Is Your Home Your Castle? Apparently Not In U.K.

[Sam_Stone]

I can’t find the original cite for the 13% vs 50% figure for ‘hot burglaries’, but that number is referenced all over the place.

Here’s a Cato Institute report that says the same thing:

Indeed, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. And while the American murder rate has been in decline for more than a decade, the English murder rate has been rising. You are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. More than half of English burglaries are “hot burglaries”(someone is at home), while in America, where bur-glars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police, only 13 percent are “hot burglaries.” As for the effectiveness of stringent gun control, since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled. Gun crime has recently been described as spreading “like a cancer.” Units of British police are, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and American policemen are being hired to advise British departments.

Here’s another cite for the same figure. The author is John Lott, which I’m sure will raise hackles here, but the article is heavily footnoted with the sources.

[Kal]

@Sam Stone

Here’s another cite for the same figure. The author is John Lott, which I’m sure will raise hackles here, but the article is heavily footnoted with the sources.

That cite goes against an earlier post of yours in this thread.

You said:

In the U.S. or Canada, if you try that you run the risk of a spouse coming down the stairs with a .45. So it’s much safer to break in while no one’s home.

Canada’s attitudes on this matter are much closer to the U.S. in this case. There have been plenty of cases of a homeowner or storekeeper shooting down an intruder, and they almost always lead to an acquittal, or charges not even being filed. There was even an extreme case in Calgary in which a store owner chased several fleeing robbers out of his store and shot them down with a shotgun, and he was acquitted.

While Lott says:

Almost half the burglaries in Canada and Britain, which have tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries.”

[Ximenean]

Why are “hot” burglaries so bad, compared to regular burglaries, anyway?

[johncole]

It’s not all bad news on the castle front.

Award for 71-year-old who threw burglar from top window

Bravery Award Duo Back Self-Defence Proposals

[Magiver]

Burglary is more than a loss of money. Having your house broken into is a psychological assault. Even the author points this out.

Active passivity? Once a burglar experiences this little slice of heaven it will result in a repeated personal hell for the victim. What a load. The author is just making more work for his counseling business.

We had a case in my area where a house was broken into multiple times. The owner was home when the last break-in was made and shot one of the kids through the door. I believe a warning was made before the shot was fired. No action was taken against the owner.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

Here is very authorative cite from the United Nations, rather than some pro-gun cite.(WARNING PDF file)
International Crime Victim Surveys (ICVS)

Unfortunately (for us Brits) it looks like we may have worse problems per head of capita than USA in several types of crime.

[Kal]

Here, John Lott claims that 59% of British burglaries are ‘hot’.

Trying to find the highest figure he claims could become a new Google game.

[Sam_Stone]

Kal: Nothing in that cite contradicts what I said about Canada. I said Canadian *attitudes are similar to the U.S. in terms of believing that one has a right to use deadly force in one’s own home. But handgun ownership in Canada is much lower than it is in the States (although we have a lot of long guns).

However, it would make an interesting study to see why ‘hot’ burglaries are as high in Canada than in the U.K., seeing as how Canadians are more likely to defend themselves than Brits are. There could be other confounding factors.

[Huerta88]

@roger thornhill

I’ve noticed reading these boards (75% US citizens, I guess) that violent retaliation to acts of violence is taken more as a given than in the culture (England 1960s-70s) I was brought up in, at any rate.

Thus, some of the comments made about the Pacers-Pistons game, especially Arnett’s (wrong name, but you know who I mean) right to go and punch the person who’d thrown a cup at him, left me shaking my head. The fellow gets something thrown at him (his body - his temple - his castle), and he is entitled - more than entitled - almost behoven to beat up the person who did it.

Intrusion is a different issue, but I note a similar difference between what I was brought up with (phone the police - get out the house through a window, etc) and the more assertive American approach.

With person-related “assaults”, I feel the “British” way is preferable. With intrusion, I think the English courts have gone too far. But the press stories may in fact only be harping on those few cases where British and American practices differ. All in all, there is much alignment between the two places in terms of cultural values. Thus, with regard to the Pacers case, it’s probably the fact that English sports events have known so much spectator trouble in the past 35 years that has ingrained in everybody involved in sport that players just don’t get involved. They would knock the other bloke’s block off if it happened down the pub.

I think most Americans were pretty outraged at what Ron Artest did, and I think he may even spend some time in jail over it, if you’re following the stories. Though here is a guy who thinks it’s not that outrageous how he reacted, and who compares the similar rise in violence in Brit sports (including Cantona’s assault on a fan).

My submission remains that home robberies are “different.” You’re confined, you’re isolated, you’re fearing that it will escalate from “just” robbery to rape, murder, etc. Again, I resolve the ambiguity in favor of the homeowner, and against the idiot who thought that “just” robbing the place was safe and low-risk.

[enipla]

Active passivity, yeah, right.

Oh, hi. Don’t mind me. Take what you want. I’m off to the bedroom to get my .357.

I would treat a ‘hot’ burglary’ like I would a house fire. Can I put it out? If so do it. If I can’t, get the hell out and get help.

[Blalron]

I can understand that point of view but do you think people have any right to defend their property from theft? If so, what level of force should be permitted to defend property?

Get better locks. Get a Brinks Home Security system. Even Pepper Spray maybe. Taser Gun. I can accept that. But should you have the right to kill because some foolish kid wants your DVD player?

That Texas law is bullshit. Breaking into a home to take stuff does not warrant a death sentence. “To Protect Property”? Does that mean you can shoot an unarmed teenager?

[enipla]

@casdave

The licence defines conditions to which the subject must adhere, any breaches of these conditions can and regularly means an atutomatice return to jail - no trial, nothing just a trip in a white van to a big house.
Licences are usually for a set period after release, however a life licence means that although the subject may have only served a three year term, they can be returned to jail at any time on breaches, for life, there is no term limit on such a licence.

Burglary is one of the crimes, along with personal robbery or violence, that is attracting ‘life licence’ terms, and when these get returned to jail, it has a salutary effect on other inmates.

We have a similar ‘3 strikes’ and your out law in some states.

But, you don’t really mean no trial do you? If that where the case, every cop on the street would be judge and jury.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Blalron

Get better locks. Get a Brinks Home Security system.

I shouldn’t have to spend a fortune to keep people out of where they shouldn’t be.

Even Pepper Spray maybe. Taser Gun. I can accept that. But should you have the right to kill because some foolish kid wants your DVD player?

No, I should have the right to take measures to protect my family. Property can be replaced. My family is irreplaceable.

That Texas law is bullshit. Breaking into a home to take stuff does not warrant a death sentence. “To Protect Property”? Does that mean you can shoot an unarmed teenager?

Should I as a member of the military be able to kill someone who breaks into a restricted area and goes toward an aircraft, even though they chose to ignore the signs that deadly force is authorized against intruders? What restrictions on intrusion are acceptable to you? How much value is enough to justify defense of property?

I consider my home to be exactly that. Mine.

You know, the easiest way for people to avoid any sort of potentially lethal confrontation is to not break into houses that do not belong to them.

[Huerta88]

@Blalron

Get better locks. Get a Brinks Home Security system. Even Pepper Spray maybe. Taser Gun. I can accept that. But should you have the right to kill because some foolish kid wants your DVD player?

That Texas law is bullshit. Breaking into a home to take stuff does not warrant a death sentence. “To Protect Property”? Does that mean you can shoot an unarmed teenager?

You’re missing the point. No one is claiming it’s about property, solely. You can’t shoot a guy robbing the DVD player from your warehouse.

When he’s in your home or on your property, it is reasonable to fear that your personal safety, as well as the safety of your personal property, is in jeopardy. Maybe it’s not, maybe it is, but it’s reasonable to fear this. Note that the Texas law is keyed to nighttime intrusions, too. This is clearly based on the fact that people being in your house, at night, is just plain scary. If it were about property rights, it wouldn’t be limited to nighttime.

As I’ve said – the rule’s pretty simple. You come into my house at night, you’re going to scare the hell out of me, and I reserve the right to assuage my scared-ness by killing you. Harsh? Sure. Ambiguous or unjustifiable? No.

[enipla]

@Blalron

Get better locks. Get a Brinks Home Security system. Even Pepper Spray maybe. Taser Gun. I can accept that. But should you have the right to kill because some foolish kid wants your DVD player?

That Texas law is bullshit. Breaking into a home to take stuff does not warrant a death sentence. “To Protect Property”? Does that mean you can shoot an unarmed teenager?

I agree that you should not shoot someone when they no longer pose a threat.

But the idea that we should quietly leave when a bugular walks in the front door is unbelievable. If someone breaks into my house and he will not leave, and (this is important) has criminal intent (he’s not just lost or in need of help) I’ll shoot the fucker.

Make note of these conditions -

Will not leave.

Has criminal intent.

[Blalron]

@Airman Doors

Should I as a member of the military be able to kill someone who breaks into a restricted area and goes toward an aircraft, even though they chose to ignore the signs that deadly force is authorized against intruders? What restrictions on intrusion are acceptable to you? How much value is enough to justify defense of property?

I consider my home to be exactly that. Mine.

Your home isn’t a multimillion dollar aircraft, and it isn’t a deadly weapon. Your analogy is severely flawed.

You know, the easiest way for people to avoid any sort of potentially lethal confrontation is to not break into houses that do not belong to them.

Which is worse, killing a human being or stealing property? Who’s committing the greater evil here?

[Blalron]

@Airman Doors

I shouldn’t have to spend a fortune to keep people out of where they shouldn’t be.

Brinks Home Security Standard system: $99.

Premium: $205

Probably less than the cost of a good handgun.

[Sam_Stone]

If an intruder breaks into my home, I’m going to assume that he’s come prepared to run into family members. That means he may be armed, and probably is.

Also, the home is a very close quarters. If you confront someone, there isn’t going to be a lot of time for negotiations, or space to run away.

All this adds up to this conclusion: If I confront someone who has broken into my home, I WILL assume that deadly force is justified, unless I’m offered incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the burglar to offer that evidence.

Back when it was just my wife and myself, our drill was that if someone broke into the house, we would simply barricade ourselves in the bedroom, with the 9mm at our side. Announce to the burglar that we were in the house, and armed, and that he should leave immediately. Then wait for him to leave.

If he didn’t leave but chose to enter the bedroom after being warned, he would be greeted with a volley of lead. End of story. I’m not going to wait to see his gun. Sorry. Take me to court.

But now that I have a daughter in another bedroom, the situation is different. Upon hearing a break-in, it’s straight to the daughter’s bedroom to collect her, armed if possible. If, along the way, I encounter the intruder, he will be shot. Period. I’m not about to try to engage an intruder in conversation in close quarters. My daughter’s life is at stake. I’ll go to jail if I have to.

If, on the other hand, I can collect our daughter and make it back to our bedroom, then plan A goes back into effect.

What I’m not going to do is go searching the house like Rambo, seeking out a confrontation with the intruder. That’s idiotic. He can take the damned TV if he wants it that badly. But if the encounter happens despite my attempts to avoid it, I’ll shoot first and ask questions later.

[Odesio]

@Blalron

Get better locks. Get a Brinks Home Security system. Even Pepper Spray maybe. Taser Gun. I can accept that. But should you have the right to kill because some foolish kid wants your DVD player?

I don’t see anything wrong with using force or deadly force to protect your property. How much danger should I subject myself to in order to prevent that foolish kid from taking my DVD player? Provided of course I have a right to prevent him from taking the DVD player in the first place.

That Texas law is bullshit. Breaking into a home to take stuff does not warrant a death sentence. “To Protect Property”? Does that mean you can shoot an unarmed teenager?

I don’t believe the law mentions an age so I suspect shooting a teenager would be acceptable. I believe the laws in Texas on when you can or cannot use force and deadly force is very reasonable. If you don’t want to risk life and limb then don’t break into homes or try to steal automobiles.

Marc

[Blalron]

I don’t see anything wrong with using force or deadly force to protect your property. How much danger should I subject myself to in order to prevent that foolish kid from taking my DVD player?

So you’d be fine with shooting someone in the back as they were running off with your DVD player?