UK Homeowner Arrested After Suspected Burglars Shot

[squealpiggy]

The reason why someone chose to burglarize a home is irrelevant,

The verb is "burgle". Using terms like "burglarize" is completely stupid.

And to answer your point, the reason why somebody breaks into a home is vitally important. Did they break in to kill and eat everyone? Or did they see your laptop on the table and decide they'd have a try at kicking in the door and grabbing it?

the act is enough to justify both judgement in a court of law and retaliation by the home owner.

In the case of a break and enter and theft the theft is the lesser charge. In the case of break and enter and robbery the break-in is the lesser charge.

Suggest to a bullied kid, that capitulation didn't encourage continued bullying. I don't know what fantasy world you think you live in but in the real world criminals take the path of least resistance, and that is a very REAL FACT.

Yes they do. That means they will go for unoccupied houses. That's precisely my point: People don't become criminals so they can work hard. They want to bust into a place, steal stuff and leave. They don't say "Say, that guy we broke into didn't riddle us with bullets, we'll try that house again!" They might try the house again if they think it hasn't been secured. They probably won't if it has been properly secured unless they find items of particular value there that they couldn't carry properly.

If you have a gun and they really want to steal from you they might wait until you leave. Or if you have something really worth stealing they'll break in more quietly and murder you as you sleep. And then steal your gun.

Whether home A or B is burglarized

Burgled.

is again irrelevant,

If your house is more secure than your neighbour's then your neighbour's house is burgled. If your neighbour's house is secure then someone else is the victim. If everyone's house is secure they'll try another neighbourhood.

the ACTION is in progress -- Just because one home was impenetrable

No home is impenetrable. The idea is to change the door so it takes three or four kicks to bust it down instead of just one. For example.

and forced the criminal to choose another doesn't erase the fact that SOMEONE's home is getting burglarized.

And if someone has a gun and someone else doesn't by your rationale it still doesn't stop the crime. Unless you're advocated the execution of criminals.

And the same scenario is again created, where a homeowner should protect his home and his family by whatever means necessary.

I've highlighted the important word here.

Broad assumptions can be made to suit many ideals, the point at hand is that whatever circumstance that exists in the burglars choice of target is again, irrelevant. Who cares if grandma is giving Marijuana brownies to the kids in the house. It is their house and they have the freedom of choice to do whatever they choose within it. Still that doesn't justify the violation of home, or a home invasion.

Grandma? What? I think you've been at the marijuana brownies.

Criminals get victimised because:

1. They're less likely to report the crime
2. They have valuable assets like cash, drugs and guns -no need to fence anything
3. They may be rivals to the robbers

Justified or not, criminals are the most frequent victims of violent home invasions. This is a fact.

The law was introduced to relieve homeowner's from undue prosecution, when they are forced to defend their families and property.

Why did you put everything in bold? It doesn't make your arguments any less fallacious.

The law was introduced because the police doing their job and investigating killings is unpopular when you can argue that the victim has it coming. Politicians will endorse populist notions, even when they don't make sense.

Yes, that is the point! make it front page news if necessary ...... At some point regular hard-working citizens should STOP being the victim and start deterring criminals.

Or you could live in a society that has embraced progressive ideals and thus made everywhere safer for everyone without the need to have all and sundry packing heat. Like in Canada or in Britain.

Violence begets violence. The more violent the rhetoric in "self defense" screeds, the more violent crime in the state.

The mindset of the criminal changes immensely, when they know that every potential target home, has a potential gun-wielding, stand-his-ground homeowner.

Yes it does. Now every burglar has to be a potential gun wielding intruder.

[arraamis]

Yes it's OK to execute all kids that steal while they are crying and begging on their knees and not a threat..........

It's people like you that gives America the reputation of being full of thick fat ****s. It's OK for someone to shoot a defenceless 13 year old but the country is in uproar for shooting a kid attacking someone (Trayvon Martin). Your country is a cesspit of gormless ******s that have no understanding of whats morally right and wrong. ****ing dunces.......

I can see that you're clearly operating on less than a 62-IQ, so I'll give you a pass and not make you look bad for poor reading comprehension.

[arraamis]

The verb is "burgle". Using terms like "burglarize" is completely stupid.

And to answer your point, the reason why somebody breaks into a home is vitally important. Did they break in to kill and eat everyone? Or did they see your laptop on the table and decide they'd have a try at kicking in the door and grabbing it?



In the case of a break and enter and theft the theft is the lesser charge. In the case of break and enter and robbery the break-in is the lesser charge.



Yes they do. That means they will go for unoccupied houses. That's precisely my point: People don't become criminals so they can work hard. They want to bust into a place, steal stuff and leave. They don't say "Say, that guy we broke into didn't riddle us with bullets, we'll try that house again!" They might try the house again if they think it hasn't been secured. They probably won't if it has been properly secured unless they find items of particular value there that they couldn't carry properly.

If you have a gun and they really want to steal from you they might wait until you leave. Or if you have something really worth stealing they'll break in more quietly and murder you as you sleep. And then steal your gun.



Burgled.



If your house is more secure than your neighbour's then your neighbour's house is burgled. If your neighbour's house is secure then someone else is the victim. If everyone's house is secure they'll try another neighbourhood.



No home is impenetrable. The idea is to change the door so it takes three or four kicks to bust it down instead of just one. For example.



And if someone has a gun and someone else doesn't by your rationale it still doesn't stop the crime. Unless you're advocated the execution of criminals.



I've highlighted the important word here.



Grandma? What? I think you've been at the marijuana brownies.

Criminals get victimised because:

1. They're less likely to report the crime
2. They have valuable assets like cash, drugs and guns -no need to fence anything
3. They may be rivals to the robbers

Justified or not, criminals are the most frequent victims of violent home invasions. This is a fact.



Why did you put everything in bold? It doesn't make your arguments any less fallacious.

The law was introduced because the police doing their job and investigating killings is unpopular when you can argue that the victim has it coming. Politicians will endorse populist notions, even when they don't make sense.



Or you could live in a society that has embraced progressive ideals and thus made everywhere safer for everyone without the need to have all and sundry packing heat. Like in Canada or in Britain.

Violence begets violence. The more violent the rhetoric in "self defense" screeds, the more violent crime in the state.



Yes it does. Now every burglar has to be a potential gun wielding intruder.

Have you been boozing tonight ?????

You're not only contradicting yourself on a grand scale, but you're sounding almost as silly as that character "Own3d" who seems to own himself every-time he posts. ..... don't adopt his bad habits


Almost forgot to add:
Burgle and burglarize

In American English, the verb burgle, meaning to rob, is a humorous back-formation from burglar. Burgle is usually used facetiously, and burglarize is the preferred term in serious contexts.

[squealpiggy]

Have you been boozing tonight ?????

You're not only contradicting yourself on a grand scale, but you're sounding almost as silly as that character "Own3d" who seems to own himself every-time he posts. ..... don't adopt his bad habits

I guess this is just a more pretentious way of saying "Too long; Didn't read".

[Perro]

Those teens should have known better, bad parenting.

I was not intruding peoples' homes at any age.

[arraamis]

I guess this is just a more pretentious way of saying "Too long; Didn't read".

No! Its a definitive way of saying, your deviating from the topic at hand again, in order to not lose points -- A pretty basic tactic, that is easily recognized.

[arraamis]

I guess this is just a more pretentious way of saying "Too long; Didn't read".

Speaking of PRETENTIOUS ..... Its laughable for a Canadian to presume to know why specific laws are established in the US. All laws are not, as you would assume, simply for political gratification and do actually serve a purpose -- One that outsider's like yourself, may not fully comprehend.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

[Isaac Hunt]

The view people are taking on this seems to be dependant on which country they live in and the percieved threat in the burglary. In the States the stakes are very high as the homeowner may have a gun this makes the burgler a much more dangerous proposition. In the UK the burgler generally won't have to run the risk of being shot unless he is robbing a farmer's house where the owner might have a shot gun. In the UK you are less likely to encounter a burgler that is armed also the threat and percieved threat level is not the same so it is easy to see why there are differences in opinion depending where you live.
If you live in the States and see violent crime stories all day on TV you are being programed for a shoot first ask questions later attitude. I know because I have lived there. I have a lot more sympathy with a US burglary victim shooting the intruder than if it was in the UK because the threat level is a lot higher and even more so in Jamaica where I have lived also.

[Daniel Alpha]

[Perro]

Don't waste your time, not only will i attempt to shoot someone IF they break into my home. I will also stamp them with an anniversary date where me and my brothers go and hunt him down giving him a brutal beat down once a year.

You sound like a savage, bro.