The law needs to be changed if it becomes another Tony Martin case, don't you think? My first thought about the burglar was "Serves you right, you ****!" Thieving is a criminal offence for god sake and so is trespass and B&E, so why should the owner be punished for preventing his rightful property from being removed?
2007-08-10 12:30:52 · 19 answers · asked by Pixxxie 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I could not give a monkeys if the owner threw him out of the window, the thief got what he deserved. My only moan about it,is he's now taking up Hospital Space and wasting Police time.
2007-08-10 17:09:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
these days it is usually the burglar that wins because the owner overstepped the amount of "reasonable force" allowed to defend his property.
if you look at the Tony Martin case you have quoted, one of the burglars was actually shot in the back whilst running away
but that doesnt mean i agree with the outcome of the case - just the law needs changing.
my parents have been burglared, and so have i, alas I was out at the time, but if i ever get the chance to defend my home you can be sure i will defend my castle
2007-08-10 18:09:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, trespass is not a criminal offence - it is a civil one.
A home owner has the right to use reasonable force to protect his property. The problem is what is "reasonable" to one may not be to another. The law tends to take a view of like for like, so if there was a man in your house coming up the stairs with a gun you would quite literally be able to get away with murder. If however you confronted a man in your home and he was unarmed, he turned to run away and was then shot in the back as he fled (as happened in the Martin case) then you would not, you would be expected to, say, fight with the man or bludgeon him with something.
The biggest problem with this state of affairs is that it does not take into account the human factor. The victim of a robbery will often not know if the perpetrator is armed and will be scared and concerned about their own and their family's welfare. As such they would more likely than not grab the most lethal thing they can find and go to confront them in that state of panic and fear a normal person is hardly going to rationalise if they should use said object when confronting someone, they would lash out.
2007-08-10 23:10:13 · answer #3 · answered by ligiersaredevilspawn 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's all dependent on the laws of the state actually. In New York, the property owner is liable for any injuries incurred, regardless of the reasons for a person being on the property. It's absolutely idiotic, but if someone was to break into your house, trip, fall and hurt themselves, they could sue the owner for any costs relating to the injury. Of course the owner could counter sue for trespassing, criminal intent, theft, etc...but depending on the injury the medical bills could still far outweigh the damages or fines from the other charges.
2007-08-10 13:51:10 · answer #4 · answered by firebugarts 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Take a big step back and look who is @ fault here, it is you and i of course and all the decent people in this country trying to scratch a living .
As a majority we only have the real power to elect a member of parliament , to over rule injustice as a majority that would be called REVOLUTION .
Minorities rule the day {& in most cases rightly so }but as a nation we must be even handed and not run by the E.U.
We are told to nurture these criminals as they have lost their way , we have to rehabilitate them into our society , uh why ?
who want's our society , you get robbed {& you can't do anything about it } you get taxed {about 5% obove any pay rise you might get}
And if you complain about it {your being politicaly incorrect}.
Anyway shoot him & take your chances in court, peace!!!
2007-08-10 12:59:36 · answer #5 · answered by freezemuthatruckers 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Burglar, as the owner has jeopardised his future ability to pursue his the career as a burglar.
How stupid has the law become.
2007-08-10 12:47:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hypothetically speaking, it might have been a closed case had the burglar not smashed his head open when he hit the deck, maybe with the help of...................... :-)
The law in this country is a fecking joke.
As for the burglar, had it been me defending my property, the burglar would NOT be available for questioning - Hypothetically speaking of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge...... :-)
2007-08-10 12:50:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The burglar would win as he could claim that your property was unsafe causing him to fall and injure himself. You would end up paying him compensation. Look at the law regarding a garden path. If somebody injures themselves on your pathway, you are to blame.
2007-08-10 13:00:26 · answer #8 · answered by ADRIAN H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
at one time the burglar would have lost because he should not have been there
today he will get compo for doing something illegal
the owner should have shot him
i have just had to put some security lights around a derelict building because the owners were told to do so because they will be responsible for any injury to trespassers or thieves during night time raids how stupid is that
2007-08-10 12:37:40 · answer #9 · answered by dave kp61 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
well he's dead now, brilliant news for the entire country, lets hope a few more "fall" too.
btw the burglar would win in a court of law, thats how crap this country is
2007-08-10 21:44:22 · answer #10 · answered by bigsexydug 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋