Burglars are people too?

[Scot Dutchy]

You can't just go killing any old burglar in England!. A 78 year old guy who stabbed and killed a burglar (I suspect this is what prompted Crumple's post) is being charged with murder. He is out on bail so it does not appear that he presents a risk to the public!

There will of course be a public outcry if he is actually taken to court and found guilty..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43648896

Here the law is very clear: the only defence is self defence in a life threatening situation. Withdrawal is always advised. I know the Anglo-Saxon mindset thinks different about it but life here is always placed above property. Property after all can be replaced.

[rainbow]

Should you have the right to kill a burglar?

It is wrong to kill anything you are not prepared to eat.

[Rum]

You can't just go killing any old burglar in England!. A 78 year old guy who stabbed and killed a burglar (I suspect this is what prompted Crumple's post) is being charged with murder. He is out on bail so it does not appear that he presents a risk to the public!

There will of course be a public outcry if he is actually taken to court and found guilty..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43648896

Here the law is very clear: the only defence is self defence in a life threatening situation. Withdrawal is always advised. I know the Anglo-Saxon mindset thinks different about it but life here is always placed above property. Property after all can be replaced.

What is this 'Anglo Saxon mind' of which you speak? Mine? If so, stick it up your Dutch arse.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah he always refers to that. Not sure what that's supposed to be.

[Rum]

It is a racist stereotype, which suggests a harsh, aggressive, no nonsense approach to life, lacking in sensitivity and compassion. A bit like to Scots?

[Scot Dutchy]

An Anglo-Saxon mind set is emphasised by the way everything is approached from a adversarial stand point. A typical example is the British government and other commonwealth governments based on it. Compromise is not its favourite word. Whereas in Europe compromise and discussion are the centre points of their societies. Here it is called the polder model. Conflict is avoided whereas in the Anglo-Saxon world it is looked for. In Britain you have had always a them and us: "You are for us or agin' us".
Your legal system is based upon it. Never mind the truth just convict the bastard. This case just proves it; "The bugger was breaking in so he deserves all he gets". Nobody asks the question; "why was he breaking in?". Why was he killed? The adversarial mind demands a them and us. He is them; unemployed scum and we are us; the civilised side of the world. So civilised that we kill people.

[pErvinalia]

I agree that the European justice model is better than the adversarial system we have. But I don't think there is any confusion about who is in the wrong when someone invades your home.

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree that the European justice model is better than the adversarial system we have. But I don't think there is any confusion about who is in the wrong when someone invades your home.

I am not disputing that he broke in but does it give the owner the right to treat him as lower sub species. Something you can just kill? The burglar is wrong no argument but treat him as another human being.

[Alan B]

Yeah, OK. I'd put the kettle on and make them a cuppa.

[pErvinalia]

I agree that the European justice model is better than the adversarial system we have. But I don't think there is any confusion about who is in the wrong when someone invades your home.

I am not disputing that he broke in but does it give the owner the right to treat him as lower sub species. Something you can just kill? The burglar is wrong no argument but treat him as another human being.

There's nowhere in the Anglo world outside the US where you can shoot/stab someone for breaking into your house. Not sure what you think the law is in the "Anglo-Saxon mindset".

[Rum]

pErv is right. But it is wrong to assume that a more 'robust' approach to defending yourself from nasty people is somehow carried over into the justice system. The adversarial system has its weaknesses, but it also has one major strength which magistrate Inquisition does not and that is the presumption of innocence. The British system (which much of the world has copied) would rather see ten guilty people go free than one innocent person get locked up.

[Forty Two]

You can't just go killing any old burglar in England!. A 78 year old guy who stabbed and killed a burglar (I suspect this is what prompted Crumple's post) is being charged with murder. He is out on bail so it does not appear that he presents a risk to the public!

There will of course be a public outcry if he is actually taken to court and found guilty..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43648896

Here the law is very clear: the only defence is self defence in a life threatening situation. Withdrawal is always advised. I know the Anglo-Saxon mindset thinks different about it but life here is always placed above property. Property after all can be replaced.

Generally, people in evil Anglo-Saxon common law based countries are of a similar view, that property can always be replaced, and that the key is self-defense. What many Anglo-Saxon types recognize, though, is that when someone invades a home, it is of different character altogether as compared to, say, someone breaking into a car on the street. Most people would say "mere" defense of property is not sufficient to warrant killing the thief. However, when someone invades a home, there is a line crossed that most people recognize. A clear example of the crossing of this line would be a mother and father with two small children, say a baby and a 4 year old. There are many reasons to invade a home - there have been thieves, and there have been folks kidnapping children, and there have been criminals on the run who commandeer a home etc., and an indefinite number of other motivations. The mother and father, and the kids, do not know what the person's motivation is. If they are awakened from slumber by noise in the house, it engenders natural fear reaction - something is happening, but you don't know what. Who is in the house? Why? Nobody knows.

Should the mother or father confront the intruder? What if the intruder is armed with a long knife or a bat? What if the intruder is skilled at fighting, whereas the mother and father are rather peaceful folks, with no such experience? We don't know. But, there are kids in the house, kids who will be alarmed by strangers in the house, causing evident fear in their parents. And, those kids will typically be sleeping in rooms other than the parents' room. So, the parents must get to the kids to try to protect them, and guard them.

If there is a way to get out of the house, should (must?) the parents take it, and leave the kids? After all, we don't know if the intruders are theives or if they are kidnappers. We should assume the property motive? Or the kidnapping (or worse) motive?

If there is a way to get to the kids quickly and leave the house, most people would say that it's a good idea to save the kids and worry about the property later. But, that's a big "if" and placing the burden of that decision -- attempt to sneak out, or confront - which is better? We don't know, because it all depends on the circumstances and precise, second by second, facts on the ground.

Does putting the burden to prove reasonable action on the residents of a house seem fair?

The "don't break into homes" rule provides a bright line, easy to follow guideline. If you break into a home, don't be surprised to get a bat to the head, because dad doesn't have to inquire after your motive before acting to ensure the safety of his family, nor does the mom, or perhaps a teenage kid.

Whatever this "mindset" you are declaring is Anglo-Saxon is, I prefer it to whatever idiocy you're suggesting, which is that a 78 year old man would have to wait to have a 37 year old man attack him before defending hearth and home? No way. The 78 year old man did not do anything to cause the situation, and he has a right to safety in his own home. He need not lay down his life on the chance that a burglar does not intend harm to the homeowner's body. If that sounds unfair to you, then we have a different opinion, and I think yours is barbaric.

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree that the European justice model is better than the adversarial system we have. But I don't think there is any confusion about who is in the wrong when someone invades your home.

I am not disputing that he broke in but does it give the owner the right to treat him as lower sub species. Something you can just kill? The burglar is wrong no argument but treat him as another human being.

There's nowhere in the Anglo world outside the US where you can shoot/stab someone for breaking into your house. Not sure what you think the law is in the "Anglo-Saxon mindset".

Just look at the reactions to this guy. He is a hero! That says enough. He is one of us.

[Forty Two]

An Anglo-Saxon mind set is emphasised by the way everything is approached from a adversarial stand point.

Indeed, burglary in the Netherlands is accomplished using the inquisitorial method, which is a far better method of accomplishing burglaries.

A typical example is the British government and other commonwealth governments based on it. Compromise is not its favourite word. Whereas in Europe compromise and discussion are the centre points of their societies. Here it is called the polder model. Conflict is avoided whereas in the Anglo-Saxon world it is looked for. In Britain you have had always a them and us: "You are for us or agin' us".

Yes, if there is one thing continental Europe is known for, it's resolving disputes amicably. In over 2000 years, the longest period without a military conflict in continental europe was between 1872 and 1913. But, yeah, continental Europe is conflict averse.

Your legal system is based upon it. Never mind the truth just convict the bastard. This case just proves it; "The bugger was breaking in so he deserves all he gets". Nobody asks the question; "why was he breaking in?". Why was he killed? The adversarial mind demands a them and us. He is them; unemployed scum and we are us; the civilised side of the world. So civilised that we kill people.

This is not accurate. The British common law legal system, with the right to counsel/advocate, the right to trial and a trial by jury of one's peers, the right to confront witnesses against oneself, presumpton of innocence, etc., these were honed under English Common Law over hundreds of years - Magna Carta, The English Bill of Rights, etc. - and were designed to pursue the truth. The "advesarial" system is far better at reaching the truth than the "inquisitorial" system, because it allows the defendant the tools and resources needed to test the allegations, challenge the witnesses, and examine the evidence.

The English common law, and the British legal system does not demand what you say it demands. It does not say that we ask no questions about the killing of criminals. It says that when Mr. Osborn is accused, he gets the presumption of innocence, the right to confront his accusers, the right to test the evidence, and the right to be represented by counsel before a jury, who is tasked with determining if the Crown has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not a function of the "adversarial" system that the law in England applicable to burglars killed inside the homes they've invaded may be structured differently than the law applicable to burglars killed in a theft on the street.

[Forty Two]

I agree that the European justice model is better than the adversarial system we have. But I don't think there is any confusion about who is in the wrong when someone invades your home.

I am not disputing that he broke in but does it give the owner the right to treat him as lower sub species. Something you can just kill? The burglar is wrong no argument but treat him as another human being.

...another human being who broke into one's home, with an unknown intent.

What's the suggested treatment? Invite him in for a cuppa? Holler through the door, "hey! burglar! mate! If you would, please, clarify your purpose in being in my house in the middle of the night, I'd appreciate it! Also, is it safe for me to come out there and chit chat!? Me wife and kids are 'ere and since you've woke them, they'd fancy a biscuit and and some milk before you either kidnap and/or rape them, or let them be off to bed again to sleep soundly after the home invasion is over."

Burglar responds, "oi, mate - I'm not here for a bit of the 'ole in-and-out! I'm just 'ere to read the meter! Eggiweggs! Oi, would loyke.... to smash 'em!"