Burglar killed, house owner arrested!

LowPlainsDrifter · Post by **LowPlainsDrifter** » 10 Aug 2007, 1:34pm

Just browsing the papers in the library today and came across article about a burglar being killed.
Parick Walsh 56, houseowner in Manchester was woken at 6am. by a burglar whom he challenged. Burglar aged 43 was found dead (assuming he fell from window from window :wink:

) outside house.
So now houseowner has been arrested for defending his own property!
Was burglar pushed or did he die jumping?
Personally if all this is true then I dont care. Hes dead. good! The [rude word removed] scumbag shouldn't have been in the guys house and now wont be doing anymore thieving and terrifying someone in their own home and such. Wanna bet its not his first offence? I doubt it is.
If I had been sleeping and awoken by a burglar when I lived in Florida I could have, and would have shot him and I wouldn't have been arrested. As it should be. Oh no but not here where the poor crim is put first.
I feel sorry for the house owner not the scumbag. :evil:

Post by Si » 10 Aug 2007, 2:22pm

Not actually knowing the facts it is difficult to pass judgement.

However, hyperthetically, if a homeowner went beyond reasonable force and acted as "Judge, Judy & Executioner" then it is right that they are punished for taking the law into their own hands. Because if those who believe that they are victim of crime are allowed to meet out what ever punishment they see fit then anarchy will ensue and a lot of people will die for what many might see as inconsequential acts.

You might argue that invading someone's house might be a very serious offence and merit an outcome where the burgler ends up dead. But who is in charge of drawing the line between what is serious and what is not. If you were to accidently scratch someone's car should they have the right to jump out and set about you with a baseball bat? You might think not but there are a good number out there that would happily do this thinking that right is on their side.

diapason · Post by **diapason** » 10 Aug 2007, 2:49pm

One can legally use 'reasonable force' in self defence. Without knowing all the details it's hard to know what happened. If the burglar was pushed off the windowsill, then it may have been unreasonable force- depends on the circumstances - whether the householder felt his life was in danger. But, the householder may have just shouted, and the guy let go in shock.

In any event the Martin case highlighted this issue. Shooting a burglar is not reasonable force, however much it might be satisfying to mete out summary justice to some little scrote

But, the law must be a deterrent, and burglars MUST be punished severely by the Courts and not just told to go away and promise to be good :shock:

N

LowPlainsDrifter · Post by **LowPlainsDrifter** » 10 Aug 2007, 2:49pm

[quote="Si"]Not actually knowing the facts it is difficult to pass judgement.

Yes, I did say if its true.

You might argue that invading someone's house might be a very serious offence and merit an outcome where the burgler ends up dead.

Yes, if that happens I dont really care.

If you were to accidently scratch someone's car should they have the right to jump out and set about you with a baseball bat.

No, as you say if it were accident then obviously not but if some scummy chav was to "key" a car or similar and the owner caught them and gave them " a batting" again good. Thats what happened to a thief who got caught by my biker friends in Florida when he (thief)got caught trying to steal a battery from a club members girlfriends car. He picked the wrong people to steal from! I have no sympathy and would do same.

LowPlainsDrifter · Post by **LowPlainsDrifter** » 10 Aug 2007, 2:59pm

diapason wrote:
In any event the Martin case highlighted this issue. Shooting a burglar is not reasonable force,

But in Florida you are allowed to use "Deadly Force" if you feel you are under threat.

I dont think I would have waited to have a discussion with someone coming through my window or in the house. I would have pointed and fired, preferably the shotgun as its easier to hit your target unlike with a 9mm pistol as anyone whos ever fired a handgun will tell you its quite hard to hit from a distance and in a panic! :shock:

Sure its a bit extreme I suppose when someone ends up dead for burglary but I dont, as I say, really care. :roll:

They wont be burglaring any old ladies houses etc. anymore.
Which he would be here if he'd survived cos they dont get punished at all.
Finally, whats "reasonable force?" :roll:

I'm afraid I have an 18 inch tyre iron in the house and the first thing I will do if I ever woke up and caught a burglar in the house is hit them with it AS HARD AS I CAN. I'm not taking any chances. You dont have time to mess about. If you dont you could be the one on the floor. Not me, hard luck on them they're gonna get it if I can. Once they are down and out,disabled then I will see what they are up to.

keepontriking · Post by **keepontriking** » 10 Aug 2007, 3:18pm

LowPlainsDrifter wrote:
Si wrote:If you were to accidently scratch someone's car should they have the right to jump out and set about you with a baseball bat.

Not a car, but if it were a cycle then, just, maybe....

IGMC

LowPlainsDrifter · Post by **LowPlainsDrifter** » 10 Aug 2007, 3:25pm

Oh just a quick post afor I go. I'm not really that bad!

or some maniac! Just be nice to me. thats all. :lol:

I dont think I will be able to reply to any accusations to my rantings for a few days. be gentle on me. ha.
(Just dont burgle my abode or try steal my Harley or my cycle) :wink:

.

2Tubs · Post by **2Tubs** » 11 Aug 2007, 10:41am

Of course he was arrested. A man has been killed.

I'm sure if the facts are as stated in the media the police and more importantly the CPS will decide that he was defending himself he won't face charges.

But the police have a duty to investigate this which means interviewing the guy under caution. An arrest is a world away from a charge.

I'm sure justice will be done.

Gazza

meic · Post by **meic** » 13 Aug 2007, 12:02am

The Killing Intruders Game has one serious problem. If you want to murder someone all you have to do is invite them in your house then shoot them dead. Live happily ever after immune from prosecution.

nigel_s · Post by **nigel_s** » 13 Aug 2007, 2:23pm

Actually, if you really want to kill someone, make it look like a car "accident". A few hundred quid fine, a few points on your licence and you're away, scot free.

reohn2 · Post by **reohn2** » 13 Aug 2007, 2:53pm

nigel_s wrote:Actually, if you really want to kill someone, make it look like a car "accident". A few hundred quid fine, a few points on your licence and you're away, scot free.

One can actually kill four cyclists with one car and no matter how bad a condition the car is in the result/punishment/slap on the wrist is the same.

Meic
Do you get invited to "friends" houses often. :wink:

If someone breaks into a house IMO he should forfeit any rights he/she has, just as someone who mows down innocent people in a car with three defective tyres should forfeit any rights they have on the grounds that they simply should not be there.
How simple is that to understand.
Life needn't be complicated in some instances.

Crazydave · Post by **Crazydave** » 13 Aug 2007, 7:11pm

Murder always has a motive whether it is protection of personal property, financial gain or sexual jealousy. At the risk of causing controversy, this was murder. This is a case where property has been alued above human life, so the police should at least be allowed to investigate. On the other hand when you're scared and/ or angry, it is easy to react in the heat of the moment.
As for cars mowing down cyclists deliberately is concerned, if there are witnesses, the driver can get up to 10 years in prison for each one. The problem here is usually the lack of witnesses.

archy sturmer · Post by **archy sturmer** » 13 Aug 2007, 7:56pm

Crazydave wrote: At the risk of causing controversy, this was murder.

At the risk of pre-empting the courts, more like. No-one's been charged with anything yet, never mind tried and found guilty!

2Tubs · Post by **2Tubs** » 13 Aug 2007, 10:35pm

archy sturmer wrote:
Crazydave wrote: At the risk of causing controversy, this was murder.

At the risk of pre-empting the courts, more like. No-one's been charged with anything yet, never mind tried and found guilty!

Agree.

It may well have been beyond reasonable force and into revenge. But equally, it could have been self defence.

Gazza

archy sturmer · Post by **archy sturmer** » 13 Aug 2007, 10:45pm

Crazydave wrote: At the risk of causing controversy, this was murder.

And if published in print, it would be prejudicial, possibly sub-judice, and libellous!
Jail that editor!

- AS (grumpy old hack)