Met boss backs attacking burglars

mkpdavies · 04-12-2004, 04:22 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

Quote:

People should be entitled to use any force necessary to defend themselves against burglars, the country's most senior police officer has said.

At last we get some sense out of the police. If anyone has so little respect for other people, that they would break INTO phpbb_a persons home, they deserve all they get. More than that though, a person has every right to defend themselves and their property. I have always said I wouldn't take any risks if someone broke INTO phpbb_my home, I would do everything in my power to make sure they were incapable of attacking me or my wife. To hell with the consequences!

Quote:

People should be prosecuted only when there was evidence of gratuitous violence, he told the Daily Telegraph.

Fair enough, once the guy is knocked out, then you stop!

Quote:

He said the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999, had distorted the self-defence issue.

"[He] did shoot the burglar as he was running away. He did use a gun that was illegal.

"The Martin case skewed everything and it was the wrong case to concentrate on."

I felt sorry for Martin. He was harrased by the same people over and over again, the police did nothing. How was he to know the guy wasn't just running to get a weapon of his own, or to get back-up? The gun issue isn't clear cut either, as farmers need them to protect their animals from foxes etc. I thought this was a turning point, where people started saying the protection of criminals had gone too far!

Anthony Butcher · 04-12-2004, 09:21 AM

This raises some questions; for instance are we to be allowed to beat up kids rescuing a ball from a back garden or just mucking about in other people's gardens? Are security guards allowed to attack anyone on private property at the wrong time? Does this mean that we are allowed to capture burglars now?

I think that it would need to be clarified that there has to be a genuine threat to the property or the owners. We need to be careful not to get INTO phpbb_a shoot first and ask questions later society.

mkpdavies · 04-12-2004, 03:43 PM

Personaly I would only go on the offensive if I found someone creeping around inside my home. If it is someone hanging around in my garden they would get a firm but fair warning.

MrMoor · 04-12-2004, 08:35 PM

the trouble is if a burglar is wounded he can sue you for loss of earnings (no doubt being unable to climb through windows etc). If the burglar is fatally injured he cannot take legal action. In my opinion this as it stands is a greater danger to public order. If a burglar is wounded he should not be able to claim if he was wounded in someone else's property when he was not invited.

If he was killed then there should be an investigation. The householder should not be responsible fro protecting his or her property, many burglars are armed so reasonable force is not an option, it will be too late if he has a gun or a knife.

Obviously a dead burglar trussed up covered in cigarette burn would be a bit too much. A broken neck etc administered by a frightened home owner however is completely acceptable. The sooner people realise that they may be going out of a house in a body bag the sooner burglaries will drop.

Anyway, we used to have life sentences for burglaries, which government abolished that?

James StGeorge · 04-12-2004, 08:57 PM

Good to see one policeman backing the public, most of them try to pretend we should call them and wait a few days!

To go with such a sensible attitude we do need the right to have a gun, at least in the home. Burglars are likely to be young and male and victims most often not. Even the right to use any force is only a help to the reasonably fit and strong, probably males. Burglars should have no rights the moment they enter someone else's home. If you miss and only incapacitate them you should probably not finish them off! Unless they move.

Anthony Butcher · 05-12-2004, 02:04 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...389349,00.html

Quote:

THE government is to review the law on murder to give better protection to householders who kill burglars in their homes, writes Jonathon Carr-Brown.

David Blunkett, the home secretary, believes existing legislation is tilted too far in the criminals’ favour.

The Tories are to give full backing to a private member’s bill from Patrick Mercer, the MP for Newark, which offers complete freedom from prosecution to homeowners who take any action against an intruder so long as it is not “grossly disproportionate”.

Mercer, one of whose constituents was shot and killed by Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for five years, said last night: “I wish to rebalance the law in favour of the victim rather than the aggressor.”

04-12-2004, 03:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,832 Party: Libertarian Party	Personaly I would only go on the offensive if I found someone creeping around inside my home. If it is someone hanging around in my garden they would get a firm but fair warning. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-12-2004, 09:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,140 Party: None	This raises some questions; for instance are we to be allowed to beat up kids rescuing a ball from a back garden or just mucking about in other people's gardens? Are security guards allowed to attack anyone on private property at the wrong time? Does this mean that we are allowed to capture burglars now? I think that it would need to be clarified that there has to be a genuine threat to the property or the owners. We need to be careful not to get INTO phpbb_a shoot first and ask questions later society.

04-12-2004, 08:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
MrMoor Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 259	the trouble is if a burglar is wounded he can sue you for loss of earnings (no doubt being unable to climb through windows etc). If the burglar is fatally injured he cannot take legal action. In my opinion this as it stands is a greater danger to public order. If a burglar is wounded he should not be able to claim if he was wounded in someone else's property when he was not invited. If he was killed then there should be an investigation. The householder should not be responsible fro protecting his or her property, many burglars are armed so reasonable force is not an option, it will be too late if he has a gun or a knife. Obviously a dead burglar trussed up covered in cigarette burn would be a bit too much. A broken neck etc administered by a frightened home owner however is completely acceptable. The sooner people realise that they may be going out of a house in a body bag the sooner burglaries will drop. Anyway, we used to have life sentences for burglaries, which government abolished that?

04-12-2004, 08:57 PM	#5 (permalink)
James StGeorge Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 65	Good to see one policeman backing the public, most of them try to pretend we should call them and wait a few days! To go with such a sensible attitude we do need the right to have a gun, at least in the home. Burglars are likely to be young and male and victims most often not. Even the right to use any force is only a help to the reasonably fit and strong, probably males. Burglars should have no rights the moment they enter someone else's home. If you miss and only incapacitate them you should probably not finish them off! Unless they move.