What would you do to a burgular in your home?

[FearlessFreep]

Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah:

Better deterrent if it's outside...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Good point. I'll concede that.



I'll concede that too. The impression I got from your posts (wrongly, I should try not to draw assumptions too much ) is that it just sounded as though there was little in the way of investigation provided it seemed a legit case.



Don't forget about serial killings or accidental killings, when people don't know the victim. These cases are in the minority, but my problem was that it seemed as though these minority could get away with murder more easily than they would under our law (now and again, there are a number of prolific, high-profile cases in the UK of this sort of nature, and I'm sure there are over in the states too) however you’ve already stated that a more thorough investigation takes place that I thought (which was no to little investigation). There are some very cold, intelligent, calculating people out there that would be able to commit a crime unknown to all but the most thorough investigations. Again, these people/cases are a minority - it's just my personal view that all bases should be covered.

The statistical likelihood of falling victim to a serial killer is on par with winning the lottery. Can it happen? Yes, but there are some odd's that are so remote making laws specifically for them causes more problems than they solve.

Again, I completely understand your law, and think it is effective - I just personally cannot justify having a 'blanket' law that covers any intruder and allows the use of deadly force in all such scenarios - I think each case should be judged on it's own merit and a decision made as to whether the defendant used more than a reasonable amount of force as I don't believe in allowing deadly force unless absolutely neccessary.

That's the problem, however, in making a law about 'subjective reasonableness'....that will change from prosecutor to prosecutor....and HEAVEN FORBID your intruder be a minority of some sort who's supporters hound the prosecutor in to determing you were NOT 'subjectively reasonable'.....then you're facing a prosecution built on a political agenda. NO, I like my terms spelled out clearly in black and white....'You are allowed to use lethal force against anyone who unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or remains in your occupied dwelling.' There's no ambiguity for some rogue prosecutor to pull a 'Duke Lacross' on you.

What would be perfect, in my opinion? Your law of allowing deadly force, provided that any in encounter where somebody was killed by the defending party, there was a thorough investigation to determine that killing the intruder was completely legitimate in the name of defence. Does that happen? If so, I will concede my argument.

In ANY shooting there is a thorough investigation to determine if the shooting was within the bounds of the law......then in Missouri there is what is called a 'Coroners Inquest' where citizens are called in to review the evidence, almost like a jury, to determine if any further action appears to be necessary with the prosecutor.....they merely look at the facts, and look at the law. If the facts show the citizen acted under the bounds of the law, no further action is taken.

Curious though, how would you feel about our law if the penalty for burglars was MUCH higher than it is? That's where I feel the problem is - intruders getting let off with poor penalties (assuming they aren't killed by the defender ). In my opinion, you commit a crime then you're really going to pay for it dearly to make you think twice about doing it in the first place, and to deter people from breaking the law again. I am a firm believer in capital punshiment for particularly heinous crimes, for example.

Here's the problem with the Western legal system.....it is not effective as a deterrent to crime. Why? Well, in psychology they teach us that a 'punishment' needs three things to be effective.

1) You have to believe that you're likely to get caught.
2) You have to believe that the punishment is severe enough to deter the behavior
3) Punishment must be reasonably contemporaneous with the crime.

Ergo, Western Legal proceedings are IMPOTENT as a crime deterrent.....IF you get caught, you MIGHT get prosecuted sometime in the next year, and you MIGHT go to jail for a short time.

The reason that THIS acts as an effective deterrent, i.e. the castle doctrine.....is that IF you get caught, your punishment is SWIFT, SURE and FINAL!

Merely upping the penalty of Burglary won't prevent burglary.....except in the sense that once a criminal gets caught, he'll be out of circulation and not committing crimes. That's why the wear-housing aspect of Western crime control is it's only effective attribute....that they can't commit crimes when they are locked up.

 

[The_Fish]

Interesting, valid points. Something for me to think about, you're speaking a lot of sense.

Thank you for an insightful and friendly discussion/debate, something I haven't had (the insightful and friendly part anyway) in some time.

 

[terryl965]

Hey folks! I found it! The best anti-burglar device ever!! :uhyeah:

Ma-caver that maybe the best devise ever. Thank you

 

[Sukerkin]

Post#142 by Mac above is one that is applicable to all levels of crime and is one that our governments need to seriously address.

I can't speak for all people, clearly, but I feel that the enforcement of the law in England these days is more about extracting revenue from the 'mostly honest', who want to abide by legislation, than it is about preventing crime and punishing the guilty.

The criminal justice system must be seen as a deterrent rather than a minor inconvenience if it is to work effectively. One thing that has to change, in my view, is the overly lenient treatment of so-called 'minors' - we've had a number of very high profile murders and near-fatal assaults by mid-teens in this country in recent years. For such things my Ghenghis-Khan gene kicks in as in such cases the identity of the guilty is sure and my normal reservations about the death-penalty are put aside when 'reasonable doubt' is removed from the equation.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Interesting, valid points. Something for me to think about, you're speaking a lot of sense.

Thank you for an insightful and friendly discussion/debate, something I haven't had (the insightful and friendly part anyway) in some time.

Like wise.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Post#142 by Mac above is one that is applicable to all levels of crime and is one that our governments need to seriously address.

I can't speak for all people, clearly, but I feel that the enforcement of the law in England these days is more about extracting revenue from the 'mostly honest', who want to abide by legislation, than it is about preventing crime and punishing the guilty.

The criminal justice system must be seen as a deterrent rather than a minor inconvenience if it is to work effectively. One thing that has to change, in my view, is the overly lenient treatment of so-called 'minors' - we've had a number of very high profile murders and near-fatal assaults by mid-teens in this country in recent years. For such things my Ghenghis-Khan gene kicks in as in such cases the identity of the guilty is sure and my normal reservations about the death-penalty are put aside when 'reasonable doubt' is removed from the equation.

Here's the problem......we have to balance 'effective deterrent' with the concept of living in a free society without an overly-oppressive government. Give the government ENOUGH power and they can control crime effectively, but at what cost?

My view is that government should be reasonably effective, but not overly so.....and that we make up the difference by empowering law abiding citizens to defend THEMSELVES!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Exactly.

 

[tellner]

What would I do to a burgular? I dunno, stab him in the juggler?

 

[Jim Greenwood]

I would grab my Glock and my phone and call the police on my way making sure my family is ok and then find him and command him to stop and get on the floor on his belly and see if he wants to reconsider doing dumb stuff and wait until the police get there or... if he didn't comply force him to comply or end it... his choice.

 

[Deaf Smith]

A. I will kill only if I have no other means to protect my self or family.

B) I have no 'upstairs'. The kids are on the opposite end of the house (their rooms) so that's a no-go.

C) Dunno about the beating as that's retrubution. I'll fight him if I have to.

D) There is no 'Try'. And I sure won't lock him in a room. Maybe at
gunpoint hold him. Alot will be situational. If he has a gun, well I'll have to rethink apprehending him, right?

E) Help him? In a pigs eye.

Deaf

 

[wrc619]

I would prefer to pull a gun and await the police. Unfortunately, all our guns are stateside. That leaves me with a speargun or an MA weapon. Since the house is small, I would grab one of my short sticks, and ommence to "discouraging the burglar". I would use the escape, control, destroy continuum instead of the military version, mainly becaue we don't have any of the cool military security toys at the house. Of course, my roommate would be calling the five-o at the same time. It is great fun thinking about those scenarios!

 

[chinto]

If you're scared of legal consequences, then it should make you happy that we have eliminated legal consequences to defending ourselves in our own homes......it shouldn't surprise that burglary rates, especially of occupied dwellings, have FALLEN dramatically where these laws have been passed.

Why kill the intruder? Because burglars are habitual recidivists.....a dead burglar means not meeting him again in the future when he serves his 3 months in jail! It's like a drop of chlorine in the gene pool!


Some folks read the above and think 'Oh, the poor burglar....how can you feel that way?'....I don't see it that way at all! If you stick your HAND in a RATTLESNAKE HOLE and get BITTEN.....who's fault is it? Some guy visits my house to victimize me and gets his HEAD blown off, who's fault is it? It's more of a natural consquence than anything else....the order of the universe.

I have to agree. Also in my state, it is black letter law that to prevent burglary or arson is a deadly force situation! the law says if they are in your home, their right to life, liberty or any thing else is at your discretion.

Now if you only injure the intruder you will provably be sued civilly for injuring him as he lies through his teeth on the stand... an intruder who was by his very nature a lethal threat who is dead is a neutralized threat!

but you choose, you decide if you will use force or not, if you will live or die, or what have you. that is at your discretion.

But you stick your hand into a den or Rattle Snakes and wave it around and get bitten.. your problem. you go to Australian and see a Ti pan and mess with it and die from its very toxic bite... should have left the snake alone should you not? enter a home illegally and get shot dead.. hmmm same difference i think.

 

[chinto]

Here's the problem......we have to balance 'effective deterrent' with the concept of living in a free society without an overly-oppressive government. Give the government ENOUGH power and they can control crime effectively, but at what cost?

My view is that government should be reasonably effective, but not overly so.....and that we make up the difference by empowering law abiding citizens to defend THEMSELVES!

absolutely! as a kid the cops did not scare me at all.. if i had been dumb enough to commit a criminal act let alone get caught doing so.. .. Actually I would beg them to keep the damned cell door locked.. now my father.. that scared the crap out of me!! he would have made any thing the courts did look very nice actually! he was not abusive or anything, but there were lines you just did NOT cross in my house growing up.

 

[BLACK LION]

My doberman should have already been set off which would give me a couple extra seconds to chamber a round in my XD and swith on the M6X light laser... By the time I get there he should be/better be gone but lets say he got thru the dog... pop the light laser on him and ID wether I should be threatened then either give him 1 option or none.... dpends

 

[just2kicku]

If I hear a noise, I always investigate the source armed. If I were to happen across a burglar, I would shoot him. After I had him at gunpoint, go to my Knick knack drawer and make him take out the screwdriver, then shoot him cause he had a weapon.

 

[Flea]

What would I do? Have a good laugh ...

I have very little money, so all my stuff dates back to whatever I scraped together from thrift stores in college. I'm 37 now, which means that my possessions are really threadbare. Go ahead, give me an insurance payout! Please!!

My ex told me that she came home from work one day to find her apartment ransacked. The burglar must have been exhausted at the effort, because he was sound asleep in her bed. :uhyeah: Hope he didn't quit his day job before embarking on a life of crime ... The police gave him a wake-up call, she pressed charges, and moved shortly thereafter. Her stuff was even more threadbare than mine, so she wasn't upset beyond the general insult of being invaded.

If I had possessions worth protecting I'd get a security system like ADT, but I don't. My family was robbed in a catastrophic way when I was a small child, so I'm careful not to get too attached to things anyway. It just isn't worth the angst.

 

[BLACK LION]

Oh btw... I didnt vote due to lack of options outside killing the perp.

 

[Cirdan]

Incapacitate, strip him up, call the police.

 

[kaizasosei]

First i would probably try to scare them off.
If i am able to restrain effectively with grappling or striking, i would then tie them up. If the odds are against me, i would hope to have my sai nearby. Of course the wisest thing, if it is possible is to inform the police, for the record as well as for possible assistance.

j