Not quite sure how I feel about this story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6938790.stm

Basically a man discovers another man in his fourth floor flat. After an exchange of words the intruder is apparently thrown out of the window and later dies. The man whose flat it is was arrested and later bailed on a "wounding with intent" charge - max penalty is life.

Part of me thinks the burglar got what was coming to him and the flat owner should be applauded.

Part of me thinks that the burglar should have just got a damn good kicking.

What does anyone else think?

[timwilky]

Me thinks burglar was that stupid that in his panic to get away he jumps from the 4th floor window. Darwin's principle apply and one less contributor to a defective gene pool

Hmmm yes this would be a difficult situation... me i would want to kick the crap out of him to defend my family and possesions, but i would be worried about going to jail for doing so.

The law is not in favour of the victims, or that is the way it seems, and there has been cases where the attacker/burgler has successfully sued for damages.

However the law does permit you to use resonable force to defend your property and if that would mean me knocking the guy out then so be it I'd rather flatten him with my hockey sticks than let Lupo get hold of him as i know me dealing with it the guy stands a chance of survival

If I wake up & there's a strangge man in my bedroom then I have no idea if he's a burglar or a sodomist. I have no idea if he's armed, on drugs or his physical streength. He's broken into my house. He's broken the law & must accept the consequences.

Any chance to take him down, I'll take it.

Primary concern: Protect yourself & your family.
Secondary consideration: Obey the law.

it says 'burglar' in inverted commas. I have a feeling there is more to this. Do you get a lot of 43 year old burglars? Maybe they knew each other. Sounds too sketchy for me to comment.


If it is jsut a burglar then I say throw him out of the window! Tony Martin rules!

Originally Posted by Warthog

it says 'burglar' in inverted commas. I have a feeling there is more to this. Do you get a lot of 43 year old burglars? Maybe they knew each other. Sounds too sketchy for me to comment.


If it is jsut a burglar then I say throw him out of the window! Tony Martin rules!

I read 'burglar' as meaning that as the bloke was dead he couldn't confirm that he was in fact a burglar. He may have just been a tresspasser(!).

As for Tony Martin: I thought he waited for that kid to walk past him then shot him in the back?

What timwilky said!

He shouldn't have been where he was. If he were a law abiding person he would not be dead now.

Originally Posted by Kinvig

I read 'burglar' as meaning that as the bloke was dead he couldn't confirm that he was in fact a burglar. He may have just been a tresspasser(!).

As for Tony Martin: I thought he waited for that kid to walk past him then shot him in the back?

The kid broke in, Tony Martin came downstairs, the kid legged it and Tony Martin shot him. He didn't wait or anything like that, just shot whoever had broken into his home. Fair and square if you ask me.

The Tony Martin case was a bit more complicated, and there was definitely more going on than the tabloid "man's house is his castle" ranting; the jury clearly thought so. For starters, a grown man who collects teddy bears, and then brings a teddy bear to court every day? And remember, his shotgun licence had been revoked earlier after he took a pot shot at scrumpers. You might say the burglar wouldn't have died if he hadn't broken the law by breaking in, similarly, he wouldn't have died if the shooter hadn't illegaly kept a firearm (actually, multiple firearms).

I'm not saying the case doesn't raise a lot of questions but Tony Martin is not the best champion for the argument.