Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in UK] (Your Country Is Fucked)

[skaman607]

This story makes me puke

 

[primetime21]

im pretty positive we don't have any laws that aimed at protecting burglars.

Hate to agree with 2thick, but there are laws aimed at protecting burglars. For example you cannot set up a trap on your property that will trigger a gun to shoot a burglar as he walks in. You would face a ton of civil liability and criminal charges that could put you away a lot longer than the burglar.

And there have been plenty of civil cases were criminals have sued the people they have victimized. Not sure how many have been successful, but i know a few that have been. In fact Bernard goetz (in NY) was attacked (supposedly) by a few thugs and shot a couple and faced criminal and civil charges since he used excessive force (shot one of the kids in the back). He was acquitted of mostly all criminal charges but was convicted for possesing an unlicensed weapon.

 

[HansNZ]

Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection' [in Britain]

The Independent (UK) | 05 May 2003 | By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

Sounds like the sort of ridiculous wacko legal quirk that would normally only originate in the USA.

 

[HansNZ]

dont worry, these 'brilliant' european ideas and values will, no doubt, make their way to california.

On the contrary, these are the sort of wierdo legal ideas that are usually the sole preserve of Americans. This sort of thing would usually fall into the "only in America" category. Sounds like your bizarre american attitudes are spreading their contamination outside your borders.

 

[p0ink]

Hate to agree with 2thick, but there are laws aimed at protecting burglars. For example you cannot set up a trap on your property that will trigger a gun to shoot a burglar as he walks in. You would face a ton of civil liability and criminal charges that could put you away a lot longer than the burglar.

And there have been plenty of civil cases were criminals have sued the people they have victimized. Not sure how many have been successful, but i know a few that have been. In fact Bernard goetz (in NY) was attacked (supposedly) by a few thugs and shot a couple and faced criminal and civil charges since he used excessive force (shot one of the kids in the back). He was acquitted of mostly all criminal charges but was convicted for possesing an unlicensed weapon.

there are now LAWS to my knowledge, that protect intruders. in the cases you talk about, the only reason these people get anything is because of some activist judge, that instead of interpreting the laws on the books, decides to push forward his own agenda. there is a difference.

if there are any laws or any past legislation designed to protect intruders, then i want one of the lawyers here to let me know. until then, i am sticking by what i said.

 

[primetime21]

there are now LAWS to my knowledge, that protect intruders. in the cases you talk about, the only reason these people get anything is because of some activist judge, that instead of interpreting the laws on the books, decides to push forward his own agenda. there is a difference.

if there are any laws or any past legislation designed to protect intruders, then i want one of the lawyers here to let me know. until then, i am sticking by what i said.

I agree that specific legislation to protect criminals is wrong, but in some cases it may be warrented. There are degrees of criminality and degrees of intent. I am not aware of how the english court systems work. However, the US has a long history of cases that allow for protection of criminals who are in the act of committing a crime. Now while Its not a quote end quote LAW. It is just as powerful and effective. The US court system is based largely on case law. ANd it has little to do with "activist" judges. Once the court system imposes liability on these situations the later judges are relatively bound by it as if it is a Law passed by the legislature. But they can use their discression in each individual case. But if the legislature imposed the same law to protect criminals the courts would STILL have the discression to interpret it as they wish and rule as they wish. Its the beauty of the legal system.

Here are many cases from many states (thanks to westlaw) that have "case law" that protects criminals to a certain degree. And these arent from liberal stats like NY and california. These cases are from conservative type states like texas.

All these cases hold that a landowner who uses a firearm to repel a trespass will ordinarily be held civilly liable for injuring the trespasser.

Wisconsin--Palmer v Smith (1911) 147 Wis 70, 132 NW 614, supra § 6.
Resort to a deadly weapon to eject an unarmed and submissive trespasser
was held unjustified in Bethley v Cochrane (1955, La App) 77 So 2d 228,
where a judgment allowing the trespasser recovery for injuries inflicted on
him when the property owner shot him was affirmed.

A landowner was held liable for shooting the plaintiff notwithstanding the
latter was trespassing on his property in Cordes v Mason (1911) 14 Ohio
CC NS 70, 32 Ohio CC 530, the court pointing out that under the
circumstances, the landowner had no reasonable ground for believing
plaintiff would do him bodily harm, and that the unlawful use of firearms to
prevent a mere trespass on his real estate could therefore not be excused.

Firing a high-powered army rifle in front of a trespassing fisherman was
held unjustified in Scheufele v Newman (1949) 187 Or 263, 210 P2d 573,
the court affirming a judgment allowing the fisherman recovery against the
property owner. Holding that the use of a deadly weapon under such circumstances was wholly
unjustified, the court said that such conclusion was not changed by the fact
that plaintiff might have been a trespasser. Stating that the defendant was
"trigger happy," and that he had a warped idea of what he could do in
defense of his own alleged property rights, the court said that firing the rifle
in a recreational area was extremely careless, not only insofar as plaintiff
was concerned, but also in regard to other persons who might have been
picnicking on the holiday in the immediate vicinity.

A judgment holding a landowner liable when he inflicted shotgun wounds on
a trespassing minor unauthorizedly fishing in his pond was affirmed in
Dommes v Zuroski (1944) 350 Pa 206, 38 A2d 73, the court citing the trial
judge's findings that the shooting under the circumstances amounted to
wanton recklessness and wilful cruelty.

Illinois--See Spelina v Sporry (1935) 279 Ill App 376, supra § 9[[a]].

Kentucky--Newcome v Russell (1909) 133 Ky 29, 117 SW 305, 22 LRA
NS 724, infra § 11.

Louisiana--Young v Broussard (1939, La App) 189 So 477, supra § 3 [[a]];
Bethley v Cochrane (1955, La App) 77 So 2d 228.

Mississippi--See Anderson v Jenkins (1954) 220 Miss 145, 70 So 2d 535,
supra § 3[[a]].

Missouri--Hartman v Hoernle (1918, Mo App) 201 SW 911; Robbs v
Missouri P. R. Co. (1922) 210 Mo App 429, 242 SW 155; La Bella v
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. (1930) 224 Mo App 708, 24 SW2d 1072, all
supra § 9[].

Nebraska--Everton v Esgate (1888) 24 Neb 235, 38 NW 794, infra § 11.
But see Fosbinder v Svitak (1884) 16 Neb 499, 20 NW 866, supra § 4
(trespass and assault).

New Mexico--Brown v Martinez (1961) 68 NM 271, 361 P2d 152, 100
ALR2d 1012, supra § 9[].

Ohio--Cordes v Mason (1911) 14 Ohio CC NS 70, 32 Ohio CC 530.

Oregon--Scheufele v Newman (1949) 187 Or 263, 210 P2d 573. But see
Eldred v Burns (1947) 182 Or 394, 182 P2d 397, reh den 182 Or 432, 188
P2d 154, supra § 4 (trespass and threat of physical harm).

Pennsylvania--Dommes v Zuroski (1944) 350 Pa 206, 38 A2d 73.

Texas--Ater v Ellis (1921, Tex Civ App) 227 SW 222, error dismd, supra §
8[[a]] (recognizing rule).

 

[p0ink]

are all of these cases for breaking into a person's HOME, not walking across their front grass or fishing at some pond in their 10 acre field?

 

[Y_lifter]

A Store owner in Miami years ago setup an electrified grid to
protect his store due to frequently being robbed.

Guess what ?

Some dude tried to break in, got fried and the shop owner was charged, Manslaughter I believe.


The reasoning behind these cases is simple.

Breaking/entering, trespass or Robbery is not a capital offence.
The person is a schmuck but do they deserve to die ?

Now, if they break into my home armed, I am safe via castle doctrine protections.

 

[atlantabiolab]

On the contrary, these are the sort of wierdo legal ideas that are usually the sole preserve of Americans. This sort of thing would usually fall into the "only in America" category. Sounds like your bizarre american attitudes are spreading their contamination outside your borders.

LOL....sure.

 

[primetime21]

are all of these cases for breaking into a person's HOME, not walking across their front grass or fishing at some pond in their 10 acre field?

These cases are all tresspassing cases. no indication of attempts to injure or rob. However, the point i am trying to make is that they are nonetheless criminals (albeit minor criminals) that are granted certain protection by the state. And beleive me, it has nothing to do with activist judges. Many of the situations are cases that would be followed by 99 percent of judges. If someone breaks into your house and poses some physical threat to you and your family, no judge (at least none that i know) would have a problem with you defending your home. But that doesnt mean we should allow people to use ANy force in defending their home from any PERCEIVED harm.

Basically its splitting hairs. The facts are that there is no "law" protecting criminals per se. But there are laws that protect everyone and sometimes "everyone" can include a criminal in the act of committing a crime. I do agree that a legislature enacting law solely to protect criminals is idiotic!