Four burglars enter, three burglars leave... Householder arrested for murder...

RussellTuring · 29-06-2011 11:03PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

What was that phrase about the only thing required for evil to triumph was that good men do nothing?

I don't consider theft evil.

Or to quote John Stuart Mill...
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

I have plenty of things for which I'm willing to fight but property isn't one of them.

If you choose to do nothing, and flee, hide, or otherwise leave the burglar to himself, you have contributed absolutely nothing to society except to further the GDP of the black market. On the other hand, if you choose to confront the burglar, you must be able to take any and all actions necessary, to include killing him, before you make that confrontation. Anything less than that could prove terminal. If, for your own reasons, you feel you cannot go to that extent, then absolutely, don't try confrontation in the hope that you won't need to. That's fine. Even the Army has conscientious objectors.

Thanks for your permission. As I've said already, if I wake up and I'm fairly sure I'm being robbed, I won't risk stopping it in case either the thief or I end up dead. Nothing I own is worth a human life. However if I have the slightest inkling that I or someone else is in danger then I will go on the attack. I also think it's rich of you to try imply I have a lack of concern for my fellow man when posters such as yourself spoke about killing people and disposing of their bodies for burglary.

However, to use Sir Robert Peel's wording, it is a duty incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence to act upon criminal action. Nowhere are the principles of common law so protective of a man as they are in his home and citizens should have the utmost protections when carrying out those obligations to himself and society. Even if you, personally, feel you cannot use any force necessary in such a situation, the law (and I submit the morals of the population at large) do not, and should not, prohibit such action by those who are a little less... caring. Just acknowledge that every burglar removed from circulation by active homeowners is one fewer that may burgle you. I acknowledge that you state that you would like to warn then detain, but I submit that this is fanciful, impractical, and highly risky unless you are willing to do whatever it takes to win. To include killing.

NTM

And I personally don't feel that preventing future burglaries is worth taking a life. I don't think that will change any time soon.

Manic Moran · 29-06-2011 11:27PM

I don't consider theft evil.

So it's a sparkling example of humanity? Or is it just misguided and misunderstood? I guess we can try the dictionary...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

evil adj
\ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
evil·er or evil·lerevil·est or evil·lest
Definition of EVIL
1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
[/quote]

Reprehensible? Check. Sinful? Well, if you believe in sin, I guess. Bad character or conduct? Check. Seems to hit the boxes for me.

I have plenty of things for which I'm willing to fight but property isn't one of them

So you won't stop me taking your stuff, then... Would be good to know if I were inclined to covet it.

Thanks for your permission

You're welcome!

I also think it's rich of you to try imply I have a lack of concern for my fellow man when posters such as yourself spoke about killing people and disposing of their bodies for burglary.

I think it was concern for 'community welfare' that I was mentioning, not 'fellow man.' Although I must wonder if a burglar really does constitute my 'fellow man', as I have little wish to be associated with such a person.

NTM

Batsy · 30-06-2011 03:17PM

Riskymove wrote: »

it is not always like that, as shown here....for all we know the homeowner is a tough nut and the burglars a few kids

So? What difference does that make?

Those kids shouldn't be breaking into someone's home in the first place. If they just happen to break into the home of a 15 stone bodybuilder and they therefore come a cropper it serves them right. They shouldn't be breaking into someone else's home.

It also wouldn't be wise for someone to break into my next door neighbour's flat. To defend his property against intruders he has a small knife attached to the inside of his front door, a sock with a snooker ball in it hanging above his front door, a snooker cue on top of his heater in his hallway and a huge carving knife in his living room. Any burglars entering his flat will be wishing they hadn't.

Liam Byrne · 30-06-2011 04:01PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

While I can understand your position, avoiding myself or someone else dying would be of paramount importance to me, no matter what they had stolen from me.

That's your choice. If you can look your family in the eye (or yourself in the mirror) after contributing to the victory of scumbags over decent people) then fair enough.

Just don't knock other people for their choice.

It's also a different argument; the issue is that earlier you suggested that the death of a robbing scumbag wouldn't be their own fault. It would.

Liam Byrne · 30-06-2011 04:05PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't consider theft evil.

What ?????? :eek:

Count me out of any future discussion so, because if you don't view theft as evil then obviously you'll have a warped view of what's acceptable to prevent it.

I suppose there are paedophiles who "don't consider abusing kids as evil" either; maybe we should take their view into account when deciding how to deal with them ?

I also think it's rich of you to try imply I have a lack of concern for my fellow man when posters such as yourself spoke about killing people and disposing of their bodies for burglary.

I'll offer respect and concern to any "fellow man" who acts like - well - a man, and offers respect in return.

Thugs are not men.

argosy2006 · 30-06-2011 04:13PM

They were playing Simon says when burglar entered, Just bad timing,As when women saw burglar she screamed Simon Says stab stab stab ,

Batsy · 30-06-2011 04:42PM

Riskymove wrote: »

we do not have the automatic right to kill people, even those that are commiting a crime

The British people soon will have that right.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said that homeowners will be allowed to pick up a knife and stab an intruder in their home. If that intruder dies, it doesn't matter. The homeowner will not face criminal charges.

Householders who stab burglars will not face criminal charges, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, said yesterday: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8607203/You-can-pick-up-a-knife-and-stab-a-burglar-says-Ken-Clarke.html

Batsy · 30-06-2011 04:46PM

Originally Posted by RussellTuring
I don't consider theft evil.

If a group of scumbags breaks into a family's home in the early hours of Christmas morning and steal all the children's presents just so they can fund their drug addiction then I consider that seriously evil.

RussellTuring · 30-06-2011 06:52PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

So it's a sparkling example of humanity? Or is it just misguided and misunderstood? I guess we can try the dictionary...

Are they my only choices? I consider it an act of a desperate person. I think killing someone, disposing of the body and not owning up to it because that person stole something is far worse. A human life is irreplaceable, no matter how bad that person may be.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

evil adj
\ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
evil·er or evil·lerevil·est or evil·lest
Definition of EVIL
1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

Reprehensible? Check. Sinful? Well, if you believe in sin, I guess. Bad character or conduct? Check. Seems to hit the boxes for me.

I suppose if you use that version of "evil", it would qualify. That quote just always conjures up evil as in the supernatural force, in my mind anyway. I'll grant you this one though. And I don't believe in sin.

So you won't stop me taking your stuff, then... Would be good to know if I were inclined to covet it.

I will if I think you might harm me to get it. I've explained this a few times already.

I think it was concern for 'community welfare' that I was mentioning, not 'fellow man.' Although I must wonder if a burglar really does constitute my 'fellow man', as I have little wish to be associated with such a person.

NTM

Then at what stage does a person lose their humanity and no longer deserve to be treated with the rights of another?

Edit: I checked my previous post and not only did I mention when I would use force, but it was one of the only parts you went to the trouble of deleting.

Liam Byrne · 30-06-2011 06:55PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

That quote just always conjures up evil as in the supernatural force, in my mind anyway.

So it's a fictional quote ? About non-existent things ? How many times have you seen this "supernatural force" achieve things on its own, with no people involved ?

And how do you reckon that "good men doing something" would counteract those things that it was doing, in order to make the quote make sense ?

RussellTuring wrote: »

Then at what stage does a person lose their humanity and no longer deserve to be treated with the rights of another?

When they choose to ignore those rights.

Wibbs · 30-06-2011 07:06PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

[Edit]aha... This is close http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3XDc27RCw

I tried to get one of those taser clubs before. I gather they'd stop making them Illegal of course...

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't consider theft evil.

That's where you lost me TBH. Smacks too much of all property is theft, therefore stealing kinda cancels this out. Hippie thinking basically. Hey cool and the gang. Free world and all.

RussellTuring wrote: »

A human life is irreplaceable, no matter how bad that person may be.

Now bear in mind I am a Nazi on this score, but I don't believe that for one second. Some human life is lesser than others. Some people really are just a waste of oxygen and the sympathy and concerns of others. Some people are born grow and die and bring far far more to the loss side of the balance sheet for those and their community around them. Like I said I am a nazi so...

Then at what stage does a person lose their humanity and no longer deserve to be treated with the rights of another?

When they step over the line of ignoring the rights and humanity of another. Now we can argue where that line is drawn of course. We'd both agree that if someone becomes a threat to you all bets are off. I'd go further and say I'd give nor expect no quarter. I'd go further again and say that the single most valuable asset any of us have in our lives is time. Setting up a home and gathering the contents of said home can take years. The feeling of security in ones home can take years. This is before someone has their own children in their home. Some dribbling junkie coming into my home is stealing time from me. Yes tellies etc can be replaced, but memories can't. It's the rape of memory and security and time when your home is ransacked. That's a paddlin.

RussellTuring · 30-06-2011 07:26PM

Wibbs wrote: »

That's where you lost me TBH. Smacks too much of all property is theft, therefore stealing kinda cancels this out. Hippie thinking basically. Hey cool and the gang. Free world and all.

I never said it was right either. I am a lefty, as you may have gathered, but I don't think it's ok to take people's personal belongings. I just had a different conception of "evil". Would you consider all crimes evil or what?

Now bear in mind I am a Nazi on this score, but I don't believe that for one second. Some human life is lesser than others. Some people really are just a waste of oxygen and the sympathy and concerns of others. Some people are born grow and die and bring far far more to the loss side of the balance sheet for those and their community around them. Like I said I am a nazi so...

I'm not sure I'd say thy're lesser, but some people certainly can't be part of society, no matter how many chances they're given. I don't think killing them is right though, unless it's the only option for the safety of others.

When they step over the line of ignoring the rights and humanity of another. Now we can argue where that line is drawn of course. We'd both agree that if someone becomes a threat to you all bets are off. I'd go further and say I'd give nor expect no quarter. I'd go further again and say that the single most valuable asset any of us have in our lives is time. Setting up a home and gathering the contents of said home can take years. The feeling of security in ones home can take years. This is before someone has their own children in their home. Some dribbling junkie coming into my home is stealing time from me. Yes tellies etc can be replaced, but memories can't. It's the rape of memory and security and time when your home is ransacked. That's a paddlin.

I'd agree with the start except I'd value my freedom more than time as represented by my things. I'd rather lose the things and have my life and freedom than spend the remainder of my life locked up for killing the dribbling junkie, or even losing my life.

Liam Byrne · 30-06-2011 07:32PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'd agree with the start except I'd value my freedom more than time as represented by my things. I'd rather lose the things and have my life and freedom than spend the remainder of my life locked up for killing the dribbling junkie, or even losing my life.

Complete red herring, because those of us with whom you are disagreeing are proposing that you shouldn't and wouldn't be locked up.

Manic Moran · 30-06-2011 07:53PM

So you won't stop me taking your stuff, then... Would be good to know if I were inclined to covet it.

I will if I think you might harm me to get it. I've explained this a few times already.

Right, so since I'm a nice sort of burglar who won't attack you unless I'm attacked, I'll just take your stuff, leave, and feel free to do it again next week. This does not strike me as a long term solution.

Then at what stage does a person lose their humanity dmd no longer deserve to be treated with the rights of another?

There is never any definitive point because it is accepted that all rights have a sliding scale depending on circumstance. I do not claim that burglars forfeit all their rights for being burglars, but that homeowners should have extremely strong protections for their rights within the home.

Edit: I checked my previous post and not only did I mention when I would use force, but it was one of the only parts you went to the trouble of deleting.

I have already addressed your position with disapproval. Your stance forces the homeowner to relinquish the legal and moral benefits of being in his castle, and if it does come down to physical force, it places the homeowner at a comparative disadvantage, which he should be under no moral or legal obligation to be under.

NTM

30-06-2011 08:22PM

I think you should be able to murder any intruders and wear their ears on a necklace as a souvenir

Too harsh?

Wibbs · 30-06-2011 11:13PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Complete red herring, because those of us with whom you are disagreeing are proposing that you shouldn't and wouldn't be locked up.

Bingo.

Manic Moran wrote:

There is never any definitive point because it is accepted that all rights have a sliding scale depending on circumstance. I do not claim that burglars forfeit all their rights for being burglars, but that homeowners should have extremely strong protections for their rights within the home.

http://aries108.tripod.com/gifs2/hammer-nail.gif

RussellTuring · 01-07-2011 07:20PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, so since I'm a nice sort of burglar who won't attack you unless I'm attacked, I'll just take your stuff, leave, and feel free to do it again next week. This does not strike me as a long term solution.

So how do you plan on taking it if you're discovered? Ask nicely?

There is never any definitive point because it is accepted that all rights have a sliding scale depending on circumstance. I do not claim that burglars forfeit all their rights for being burglars, but that homeowners should have extremely strong protections for their rights within the home.

Indeed they should. And I disagree that they should go as far as being allowed to kill or maim someone for stealing. I think it's obvious that many people just want to dish out their own vigilante justice on thieves and that's not a sign of a mature society, in my opinion.

I have already addressed your position with disapproval. Your stance forces the homeowner to relinquish the legal and moral benefits of being in his castle, and if it does come down to physical force, it places the homeowner at a comparative disadvantage, which he should be under no moral or legal obligation to be under.

NTM

What exactly is the disadvantage? I don't see how it's any worse than them being mugged in public. In fact if anything I'd see them as being at an advantage.

Wibbs wrote: »

Bingo.

I'm disagreeing with people not being locked-up for attacking someone who is not necessarily violent.

Liam Byrne · 01-07-2011 07:56PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

So how do you plan on taking it if you're discovered? Ask nicely?

Since you've stated that you won't use force, he'll just walk out the door with it. Do you expect someone who is enough of a prick to break into your house to just say "ok so, bye" ? And what about the breaking in crime that they have already committed at that stage? Would you restrain him til the Gardai came so that he could be suitably punished for that?

Indeed they should. And I disagree that they should go as far as being allowed to kill or maim someone for stealing. I think it's obvious that many people just want to dish out their own vigilante justice on thieves and that's not a sign of a mature society, in my opinion.

Actually, no - we'd much prefer not to be forced into making that choice at all. And if people want to be part of a mature society, they can choose to be.....unfortunately theiving scumbag's don't want to be part of society at all.

What exactly is the disadvantage? I don't see how it's any worse than them being mugged in public. In fact if anything I'd see them as being at an advantage.

Laughable. We unfortunately have to endure all sorts on the streets, and so mugging pricks are a part of that, but we choose who to let into our homes. if you can't see this then I have even less of an idea of how oddly you think than previously; in fact, I genuinely don't see how ANYONE could say what you said there.

You cannot tell a drunken idiot to get off the street; you can tell one to leave your house or get off your property.

The impression you're giving is that you have no regard for people's peace of mind, property or home.

I don't know what your background or experience is that makes you think this way, but it is obvious that no logic or social norms will counteract that.

Manic Moran · 02-07-2011 01:21AM

RussellTuring wrote: »

So how do you plan on taking it if you're discovered? Ask nicely?

I don't think burglars much plan on asking at all, really. Nicely or otherwise.

What exactly is the disadvantage? I don't see how it's any worse than them being mugged in public. In fact if anything I'd see them as being at an advantage.

It is no worse than being mugged in public, which is saying nothing good at all. The problem with that is that when you're mugged in public, you are at a disadvantage, which is why muggings tend to work, as there are few viable options but to submit to the mugger's will. Why? Because the mugger has selected the time and place to make his move from a position of advantage, the exact same ability that a homeowner has when deciding how to physically stop a burglar. That is before you reflect upon the legal differences which currently exist between a mugging in public and an encounter in the home.
Muggees are rarely given a two second warning that they're about to be mugged, so why should a burglar be given a moment to reflect upon his options, one of which includes launching an attack of his own? As a default position, the homeowner is in a better position than the victim of a mugging, but handing the initiative to the burglar is relinquishing that advantage, I submit un-necessarily so.

NTM

citizen_p · 02-07-2011 03:28AM

The state can't be seen to be allowing Murder as a response to what is effectivly a minor crime. This is suposed to be left up to the Police force to deal with, however I understand all the problems with this, If I was to report a break in to my home it would be at least 30-40 minutes before a Gardai car got here, and considering most burgularies take less than 10 thats useless.

I don't think the homeowner should be prosecuted, but its likley he will be and will have to serve time for manslaughter, like that farmer who shot the traveller trying to break into his house. The police cannot be seen to be endorsing Vigalantie Justice.

RussellTuring · 02-07-2011 07:45PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think burglars much plan on asking at all, really. Nicely or otherwise.

How then?

It is no worse than being mugged in public, which is saying nothing good at all. The problem with that is that when you're mugged in public, you are at a disadvantage, which is why muggings tend to work, as there are few viable options but to submit to the mugger's will. Why? Because the mugger has selected the time and place to make his move from a position of advantage, the exact same ability that a homeowner has when deciding how to physically stop a burglar. That is before you reflect upon the legal differences which currently exist between a mugging in public and an encounter in the home.
Muggees are rarely given a two second warning that they're about to be mugged, so why should a burglar be given a moment to reflect upon his options, one of which includes launching an attack of his own? As a default position, the homeowner is in a better position than the victim of a mugging, but handing the initiative to the burglar is relinquishing that advantage, I submit un-necessarily so.

NTM

Well you obviously don't have to warn the burglar if you feel threatened. With muggings there is also always at least the implicit threat of violence. In the case of a burglary this isn't necessarily true. If you do feel you may be in danger, then you of course have the right to defend yourself but if they are clearly running away, I don't think it's reasonable to give them a beating.

Additionally, on all of the occasions people have tried to mug me, I've nearly always had a warning of some sort, usually in the form of a threat. Muggers, in my experience, will usually try to avoid using violence immediately. Presumably this is so they don't attract attention.

galwayrush · 02-07-2011 09:24PM

Incident out my way some years back, 3 scumbags tried to steal the car from a widow who lived alone, she didn't ring the gardai as they would be too far away to get there on time, so she rang some of the local pubs which were less than 2 minutes away. A group from the pubs went to her house straight away , scumbags caught, one received a broken leg after his mate tried to make a get away in her car, so the locals threw him in front of the car where he was of course knocked down. Third scumbag got a severe beating which also hospitalised him. Never been any incident of note by any low life scumbags since in the area.

Forest Master · 02-07-2011 10:03PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Incident out my way some years back, 3 scumbags tried to steal the car from a widow who lived alone, she didn't ring the gardai as they would be too far away to get there on time, so she rang some of the local pubs which were less than 2 minutes away. A group from the pubs went to her house straight away , scumbags caught, one received a broken leg after his mate tried to make a get away in her car, so the locals threw him in front of the car where he was of course knocked down. Third scumbag got a severe beating which also hospitalised him. Never been any incident of note by any low life scumbags since in the area.

Urban myth.

galwayrush · 02-07-2011 10:05PM

Forest Master wrote: »

Urban myth.

Really? Looked quite real to me being there at the time.

Forest Master · 02-07-2011 10:15PM

galwayrush wrote: »

Really? Looked quite real to me being there at the time.

You weren't there. Stop lying. I've heard that story from numerous people over the years - all different locations. Once it was a widow, then a granny, then a mother at home with her kids.

galwayrush · 02-07-2011 10:17PM

Forest Master wrote: »

You weren't there. Stop lying. I've heard that story from numerous people over the years - all different locations. Once it was a widow, then a granny, then a mother at home with her kids.

Good for you.

washman3 · 03-07-2011 02:00AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's your choice. If you can look your family in the eye (or yourself in the mirror) after contributing to the victory of scumbags over decent people) then fair enough.

Just don't knock other people for their choice.

It's also a different argument; the issue is that earlier you suggested that the death of a robbing scumbag wouldn't be their own fault. It would.

well said. excellent. good to hear opinions from somebody who lives in the real world. take a bow.!!

Ficheall · 22-07-2011 12:32PM

Right decision was made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097

rossc007 · 22-07-2011 12:54PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Right decision was made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097

Thanks Ficheall, looks like justice to me

BlaasForRafa · 22-07-2011 01:49PM

Ficheall wrote: »

Right decision was made.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097

Indeed. But Mr Flanagan shouldn't have been arrested in the first place for defending his property.

Four burglars enter, three burglars leave... Householder arrested for murder...

Comments