Burglars and human rights

OldCarlos said:
The machete was purely incidental :runaway:
Click to expand...
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not make a joke about Choppers .....
I must not .... :D
 
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...
I was given some useful advice along these lines by the police.

Firstly, if you keep a weapon under your bed then that shows a pre-meditated intent to cause injury. The courts don't like that. But they can't really complain if you just grab something that "happened to be lying around" and hit the intruder with that. If you have a softball bat, make sure you have a glove and a ball or two, and keep them together under your bed. Then it's not a weapon; that's just where you happen to keep your softball stuff. Or a cricket bat is often even better (so long as it's kept with pads, box, balls, etc): it might be a little more unwieldy than a baseball bat, but it can more than make up for that in plausibility, especially if you live outside a major city because cricket will more popular than softball. Don't have a baseball bat because nobody in the UK plays baseball. Or, since we're all photographers here, why not keep your tripod and/or monopod under your bed? Again, it's not a pre-meditated weapon, it's just a convenient place to keep your photo gear, and the court can't disagree.

Secondly, we all know that in tackling an intruder we are supposed to restrict ourselves to the use of "proportionate" force. But what does that mean in practice? Well, as a peaceful citizen you are unlikely to have a good feel for exactly how hard you need to hit someone (with a cricket bat, or monopod, or whatever) in order to incapacitate him. It's simply not the kind of thing you get much opportunity to learn. So you're probably going to err on the safe side and hit the guy harder than is strictly necessary, maybe even much harder than is strictly necessary, and that's OK. A court won't complain if you hit the guy too hard, because you couldn't reasonably be expected to know how hard is "just enough".
 
Monopod sounds good especially with a cheap but heavy Chinese ball and socket head fitted ,do you recommend aluminium or carbon fibre :banana:
 
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...

It's a very nice theory, but I can just imagine the emergency services accessing in a hurry. Honest.
 
StewartR said:
.

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.
Click to expand...

The main point I've learned here is that many policemen are simple minded.
 
Phil V said:
The main point I've learned here is that many policemen are simple minded.
Click to expand...
My conclusion was that "Rights only apply to me, laws only apply to everyone else". It's like reading a speeding thread on PH.
 
StewartR said:
Secondly, we all know that in tackling an intruder we are supposed to restrict ourselves to the use of "proportionate" force.
Click to expand...
The word in statute is "reasonable", the CPS talk about proportionate but that's not what the law says. It's for the jury to decide what constitutes "reasonable", not the police, not the CPS, not the judge and not the prosecution barrister. A jury which may have the same fears of intruders in their own home. This is why it is very hard to secure a conviction in self-defence cases, the action must have been so completely unreasonable that even a jury of ordinary people (that couldn't get out of it that time) would convict. Trials have shown many times that reasonable force can be lethal force.
 
omens said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

How do you or I know what might happen if the emergency services or anyone else needs access? There could be a reason why they don't want to go through the front door. Have you tried to get through a modern front door? It isn't easy or like they show on TV, one kick and it's in. Anyway, were speculating and glass on walls etc and other measures may well be illegal.

And to give you a personal example...

A while ago the paper boy came to get me when he spotted that the elderly lady living opposite had collapsed. As I tried to gain entry and then did the thought of booby traps didn't enter my head and I'd have been a bit cross to say the least if I'd had to go to hospital with her because my hands or feet had been lacerated by broken glass or I'd been blinded by a strobe.

As I said earlier, it's distressing and frustrating to be a victim of crime but we need to somehow step back and think before we act.
 
Last edited:
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...
Trespass is such a minor crime (ok not even a crime if no damage is caused) I don't think it should be listed alongside criminal acts such as burglary. In fact driving at 31mph in a 30 limit or not having a valid tv licence is FAR more serious than any sort of civil trespass as far as uk law is concerned.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
It's a very nice theory, but I can just imagine the emergency services accessing in a hurry. Honest.
Click to expand...
They get despatched, the C&C pulls up the list that is associated with the address, together with the other metadata about the person, location etc, and communicates it to them whilst en route.
 
dejongj said:
They get despatched, the C&C pulls up the list that is associated with the address, together with the other metadata about the person, location etc, and communicates it to them whilst en route.
Click to expand...
Most businesses can't keep the emergency roll call up to date, what chance a list of installed "security" measures?

And if you install security you generally want to benefit from the deterrence effect as it's cheaper in the long run, relying on a scrote to break down the door and get blinded costs you at least one door.
 
Alastair said:
Most businesses can't keep the emergency roll call up to date, what chance a list of installed "security" measures?
Click to expand...
That should not be an excuse not to do it. Many business do not keep up with their administration, it is not a valid excuse for HMRC.
 
dejongj said:
They get despatched, the C&C pulls up the list that is associated with the address, together with the other metadata about the person, location etc, and communicates it to them whilst en route.
Click to expand...


I'm a little surprised you wish to create another admin overhead for either party
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm a little surprised you wish to create another admin overhead for either party
Click to expand...
Nope I'd rather not indeed, if you read back and in context you'll see that the comment was made as a suggestion to the counter that people shouldn't put measures like this up without a sign as it may affect people who provide emergency services. I'd rather not have any signs, nor any plans deposited.
 
What rights do...

The right to remain silent - that might take a second whack with the aforementioned tripod/monopod? :D
 
We have natural defenses in vulnerable areas. Thorny bushes such as Roses, berberis etc. These are allowed and encouraged. The gates are covered with security lighting at the rear of the property and some hidden cctv cameras.
 
I think HR's only extend to evil doers if they are still alive to claim so, after the event.
And yes, I keep pigs on the farm....
 
Llamaman said:
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?
Click to expand...


I meant from the perspective of the person trying to sue...... i.e. the perpetrator pretending to be the victim
 
brman said:
So what your suggesting is thieves should also be fair, reasonable people who uphold proper social values? :LOL:
Click to expand...



If I'm not mistaken, it was the wankpuffin's family that tried to sue.......

At a very high level, we live in an increasingly litigious society where people try to sue for anything and everything, sadly things have deteriorated to a point where people will try their luck when they are blatantly in the wrong where you have to think twice about the security measures you put in place in your own property in case someone trying to rob you hurts them self and then has the audacity to take you to court.

IMO those who are choosing the break the law should have no protection or assistance from it either.
 
Might as well put in my tuppence worth...

Signage (hopefully) is designed to act as a deterrent firstly. In the event that someone does come in to your property then you're entitled to use 'reasonable force' so if they come in with a knife then it's pretty obvious that they intend to do some damage with it, you can therefore use a knife or similar against them (if you feel up to it).

Regardless of how you will explain it away after the event, if you keep a weapon near your bed then you need to be pretty confident of you're going to use it (reasonably) - chances are that they might overpower you and use it against you.

Never seems very fair though, I can't help feeling that breaking and entering would be a lot less common if the burglar treatment was at the homeowners discretion.
 
Applemuncher said:
I can't help feeling that breaking and entering would be a lot less common if the burglar treatment was at the homeowners discretion.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of sympathy for this idea but I can see it could cause problems or be misused, even if only infrequently eg A decides he/she wants to get rid of/get even with B so invites B to their house but attacks and goes way beyond what is reasonable force but claims they thought B was an intruder and the law gave them the right take any action at their discretion.

However, I'd like the law amended so no court action can be taken against a homeowner/business owner if someone is hurt accidentally while on the the premisies illegally/unlawfully. The result of the civil action mentioned above shows at least one court took a dim view of such action but preventing it from happening in the first place would at least save a bit of court time, but any amendement (which would take time to put into effect and might need parliamentary time too) needs to be balanced against how many actions have been taken by criminals injured in the course of their crimes.



Dave
 
Russ77 said:
IMO those who are choosing the break the law should have no protection or assistance from it either.
Click to expand...
lugworm said:
That sums it up nicely for me.
Click to expand...
Applemuncher said:
That would be lovely.
Click to expand...

In an idealistic world...

However with corrupt coppers, miscarriages of justice etc. Plus if you think a law has been passed that's incorrect, then shouldn't you be allowed to protest against it? I'm immediately drawn to Brian Haw and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Plus, there's the situation of say, a drone falls into someones garden, a neighbours lad wants his ball back. Nobody in so I'll just hop over the fence....
There are rules applying to justifiable and appropriate force for a good reason.
 
Russ77 said:
If I'm not mistaken, it was the wankpuffin's family that tried to sue.......

At a very high level, we live in an increasingly litigious society where people try to sue for anything and everything, sadly things have deteriorated to a point where people will try their luck when they are blatantly in the wrong where you have to think twice about the security measures you put in place in your own property in case someone trying to rob you hurts them self and then has the audacity to take you to court.

IMO those who are choosing the break the law should have no protection or assistance from it either.
Click to expand...
I haven't researched this particular case, but I'm under the impression that the peak of 'claim culture' in this country is well behind us, to the point where people with genuine grievances are not likely to get any recompense due to changes in legal aid criteria etc.

Still if you believe that everyone with money and power treat those without absolutely fairly there's nothing to be concerned about.
 
Russ77 said:
IMO those who are choosing the break the law should have no protection or assistance from it either.
Click to expand...
Yup.. 71 on the motorway, instant fixed penalty notice, 3 points no appeal.


Or maybe you just mean other people that break the law, or maybe only certain laws..
 
Russ77 said:
IMO those who are choosing the break the law should have no protection or assistance from it either.
Click to expand...
Excellent suggestion. Next time I see some using their mobile in a car, I should be free to drag them from the vehicle, beat them the death at the side of the road, and steal their motor.
 
There appears to be a dividing line (from the proprieter's viewpoint) whereby the deterent doubles as a punishment. The problem is that it's often indiscrimate and, whilst you may think that the career criminal is fair game for the vat of burning oil from behind the portculis, that same 'deterent' isn't as acceptable for a bunch of overly mischevious kids on a bored Sunday afternoon.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Surely the career criminal may well have started off as an overly mischievous kid on a bored Sunday afternoon?
 
Nod said:
Surely the career criminal may well have started off as an overly mischievous kid on a bored Sunday afternoon?
Click to expand...

I was a very mischievous kid and Sunday afternoons used to bore me to death.

I never quite got the hang of the criminal career thing though. I think I got confused between the Krays and Phillip Green.
 
I think warning signs should be used, in addition to acting as a deterrent it would be useful for someone who was entering your property for the right reasons, (rescue you from a fire for example). However, if someone ignores that warning and breaks into your house it is right that you be officially allowed to defend yourself. As it happens you have that right, so no problem.

Having said all that I would be very happy for all burglars of private homes to be shot !!!
 
Nod said:
Surely the career criminal may well have started off as an overly mischievous kid on a bored Sunday afternoon?
Click to expand...
So killing/maiming them sooner rather than later could be regarded as in the common good?
 
No-one has mentioned Pastorius/Steenkamp yet, but that's an obvious outcome of an expectation to defend using lethal force.

It is also very important that everyone should be able to bring legal cases, whatever their background, and that justice is seen to be done (as it appears to have been in this case, awarding costs against the burglar's family).
 
Nod said:
Surely the career criminal may well have started off as an overly mischievous kid on a bored Sunday afternoon?
Click to expand...
That's a possibility, Nod, but it's not necessarily true that an overly mischievous kid will turn into a career criminal. The punishment should be related to the intent rather than the action and a 12 year old climbing over a wall probably doesn't do so with the same intent as a career burglar.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top