Steal from me and I'll kill you

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:14

A Manchester householder, his son and his son's girlfriend have reportedly been arrested after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death while trying to break into the man's home.

Malc

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

It's all in the details really, if the bloke was worried for his family's safety then fair dos, if he was worried for his Xbox 360 then he's gone a bit too far.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:19

Yeah, there were 4 masked men burgling the house!

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Quote:

A Manchester householder, his son and his son's girlfriend have reportedly been arrested after a suspected burglar was stabbed to death while trying to break into the man's home.
The incident comes two days after Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to bring in stronger measures to protect homeowners defending their property.
The intruder was attempting to get into a house on Ethel Avenue in Salford, Greater Manchester, just before midnight on Wednesday when the householder is believed to have acted to defend his property.
The dead man, whom police have not named, is believed to have been carried away from the address by other members of a balaclava-clad gang as they fled.
Police have put up a 100-metre cordon around the terrace house, which backs on to open scrubland close to a council recycling centre in the Pendlebury area of Salford.
Locals said they understood intruders tried to break into the back door of the property, then police received a 999 call from a woman at the house.
A spokeswoman for the Greater Manchester force said: "Police are investigating after a man died in Salford.
"Just before midnight, police were called to an address on Ethel Avenue, Pendlebury, following reports of a burglary and a group of men carrying an injured man on to Hospital Road.
"On arrival at Hospital Road, police found a 26-year-old man with stab wounds.
"He was taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead."
The Manchester Evening News said the householder, his son and his son's girlfriend have all been arrested.
"It is believed four men forced their way into the house,and were confronted by the residents," the newspaper said.
Cameron said earlier this week: "We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted."

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:21

I think it is quite reasonable to arrest people after a man is stabbed to death, in order to determine the chain of events, and then to decide if the level of force used was reasonable. We simply cannot have vigilatism on the streets.

lasermink · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1883

Well, getting arrested is not the same as being prosecuted, and being prosecuted is not the same as being found guilty, so this could go anywhere...

EDIT: Wot MaliA said...

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:25

MaliA wrote:

We simply cannot have vigilatism on the streets.

It was indoors.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

MaliA wrote:

I think it is quite reasonable to arrest people after a man is stabbed to death, in order to determine the chain of events, and then to decide if the level of force used was reasonable. We simply cannot have vigilatism on the streets.

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:26

lasermink wrote:

Well, getting arrested is not the same as being prosecuted, and being prosecuted is not the same as being found guilty, so this could go anywhere...

EDIT: Wot MaliA said...

It'll go down the lines of "it ain't right, guv, they can just do anything and we can't do nothing. Sting them all up, it's the only language they understand. I had that David blunkett in the back of the cab once..."

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:27

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:30

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

MaliA's pro home defence tip for people that feel the need to defend themselves against occurances that won't happen:

Rather than bats, hammers or steel bars favored by idiots; a CO2, or dry powder, fire extinguisher makes a far better way of deterring a vexed burglar.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

markg wrote:

MaliA wrote:

I think it is quite reasonable to arrest people after a man is stabbed to death, in order to determine the chain of events, and then to decide if the level of force used was reasonable. We simply cannot have vigilatism on the streets.

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

There are a lot of people that would say that, but I think that what the rational people want is some sort of clarity. Having to work out whether your response to an attacker is 'reasonable' can't be an easy thing when someone who may be armed, and may be violent has smashed their way into your house is a pretty tough thing to do.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:32

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

It's highly unlikely that you'll actually be in when they come a robbing, though.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:33

Yes, bucket of piss, dog shit on a stick, running at them in full Rocky Horror Show gear (good excuse to dress for bed like that anyway).

I'm intrigued to hear more details though. Seems odd how the family all stabbed the one burglar, were they already 'tooled up?

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

MaliA wrote:

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

MaliA's pro home defence tip for people that feel the need to defend themselves against occurances that won't happen:

Rather than bats, hammers or steel bars favored by idiots; a CO2, or dry powder, fire extinguisher makes a far better way of deterring a vexed burglar.

I think that largely depends on the mindset of the burglar, nearly all of them will flee as soon as they know you're there. And the sort that doesn't might not be all that bothered by a fire extinguisher, unless you actually hit them with it.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:34

MaliA wrote:

It's highly unlikely that you'll actually be in when they come a robbing, though.

My parents and siblings were all at home when our house was burgled.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:34

Craster wrote:

markg wrote:

MaliA wrote:

I think it is quite reasonable to arrest people after a man is stabbed to death, in order to determine the chain of events, and then to decide if the level of force used was reasonable. We simply cannot have vigilatism on the streets.

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

There are a lot of people that would say that, but I think that what the rational people want is some sort of clarity. Having to work out whether your response to an attacker is 'reasonable' can't be an easy thing when someone who may be armed, and may be violent has smashed their way into your house is a pretty tough thing to do.

Case law seems to suggest that you can punch someone in the face hard enough to break their jaw, to save having to hit them a second time, but stamping on their faxce as they lie on the ground is a no-no. Also, don't bring a gun to a fist fight. pretty much, as long as you can expain quite why you did such a thing, you'll be fine. preemptive attacks are allowed, too. But trickier to argue the toss over.

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:35

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

sorry, I did link the full story in the first post, but the link's not blue like it normally is, I guess I nested the url and quote tags wrong.

Also, responding to other people, surely you get questioned before being arrested? If you get arrested it means they think you commited a crime.

I don't know if you have to stand trial for murder (or manslaughter) if using the self defence plea?

Malc

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

Zardoz wrote:

MaliA wrote:

It's highly unlikely that you'll actually be in when they come a robbing, though.

My parents and siblings were all at home when our house was burgled.

My sister was looking after someone else's house when a burglar came in and forced her to sit in the front room while he searched through the rest of the house, she ended up throwing a chair through a window and jumped out.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:37

Highly unlikely != won't happen

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:38

markg wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

MaliA's pro home defence tip for people that feel the need to defend themselves against occurances that won't happen:

Rather than bats, hammers or steel bars favored by idiots; a CO2, or dry powder, fire extinguisher makes a far better way of deterring a vexed burglar.

I think that largely depends on the mindset of the burglar, nearly all of them will flee as soon as they know you're there. And the sort that doesn't might not be all that bothered by a fire extinguisher, unless you actually hit them with it.

Set the fire extinguisher off in their face, THEN hit them with it. Don't get it the wrong way around.

Ramsea · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 963

The thing I worry about is people will always rob houses. If the govt decide people using weapons in their houses is ok then I can only see this increasing the risk of burglars carrying weapons to protect themselves.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

MaliA wrote:

Highly unlikely != won't happen

Highly Unlikely != Happens A Fair Bit

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:40

Happens a fair bit != Immigrants are coming over here, stealing our jobs and eating our swans.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:41

I have a baseball bat in the house.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:41

Ramsea wrote:

The thing I worry about is people will always rob houses. If the govt decide people using weapons in their houses is ok then I can only see this increasing the risk of burglars carrying weapons to protect themselves.

Very good point.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22368

Malc wrote:

Also, responding to other people, surely you get questioned before being arrested? If you get arrested it means they think you commited a crime.

Being arrested means the police have evidence that shows you could have committed a crime, it doesn't mean you did though.

I'd say a dead body is pretty good evidence to arrest someone on, to be fair. They now have time to work out exactly what happened.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49237

MaliA wrote:

Case law seems to suggest that you can punch someone in the face hard enough to break their jaw, to save having to hit them a second time, but stamping on their faxce as they lie on the ground is a no-no. Also, don't bring a gun to a fist fight. pretty much, as long as you can expain quite why you did such a thing, you'll be fine. preemptive attacks are allowed, too. But trickier to argue the toss over.

Having the decision on whether what I do constitues a crime happen after the fact is an impossible state of affairs.

Ramsea · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 963

Zardoz wrote:

Ramsea wrote:

The thing I worry about is people will always rob houses. If the govt decide people using weapons in their houses is ok then I can only see this increasing the risk of burglars carrying weapons to protect themselves.

Very good point.

Thanks Zardoz, we're not just a pretty face.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:46

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:46

A quick google suggests that

Google wrote:

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes,

Malc

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

Craster wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Case law seems to suggest that you can punch someone in the face hard enough to break their jaw, to save having to hit them a second time, but stamping on their faxce as they lie on the ground is a no-no. Also, don't bring a gun to a fist fight. pretty much, as long as you can expain quite why you did such a thing, you'll be fine. preemptive attacks are allowed, too. But trickier to argue the toss over.

Having the decision on whether what I do constitues a crime happen after the fact is an impossible state of affairs.

It's not perfect but I can't think of a better way to deal with it really.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22368

Craster wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Case law seems to suggest that you can punch someone in the face hard enough to break their jaw, to save having to hit them a second time, but stamping on their faxce as they lie on the ground is a no-no. Also, don't bring a gun to a fist fight. pretty much, as long as you can expain quite why you did such a thing, you'll be fine. preemptive attacks are allowed, too. But trickier to argue the toss over.

Having the decision on whether what I do constitues a crime happen after the fact is an impossible state of affairs.

Yet isn't that one of the base distinctions between murder and manslaughter?

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 13:47

myoptikakaka wrote:

I have a baseball bat in the house.

They'll be long gone by the time Ange pulls it out of your arse.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

Perhaps she leaves him on there and just beats the burglars with the whole assembly.

Ramsea · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 963

\o

It says on bbc news www that its being treated as a murder so perhaps there is more to it.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

Yeah I'm wondering if they caught one of them and then stabbed him to death. If you kill someone who is trying to get away then you've pretty much murdered them I'd have thought.

Warhead · Noob as of 6/8/10

MaliA wrote:

markg wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Zardoz wrote:

From Malcs first post it sounded like 3 on 1 when actually it was 3 on 4. Big difference to me in the lengths I'd go to to defend my family, it was a gang of intruders in the house.

MaliA's pro home defence tip for people that feel the need to defend themselves against occurances that won't happen:

Rather than bats, hammers or steel bars favored by idiots; a CO2, or dry powder, fire extinguisher makes a far better way of deterring a vexed burglar.

I think that largely depends on the mindset of the burglar, nearly all of them will flee as soon as they know you're there. And the sort that doesn't might not be all that bothered by a fire extinguisher, unless you actually hit them with it.

Set them on fire, set the extinguisher off in their face, THEN hit them with it. Don't get it the wrong way around.

FTFY

Blucey · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1978

Probably good that he's dead either way.

Warhead · Noob as of 6/8/10

Blucey wrote:

Probably good that he's dead either way.

not from his POV.

ElephantBanjoGnome · **Joined:** 22nd Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 8175

markg wrote:

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

I recall a similar debate popping up on here long ago. Then, as now, I think when you enter someones house illegally you should forfeit your right not to get beaten/stabbed/killed in any form of aggressive self-defense. Don't want to get killed? Don't break into peoples houses - dead easy!

Also, it's pretty difficult to ascertain, on discovering an intruder in your house, if they're there to pinch your tv or there to rape your wife, kill you and your kids, and then set the house on fire. Generally I don't think I'd hang around to deliberate and would go straight for the 'enough force to ensure that my family is safe' route. If that results in the unintentional death for that intruder, bad fucking luck on their part; they shouldn't have been there.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

markg wrote:

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

I recall a similar debate popping up on here long ago. Then, as now, I think when you enter someones house illegally you should forfeit your right not to get beaten/stabbed/killed in any form of aggressive self-defense. Don't want to get killed? Don't break into peoples houses - dead easy!

Also, it's pretty difficult to ascertain, on discovering an intruder in your house, if they're there to pinch your tv or there to rape your wife, kill you and your kids, and then set the house on fire. Generally I don't think I'd hang around to deliberate and would go straight for the 'enough force to ensure that my family is safe' route. If that results in the unintentional death for that intruder, bad fucking luck on their part; they shouldn't have been there.

I agree that would certainly simplify things. However I can also envisage circumstances where this cast iron "they were on my property" defence could be used to get away with murder.

Warhead · Noob as of 6/8/10

There is one overriding factor with this case that no one seems to have addressed.

They broke into a house in SALFORD!! WTF did they expect to happen?

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6587

There are places in the states with that kind of rule - in Louisiana, you're entitled to use deadly force to defend your home ( or car or workplace ) against any burglar at all.

Quote:

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

If you know they've broken in, you can shot them.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 14:16

It's often confused as to why the Americans fought for independance, then have kept the status quo since then. Backward lot, they are.

flis · **Joined:** 26th May, 2008 **Posts:** 3333

markg wrote:

I agree that would certainly simplify things. However I can also envisage circumstances where this cast iron "they were on my property" defence could be used to get away with murder.

Only if 'reasonable force' could be proven though, I'd have thought?

Whether or not The Law decides that the use of reasonable force to defend your property and yourself against intruders, it takes a certain type of person to stab someone to death without any other kind of provocation....

As furiously mad a I'd be if someone broke in to my house, I wouldn't be able to just stab them unless they did something to make that the only option. Burglars are going in to steal from you, if they go armed and take rope and duct tape, then they're playing a different game entirely.

If someone breaks into my house when I'm asleep in bed, as long as they stay downstairs and as long as all they're doing is helping themselves to the tv etc. I would leave them to it or maybe shout "I know you're down there and the police are on their way". It probably isn't worth the risk or the aggravation of a confrontation. If they come upstairs, that's another story, that's where the family are and I would assume anyone coming up stairs with no alternative escape route is prepared for a fight if anyone wakes up. At that point I'd fuck them up, natch

myp · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 14:24

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

markg wrote:

I think most of the population actually want vigilantism, if not actually on the streets then certainly in their house. Essentially they seem to want it to be made legal to murder trespassers, which seems a bit dangerous to me.

I recall a similar debate popping up on here long ago. Then, as now, I think when you enter someones house illegally you should forfeit your right not to get beaten/stabbed/killed in any form of aggressive self-defense. Don't want to get killed? Don't break into peoples houses - dead easy!

Also, it's pretty difficult to ascertain, on discovering an intruder in your house, if they're there to pinch your tv or there to rape your wife, kill you and your kids, and then set the house on fire. Generally I don't think I'd hang around to deliberate and would go straight for the 'enough force to ensure that my family is safe' route. If that results in the unintentional death for that intruder, bad fucking luck on their part; they shouldn't have been there.

What if someone dragged you into their house as you were walking past, broke a window to make it look like forced entry, tied you up and tortured you - how could you prove you didn't break in? They would pretty much have immunity to do what they wanted to you.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16611

flis wrote:

markg wrote:

I agree that would certainly simplify things. However I can also envisage circumstances where this cast iron "they were on my property" defence could be used to get away with murder.

Only if 'reasonable force' could be proven though, I'd have thought?

Well no, that's not what Gnomes was saying. He wanted any and all force to be automatically deemed reasonable when dealing with a burglar.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 14:29

That's going to suck for the kid whose ball bounced through someone's front door...

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 14:31

On holiday I once, drunkenly, 'broke in' to someone else's apartment (I didn't break anything, but I had to do some climbing) as I thought it was mine.

I think the death penalty for such a transgression is a little harsh.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12329

Wiggum: And as soon as someone's in your house, anything you do to them is nice and [wink] legal!

Homer: Oh Flannndersss...won't you join me in my kitchen?

Wiggum: Uh, it doesn't work if you invite 'em.

Flanders: Hidely-hey!

Homer: Go home.

Flanders: Doodely-doo!

Be Excellent To Each Other

Steal from me and I'll kill you
and then get arrested

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Steal from me and I'll kill you and then get arrested

Who is online

Steal from me and I'll kill you
and then get arrested