-
Another Briton has ben charged with 'suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent' after surprising a burglar in the fourth-floor bedroom of his house. Burglar exits window and experiences the wonders of gravity and the fantasy of flight.
Y'know, somewhere there's a big pile of spines someone is missing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770
Hell of a note when a man can't defenestrate an intruder in his own home.
Regards,
Rabbit.
-
Hell of a note when a man can't defenestrate an intruder in his own home.
Now that is a beautiful sentence.
-
It's being investigated because, regardless of what some might think, unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong.
Altercation happens and burglar falls out of window - ok. Stand up argument moves towards window and homeowner starts the physicals with a shove that sends burglar through window - investigation needed. Note that the police statement only says that there was an 'exchange of words'.
In this case the homeowner has been arrested because that is how it works. Not that this simple fact will stop the Mail and others falling over themselves to cry 'see we told you, Tony Martin proved there is no right to self-defense'.
-
Why is it unnecessary? Unless the burgler is on his way out anyway the homeowner's objective is to get the guy out of his house as safely (for him) and directly as possible. If that means shoving the BG out the window, OK.
-
It's being investigated because, regardless of what some might think, unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong.
No, it's not. Those who invade people's homes are wholly in the wrong. We, their victims, have every natural right to defend ourselves against their predations by fair means or foul.
Granting criminals imaginary "rights" is always done at the expense of the real rights of the law-abiding. It's time and long past time we, the people reclaimed our moral high ground and declared open war on the predators.
Curious fact: I'm not sure how matters stand in England, but here in the U.S., a great, great many people serving time for "burglary" are actually sex offenders who've been allowed to plead guilty to lesser burglary charges. No one wants to talk about it.
-
"unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong"
Wow Iain.
I really don't know what to say to this. I'm shocked. Someone is in your house in the middle of the night, and your only course of defense is to push him out of a window, and that is wrong?
Am I missing something here?
-
Silly British. Self-defense is for free people.
Seriously, when are the British finally going to to say they've had enough? Or is it just going to roll over into a socialist/police/dhimmi state with cameras, law-enforced political correctness and sharia law, necessitating that all the good people just punch out and head elsewhere?
I think Scotland has more of the fire left in their people. Apparently, one of the failed Glasgow-explodey terrorists was "subdued" by a bystander running up and kicking them so hard in the jewels that they hurt their own foot. When was the last time a bystander did that to a criminal in Britain?
It's being investigated because, regardless of what some might think, unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong.
The burglar is in my house. I want him out of my house. In my case, I'd likely accomplish it with an 870, and they'd either leave physically...or metaphysically depending upon the belief system of your choice. I just want them to not be a threat anymore.
If denied that, you don't think it's justified to push them out a window? Do you also not think it's justified to hit them with furniture, a cricket bat or a fire extinguisher?
Are you supposed to make them tea and ask them to please leave a bit of the silver? O_o
-
It's being investigated because, regardless of what some might think, unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong . . .
Preposterous statements like this in response to the posting at the beginning of this thread serve to demonstrate the widening gap between the British mindset and rational thought . . . (:shaking head smiley:)
-
Did we miss the word 'unnecessarily'?
I expect you'd all find that pushing someone out of a window when it wasn't self-defence would land you in hot water pretty much anywhere.
If there was no physical altercation, and if the homeowner has admitted this to the police, then this guy is in trouble. Whatever your standards for self-defence are, you can have the right to self-defence without having the right to push people out of windows unnecessarily or shoot fleeing burglars in the back.
The standards for 'reasonable force' are what you can justify to a jury as having been reasonable. If there was a fight, this guy is probably fine, if he was threatened with violence he's probably fine. We might not accept the idea that any burglar invalidates his right to life, but we are still able to defend ourselves.
-
Iain, if the burglar is in your house, what other justification do you need?
If they had already left, they wouldn't need pushing out a window.
-
Manedwolf- You said what I wanted to better than I could have.
No, wait.
Iain, another words, the chap broke into the house to borrow a cup of sugar?
To me, if someone breaks into your house when you are there, it is to do you harm? What other possible reason could he be there? Do you wait for him to beat the snot out of you BEFORE you defend yourself?
-
Is it different to finding a guy in your house, getting into an argument with him and then, with no other violence taking place, shooting him? In that hypothetical situation do you really believe you'd get away with it anywhere?
This is all hypothetical anyway, all idle speculation based on a newspaper article.
-
I can't speak for other places, but in New Hampshire, if he is in your house, you can drop him. They view someone being in your house as someone seeking to do you harm.
The very act of him being there without an invitation is the problem.
-
Iain, another words, the chap broke into the house to borrow a cup of sugar?
To me, if someone breaks into your house when you are there, it is to do you harm? What other possible reason could he be there? Do you wait for him to beat the snot out of you BEFORE you defend yourself?
Wish I hadn't said anything now. Simply, here in the UK people have shot, stabbed and killed burglars where they felt there was a threat to their life and not been convicted of a thing.
In this case, this guy may well have experienced a direct threat of violence and the arrest is routine and will not lead to anything after an investigation. Or it could be that no physical violence or threat was offered, and the homeowner threw the burglar out of the window anyway. You'd not get away with shooting a burglar you have physically overpowered, at least I'd hope not as it's a very different thing to shooting a burglar as soon as you see him, cooler blooded.
-
Iain, if the burglar is in your house, what other justification do you need?
If they had already left, they wouldn't need pushing out a window.
To me, if someone breaks into your house when you are there, it is to do you harm?
I think that sums it up pretty well. If someone has broken into your house then ipso facto he is there to do harm. Whether he is actively menacing you at that moment is irrelevant, his very presence is a menace. This is unlike out on the street where standards are different.
A man's home is his castle. Didnt that originate in France??
-
I'm not so sure I would "drop" an intruder I found in my house unless I thought I was in mortal danger.
At this point in my life I have no drive to rush off anyone through the pearly gates. If I can hold them till police arrive great.
If they were struggling and the burglar ran out there and fell off the roof then big deal, he got what he deserved.
-
I expect you'd all find that pushing someone out of a window when it wasn't self-defence would land you in hot water pretty much anywhere.
When the window is yours, and the "someone" is a home invader, rest assured: it's self-defense.
--Len.
-
I can't say that I feel particularly sorry for the burglar. Back in my granddads day (old Bobby on the beat), he probably would have wrote it up as an accident on the part of the Burglar, and said "Good day to you sir.' to the home-owner, before going on his way.
-
I notice the story has 1) no mention of the burglar's arrest; 2) no mention of charges being filed against the burglar; and 3) no mention of the burglar being in the prison ward at the hospital.
The story only mentions charges against the victim.
-
Iain, another words, the chap broke into the house to borrow a cup of sugar?
To me, if someone breaks into your house when you are there, it is to do you harm? What other possible reason could he be there? Do you wait for him to beat the snot out of you BEFORE you defend yourself?
In this case, this guy may well have experienced a direct threat of violence and the arrest is routine and will not lead to anything after an investigation.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. iirc, in the UK, a person must be "arrested" before the cops can question them. It doesn't necessarily mean that charges are pending, as it usually does here.
-
Hypothetically speaking, unless you'd argue that a person has to physically attack you (meaning punch, kick, stab, shoot, etc.) before you can assume they're trying to hurt you, there has to be a line where a person is considered a threat before they've actually harmed you.
Don't disagree, and UK law as I understand it doesn't require you to take the first punch.
This whole discussion is hypothetical based on probably reading too much into one media report, which btw won't have mentioned charges against the burglar because that isn't the story (and the link now says the burglar is dead). There isn't much we can tell, but the investigation will be to determine whether or not what happened here is anything like your scenario... "Obviously, if the threat has been neutralized (ie: they're lying face down and you have a gun on them waiting for the cops to arrive), you're no longer justified to use lethal force.
...which is entirely possible. There's nothing in this article to confirm or deny the possibility that the act of throwing him out the window wasn't akin to shooting your burglar who is lying face down.
Nowhere civilised that I am aware of do you have total and utter rights to do whatsoever you wish to anyone you find on your property. Anything that smacks of execution is going to be investigated, to think otherwise is fantasy.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. iirc, in the UK, a person must be "arrested" before the cops can question them. It doesn't necessarily mean that charges are pending, as it usually does here.
I'm not a legal expert, but an arrest doesn't mean charges are imminent or likely as you say. Questioning will have been carried out under caution.
-
. . . and the link now says the burglar is dead . . .
It should help the homeowner that there is now only one story. Hopefully, he had a good attorney - or it it solicitor? - during his interrogation, and said nothing incriminating.
(Do Brits have the right to remain silent during questioning, or if they refuse to answer questions will other charges be trotted out?)
-
unnecessarily pushing a burglar out of a window is wrong.
Correct. Pushing a burglar out of a window is completely unnecessary if you just shoot the SOB instead.
Brad
-
Understand where Iain is coming from: UK law does not have the presumption that one who is illegally in your dwelling means you harm. Thus, by UK law, the home owner may be in deep doo-doo.
We hold that he most certainly is a nogoodnik and deadly force may be applied.
Hank, that would be barrister perhaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister
-
There's nothing in this article to confirm or deny the possibility that the act of throwing him out the window wasn't akin to shooting your burglar who is lying face down.
Other than common sense. For the owner to throw the burglar out the window would require that physical contact was taking place. It is difficult to imagine a situation where that isn't life-threatening.
-
If you look at the picture in the link, you'll see that there is a small flat roof just outside the window on the top floor. If the argument moved out on to there it is quite possible that the first physical contact was a good hard shove that sent him off the roof. Again, all this is conjecture, but it is possible that nothing but a shove took place.
Absolutely have the right not to incriminate yourself.
El Tejon - nico has already given a scenario where an American can find themselves in deep doo doo with a burglar. Like I say, if it looks like an execution, do you really think that there isn't going to be some effort at investigating exactly what happened?
-
Iain makes sense, as usual.
From the article:
Following the Martin affair the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers said any householder can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.