- 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.
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.