay for!

ok i know perhaps over the top but go easy on me its my birthday lol

If he was not high he gets even less sympathy in this department. Knew what he was doing. Worthless swine.