Man notified of burglary via app goes home murders burglar [Liverpool]

[Jack74]

The first stabbing am a bit like they didn’t know what the burglars where carrying and there is no CCTV so no one actually knows what happened ( according to reports unless I have missed something) but the second attack is indefensible what a twat , he was near enough dead from the first incident.

More to this than meets the eye.

 

[PinkFinal]

Looking at the way these people carried out the attack they almost certainly have criminal records I would suggest.
They're almost certainly going down for decades. Incredibly foolish. It was all so unnecessary.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

To normal everyday people, they're the same thing and I've used both terms regardless.

Anyway, enough semantics for one night, no wonder the public has no trust in its institutions anymore.

They are completely different things and are provided for as separate sections under the Theft Act 1968.

Robbery (which is frequently misattributed by the uninformed) is theft with the application of force (or threat of force) and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Burglary (of a dwelling) is where someone enters a dwelling as a trespasser with the intention to steal, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, or life if they go tooled up.

They are completely distinct offences, although there is frequently crossover, such as where a robbery in the home (an especially horrible crime) takes place.

In all instances people are allowed to defend themselves to a reasonable extent, based on the circumstances and clearly a home invasion that included weapons would allow for a far more robust response than an opportunistic, unequipped burglar taking his chances.

The problem with your ‘anything goes’ approach is that it would (for example) permit the torture for weeks on end of a twelve year old who had sneaked in through an open door, without any potential consequences for the homeowner. It would also mean leaving man-traps was perfectly acceptable, even though it could maim and kill children who are simply trespassing on a property (as we all did as kids).

Your approach is ill-conceived and not properly thought through and therefore wholly wrong. The law in this regard works very well and is there for good reason, flowing from long established case law and legislation.

These types of prosecutions are very rare for good reason. Juries are very slow to convict anyone whose home has been unlawfully invaded and the CPS will only prosecute someone in those circumstances in the most extreme and unusual of cases. On the face of it, this is one such case, although as ever, it will be for a jury of members of the public to determine anyone’s guilt, based on what they view as reasonable force to defend one’s home in the circumstances.

There has to be a line somewhere. Surely you must accept that? Or do you think it’s fine to torture children?

 

[Dubai Blue]

I'm thinking 95% of people would phone the cops. Sounds like these two went round to kill. I think there is more to this story, like they knew who the guy was.

It has the distinct whiff of gangs/drugs. It's not even close to being the behaviour of a "normal person", and anyone defending what they did is mental.

No matter how much some posters want to pretend otherwise, this isn't a family being woken up scared in the middle of the night by burglars and understandably panicking. It's a clear-cut case of premeditated murder.

 

[Blue Smarties]

It has the distinct whiff of gangs/drugs. It's not even close to being the behaviour of a "normal person", and anyone defending what they did is mental.

No matter how much some posters want to pretend otherwise, this isn't a family being woken up scared in the middle of the night by burglars and understandably panicking. It's a clear-cut case of premeditated murder.

My first thought was it was a drug robbery gone wrong.

 

[Bluesince1979]

We were burgled years ago whilst my family was asleep and i was working nights , my Wife heard them & ran to look after the kids and they had to cower in one bedroom whilst the cunts ransacked our house.
My Wife & kids couldn't sleep in the house again & my kids had nightmares for months.
We had to sell up and move from a home we'd spent 2 years renovating, i would have stabbed the cunts too if i'd found them.

Would u have stabbed them in the eye, gone off, come back and then slit his throat?

 

[Daz-Simp]

They are completely different things and are provided for as separate sections under the Theft Act 1968.

Robbery (which is frequently misattributed by the uninformed) is theft with the application of force (or threat of force) and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Burglary (of a dwelling) is where someone enters a dwelling as a trespasser with the intention to steal, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, or life if they go tooled up.

They are completely distinct offences, although there is frequently crossover, such as where a robbery in the home (an especially horrible crime) takes place.

In all instances people are allowed to defend themselves to a reasonable extent, based on the circumstances and clearly a home invasion that included weapons would allow for a far more robust response than an opportunistic, unequipped burglar taking his chances.

The problem with your ‘anything goes’ approach is that it would (for example) permit the torture for weeks on end of a twelve year old who had sneaked in through an open door, without any potential consequences for the homeowner. It would also mean leaving man-traps was perfectly acceptable, even though it could maim and kill children who are simply trespassing on a property (as we all did as kids).

Your approach is ill-conceived and not properly thought through and therefore wholly wrong. The law in this regard works very well and is there for good reason, flowing from long established case law and legislation.

These types of prosecutions are very rare for good reason. Juries are very slow to convict anyone whose home has been unlawfully invaded and the CPS will only prosecute someone in those circumstances in the most extreme and unusual of cases. On the face of it, this is one such case, although as ever, it will be for a jury of members of the public to determine anyone’s guilt, based on what they view as reasonable force to defend one’s home in the circumstances.

There has to be a line somewhere. Surely you must accept that? Or do you think it’s fine to torture children?

As I stated, "as a result of a homeowner actively defending their property". I think that was a clear enough line to make your hypothetical situation unnecessary and beneath the level of discussion.

 

[PragueBlue]

Contrast it with these two cases.

Elderly man who would be most likely to have been killed himself had he not used the knife.

Hither Green stabbed burglar Henry Vincent lawfully killed

A coroner says a man acted lawfully when he stabbed a burglar to death at his home in London.

www.bbc.com

Man threatened with violence who overreacted.

Man who stabbed burglar to death given 8½ year sentence

Judge said while defendant faced frightening situation in his home a young man was now dead

www.irishtimes.com

Neither compare to the savage attack described in the link in the OP.

People that think that reaction is okay, just aren't normal.

2nd of those seems a bit harsh to me. Two men break in and use enough force for the judge to describe it as a terrifying situation and yet he gets prison. The surviving burglar gets a suspended sentence and community service. Some deterrent that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As I stated, "as a result of a homeowner actively defending their property". I think that was a clear enough line to make your hypothetical situation unnecessary and beneath the level of discussion.

So you do accept there is a line. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mrbelfry]

As I stated, "as a result of a homeowner actively defending their property". I think that was a clear enough line to make your hypothetical situation unnecessary and beneath the level of discussion.

what if the property is someone elses and the person living there is just renting? and what are you defending your property from? is the intruder going to take the property brick by brick and relocate it somewhere else?