[Closed] The lad that's been stabbed and killed whilst robbing!

I'm with lodrick on this and we are both from the same part of the world where this type of activity is far too frequent. Fear would force me to react first and ask questions later I think as long as the guy ends up in hospital and not the morgue I suspect in the real world I would not end up in prison.

burglary = bad , killing = bad, two wrongs dont make a right.

Yes, but at the actual time of someone breaking and entering your house how you could possibly know that it is 'only' a burglary?!

I agree things like rape/beatings/torture are extremely unlikely but I doubt that's much comfort at the time to somebody faced with masked intruders in the middle of the night, so you could hardly blame someone for lashing out.

If you could see into the future and know that some dudes in your house were definitely only going to rob your TV and stuff and then walk out, it would all be fine, no?

Surely the crux of the matter is that you would have no idea what is going on and would be shitting yourself. Of course you could plot the best, calmest and most logical course of action if you had a crystal ball.

[i]Nobody seemed to know where John called home
He just drifted into town and stayed all alone.
He didn't say much, kind of quiet and shy
And if you spoke at all, you'd just said hi to Big John.[/i]

Junkyard - Member
then you could be charged with an offence the same as if you were tooled up in the street for purely self protection reasons. Why not use it only if they attack you rather than because they enter your property?
Two wrongs dont make a right

OK there is one thing of being convicted for the crime committed But how about being tried
for the reason one committed the crime on the other person/persons?

The law simply needs a large update.

I'd take no chances with an intruder. I live in a remote area, nobody is going to hear a shout for help here and even gun shots are not uncommon due to hunting (even at night).

On the plus side, nobody is going to hear a shout for help here and even gun shots are not uncommon even at night. And I have a lot of space to bury bodies too..

OK there is one thing of being convicted for the crime committed But how about being tried for the reason one committed the crime on the other person/persons?

The law simply needs a large update.

Just watching ufc on extreme, could easily be some of these keyboard warriors... ground and pound that burglar!

On the plus side, nobody is going to hear a shout for help here and even gun shots are not uncommon even at night. And I have a lot of space to bury bodies too..

[img] [/img]

I was in a house converted to flats one night when a big gang of lads kicked the front door in and steamed the flats in turn. They didn't get as far as my flat but I was so hyped up I'd have killed the first three through the door and thrown the fourth out the window. I wasn't thinking or reasoning about just cause or reasonable force. I was shitting myself and was completely off the wall. It's not about possessions or insurance. Try being there before casting judgement.

I have no idea what happened in this particular situation but it is a pretty terrifying thing to go through from my experience. It is entirely possible that perfectly normal people have been pushed to respond in a completely abnormal way by an extreme incident and while death is an extreme punishment for an apparent robbery, the mitigating circumstances of this need to be taken into account.

Oh, and yes. It was in Liverpool.

@drac ex-infantry, have killed and quite happy to do it again. Using a keyboard to bludgeon someone would make quite a novel twist though 🙂

My update is I would simply batter the person/persons.
There in my home not invited but broken in.

I know il think what I would say in the courts in my defence, then make them a cup of tea

*crosses gwj72's remote house off list*

wow samuri certain amount of honesty there.

Usual load of pish being spoken on here on this

I go back to this

TandemJeremy - Member
Find a single case where someone has been prosecuted for defending themselves and their property.

You are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself, you loved ones and your property and reasonable force is what a jury of your peers think is reasonable

And I have a lot of space to bury bodies too.

burglary = bad , killing = bad, two wrongs dont make a right.

I think they do, according to the king james bible...

Wasn't Tony Martin the victim of repeated burglaries before he shot the fleeing intruder, and frustrated because the police reaction had been poor?

I've run out. Could you bury a couple of mine for me ?

Why is it always vegans that end up being serial killers?

Must be the hard wired desire for meat.

Agree with most on this. Live by the sword....

They are breaking the law by entering your property and putting the lives of you and your family at risk. A complete shoeing and a few shotgun pellets in their arse as they are leaving is reasonable force in my book.

I got burgled a few years ago, we all slept throughout and didnt hear a thing. Afterwards, I made the usual comments of wishing I'd have woke up, they'd have got a right shoeing, etc, but you know what? - I think I'd have just shat meself. It's one thing being a hardcase on the internet, and a completely different situation when it happens in real life. I have little or no sympathy for anybody injured whilst robbing or burgling people, you shouldnt be doing it in the first place. Just dont know if I'm the sort of bloke to do the injuring.

@drac ex-infantry, have killed and quite happy to do it again

STEADY THERE FELLA
If you have to then fair enough, but "quite happy to"?
You're just giving fuel to the military haters there buddy.
Me, well I've got a great big english bull terrier. We'd mount a coordinated attack. 😀

Man trained to do killinz likes killinz.

We are looking at this as citizens.

I think this is what the US police refer to as a "killing" as opposed to a homicide e.g. no civilians involved.

The homeowner seemed a normal bloke from what I can gather this morning. Obviously just a hard bastard who takes no shit once you cross his threshold, literally 😯

Thing is, I can't understand what the problem was...it sounded like four guys broke in carrying a Middle Eastern dessert. Now, I know it's not that popular anymore, but killing to death is a bit overboard.

carrying a Middle Eastern dessert

killing to death

??

[img] [/img]

Four guys tried to surprise the owner with Baklava didn't they?

And he killed one of them to death...maybe he preferred Turkish Delight?

Junkyard:

possessions are not worth more than lifes

Really?

My toe nail clippings are worth more to me than the lives of theiving scumbags that put on balaclavas and try to force their way into my house.
Sorry, but some people just don't deserve to be alive.

burglary = bad , killing = bad, two wrongs dont make a right.
I think they do, according to the king james bible...

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

wrightyson:
The homeowner seemed a normal bloke from what I [s]can gather[/s] read in The Sun this morning. Obviously just a hard bastard who takes no shit once you cross his threshold, literally

...also, I don't think anyone would accept some shit, literally, crossing threshold or not.

Be a right mess.

balaclavas

Oops...****! 😳

[img] http://wlw3.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a96b3d3e970b0134887ba0d8970c-500wi [/img]

Thegreattape, it is a burglary. You cannot rob people in a house. Burglary occurs the minute they enter the property without permission of owner and intend to steal (or list of others) so it occurs before any potential robbery. If they have weapons if becomes an aggravated burglary which I imagine is what this actually is. The reason post offices or shops are robberies not burglaries is because they haven't entered as a tresspasser. Simple!! Burglary not robbery.

The worst thing is that the burgular had the same surname as me and I only live down the road. He is no relation, i've checked!

this is exactly the reasons i've set up my house like a cross between the 'home alone' films and 'funhouse'.... if somebody breaks in and gets past the paint cans on ropes, firecrackers and other booby (hehehehe booby!) traps then they get a chance to ride in the go-karts and win an alba boom-box.

@drac ex-infantry, have killed and quite happy to do it again

STEADY THERE FELLA
If you have to then fair enough, but "quite happy to"?

Bad turn of phrase. I'd much rather not shoot anyone, it's not exactly fun.
But in a small remote house with valuables upstairs, it's highly likely we would come into contact. And I am ready for foxes!

The son and his partner have been released without charge apparently and only the father is still in custody.

Reports have suggested the 4 men were wearing balaclavas and at least one was carrying a knife. Seems like a case of appropriate force when faced with greater numbers some of whom are possibly armed with knives themselves.

One less low life to pay benefits and fund jail time for.

The worst thing is that the burgular had the same surname as me

Dunno if that is the [i]worse[/i] thing about all this....

You are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself, you loved ones and your property and reasonable force is what a jury of your peers think is reasonable

There is a general misconception, fuelled by the right wing press, that if you defend yourself in your home "vigorously" then you will go to prison. There is little evidence for this and the high profile case above was extreme. Tony Martin sat in wait IIRC for the intruder and IMO that is going too far hence he was prosecuted. Even then he received a great deal of support from the public.
A more recent case involved two brothers chasing a man down the street and seriously assaulting him, again possibly going too far however they and their family had been through a terrible ordeal. They were released largely after a public outcry.

My brother in law is a criminal barrister and a good friend of mine is a judge (not sure how that happened 8O) and they both talk a lot of IMO "common sense" in the vast majority of cases bad people are punished and "good" people arent. As TJ comments its about "peers" and most judges and lawyers are "peers" also. Its in nobodies interest to prosecute people defending their property as long as they dont go too far and I suspect you would have to go a long way to exceed the general publics perception of "too far"
For that reason I keep a large Maglite torch at the side of my bed and if I wake in the night and hear an intruder (unlike some above) I would be terrified but my overwhelming priority would be to defend my family and if in any confusion my maglite came into contact with his head I dont think a court in the land would put me in prison.

Indeed surfer - I have never actually seen a case of someone defending themselves being prosecuted.

No one on this thread has been able to come up with one either.

I think that Mr Martin had pretty much lost it by that point. He'd had a LOT of shit from these criminals over a long period.
When the police are unable to help you for such a long time something's going to give. Yes, a pump action shotgun is overkill (excuse the pun) but a person cannot continue to live like that.

Glitch bump

I'm in the mood for killinz.

shall I get you the JLS tour dates?

As regards the robbing/burglary comments, I can't see the local villains, saying to each other let's go out burglaring, nope they go out robbin' or thievin' innit. Thats what I meant in my thread title!

The latest news is the the dead burglar was already on bail having been arrested for another burglary in the Midlands earlier this month.

Sounds like Peter Flanagan performed a public service.

you wanted killinz?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Surfer it sounds like you are talking about the job in high Wycombe which I earlier posted a link too, in which case they were found guilty of GBH, originally given a prison sentence but it was reduced on appeal to a community order. So again it was decided that chasing them down teh street wasn't reasonable force. That is the issue here what is "reasonable", hitting someone with a bat whilst they run away isn't deemed "reasonable".

Wrighyson, you'd be surprised they know they are out burgling and some of these burglars are quite intelligent, the thick ones go shoplifting! plus in 8 years I've never known a burglar, burglar with a balaclava unless they knew the occupants, ie it was over drugs or something like that.

shall I get you the JLS tour dates?

I will watch each concert and do the killinz with a JLS theme after each one.

I know someone who caught a burglar in his kitchen. He smacked him over the head with a set of those old-fashioned iron kitchen scales, breaking the burglar's jaw. The burglar was unarmed. The police were not in the slightest bit interested in prosecuting him for the assault.

So short of lying in wait with a gun, and shooting someone in the back as they run away, I would suggest that "reasonable force" has a pretty wide scope.

you have boss morals Big Respects to you innit
i think everyone agrees with you but it becomes unreasonable if he then jumps on top of him and continues to hit him over and over again with said scales.

Surfer it sounds like you are talking about the job in high Wycombe which I earlier posted a link too, in which case they were found guilty of GBH, originally given a prison sentence but it was reduced on appeal to a community order. So again it was decided that chasing them down teh street wasn't reasonable force. That is the issue here what is "reasonable", hitting someone with a bat whilst they run away isn't deemed "reasonable".

Thats exactly my point. In spite of the fact that the law (and most reasonable people) came to the conclusion that they went too far they were still not imprisoned which reinforces my point that using quite a significant amount of force to defend your family and property will onlt ever get you into trouble if you exceed "accepted" boundaries by a significant amount. In the above case they almost killed the intruder and beat him continuously far after he ceased to be a threat. Even in that case there was no appetite to lock them up!
I just wanted to argue against the myth that if an intruder enters you home you are only allowed to punch him on the nose. In reality if he was found at the bottom of the stairs with 4 broken ribs and facial injuries then nobody from the Police to the CPS would be particularly interested.

Death by the scales of justice!! Teh irony!!

i think everyone agrees with you but it becomes unreasonable if he then jumps on top of him and continues to hit him over and over again with said scales.

I think that's right. He attacked the burglar with an improvised weapon, that happened to be at hand, and injured him to the extent that he no longer posed a threat. If he'd bludgeoned the burglar to death, having already knocked him out, that would have been a different matter.

This seems like common sense to me, as I'm sure it would to any jury.

I'm sure we can all agree that the correct procedure for just this eventuality wasn't followed in this case. Knives indeed? Pah

[img] [/img]

Munqe chick - I'm aware of what burglary and aggravated burglary entail. You can still have a robbery within a house though, whether or not a burglary is also taking place. R v Clark.

If 4 masked men broke into muy house I'd shit myself. I'd fear primarily for Mrs. S's safety and would do anything to stop the event from continuing. I.e. I would do anything to get them to not be there anymore.

Mr. Flanagan succeeded in this. His family and himself are physically unharmed. The burglars left the scene - one of them is now deceased as a result of the reasonable force applied.

If Mr. Flanagan is tried for murder then we should all head down to a peaceful protest in London. An important and positive precedent could be set with this case.

EDIT: those Bombers are particularly beautiful binners. I thank you.

derek - you do not have enough detail to know if the level of force was reasonable or not. That is what a trial is for if there is enough evidence to charge him.

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

Unless Flanaghan's actions were as extreme as those of Tony Martin's (and we don't know yet), there is no way a jury would find him guilty.

Well it looks like there aren't going to be any witnesses from the deceased side does it?? With "mates" like that who needs knife wielding enemies??

Thegreatape I can't find R v clarke, everything on t'internet refers to Australian law, wanted to read it out of interest. Yup I agree there is a technical robbery but my point (which I didn't explain) was CPS would NEVER charge with robbery and Joe public gets confused and talks about "being robbed" when normally they haven't they've been burgled!

I nearly stepped on a bumblebee earlier. My appetite for killinz is somewhat diminished.

I agree that the two terms are frequently misused or misunderstood, so I see what you were trying to explain. Clark got 11yrs for aggravated burglary and robbery after assaulting an old lady in her house whilst pinching a small amount of money from her. I've no doubt you're correct about the CPS - I haven't had the pleasure of them for quite a few years thankfully!

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

I can speculate widely with the best of them and I strongly suspect (if we believe what is in the public domain) that he will be perceived as acting resonably.
Given that there were 4 intruders and at least one was armed then he had reason to believe his life was in danger.
Its unlikely that (given the victim was carried out of the property by his accomplices) that he was alone with the victim for long or that he inflicted a prolonged attack on him as his accomplices would have likely either intervened or have fled without him (which they didnt)
In my head I think the wounds were inflicted in the melee and 4 against 1/2 I would be surprised if he was prosecuted.

I nearly stepped on a bumblebee earlier. My appetite for killinz is somewhat diminished.

Sicko, I bet you got a real buzz out of it too.

Thegreatape..wow the CPS did a double whammy there with that! Wonder how they did both offences, normally they chicken out and just run with one! Interesting, I'll have a look when I'm back at work and can get access to PNLD, alawys interested in cases like that.

oh that was a barbed and stinging attack there cougar

derek - you do not have enough detail to know if the level of force was reasonable or not. That is what a trial is for if there is enough evidence to charge him.

Now it might be reasonable, it might not. We simply do not know right now

Not sure I agree with this. What could be considered 'too much' force against 4 guys in balaclava's armed with (at least) 1 knife?

They have it within their means to inflict a bloody, painful and horrific death on you and possibly your family. If this doesn't constitute a reaosn to use any force at all within your disposal, what on earth does?

Please don't tar me with the 'internet warrior/fantasist' brush as just because I am suggesting that you should be allowed to use
this kind of force within the law under certain extrene circumstances does not mean I think I am capable of it myself, but that doesn't change my point.

I'm not suggesting that if you use force and they run off you have carte blanche to chase them and inflict violence, but whilst they are in your house if they're carrying a weapon like a knife it's an awful lot to ask someone to remain calm, rational and employ logical thinking to resolve the situation under such extreme stress.

Edit- apologies if your post was made before some of the more detailed info appeared in the news etc.

Duggan - one aspect would be what was the stabbed boy doing at the time? Was he still a threat when the fatal blow was struck? Was he the one with the knife?

If he is coming at you with a knife and you stab him then probably reasonable - if he has been scared off and is trying to get out of the door then its not reasonable to chase him and stab him.

Similarly was it multiple blows? ie the first one could be reasonable - the second onwards he is no longer a threat so not reasonable.

Its considerations such as this that a jury will decide if its reasonable ( assuming enough evidence / chance of conviction for a prosecution)

I think, once a person feels for their own or families safety, in their own home, which should be the safest environment imaginable, then nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

if you don't like it, don't burglez!

i reckon if that became law, burgleriezes would plummet pretty quick! A short spell as a paid for guest of HRH isnt really a deterent for these people.

IIRC, Tony martin was being terrorised by these kids for months, they had it coming to them.

then nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

Yup - that is what the law is now. What you cannot do is continue to inflict violence once the threat is gone. Tony Martin shot an unarmed boy in the back as he ran away. He was no threat to Martin at that point

Edit- @TJ^^^

Yeah I agree that if they are running away and for example you strike them (with whatever) as they are exiting your window than is more complex..I think I see your original point now.

Still, I guess by that point you still might be working under the assumption (severley frighetend) that they are going to a van and/or their mates to return with their own weapon.

Also, for people not used to these kind of situations it seems a lot to ask for them to instinctively know how much force is neccesary or reasonable. I could expect a Policeman or a Soldier to be a good judge of this.

For someone who has never been in a fight before in their lives, it is surely impossible to get this right first time when you are terrified and presumably not thinking straight if at all. If you under-judge it, you will most likely get pasted, over-judge it and you risk being on a charge yourself (regardless of how many times this does or doesn't actually happen).

It's an impossible issue to get any 'correct' answer on, but I see your point. I think I would always sway towards the householder though, after all it is the intruder who is responsible for the situation exisitng at all. It seems unfair to pain-stakingly unpick and analyse every action of an armed robbery victim in court given the the extreme cicumstances and lightening quick decisions that have to be made, though I concede it is neccesary.

From the few cases I have seen come to court you have to go seriously OTT to get into significant trouble. See Martin and the high Wycombe case.

An acquaintance of mine was being harassed by a gang who tried to break into his house. No weapons tho. He hit one with an axe that he just happened to have to hand ( he is a tree surgeon) Put the lad in hospital with a fairly serious injury. Was prosecuted and got a small fine and no jail time. GBH but mitigated or something. Now imagine if he had hit someone with the axe not in self defence - he would have been in serious trouble

If he is coming at you with a knife and you stab him then probably reasonable

nothing is off limits, one should be allowed to do whatever is deemed required to ensure their own and families safety.

thieving nasty scum got what he deserved. no sympathy at all 😐

Also no sympathy :?He put himself in this position.
You reap what you sow.

so you value your things above life, your moral compass is as broken as the thiefs.

not above life. but definitely above scum like this 😯

You teach logic and ethics dont you? I can tell by the way you construct a strong and powerful logical argument where you both deny the point and then reaffirm the point I made. Only an expert could do it in so few words.