Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   The wussification of the UK continues, as a man who tackled drunken teen for attempting to break into his house and then turned the teen over to police is arrested for assulting the teen   (thesun.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10799 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2007 at 10:59 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



414 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-11-04 12:11:12 PM  
Save the Rambo tactics for when someone breaks in intent on hurting your family.

When they start wearing their intent on their sleeve, maybe I'll listen to you. Except they could be lying. Anyone who breaks into a house (and not part of a search and rescue effort) is obviously a criminal and cannot be trusted.
 
2007-11-04 12:11:23 PM  
meekychuppet: Assulting? Thanks for highlighting your intelligence level their dumbassmitter.

By the way, it's The Sun. Despite the penchant Farkers have for racial stereotyping I can assure you that it didn't happen the way it was reported in The Sun, but don't let silly old rality dsampen your stupidity


I am in no position to throw stones on the subject of spelling or grammar but this is just a bit much.
 
2007-11-04 12:11:40 PM  
hipsellipsis: I just came here to make an ad hominem attack on MeekyChuppet.

I'm an ex-pat Brit and so, so glad not to be living around people with your mentality any more.

You violate my family's space, you pay dearly. No, I'm not an internet tough guy. And don't accuse me of not valuing life. I do value life to the highest degree; that is why I consider a invasion of one's home sanctuary akin to a rape.

Kill 100 intruders, you'll soon find out that burglary drops off to negligible levels. I don't know anyone in the US who has been burglarized.


Bullshiat.

No Brit would ever resort to the bastardisation 'burglarized'.
 
2007-11-04 12:11:42 PM  
TheDogsBollox: Anyhoo.. that asides - assault is assualt. There must be more to the story. Also, the kid hadn't actually committed a crime - so there can be no defence to say that in the act of apprahending the "criminal" I had to punch/kick/banjo the offender to stop him escaping. And the law is pretty much black and white in that respect.

It'd be highly unlikely that you'd be arrested for assaulting someone who broke into your property. In this case, the kid broke no laws (as far as we know), but the blundering baffoon chasing him down the street did.


So it's not against the law in England to jump over someone's fence, climb up their drainpipe and hang out on their window ledge?

Would it be okay if he were watching your daughter take a bath too? Where do you draw the line?

Sounds like trespassing at the very least - breaking and entering more likely. And at least in the US, you don't actually have to succeed at B&E for them to charge you with it.
 
2007-11-04 12:12:25 PM  
mmm... pancake: Harriet Vane: They are kids who want your PS2, TV and DVDs.

I don't know about Australia, but here in the States we work very hard to afford the things we want to buy. When some punk tries to take somebody's new HD tv I don't see it as just as television. See, that television was bought with money that may have taken that person months to earn in a deadend job. When the punks take that TV they are taking a piece of that person's life.


get insurance
 
2007-11-04 12:12:31 PM  
And people ask why I fight tooth and nail against being stationed overseas in the U.K.
 
2007-11-04 12:13:47 PM  
tarquinrainbowtrout: get insurance

I have insurance. It's a Mossberg 500 loaded with shot.
 
2007-11-04 12:14:03 PM  
luckyeddie: No Brit would ever resort to the bastardisation 'burglarized'.

It's 'burgled', right? Sounds awfully passive and stinks of teH ghey.
 
2007-11-04 12:14:29 PM  
uh, spain and sweden aren't in europe?

Fair point about Sweden, but Spain fought WWII, just a few years early (fascists vs. socialists, direct combat of German "volunteers" vs. Russian "volunteers").
 
2007-11-04 12:14:45 PM  
I see Australia is the highest on that list for burglaries per capita with 21.7454 per 1,000 people.

However, for murder:

USA :0.042802 per 1,000 people (#24)
Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people (#43)
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people (#46)

And murder with firearms:

USA: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (#7)
Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people (#27)
UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (#32)

Assault in general:

USA: 7.56923 per 1,000 people (#6)
UK: 7.45959 per 1,000 people (#8)
Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people (#10)

In conclusion, UK and Aussies like to steal more shiat but we're less likely to be murdered or assaulted. I'm happy to keep it that way.
 
2007-11-04 12:15:39 PM  
Shaggy_C: luckyeddie: No Brit would ever resort to the bastardisation 'burglarized'.

It's 'burgled', right? Sounds awfully passive and stinks of teH ghey.


Just as long as it doesn't stink of burgers, it's fine.
 
2007-11-04 12:16:35 PM  
mmm... pancake: I have insurance. It's a Mossberg 500 loaded with shot.

Try not to shoot the television, though, as your kind of insurance won't replace the television you wrecked when you shot the intruder. Also make sure they put it down before you shoot them.
 
2007-11-04 12:17:19 PM  
mud-shark

It's the Sun - I don't believe for a second that is the whole story. As much as the Police can be asshats from time to time, generally they are spot on.

Also, the fact this occured at 10.30pm puzzles me - who the fark attempts to break into a house in Kent at 10.30pm?
 
2007-11-04 12:17:44 PM  
Exactly, Scalpod.

It is comedy gold when someone who makes dumb mistakes like that calls someone else stupid.
And of course there's also the stupidity he exhibits in defending criminals, something he's done in other threads about similar stories. Maybe he's been on the wrong side of the law himself, eh?
 
F42
2007-11-04 12:19:20 PM  
The police state does not like it when mere citizens act upon the police's designated area of activity.
 
2007-11-04 12:19:30 PM  
Harriet Vane: In conclusion, UK and Aussies like to steal more shiat but we're less likely to be murdered or assaulted. I'm happy to keep it that way.

Burglars are on the same level of murderers and assault and battery types IMO. I wish death on all of them.
 
2007-11-04 12:20:47 PM  
mmm... pancake: Burglars are on the same level of murderers and assault and battery types IMO. I wish death on all of them.

Yeah, but given the choice, would you choose to be murdered, assaulted or burgled? I'd choose burgled any day.
 
2007-11-04 12:20:48 PM  
tarquinrainbowtrout: mmm... pancake: Harriet Vane: They are kids who want your PS2, TV and DVDs.

I don't know about Australia, but here in the States we work very hard to afford the things we want to buy. When some punk tries to take somebody's new HD tv I don't see it as just as television. See, that television was bought with money that may have taken that person months to earn in a deadend job. When the punks take that TV they are taking a piece of that person's life.

get insurance


I got insurance. That still doesn't mean I'm just going to let someone take my stuff. You still have to deal with the deductible, the loss of your stuff - some of which may have intrinsic value to you NOT covered by insurance - the paperwork, and knowing that there's someone out there who got away with breaking into your home once and just may try it again.

My home has been burglarized before.

Has yours?
 
2007-11-04 12:21:22 PM  
meekychuppet: it's clear this guy posed no threat.

If this happened to you and you had the chance to catch the guy who was running away, but let him go, how would you feel when you found out your neighbours had been burgled? Or read in the paper about the intruder that raped a woman two streets away from you? Could you live with knowing that you could have stopped that, but didn't?

Both these men will be sent to court on separate charges on separate days. A jury is very unlikely to convict the homeowner, because juries are still made up of citizens and they don't side with criminals. However, in the meantime, the homeowner will have to pay for a lawyer, make himself available for police interview at short notice and be limited in his travel and other activities by his bail conditions. The burglar will also face such limitations, but he's unlikely to own a house or any non-portable property and there's a good chance that he'll just flee and never even see the inside of a court.

The laws seem even handed, but they disproportionately punish law abiding citizens who are unlucky enough to be targeted by burglars. We need a castle doctrine in this country. A law which only demands that the police establish that the burglar was indeed an illegal intruder in order that the homeowner be found not guilty of any actions taken against the burglar.

In the meantime, this guy's mistake was involving the police at all. Remember the 3S rule applies to intruders too.
 
2007-11-04 12:21:42 PM  
Harriet Vane: mmm... pancake: Burglars are on the same level of murderers and assault and battery types IMO. I wish death on all of them.

Yeah, but given the choice, would you choose to be murdered, assaulted or burgled? I'd choose burgled any day.


I think the problem is that you feel those are your only choices.
 
2007-11-04 12:22:10 PM  
choice and consequence: Fair point about Sweden, but Spain fought WWII, just a few years early (fascists vs. socialists, direct combat of German "volunteers" vs. Russian "volunteers").

No se olvide Guernica!!!!
 
2007-11-04 12:22:13 PM  
Yeah, well, vigilante justice is illegal. As well it should be.
 
2007-11-04 12:22:33 PM  
Harriet Vane: Try not to shoot the television, though, as your kind of insurance won't replace the television you wrecked when you shot the intruder. Also make sure they put it down before you shoot them.

I must say, your attitude towards criminals is the most naive I've ever seen on Fark. You assume that someone who breaks into your home isn't there to cause you personal harm. I value my life and the life of my family enough to assume the worst.
 
2007-11-04 12:22:37 PM  
buckler: I think the problem is that you feel those are your only choices.

I'm realistic enough to believe that there is no such thing as a crime-free society in the foreseeable future.
 
2007-11-04 12:23:17 PM  
buckler: I think the problem is that you feel those are your only choices.

Or that you have a choice at all to start with!
 
2007-11-04 12:23:22 PM  
"He is the latest in a string of householders to be arrested trying to protect their homes and property."

Well this so called string seems to consist solely of sketchy reports from The Sun and The Daily Mail, numbering one or two a year so I'm not overly concerned. Just like I'm not worried about goblins rising up out of mountain caves like in that other popular work of fiction "The Lord of the Rings".
 
2007-11-04 12:24:00 PM  
mmm... pancake: I must say, your attitude towards criminals is the most naive I've ever seen on Fark. You assume that someone who breaks into your home isn't there to cause you personal harm. I value my life and the life of my family enough to assume the worst.

In Australia, they are not. You know how I know this? From spending two years and eight hours a day entering phone calls of police reports. The reports were overwhelmingly for crimes against property. Assaults, though not uncommon, were completely unconnected and likely to be either your friends or family or the result of a punch-up at the pub.
 
2007-11-04 12:24:09 PM  
tarquinrainbowtrout: mmm... pancake: Harriet Vane: They are kids who want your PS2, TV and DVDs.

I don't know about Australia, but here in the States we work very hard to afford the things we want to buy. When some punk tries to take somebody's new HD tv I don't see it as just as television. See, that television was bought with money that may have taken that person months to earn in a deadend job. When the punks take that TV they are taking a piece of that person's life.

get insurance


You theives and theif sympathisers love insurance companies doncha?

Birds of a feather flock together.
 
2007-11-04 12:25:07 PM  
Harriet Vane: buckler: I think the problem is that you feel those are your only choices.

I'm realistic enough to believe that there is no such thing as a crime-free society in the foreseeable future.


Given the choice and ability, my home would be a "crime-free" zone.
 
2007-11-04 12:25:10 PM  
Harriet Vane: "It's not the role of citizens to determine who is and isn't breaking the law. And how serious does the infraction have to be? Can I attempt to detain you for jaywalking until I can hand you over to the police? If you run away and put up a struggle, can I attempt to subdue you? There's a reason that the job of meting out justice is not in the hands of the masses."

1) yes, it is the role of the citizen to determine who is and isn't breaking the law. Citizens make the laws (through electing a representative, in most cases), Citizens sit on the juries that convict people, and appointed law enforcement officials are Citizens.
2) Its called a felony.
3)yes.
4)Indeed, mostly that reason is convenience.

Thank you for playing, please keep your socialism to yourself.
 
2007-11-04 12:25:35 PM  
I blame The Patriot Act!
 
2007-11-04 12:25:50 PM  
mmm... pancake: Or that you have a choice at all to start with!

To some extent you have a choice of which society to live in. I will take the society with higher rates of crime against property and lower rates of crime against persons over the society with lower rates of crime against property and higher rates of crime against persons.
 
2007-11-04 12:26:10 PM  
Individual people are not. With over 5 billion people in the world who cares.

Thieves deserve to die, people spend hours and hours working to buy things, it may be "just stuff" but it's MINE, not yours.
 
2007-11-04 12:30:25 PM  
Harriet Vane: mmm... pancake: I must say, your attitude towards criminals is the most naive I've ever seen on Fark. You assume that someone who breaks into your home isn't there to cause you personal harm. I value my life and the life of my family enough to assume the worst.

In Australia, they are not. You know how I know this? From spending two years and eight hours a day entering phone calls of police reports. The reports were overwhelmingly for crimes against property. Assaults, though not uncommon, were completely unconnected and likely to be either your friends or family or the result of a punch-up at the pub.


Not one burglar in australia ever assaulted a homeowner?

I seem to remember a story on FARK just last week of one showering an octagenarian couple in glass as he smashed the window of their bedroom in with a statue from their lawn.
Must have been New Zealand since this is against your experience in OZ.
 
2007-11-04 12:31:12 PM  
anarchy_x: Thank you for playing, please keep your socialism to yourself.

Erm, why? This isn't a thread about Florida. Your opinions are just as out of place as you accuse mine of being.

anarchy_x: 1) yes, it is the role of the citizen to determine who is and isn't breaking the law. Citizens make the laws (through electing a representative, in most cases), Citizens sit on the juries that convict people, and appointed law enforcement officials are Citizens.

Yes, 12 people. Not one guy who perceives himself as the victim of the crime.

2) Its called a felony.

Not every country uses your definition of felony. Breaking a car window and stealing the spare change isn't a felony everywhere.

3)yes.

I can't remember what this was about.

4)Indeed, mostly that reason is convenience.

And for training in the law and the best way to complete investigations and detain offenders without making themselves liable. If individuals were to go around enforcing the law, the rate of lawsuits for the tort of false imprisonment would skyrocket.
 
2007-11-04 12:32:01 PM  
Wasn't it an Englishman who said, "A man's home is his castle."?
 
2007-11-04 12:33:36 PM  
mikaloyd: Not one burglar in australia ever assaulted a homeowner?

I seem to remember a story on FARK just last week of one showering an octagenarian couple in glass as he smashed the window of their bedroom in with a statue from their lawn.
Must have been New Zealand since this is against your experience in OZ.


He did, as a result of breaking the window. He slashed his throat on the glass. The homeowner then went outside and attempted to revive him. I wouldn't call that assault as he didn't set out with the intent to assault them, it was a consequence of his breaking the glass.

And of course homeowners have been assaulted. It's just statistically unlikely. If we lived on the basis of whether anything had happened ever, rather than on the likelihood of it happening again and to us, we'd never get much done.
 
2007-11-04 12:35:24 PM  
Harriet Vane: It's not the role of citizens to determine who is and isn't breaking the law. And how serious does the infraction have to be? Can I attempt to detain you for jaywalking until I can hand you over to the police? If you run away and put up a struggle, can I attempt to subdue you? There's a reason that the job of meting out justice is not in the hands of the masses.

All good questions. I suggest that you read the law. Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Part III, Section 24 (new window). Any person may make an arrest if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that an arrestable offense is being committed. Burglary falls into the arrestable category, jaywalking does not.
 
2007-11-04 12:38:22 PM  
Harriet Vane: Wow I guess you really TOLD me! Whats your address? If i ever find myself in OZ I'd like to visit sometime and take advantage of your liberal personal property policies...I could use a little dope money myself! Just stay in bed, I'll let myself out.


/burglars paradise sounds like to me
//over which rainbow?
///slash
 
2007-11-04 12:38:36 PM  
Harriet Vane: And of course homeowners have been assaulted. It's just statistically unlikely. If we lived on the basis of whether anything had happened ever, rather than on the likelihood of it happening again and to us, we'd never get much done.

It's also statistically unlikely that most people will ever have their home burglarized.

Should I not bother with insurance, a burglar alarm or locking my door then?
 
2007-11-04 12:39:05 PM  
As long as a criminal can keep his back turned towards you, he's immune to your attacks. You can't touch him, can't shoot at him, can't throw anything at him, because he's got his "shields" up. If you touch him, you lose.

Real tricky criminals can snatch your wallet and then spin around real fast and yell "red light!" knowing that if they take a hit in the back the other guy is going to get arrested for it.

It's kind of like a grade-school game, except only lawyers and criminals win. (But I repeat myself...)
 
2007-11-04 12:39:14 PM  
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
 
2007-11-04 12:39:57 PM  
Captain Darling: All good questions. I suggest that you read the law. Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Part III, Section 24 (new window). Any person may make an arrest if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that an arrestable offense is being committed. Burglary falls into the arrestable category, jaywalking does not.

Driving without a licence, publishing obscene material, touting for hire car services etc all seem to come under Schedule 1A's list of arrestable offences too. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a serious offence.
 
2007-11-04 12:44:47 PM  
--------------------
Harriet Vane 2007-11-04 12:14:45 PM
I see Australia is the highest on that list for burglaries per capita with 21.7454 per 1,000 people.

However, for murder:

USA :0.042802 per 1,000 people (#24)
Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people (#43)
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people (#46)

And murder with firearms:

USA: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (#7)
Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people (#27)
UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (#32)

Assault in general:

USA: 7.56923 per 1,000 people (#6)
UK: 7.45959 per 1,000 people (#8)
Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people (#10)

In conclusion, UK and Aussies like to steal more shiat but we're less likely to be murdered or assaulted. I'm happy to keep it that way.
--------------------------

Why are you or a family member career burglars?
 
2007-11-04 12:48:37 PM  
SpacePunk: Why are you or a family member career burglars?

There's only five houses on the continent and not much else to do. Cyclical burglary gives us something to do. It's like the invisible hand of the market reallocating resources.
 
2007-11-04 12:49:12 PM  
stiletto_the_wise: If thieves broke into my place and all they wanted was my TV, I would consider myself LUCKY and hold the door for him while he walked out.


Could I get your address? I could use a new TV.

Would you mind helping me load yours into the truck? I figure since you're so nice about giving your things away, I can spare you the additional cost of repairing a lock or window.


Internet tough guys. All of you.


If I had to chose between "Sniveling Pussy" or "Tough Guy" as my online persona, I think I'd choose the latter.
 
2007-11-04 12:51:13 PM  
Murder by firearm should count as less bad than murder by pretty much anything else.

If you're going to kill me, shoot me. Unless there are bands of staplers going around killing people by schnu schnu.
 
2007-11-04 12:54:29 PM  
LocalCynic: Afternoon_Delight: You don't have to drag them in anymore.

Exactly, no you no longer need to hide the fact that you raped or tortured a potential burglar.


Stop lying.
 
2007-11-04 12:56:08 PM  
Harriet Vane: Driving without a licence, publishing obscene material, touting for hire car services etc all seem to come under Schedule 1A's list of arrestable offences too. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a serious offence.

I don't know that "serious offence" has any meaning in law, so it is whatever you wish it to be, and it's pointless for us to argue about it.

The law allows anyone to make an arrest if they reasonably believe that a arrestable offence is in progress. The homeowner was acting legally if he had such a reasonable belief. That's all I'm saying.
 
2007-11-04 12:57:11 PM  
PapermonkeyExpress: Seems like the only one with an active fantasy life is YOU.

I mean, WTF? You really think that all gun owners are like that? "..raped and tortured a potential burglar.." j

Get out of your mom's basement and breathe in a little reality, son.


LocalCynic opposes all self-defense. He has likened self-defense to "thuggery" -- a term he used to describe an unarmed 71 year-old man fending off an attacker. I suspect that he is himself a criminal who is aghast at the idea that there are those who would seek to make his "job" dangerous.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report