Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [UK]

Captain Trips

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=403287
Just saw this - about that case where the guy killed the mofo who broke into his home. Or beat him up or something, can't remember exactly.

Personally, I would feel that someone who has broken a law has thrown away any right to other protections. If I was caught speeding, I wouldn't try and say "I need protection from slow drivers, I feel they make me afraid and so I drive fast to get away from them". Or would someone who killed a kid while drink driving deserve a special lane to drive in where kids aren't allowed to be in other cars?

It's madness. People who break into others houses deserve every bit of retribution they get.

It's amazing that the UK are maybe becoming so PC that this could be a consideration. Basically, one law breaker and one law abider. Both have the same status in a court of law. No credit to how the law breaker has taken away privacy, security from the law abider, but he still should get a shot to sue the guy that beat his ass?

JohnK

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Personally, I would feel that someone who has broken a law has thrown away any right to other protections.

I agree with this 100%! Its pisses me off whenever I hear about some crook who broke an arm/leg/toe-nail and then sue's the person s/he was robbing. And people then wonder why nobody respects the law...


EDIT: Regarding the above article, I do think that killing somebody is taking it a bit far unless it was in self-defence.

DeVore

Aye, its very easy to say "hang em high!" and I'd agree with the idea that if they break in, they cant complain if they get whacked on the back of the nut.

However, taking the argument to the extreme... if someone tied the burgular up and tortured them for hours on end before killing them, would you agree with that? Me neither.

So somewhere between the two there is a line or at least a phase shift from black to white.

DeV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Captain Trips
It's madness. People who break into others houses deserve every bit of retribution they get.

I would accept that the homeowner has a right to defend life and property, but what you’ve just argued for is summary justice.

I would feel that someone who has broken a law has thrown away any right to other protections.

Also, and in keeping with your vigilante slant on justice, you fail to consider that a suspect is just that, suspect, not guilty until proven so. Abolish his rights and you may well abolish the rights of an innocent man.

I’m reminded of a case in Florida, a few years back, where a tourist, who was looking for directions, was shot dead by a trigger-happy homeowner, as he came to the door.

Let’s just assume that your moral indignation on this subject was such that you didn’t really work the matter out before ranting, shall we? :rolleyes:

Xterminator

Ahh but the flip side to your argument, Corinthian, is that in theory a burglar can sue you, if he/she has an accident on your property.

I read of a case where a burglar had an accident in someones house and successfully sued them for the injury received!. And of couse i have heard of many cases where a burglar sues for assault!

i believe if you enter someones property without permission, you should lose at least some rights. Otherwise it makes a mockery of natural justice.

I believe that killing an intruder is extreme, and should have to be justifible under the circumstances, eg armed intruder, or under threat of violence.
However using force to subdue, and detain an intruder seems perfectly acceptable, and may help act as a deterrant.

X

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xterminator
i believe if you enter someones property without permission, you should lose at least some rights. Otherwise it makes a mockery of natural justice.

I agree - I did accept that a homeowner has a right to defend life and property, for example. My post was not meant as a postition, but as a rebuttal.

meglome

As someone who has been in his bed when his apartment is being robbed I'm not that sympathetic to the burglars. I don't think we should be able to beat them to death but I am in full agreement that they shouldn't be able to sue you while in the process of robbing you.

I nearly caught a guy climbing in our window (three floors up) and if he had 'fallen' out of the window that would have been a terrible shame.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by DeVore

However, taking the argument to the extreme... if someone tied the burgular up and tortured them for hours on end before killing them, would you agree with that? Me neither.

DeV.

OK, absolutely. I didn't put that much thought into it . Well, if I was making the rules, I'd say that instead of innocent until proven guilty, a burlgar should start off as, well, (and logically) guilty until proven innocent in the case of someone retaliating.

Blitzkrieger

I'm reminded of a story that was in the papers a few months ago. A man was suing a woman for assault. She hit him when she found out he had been molesting her 10 year old son. What rights should he have?


If someone's broken into your house, you have no idea what their intentions are. 'Shoot first, ask questions later', should be the norm.

Within reason of course.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
'Shoot first, ask questions later', should be the norm.

Within reason of course.

Roffle

Sparks

Blitzkrieger,
So you advocate arming all the homeowners then?

Hobbes

The following is a true story (no it wasn't me and name has been changed to protect the stupid).

After a late night of drinking, Bob returns home around 4am to find he is locked out of the house and no one is opening the door.

So he goes around the back and using his skills of knowing how crap the window to his house is, is able to force it open to reach over and open the back door.

He then goes into the sitting room, switches on the TV then heads back into the kitchen to make himself a Fry up.

After making the fry up, Bob goes back into the sitting room, sits down and eats the brekfast while watching TV. Once finished he brings the plates out and washes them and leaves them to dry.

He then goes into sitting room to switch off the TV and go to bed. It is at this point Bob realises he is in fact in next doors house. He switches off the TV and sneaks out the back way and gets into his own house with no problem.

The following morning the cops are all over the house after the neighbours thought they got burgled. The cops did make a note that the burgler must of been a very neat one to do the dishes as well.

... little off topic, but while I think Burglers should loose a lot of rights if they break into your house, killing or tourturing them isn't one of them.

Victor

You must only use necessary force to subdue an intruder, not to wantonly shoot at strangers from the top of the stairs (as happened in this case). What if that intruder was a policeman / paramedic called by a neighbour concerned for your safety?

Originally posted by Hobbes
The following is a true story (no it wasn't me and name has been changed to protect the stupid).

This actually sounds like the story of a certain drunken boardster who tried to enter his house through the bathroom window, only to remember he had moved house.

Sparks

You must only use necessary force to subdue an intruder, to wantonly shoot at strangers from the top of the stairs (as happened in this case).

If it's that english case you're talking about, that's not what happened (or more accurately, it's a small, out-of-context segment of the full story).

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by Victor
You must only use necessary force to subdue an intruder

Which is what I meant by within reason.

Of course it's difficult to tell what necessary force is, and in this day and age you'd propably be sued for throwing a water balloon at them.

Originally posted by Sparks
Blitzkrieger,
So you advocate arming all the homeowners then?

Oh yeah - countries without guns aren't armerican

Sparks

Which is what I meant by within reason.

The problem is that "necessary force" is somewhat nebulous at the best of times. After all, it's dark, you don't know what the guy has in his pockets... For all you know, you're facing someone who's got a pistol in his pocket.

And in martin's case, he'd been regularly burgularised over a long period, and had gone to the police many times. But then he just went postal on the burgulars. So it's not a clear-cut case.

Oh yeah - countries without guns aren't armerican

Hmph. I actually don't know of any country without guns!
(Well, they're illegal in Japan, but that doesn't mean they're not there...)