If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
burglers' rights
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
sorry if this has been done before but have just been arguing about this with some people in the pub and the only response i could get from them was "c'est la vie"
if someone breaks into your home and hurts themself is it your fault? is it right that a burlger has the right to sue you for tripping over your stairs?
in my view, anyone who walks onto another persons property without permission should lose all their rights. but the current system here doesn't agree with that. why?
if someone breaks into your home and hurts themself is it your fault? is it right that a burlger has the right to sue you for tripping over your stairs?
in my view, anyone who walks onto another persons property without permission should lose all their rights. but the current system here doesn't agree with that. why?
0
Comments
I never stated that.
We don't live in an anarchist or Marxist society, so private property exists. A person then has the right to defend it as s/he chooses.
yes he was a bit of a nutter and he committed a crime, but would he have committed that crime if the laws had been less lenient?
i will not be interveiwing the guy as to what he's carrying and if his intentions are to hurt anyone. i will attack. no good standing there threatening them while you walk backwards in abject terror.
you will loose. i'll attack first as i believe that gives me the best chance of survival, the best chance of protecting my family.
if it is clearly a young helpless looking kid i might hesitate and demand he leaves but ...
that burgular broke into his house, he felt threatened, he had a gun at hand, he shot...im pretty sure in prison he felt terrible about it at one point but has come to accept it now.
As for the question, if a burgular breaks into your house then all his rights are left at the door, i believe a person has the right to attack the burgular at all means neccessary, why shouldn't they? don't give any of that bullshit that they are humans and deserve their respect for their life, no they don't, i might not go with the intent of ending their life there and then but would intend to seriously hurt them.
exactly. if the burgler loses all his rights as soon as s/he steps onto your property then questions about his/her motives and intentions don't come into play.
farmer martin went over the top by shooting someone who was fleeing. thats wrong becuase your safety is no longer an issue, though i'm sure he didn't measn to kill the guy.
getting tough on crime and criminals should mean tough. the burglar should know beyond any doubt whatsoever that he loses any rights whatsoever the moment he even starts trying to break in to a house. what can possibly be wrong with that being enshrined in law?
nothing.
so why isn't it? that's what i don't understand
because we live in the Uk, a stupid corrupt government with no sense around it, just look at the laws of today, even the burgular who robbed that farmer's house got out before the farmer did, i wonder what it will be like in 10 years here?
People know that burgulars should have no rights whenever they enter another persons home, my friend who is very against people breaking into his house said he was going to go up and ask a policeman ' would it be a crime if i decided to kill a man in my home' that wouldn't be a smart idea, would it?nope, the police would probably think he was planning a murder and follow and check up on him.
you wait till i get in government
Idealist, huh?
I don't think burglars should have any right to sue for compensation. That you cannot put barbed wire on top of your garden fence because burglars could cut themselves is ludicrous.
However no-one has the right to take another person's life unless they are defending themselves. In the case of Tony Martin, he shot a kid who was running away in the back with a shotgun. That wasn't self-defence, that was murder. That he got his conviction changed to manslaughter and was freed after 3-odd years is a fucking disgrace.
Funnily enough the ultra right wing press, usually quick to complain about murderers and robbers being let free after serving short sentences, doesn't have much of a problem about this particular child murderer being freed after serving only 3 years. I'm sure the fact that the intruders were gypsies and Martin is a good old-fashioned Tory-voting white British farmer has nothing to do with it.
Let me put it another way. If he had gone out and shot again the burglar who survived as he lay on the grass injured, would you still say he was within his right to do so?
:rolleyes:
thing is though, in a case like that, how can you be sure the intruder is running away. you don't know what their intentions are. he could have been running to the kitchen to get a knife. i just don't think it's as clear cut and simple as murder.
What I find disturbing is that many people, including much of our righteous press, are not questioning the circumstances of the killing but simply saying it's okay to murder someone if he breaks into your house.
There is a possibility that Martin did not know the kid was running away. But the jury found without doubt that he was fully aware the kid was running away trying to escape, and he still went and shot him in the back. Under those circumstances the killing qualifies as a murder. The jury could be wrong, but chances are it isn't. I am not aware of Martin claiming otherwise during the trial and stay in prison. If anything, he refused to apologise or show remorse for the killing (until his £100,000 interview with the Mirror today), which reinforces the view that he did intend to kill the burglar, probably thinking he got what he deserved.
i don't read that kind of newspaper :no:
anyway, sorry to harp on, but another point. if the daily mirror (or whoever it was) didn't put so much pressure (and pay loads of money presumably) for Martin to plead not guilty, would he have pleaded guilty and accepted the consequences? if he had done that, there wouldn't have been any story in it for the papers and the whole thing would have blown over ages ago.
too much press interference, it sickens me. it's why nothing ever gets sorted out!
For one thing, if it's dark and someone has broken into your house, how long do you give that person to prove he/she doesn't have a weapon...or buddies in your house too?
The homeowner has the right to defend him/herself...and a defense of "I felt threatened" should be enough.
If the laws were on the homeowner's side...there would be less burgleries in the first place.
Ah yes..but do you and would you have a gun?
I'd like a gun.
To use on yourself I assume? Seeing as how to use it on another would go against their personal rights.
Nope. Not if it is NOT used on a person.
farmers always have guns. i understand why he reached for his gun in yet another frustrating and frightening attack on his home.
when your sat at home watching telly or having a bath, a nap or whatever ...the system we live in suddenly doesn't just label you as a criminal but a murderer ...martin had no intention of going out killing anyone that night. no intention of breaking the law ...he had said if those bastards come again i'll shoot the fuckers ...manslaughter for a man sat at home minding his own bizz is a more fitting charge than murder.
i'm not suggesting having the right to kill an intruder but i am saying you shouild not only have the right to attack an intruder in your house before they attack you ...but that it should be deemed the 'normal' thing to do. it is a reaction of survival and protection. they shouldn't be there! most 'creepers' are armed with a knife or razor ...be nice and liberal about it until you experience the terror of it. then you will forever be changed and ready ...for the next time.
if you think that sitting down and making the guy a cup of tea is best then you live with it when your daughter is raped or slashed etc ...in my book you will have failed your family in the most basic of human ways.
is the big menacing figure in front of you after property or flesh? you ask ...i'll attack ...and the law should be firmly on my side seeing as i was at home with no evil intent whatsoever on my mind that day. the world is becoming ever more violent ...yet you still want to stick up for the bastard perpetrator and threat to your family ...if the guy dies ...the law should still be on the side of the man who was sitting at home planning no evil that night.
sticking up for the burglar is very sad and misguided ...start a vburglars union? recognise it as a trade with expected pay and conditions? don't make me fucking cry!
spend a yeart in strangeways jail in manchester ...north of england, listen to these guys and then tell me you understand.