Burglars and human rights

StewartR

StewartR

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
I suspect this thread might be headed for "Hot Topics" rather than "Out Of Focus". But let's see if we can keep it civilised and reasonable...

Many people here will know that my business suffered a break-in this year. Obviously I've put additional security measures in place since then, and obviously I'm not going to talk about what they are.

But one thing I've learned is that certain types of security measure can only be used if you put up warning signs advising potential intruders of their presence. For example if you have a wall and you put spikes or barbed wire or broken glass on top of it, you have to put up a sign warning people that there are spikes or barbed wire or broken glass on top of the wall, and they are at risk of injury if they try to climb over it. If you install a high intensity strobe light which activates when the alarm is triggered, you have to put up a sign warning people that high intensity strobe lighting is in use, and that they are at risk of adverse reactions (eg epileptic seizure) injury if they enter the premise whilst the device is armed. And so on. The general issue is that householders and those who own or control property have a legal duty of care to protect people on the property from foreseeable harm, and this duty extends to people on the property without permission, including burglars and vandals.

Now since then I've spoken to a lot of people who have a professional interest in this - police, insurers, loss adjusters, security consultants, etc. And one thing I've noticed is that every single one of them has believed - as I do - that one should be allowed to deploy such security measures without having to advertise their presence. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say, and if you take care to ensure that potential burglars know exactly what is waiting for them inside the premises, it helps them work out how to defeat the security measures. I've often discussed this with them, and I've had several of them say to me explicitly that, as far as they're concerned, intruders leave their human rights behind when they break in.

I mentioned above that I agree with this point of view too. But how many others do? Do I subscribe to a minority viewpoint, and have I just been talking to an atypical self-selecting cross-section of the population? Or is this a principle that has wide-spread support? If you disagree with everybody I've discussed this with, and you think it's reasonable to have to post warning notices such as I've described, what is your rationale for wanting protect intruders from harm? I'm genuinely curious.
 
(isn't broken glass illegal these days? Warning or not) But Yes, I agree, if someone breaks in & commits an illegal act against you or your property ....... they're fair game! :bat:

Maybe if a sign IS actually a legal requirement (& I don't agree it should be) what about, simply;
`Enter at your own risk`
 
Last edited:
I've had to implement this type of security measure in the past and I actually agree with the requirement for signage - under the circumstances it's required as describe to me.

If the measure represents a potential danger and is not immediately visible it must be advertised, e.g. we fitted wall spikes on top of a wall about 7' high that were not visible from ground level. To "discover" them you'd need to hop up and place your hands/fingers unsighted on top of them. Under this circumstance, not only is signage considered more "fair" it's actually more effective. Invisible deterrents have no deterrence value - they can only punish.

By the way, the laws governing this are the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. Specifically the OLA 1984 which extended certain duties of occupiers to include trespassers. The requirement to sign a danger represented by a security measure is no different to the requirement to post a sign warning of "deep water", for example.


Now.. what's the "human rights" relevance? - or is this phrase being used in the Daily Mail sense of the word? ;)
 
I sympathise with your view but can not agree with it, unfortunately.

The thing about universal human rights is that they are...universal.

Take away the universality and you risk allowing for the possibility of human rights being extended to all except those the in authorities don't agree with or don't like.
 
But what about people who have a legitimate reason for entering your property with or without your permission?

Firefighters, the police, ambulance and other NHS staff... and people who you don't want but who have a legal right to be there such as (again) the police, court officers etc...

You shouldn't be able to effectively booby trap your property because you could potentially harm people who have what most people would agree was a valid lawful reason for being on your property and these innocents may not have the time to find and read all the warning notices and find and defeat or avoid all your Home Alone type booby traps.

I'd also agree with people not having the right to take excessive action. For example I'd agree with the use of appropriate force to defend and restrain (and I've done that) but there should be no right to hack a burglar to death with an axe and then put him through the food blender if he was trying to not fight but to escape.

I know if you're a victim of crime the system can seem unfair and stacked against you but please take a step back and think.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with you. Human rights are for humans (biological definition, not some arbitary person's moral judgment of humanity) and apply all of the time, not just when it suits outraged of Tunbridge Wells writing to a popular national newspaper.

Yes, my home has been forcibly broken into by a burglar and thousands of pounds worth of stuff stolen from it. So no "if it happened to you, you would understand" nonsense from anyone please ;) (that line usually gets trotted out at some point)

This needs to be in hot topics.
 
StewartR said:
what is your rationale for wanting protect intruders from harm? I'm genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
Its all about arse covering and litigation these days, sadly.
If someone breaks in, and gets eaten by my crocodile, ( there are no warning signs displayed, I like to keep little surprises as surprises)
I just hope he eats the lot so there is no evidence left whatsoever ;)

Sejanus Aelianus said:
If a criminal isn't prepared to respect your rights, why should you respect his?
Click to expand...
And yes, as above.
 
Last edited:
I can understand why you feel as you do, in many ways I might agree with those that believe that anyone who breaks into your home becomes 'fair game'.

That said, in the UK you have a legal 'right' to defend yourself where you have been aþacked but your response has to be proprtional.

Different rules apply in the USA at state level. As an example, from my reading, in Texas, it is not lawful to shoot a person through the front door of the property if they knock on the door, but if someone gains access to a rear garden and knocks on the back door it is legal, if you feel threatened to use a firesrm.

example
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1398645.html

Proportionality is the key in Europe. The constant pointing at 'Human Rights' is somewhat specious as it is a generic trrm. The point to remember is that because someone breaks into your propert to steal from you, your response is governed by the laws of the land. For England and Wales this is the Homicide Act 1957. and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Thus, if you rig up your priperty to cause death or major harm to intruders, and harm is done, then do not be surprised to face the court yourself.

Based on propirtionality of response, then the injured party could expect the hine/business owner to face charges relevant to harm done.

This is nothing to do with Humsn Rights. Deprivation of your business does not emoower you to do harm physicslly as a response.

You can defend yourself if you are physically assulted or threstened, but it has to be proportionate.

I more than understand your situation snd frustration. My business was broken into 4 times in 28 months and I wanted to do serious harm to the person that was finally caught and sentenced.

Steve
 
woof woof said:
But what about people who have a legitimate reason for entering your property with or without your permission?

Firefighters, the police, ambulance and other NHS staff... and people who you don't want but who have a legal right to be there such as (again) the police, court officers etc...
Click to expand...
Good point, and one which I hadn't considered before. It would certainly be wrong to risk harming people who have a legitimate right to be there. Furthermore I take your point about people who have a legitimate right to enter my property even if I would rather they didn't.

On further consideration, I think the issue may be whether there are any people who have the legal right to, and are plausibly likely to, enter one's property at times when nobody else is there and the property is closed and locked. That will exclude a large number of cases, but not all. Firefighters and police, for example, clearly have the right to enter one's property in emergencies.

Ironically every policeman I've spoken to believes that the duty of care should not extend to illegal intruders. Maybe they haven't really thought though the distinction between "illegal" visitors and "unexpected" visitors, as I hadn't.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
This is nothing to do with Human Rights.
Click to expand...
Yes. Bad choice of words on my part.

To clarify, what I meant was that the proposition that, when somebody decides to commit a criminal act by breaking into a property, they should not be entitled to protection under legislation such as the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
 
Human Rights exists as a concept about how governments treat their citizens - not how citizens treat each other.

As to the meat of your point, it is not only those with ill intent who may need to access you property in a hurry or without permission. It would be a heinous act on your part if you were to injure say, a paramedic responding to an emergency call because you'd booby trapped the property.
Yes, it may help criminals a bit but our legal system is based on a simple overriding principle that protection of the innocent is more important than punishment of the guilty.
 
Last edited:
One thing I've noticed about businesses protecting their perimeters with spikes/razor wire/slippy paint/whatever is that all the warning signs get nicked within days.
I suspect this is "interested parties" ensuring they have grounds to sue if caught or injured by the implemented measures.
 
I'm with the op on this. And yes I accept that there is a risk to emergency services and other agency workers. I'd rather have a 'deposit' scheme where such measures are secure filed together with the blueprints for use by vetted personnel only.
 
dejongj said:
are secure filed together with the blueprints for use by vetted personnel only.
Click to expand...
Then the systems'll get hacked, and everybody's security system specs will be up for sale on the dark web. :(
 
what i bad bad country we have allowed ourselves to become ,in my day if you were a rowdy or out of order teenager you got a clip round the lug hole from the local beat copper and told to f*** off back to your own manor (happened to me a few times to) if you you got into really bad company and stepped to far out of line then expect the "boys" to come looking for you usually with a knee cap hammer in there hands ,it seems weird to say but there was less crime in north london when the krays ran it than afterwards .
i suppose in this day and age though we have to abide by whats the law whether we like it or not .no wonder we voted for brexit
 
StewartR said:
Yes. Bad choice of words on my part.

To clarify, what I meant was that the proposition that, when somebody decides to commit a criminal act by breaking into a property, they should not be entitled to protection under legislation such as the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.
Click to expand...
Whether we like it or not, those that break into a property to steal from us cannot lose their right to protection under the law.

The determination of the codicils of administering law and how to pick and choose what is and is not relevrnt would be a nightmare. The courts can barely keep on top of things now.

For you the frustration is furthr complicated by the portability and attractiveness of your 'stock'. So easy for it to be shipped abroad and a globsl market for suck kitn. There must come a point when the business viability is compromißed.

Not an easy one no matter how you rationalise it..

Steve
 
dejongj said:
I'm with the op on this. And yes I accept that there is a risk to emergency services and other agency workers. I'd rather have a 'deposit' scheme where such measures are secure filed together with the blueprints for use by vetted personnel only.
Click to expand...
I doubt emergency services responding to a call have the time, expertise or inclination to start looking at blueprints.
 
Tori_T said:
Then the systems'll get hacked, and everybody's security system specs will be up for sale on the dark web. :(
Click to expand...
That is always a possibility - slightly more of a barrier than the current pre-warning signs though isn't it ;) Besides it isn't like the current blue prints are available is it?

Llamaman said:
I doubt emergency services responding to a call have the time, expertise or inclination to start looking at blueprints.
Click to expand...
Oh you are now an expert in the emergency services now? How long have you been a first responder for? Done the command and control as well have you?
 
Llamaman said:
I doubt emergency services responding to a call have the time, expertise or inclination to start looking at blueprints.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many could study blueprints, but the fact is, they don't. Nor should they be expected to. :)
 
Human rights can only be breached by a public authority. Only some of those rights are absolute rights so can also be legally breached.

However, sadly that doesn't give us free reign. You can defend your property but don't go too far. You'll only know if you've gone too far when the court makes its decision though.

Dependant on the building the plans are there and can be accessed. The fire service have better access to them in my experience thanks to fire regulations. It would be nice to have access to them but sometimes there just isn't time. It has been known for them to share though.
 
I would assume that any emergency service would be coming through the front door, "taking it out" if necessary, and not scrambling over back walls, running the gauntlet of broken glass and chained up lions.
 
Sometimes the back door dependent on which one is easier to get through
 
I think there is a difference between security measures designed to "secure" and security measures designed to maim or kill - putting savage spikes or glass shards on a wall are the latter
 
viv1969 said:
I'm sure many could study blueprints, but the fact is, they don't. Nor should they be expected to. :)
Click to expand...


Absolutely Ruth

The range of building layouts, infrastructure and fit-out means that emergency services would struggle to stay on top of the range of property customers' may need halp with. One of the main reasons that the fire services (as an example) redduced their visits or got involved in certification issues for other than high risk units they might need to attend.

The change in protection issues for emergency services meant that dynamic risk assessments are used before entry into properties during 'closed' hours.

Focus is now on the person and not the buildings. Let's face it, modern built retail/office/industrial accomodation is designed to be dynamic and interiors can change in short notice. In the case of fire it can prove to be cheaper to let a building burn down than pour water/foam on the fire only for the detritus to wash down into drains and thence into rivers. (eg a warehouse and contents in the Midlands worth c £2.3m fought in the traditional manner, washed down materials that cost over £20m clean-up to the waterway it entered).

On theme - there has and always will be, thieves who will go after easily stolrn and traded goods. When there is a ready market to sell on Jewellry, Gold Coins, Laptops and Lenses etc then the thieves will go after such high value items.

I might be tempted to suggest that those who buy the goods stolen should receive a longer sentence than the thief, might impact on the black market.

I have no idea what the market for stolen 'pro' glass is in the UK so I might feel that any £5-7K units may well be exported to a pre-determined order.

For the OP's original thoughts, the issue is further complicated in that the initiation of an order may have originated abroad. The thief may well be a drug dependent who pays for his fix eith £2K of glass and jailing that person will never change the targetting and neither will dangerous protection measures. My business lost 7 PCs and 2 laptops in the course of 4 break ins. My feeling was that the Police needed to target the buyers. In many countries, that strategy is proving succressful in reducing thefts.

I like to believe that no TP member would knoeingly by a 6600mm lens for £500 from a bloke down the pub!

Perhaps Death Adders as a security measure...... ?

Steve
 
boliston said:
putting savage spikes or glass shards on a wall are the latter
Click to expand...
But who in their right mind attempts to climb a fence with razor wire on top, and / or a "Junk yard dog" the other side of the fence?
Both clearly visible and one would hope / expect to be a strong deterrent.

The same goes for spikes etc, if the wall / fence is low enough to be scrambled over the the spikes etc are also visible.
 
I think one of the most outrageous stories I heard were some youths that broke into a school to steal a load of computer gear.

One of them tried to walk across a skylight and it gave way resulting in a significant fall and injury. The little scrote went to court for damages and the argument being that there should have been a sign warning people not to walk on the glass.

Now forgive me for being a little too simplistic about this but if you weren't trying to rob the join and be on the roof where you're not meant to there wouldn't have been a problem..... not to mention that walking on unsupported glass isn't the smartest idea.

My personal view is you should be able to defend your property in any way you see fit, without advertising/warning potential wrong'uns. However common sense needs to prevail in that the measure you take don't pose a risk to people just living/working at the property
 
Russ77 said:
I think one of the most outrageous stories I heard were some youths that broke into a school to steal a load of computer gear.
Click to expand...
So.. don't keep us in suspense..

Are you outraged because he tried it on for damages or because he actually received damages? - this is meaningless without sharing the outcome..
 
Alastair said:
So.. don't keep us in suspense..

Are you outraged because he tried it on for damages or because he actually received damages? - this is meaningless without sharing the outcome..
Click to expand...

The story I read just stated that it'd gone to court, I don't recall a follow-up, however I think any normal, reasonable human being would be outraged at the audacity of someone in this position even considering going to court about it.

I did think it was pretty obvious in my original post what aspect I found outrageous i.e. if they weren't doing something they shouldn't have been then there wouldn't have been an issue but I guess you needed a little more clarity to understand the meaning.
 
Here we are then in 2016 when thanks to the human rights act ,crooks have more rights than the people they are robbing and a clever lawyer can exploit that . When I grew up in the east end of London my dad had two excellent thief stoppers which he kept beside his bed ,a few pairs of long socks stuffed with lead .and a baseball bat with strips of lead wrapped around the head and nailed on .
Right or wrong I don't know ,have we moved on I don't think so ,what's the answer there really isn't one short of sitting there guarding your stock all night . In the case of the OP who has I believe a camera lens rental company I think the only solution is to move home and business to a nicer part of the country as I doubt much business walks in through the doors .
 
Russ77 said:
I think one of the most outrageous stories I heard were some youths that broke into a school to steal a load of computer gear.

One of them tried to walk across a skylight and it gave way resulting in a significant fall and injury. The little scrote went to court for damages and the argument being that there should have been a sign warning people not to walk on the glass.

Now forgive me for being a little too simplistic about this but if you weren't trying to rob the join and be on the roof where you're not meant to there wouldn't have been a problem..... not to mention that walking on unsupported glass isn't the smartest idea.

My personal view is you should be able to defend your property in any way you see fit, without advertising/warning potential wrong'uns. However common sense needs to prevail in that the measure you take don't pose a risk to people just living/working at the property
Click to expand...
Carry on with your 'personal view' of being able to defend your property in any way you see fit...... that will really work for you in a court of law.... not!

We live by a set of rules that have evolved over centuries to a pount that some may see them weak or ineffectual whilst others will view them as fair and enlightened.

I applaud that you have your own view but let's be realistic, are you likely to really fancy a 10 yesr jail term for hog rossting a burglar trying to steal your 50" 4K HD TV to (say) feed a serious drug habit?

BTW - The hog roast idea is merely an indication of where you may choose to go with your 'defend your property in any way you see fit' concept - it is not a viable punishment under English Law.
 
Russ77 said:
At least that's something....... Still shouldn't have had any rights to bring about the action in the first place though IMVHO
Click to expand...
If they were seeking damages it was a civil case. And as you can read the risk was theirs in terms of costs.

Or are you advocating a restriction on the legal rights of individuals?
 
Alastair said:
If they were seeking damages it was a civil case. And as you can read the risk was theirs in terms of costs.

Or are you advocating a restriction on the legal rights of individuals?
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about common sense...... if you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing (i.e. trespassing, burglary, acting like a complete wankpuffin when dared by others) then don't blame someone else if you get hurt.
 
Russ77 said:
No, I'm talking about common sense...... if you were doing something you shouldn't have been doing (i.e. trespassing, burglary, acting like a complete wankpuffin when dared by others) then don't blame someone else if you get hurt.
Click to expand...
But common sense prevailed - the court laughed him and his lawyer out the room.

Restricting access to the court system is a very dangerous suggestion. Who would decide which cases could proceed? How would their independence be guaranteed and what scrutiny would they face? What appeal process would there be? Who would pay for the costs of this system?
 
Last edited:
Sejanus Aelianus said:
I take Stewart's side in this. If a criminal isn't prepared to respect your rights, why should you respect his?
Click to expand...
The majority of the time a burglar only wants to take your stuff. Stuff is insured and in itself is meaningless. I don't agree with setting out to harm or maim someone that breaks in.

However. If someone breaks in with the intention of harming you then you can, and have always been able to, defend yourself with whatever force you deem necessary. Just try not to stick a knife in their back as they are exiting.
 
StewartR said:
The general issue is that householders and those who own or control property have a legal duty of care to protect people on the property from foreseeable harm, and this duty extends to people on the property without permission, including burglars and vandals.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this. I have a duty of care to people I invite in or who are expected to be able to come round (eg emergency services). I shouldn't need to think about how a burglar might trip over a bush, hurt himself and sue me for it. Otherwise you may as well just open your doors and let the thieves in willy-nilly.

Alastair said:
If the measure represents a potential danger and is not immediately visible it must be advertised, e.g. we fitted wall spikes on top of a wall about 7' high that were not visible from ground level. To "discover" them you'd need to hop up and place your hands/fingers unsighted on top of them. Under this circumstance, not only is signage considered more "fair" it's actually more effective. Invisible deterrents have no deterrence value - they can only punish.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that if you were going to jump over a 7ft wall without checking beforehand, your actions may not have been legal eg climbing over a wall to burgle someone. Having said that, I imagine having a cop chasing after a burglar wouldn't take too kindly to having injured themselves whilst in pursuit.

woof woof said:
But what about people who have a legitimate reason for entering your property with or without your permission? Firefighters, the police, ambulance and other NHS staff... and people who you don't want but who have a legal right to be there such as (again) the police, court officers etc...
Click to expand...
Police and firefighters can break down the front door. They shouldn't need to worry about broken glass on a wall, or an alarm system. They're there to deal with an emergency. Ambulance crew can have the police/fire service in attendance if required to make an area safe. Anybody NHS wise eg GP, district nurse, social worker will have access (eg keysafe code) or have arrangements to visit the patient eg telephone beforehand, or visit every tuesday morning. Again, they're not going to break in and if they see someone lying on the floor unconscious, they'd call the emergency services.

Hugh Jarse said:
I might be tempted to suggest that those who buy the goods stolen should receive a longer sentence than the thief, might impact on the black market.
Click to expand...
For some reason, I appear to be approached more frequently than my friends or colleagues in terms of being offered what I imagine are stolen goods. Most recently, I'd popped to B&Q and was stopped by a white van man driving up and down the road who wanted to know if I was interested in buying a flat screen TV.

Russ77 said:
I think one of the most outrageous stories I heard were some youths that broke into a school to steal a load of computer gear. One of them tried to walk across a skylight and it gave way resulting in a significant fall and injury. The little scrote went to court for damages and the argument being that there should have been a sign warning people not to walk on the glass.
Click to expand...
This would wind me up. Firstly, if you're up to no good, it's your own fault. Secondly, if you're stupid enough to think a skylight will hold your weight, you deserve to fall through it. Thirdly, if you've damaged someone's skylight, you should be made to repair/replace it or pay the equivalent cost through community service or jail time.

the black fox said:
When I grew up in the east end of London my dad had two excellent thief stoppers which he kept beside his bed ,a few pairs of long socks stuffed with lead .and a baseball bat with strips of lead wrapped around the head and nailed on .
Click to expand...
My dad kept a machete under his bed. We were once broken into whilst we were home. The thieves actually entered my parents' bedroom. The sight of a naked man wielding a machete sent them running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top