(Britain) Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

[buzz_knox]

What if youre asleep? A house with no lights on and someone asleep upstairs looks a lot like a house with no lights on and someone on holiday, especially to the casual criminal. The law must take the standpoint that one can only take a life if you or someone else is directly threatened by another. Simply breaking into your house is not enough justification for the killing of another - there must be other factors present.

It already takes those factors into account. It recognizes that a home is not the same as an office or store, where one can expect it won't be occupied after business hours. The very purpose of a home is to be inhabited at night. The law presumes in favor of the homeowner, and rightly so. What standard would you accept? Allow the homeowner to fight back after the home invader demonstrates his intent with a couple of shots or stabs?

As for the Martin situation, honestly, I don't have an opinion on it. He did something stupid, but the "victim" was scum.

One clarification is in order, to forestall the typical argument about the law not giving homeowners the right to execute someone. What the law recognizes is that in the confines of a home where you generally don't have the means or duty to retreat safely, if you kill an intruder, the belief that the person's uninvited and unrestrained presence is a threat will be deemed reasonable. If you order that person not to move and/or to leave, and they comply, then you do not have the right to pop them in the back of the head as a summary sanction for waking you up. If they refuse to comply or engage in furtive movements after seeming to comply, the presumption that they are up to no good remains.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I think the Martin killing was entirely justified, if the facts as reported are to be believed. There are several dozen reasons they might have been turned away from him when he shot them, and one is that they were fleeing, but that doesn't make it so. Even if they were literally running in the opposite direction from him, that doesn't mean they had decided they would leave and not attempt to harm them. It means that in that instant they were withdrawing at least one step farther from him.

Buzz Knox is not kidding about the presumption of intent. If someone breaks into my house tonight, I am to assume that he means harm to my family. I will attempt to capture him, and if he disobeys commands I will shoot him. If he turns his back while disobeying my commands, I will still shoot him. Afterward, I will surely wish I hadn't had to shoot him, but the choice was entirely his. All I did was sleep in my own house. He came looking for trouble and found it. If I believe he's armed and he makes even the most slightly threatening move toward my family, he's dead where he stands. We call that "the reasonable belief that you, or someone else, are in danger of imminent deadly harm."

Back in the day, my grandpa shot a man in his backyard who was attempting to steal his chickens. Now, there was no reason to assume that man would come inside to kill grandpa, but grandpa needed those chickens. They were his and he had invested much time and labor in increasing them. The other man had no right to them, but grandpa wasn't keen on going out in the dark and having a wrestling match to find out if he had a knife, so he did the pragmatic thing: he shot the poor, downtrodden son of society squarely in the buttocks with two loads of rock salt (bet y'all thought people didn't really use rock salt, huh?) The next day he went to the town doctor to ask if anyone had been examined the night before. The doctor told him he'd seen a patient with Holy Buttocks Syndrome who'd promised he'd never touch another man's property again if only the doctor would keep his name secret, and he wouldn't tell grandpa who it was for anything.

No doubt the poor, unfortunate wretch and victim of society suffered terribly with his Salty Butt-Wounds, but he also learned a valuable lesson. And again, nothing happened to him that he hadn't chosen. He went looking for trouble and found it.

 

[agricola]

What standard would you accept? Allow the homeowner to fight back after the home invader demonstrates his intent with a couple of shots or stabs?

the standard would be that the suspect was doing something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger. Factors like darkness, the victims state of mind at the time, what the suspect was doing etc would be taken into consideration. Its significant that both of the cases lamented here and on TFL were of the homeowner shooting (or stabbing) the burglar as he was in the process of leaving (or left in the Tottenham case).

 

[Geech]

What's reasonable? It can vary so much from perp to perp. You'd have to be a mind reader to know for sure.

 

[moa]

In the States in some places a person that burglarizes at night an occuppied residence is often referred to as a "cat burglar".

And a psychoanalyst of the criminal mind will tell you that cat burglars are potentially one of the most dangerous types of criminal because of their mental state.

If one is encountered at home, it is probably not a good idea to start slowly mulling over all the potential legal implications to taking quick and decisive action.

 

[Kharn]

Agricola:

the standard would be that the suspect was doing something that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger.

I bet if you took a poll on this board asking "If someone entered your house during the night while you slept, would you believe that your life, or the life of another (or others) was in danger?", you would find most would respond in the affirmative. If asked in rural America, the majority answer would still be the same.

Kharn

 

[matis]

And to think...

...they were the land of the Magna Carta and all that.

Now their socialism has taken them far enough along that it's forced them to turn things inside out.

Once the moorings have slipped -- no telling where the boat will drift.

In Britain, they've already foundered -- they're breaking up on the rocks of hard reality.

I wonder where we're headed?

Matis

 

[BenW]

What if youre asleep? A house with no lights on and someone asleep upstairs looks a lot
like a house with no lights on and someone on holiday, especially to the casual criminal.

What if the homeowner was on vacation and left the lights off, and all the windows and doors open? None of these scenarios make any difference. The burglar has no right to enter a home regardless. I should not have to leave my lights on all night (or take ANY steps) to give a burglar the impression that I might be home. The burden is on the criminal to stay out of my home, not on me to keep him/her out.

 

[Mute]

the point is not, as so many here would wish, that a man cannot defend himself in his own home - but rather that just because a burglar has broken into your property does not suspend his protection under law. As many of you are no doubt aware, pretty much all of our legislation regarding weapons recognizes the difference between ones home / other private property and a public place, so the percieved lack ofmeaningful methods of defense in the UK is less applicable (if indeed it ever is)

Really? What you're suggesting seems to contradict what is actually happening. If a stranger is in my home with a weapon, he's got one choice. Drop his weapon and head towards the door. Any other action will be considered a possible threat.

It seems to me that the British legistlation would have homeowners give as much reasonable doubt as possible to a criminal until they actually have bullets flying at them and blades slashing in the air towards the jugular. Seems to me that would be a bit too much leeway to allow for a proper response. Let's be honest here. I do not want to kill another person over material property anymore than you do, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give a criminal with violent intentions a tactial advantage over me. If the law makes that my only option, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed or done away with altogether.

 

[2dogs]

burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders

The world is going slowly, and painfully insane.

 

[MeekandMild]

Do you think the Martin killing was justified?

For years I've wondered at the false distinction between killing in self defence and killing to protect property and killing to protect the commons and prevent the return of a criminal.

In the first case one kills so that the criminal cannot end their own life. In doing so they may be lengthening their own life by a day or a decade so they are protecting their life at its end. They are protecting their own right to grow old, decrepit and toothless.

In the second case they kill so the criminal cannot take the time in the middle of their life they worked to save the money to buy the stolen items. They are protecting the youth they spent buying the items which are stolen. They kill to prevent their own enslavement.

In the third case they kill so as to gain some peace of mind so that they can live a more fruitful future. They kill so they can risk going out to dinner or to the show and know that when they return their life's work won't be vanished out the door. They kill so their family and friends won't be slaves to the same thief.

So in answer I would say the Martin killing was not only justified but heroic in a time when England sorely needs heroes. Whenever I read Aggie's rationalizations it saddens me to think that as he goes so does much of England. So the blood of Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder and Henry V and all the great men of history goes to nourish bastards who think only of comfort and appeasment.

No Aggie, don't answer this post. You are not worthy.

 

[agricola]

ROFLMAO @ Meek

shooting an unarmed man in the back as he is running away is now defined as "heroic"

would you only be happy if we returned to the days in which men and boys were hung for stealing bread?

sorry, that should read enslaving the baker and his family

easily the most unintentional piece of humour i have ever read here or on TFL

 

[QKRTHNU]

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences,

If they're in someones home they're not in "Public".

and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

Unlawful?

Oh yeah, forgot. Those brits don't consider self-defense lawful.

 

[MeekandMild]

Like I said. Some folks would be happier sold as slaves.

 

[TallPine]

Simply breaking into your house is not enough justification for the killing of another

WRONG !

Of course, you would have to survive my dogs, first

 

[Geech]

easily the most unintentional piece of humour i have ever read here or on TFL

Only if we discount your posts on the subject, of course.

 

[Drizzt]

Lawyers back burglars


By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political Editor

FURY erupted last night after David Blunkett’s lawyers said burglars need protection from householders.

They insist villains deserve to be treated like any member of the public — and MUST be able to sue homeowners who attack them during a break-in.

The Home Secretary’s lawyers will make their bizarre argument to High Court judges today in a legal bid to block a parole claim by jailed farmer Tony Martin.

The barmy advice last night threatened Tony Blair’s promise to be “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crimeâ€.

Mr Blunkett last night insisted he had nothing to do with the ruling.

His aides refused to condemn it — confirming that criminals are entitled to rights.

But Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: “This is the height of absurdity. The Home Secretary said to me he would back my amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, blocking burglars who try to sue for damage done to them while burgling.
“Now his department appears to be going in the opposite direction.

“The world has clearly gone mad. Why on earth should I be able to sue for things that happen while I am in the process of burgling?â€

Furious Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: “The public are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender.

“Burglars forfeit any rights they have when they commit a crime.â€

Mr Martin, 58, has served four years for manslaughter after killing 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras.

But today Home Office lawyers will say Mr Martin is still a threat to burglars — and must not be let out early.

Leaked papers show they believe burglars should be guaranteed protection from homeowners who try to protect their properties.

The document says: “It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be members of the public whilst committing criminal offences.â€

Mr Martin has refused to show remorse for shooting his burglars and until he does cannot be considered for parole.

A second burglar shot by Mr Martin — Brendon Fearon — had his claim for damages thrown out by a Nottingham court. But Fearon, 33, managed to sue with legal aid.

Norfolk farmer Mr Martin will be freed in July but today High Court judges will consider a case review.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003202323,00.html

 

[agricola]

His aides refused to condemn it — confirming that criminals are entitled to rights.



a shocking concept..... seriously, you should pick quotes from any UK paper but if you want to use articles from the Sun please please first do a Google-search for "the Sun" and "Hillsborough" and, if possible, talk to someone in Liverpool about why that paper is still boycotted fourteen years after the tragedy. It is a disgrace and the shame of the British Press.

 

[jmbg29]

Feh! Break into my house at night, and you'd better be able to run 1,001 feet per second or better.

Can't run that fast? Whine to Satan about your friggin' rights.

 

[kannonfyre]

Home invasion should not and must not pay!!!

Whether or not it be legal is besides the point. Common folk like us need to stand up as one and tell the criminal community that we'll NEVER take their crap! Burglars need to KNOW that they will be VIOLENTLY resisted by homeowners whilst robbers and rapists should be aware of the fact that we'll DIE FIGHTING before they can have our money or our bodies.

I second the belief that criminal scum should pay DEARLY with LIFE and LIMB for the way that they make their "living".

Frankly speaking, the home invader that trespasses on my property will feel my razor sharp cleaver biting DEEP into his shoulder blades before getting even a WIFF of my valuables. I'd rather DIE than allow some scumbag to cart my belongings away!!

If homeowners were allowed to KILL any and all burglars on their property, I opine that the burglary rate would fall rather quickly in the UK.

 

[0007]

I wonder what the response of the home secretary in merry old england would be to the burgler that broke into his home would be. I doubt seriously if he would help the burgler out the door. Oh, I forgot He's one of the special people who have their own guards. Agricola, we've missed your humorous defense of the(new) criminal justice system in England. As near as I can make out, if you have something in your house that I want or need to support my drug habit or for some other whimsicle need, I'm entitled to come in and take if I can, and you can't stop me if I turn my back on you, right? Hitler's probably really PO'd that he just didn't wait a for a few more decades before coming to the channel, heh, heh, heh.

 

[agricola]

Its nice to know that we would have dealt with Hitler whenever he decided to come.

By the way, Martin has lost his appeal, for the reasons already stated by myself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3010949.stm

 

[Intune]

Burglars and rapists taking classes in record numbers!

New Walking Backwards classes are making a killing in Jolly Ol England. The classes are overflowing with eager young criminals learning the ropes. DVD players, tv sets and torn nightclothes are being taken in as payment. Schools will also accept future royalties in court cases against homeowners. "It's about time they recognize us as equals. We work as hard as they do!" Said Chester Molester.

 

[Bog]

I'll bite.

Right.

Last week, having moved house, my friend left his jacket on the kitchen table. It being a glorious Summer's day, we left the back door open to have a breeze. We wandered out of the room for no more than five minutes, to check out emails and respond to any waiting messages. We returned to the kitchen.

Oh, bugger.

My friend's jacket's gone, and the back gate is gaping wide. This jacket contained:

A £400 pound pocket computer.
His doorkeys to his house, and a couple of letters with his address on
His cellphone.
His wallet - cards, cash, the whole shooting-match.
Plus the usual pocket-sundries of a technological existance.

Had we discovered this thief, in the course of his efforts, we have agreed that we'd do the natural thing. Bring him down with anything to hand (probably, this being the UK, a thrown half-brick) and then broken the limb carrying the coat.

Why do you think we'd do that? Apart from the obvious thing of a thrown half-brick being a lot faster than a running human?

Why would we have proceeded to hurt him?

Because pain is a lesson that people remember.

If a court had fined the mealy-mouthed so-and-so, he'd have probably stolen from someone else to pay it off. If he'd been given a custodial sentence, his time Inside would have taught him how not to get caught, and how to carry off bigger crimes. Pain teaches. Very little else does.

This whole thing about the shooting is a travesty. These two scumwads had been repeatedly breaking-and-entering, and harrassing the poor sod, and brandishing blades and blunts at him. He finally lost it, and plugged 'em.

He should have gotten a commendation for saving court-costs. Instead, he had his life destroyed far more than those theiving morons could ever have done.

'Course, since then, there's Dubya to deal with, and frankly that's put me off the US bigtime - Bush and his Speshl Guys are busily turning America into as bad a Gulag as the UK from where I sit. Gah. It makes me tired.

 

[CZ-75]

'Course, since then, there's Dubya to deal with, and frankly that's put me off the US bigtime - Bush and his Speshl Guys are busily turning America into as bad a Gulag as the UK from where I sit. Gah. It makes me tired.

Right, and you can stay where there's no hope or emigrate and try to make a difference someplace where things haven't totally gone to hell...yet. You're another vote against the Welfare and Big Brother state. Quitchyerbitchin'.