Don't get burgled!

[adam98150]

It already is, but you must only use 'reasonable' force to do so.

I really do not get this whatsoever. What if you have kids and a partner?

Fact is when someone enters your property you have no clue why they are there. Sure you can assume it's a burglary, but what if it's something far more sinister?

It is so flawed it's unbelievable. I would literally do anything to protect myself/and family if someone entered my property unlawfully.

 

[Glaucus]

I really do not get this whatsoever. What if you have kids and a partner?

Fact is when someone enters your property you have no clue why they are there. Sure you can assume it's a burglary, but what if it's something far more sinister?

It is so flawed it's unbelievable. I would literally do anything to protect myself/and family if someone entered my property unlawfully.

It isn't flawed at all, perhaps read up on the legislation so you actually understand it. It is incredibly relaxed in uk. It takes into account what you be live at the time. If you believe the person has his hand in his pocket clutching a knife and about to attack you, you can use any force you want, even if it turns out he was holding a cigarette.

 

[Malevolence]

Simple solution, just hit the **** in the head with a hammer (or whatever you have to hand) and stick one of your kitchen knives in his hand. "Yes officer, I heard a noise downstairs, so I went down and was confronted by a stranger. He grabbed a knife from our kitchen and lunged at me. I was seriously in fear for my life."

 

[adam98150]

It isn't flawed at all, perhaps read up on the legislation so you actually understand it. It is incredibly relaxed in uk. It takes into account what you be live at the time. If you believe the person has his hand in his pocket clutching a knife and about to attack you, you can use any force you want, even if it turns out he was holding a cigarette.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. It's appreciated.

The more you know!

 

[RoboCod]

For reference this does not include burglaries in progress, just ones where the offenders are long gone, so talking about protecting your home and reasonable force are moot. If you come home to find someone in your home, you can still expect a normal police response.

I'm going to report that I think he is still in the house then, even if it might turn out that I was wrong and he actually left hours ago

Yes, yes, this wise guy comment has probably already been made but I cba to read the whole thread and after learning that it might actually be what I really do!

 

[D.P.]

They're going to have to make defending your property a right then.

It is.

 

[D.P.]

It already is, but you must only use 'reasonable' force to do so.

And reasonable force can involve killing the burglar.
It doesn't include things like revenge killings or shooting people in the back that are running away.

 

[D.P.]

Not without risking being arrested and prosecuted (and convicted if the jury doesn't like the cut of your gib) you can't.

Utter rubbish again.

 

[Chojin]

Maybe you could have stopped and check and called the police?

It was shocking how conspicuous they were about it that I half thought it was their own house. But they were definitely shady types. The options I had were basically to do nothing, or get involved directly. The police would have arrived well after the event if they did end up burgling the place.

 

[estebanrey]

It isn't flawed at all, perhaps read up on the legislation so you actually understand it. It is incredibly relaxed in uk. It takes into account what you be live at the time. If you believe the person has his hand in his pocket clutching a knife and about to attack you, you can use any force you want, even if it turns out he was holding a cigarette.

No it doesn't, it uses the rather vague term of "reasonable force" which is entirely down to the jury's opinion (or in other words how good the prosecution lawyer is). If the jury is convinced a hand in the pocket isn't sufficient to assume a knife was being held then you're snookered.

The law doesn't explicitly say as soon as they put their hand in their pocket you can kill them as you claim.

This is the problem I'm alluding to, 'reasonable force' is totally subjective. The fact you disagree with me that shooting at figures in the dark not taking into account which way they are facing should be presumed legal shows how opinion can differ on what 'reasonable force' is.

In my opinion, the law should be simple. Unless you set the whole thing up (i.e. entrapment) as some kind of planned murder made to look like self-defence then there should be a total presumption of innocence on the victim's part.

For certain level of crimes obviously, you can't break someone's neck for stealing a pencil.

 

[andi]

Police Priority List

1) Solving anything heavily covered by the media.
2) Anything that annoys/inconveniences affluent people.
3) Getting stats looking good by nabbing the low hanging fruit (e.g. people speeding).
4) Exciting stuff, like dressing up like a commando and raiding the houses of people selling weed.
5) Everything Else.

Hah!

You couldnt be further from the truth, unfortunately.

 

[RoboCod]

Yeah, speeding is top right?

 

[estebanrey]

Hah!

You couldnt be further from the truth, unfortunately.

Really? OK, regarding point 1, can you explain how the Met/Home Office can afford to re-open the Madeline McCann case a couple of years ago, release a PR statement saying they were doing so and that they can find the man power and money to support it when they don't put anywhere near the same amount of time or money or time into other missing children cases if it wasn't for the media attention the McCann case gets?

Home Secretary Theresa May has agreed to provide funding for a full investigation by UK detectives, according to the Mail.

The Home Office has not confirmed the report, but said in a statement: "The Home Office remains committed to supporting the search for Madeleine McCann and we have always said we would provide the Metropolitan Police with the resources they need to investigate her disappearance."

In an earlier statement a spokesman had said: "We have agreed to provide the Metropolitan Police with the resources they need to investigate her disappearance."

Source: BBC

Are you telling me that all missing children cases are given the same level of 'resources' from the Home Office? B.S are they.

 

[andi]

The number of officers on traffic covering the entire road network, including motorways, in my force is usually in single figures, so I'd say no to that too..

 

[bitslice]

******* hell!!! Are they retarded, I am far far more worried about being burgled than I am about being sexually offended, terrorised or have my computer hacked.

My priorities for the Police are arresting people who post Politically Incorrect stuff on Twitter,
these people need to be stopped before someone is offended

 

[Slime]

Too late, I already did get burgled, 4 weeks ago infact. Police were called as he was kicking down my front doors at 2 in the afternoon on a Monday and they sent a PCSO 30 mins after receiving the call so I'm not overly surprised by this story. I am annoyed by it though, particularly as 6 or so policeman showed up the next day to drop leaflets through the doors of our neighbours.

 

[gothic_hobbit]

Not to worry. I'm sure Michael Gove is working on a radical reform of the police in the same way he 'improved' schools. I'm sure a privatized police force would be a great success. Lets start by having people pay the police to investigate crimes and then sue the criminals once they've been caught! No need to waste hard working British tax-payers money.

Police Academies ?

 

[dowie]

Our local force/county council had a referendum as part of the general and local elections, something "like would you be willing to pay an extra 17% on top of the part of the council tax for policing" (I forget the exact wording).

I was one of the relatively low number that voted yes for it.

I'd happily pay an extra increase in council tax if it was ring fenced for policing... I'd suspect a big chunk of my bill is going towards underfunded pensions of ex council employees and other BS...

 

[FortuitousFluke]

No they don't. They're doomed to failure by budget and policy and they do the job they're charged with very poorly as a result. Despite what they'd like you to think, police officers aren't super-men - they're just ordinary people, micro-managed and de-skilled to the max.

So they don't do an incredibly difficult job on an ever shrinking budget? I've never stated that police officers are super men, if anything the fact that they're not only adds weight to my statement that they are trying to do something incredibly difficult in ever more demanding circumstances.

Even stating the points above, I think if you asked most people about their experiences of dealing with the police the majority would be positive. Anecdotaly, the people I tend to hear complaining about the police force are the one's who:

a) don't appreciate that they won't always be the priority just because they think the should be.
b) don't consider the "misdemeanors" (speeding, littering, drunk and disorderly) that they commit to be worth prosecuting "cos, you know, rapists and that"

I'm not saying the police force is perfect, on an institutional level it's a bit of a basket case, but that doesn't change the fact that when you need their assistance, 9/10 they will be there....even if recent cuts mean it's not as quickly as we might like.

 

[boxman2000]

Also things like not being allowed spiked fences, glassy cement on top of walls etc. will need to change.

You can get anti-animal spiked fences that are legal apparently - I wouldn't fancy trying to climb over one!