Take down the barbed wire, thieves might get hurt!

hoglahoo · 10-10-2008, 04:04 PM

No barbed wire...it might hurt the thieves, allotment holders told | Mail Online

Quote:

A gardener who fenced off his allotment with barbed wire after being targeted by thieves has been ordered to take it down – in case intruders scratch themselves.

English · 10-10-2008, 04:16 PM

Lee,

You would just love living in England.

We give our burglars a cup of tea when they break into our homes and ask them not to report us to the police in case we are prosecuted for disturbing them.

Russel Baldridge · 10-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Yep, we have something like that in my town as well.

I worked for a fence and deck construction company one summer in highschool and I remember someone saying that it had to do with the possibility that an officer might have to chase a thief over the same barbed wire fence.

Though, that's probably an unlikely situation if there's barbed wire to keep thieves out in the first place.

zenshaver · 10-10-2008, 04:32 PM

I suppose that falls along the lines of that you can't set a trap for a burglar in your home too.

WireBeard · 10-10-2008, 04:34 PM

Hmmmm......sounds like some US homeowners association people moved to Britain. Maybe he should spend a few nights near his shed and if he catches someone...give them the address of some of the council members.

Did you see the comment form the moron in Conn.? Apparently, it is ok for kids to violate others' property, since they are minors. What a load of BS.

This is like the lawsuits in the US where a thief sues the victim for getting injured while committing a crime. Any judge who entertains such nonsense should be removed from the bench.

I think that is why Texas has the Castle Law criminals on your property - if you feel threatened, you can use force (including deadly) to defend yourself. Some argue that you shouldn't use force if you have a chance to flee to safety....not where I grew up. On our property...you're ours.

For other readers - you catch someone breaking into your house. He is not armed.

What do you do?

gssixgun · 10-10-2008, 04:54 PM

Wirebeard:
Unless something changed in the last 7 years since I left Colorado, you have an even more open law there.... It was that as soon as an intruder broke the plane of your doorway you could shoot them, period no questions asked...
That was written that way at the time because, if they came in and open door, you could still shoot them.....
The assumption was changed from you had to "feel" threatened, to the assumption that if they came into your home you "were" threatend...

Like I said I left 7 years ago so I am not sure if it is still the same "Make My Day Law" as it was.....

Quick Orange · 10-10-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WireBeard

For other readers - you catch someone breaking into your house. He is not armed.

What do you do?

Tell him he has two choices: leave unscathed and never come back or stick around so I can beat the daylights out of him while the cops are en route.

That story is unbelieveable though. I don't understand how the laws in the UK are supposed to work. You can't have a gun, you can't go to lengths to protect yourself, other people can't protect you, you can't protect your property. What in god's name can you do (besides easily be a criminal)?

WireBeard · 10-10-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Wirebeard:
Unless something changed in the last 7 years since I left Colorado, you have an even more open law there.... It was that as soon as an intruder broke the plane of your doorway you could shoot them, period no questions asked...
That was written that way at the time because, if they came in and open door, you could still shoot them.....
The assumption was changed from you had to "feel" threatened, to the assumption that if they came into your home you "were" threatend...

Like I said I left 7 years ago so I am not sure if it is still the same "Make My Day Law" as it was.....

I'm sure it's still on the books...b ut we haven't had any incidents in the news. I know in Illinois, when I was a kid, the issue was which way was he facing - coming in or leaving.

I don't have any firearms in the house (no problem with them, just never bought any of my own)...but I do have my U.S. Army NCO Dress Sword...nice and sharp....and that would make better news anyway.

"Colorado Resident involved in "Burglar-kabob" incident"

JimmyH-AD · 10-10-2008, 06:01 PM

Years ago in Florida they used to say that if you shot a fellow you needed to drag him inside to make it legal. There was a case thirty or so years ago where a man and his wife came home from an evening out. Upon opening the front door of their apartment a thief barged out and took off running. The husband was carrying and he shot and killed the intruder. Prosecutor Janet Reno charged him with homicide in the 2nd degree and a jury of his peers found him not guilty.

nickyspaghetti · 10-10-2008, 06:16 PM

Yeah, the UK does have some pretty crappy laws. Most of them are restrictive and patronising.
I do however support the lack of guns there. Ok, it does restrict some peoples hobbies although it isn't really a major pastime apart from hunting. I would rather nobody have a gun than everybody, even if it does mean the criminal has one and you don't. It is just safer generally.

nun2sharp · 10-10-2008, 06:16 PM

If a govt entity is going to let you be the victim they should at least be held liable for any loss, sadly these are the same people who will tell you that they are not responsible. The castle law is getting a workout in missouri right now, we used to have the law where they better be in the house threatening you , but theyve changed it. IMO once you enter anothers reidence you are fair game, as for the gardener in the UK, God help him, as for the moron in Conn., If I knew where he lived I would make it known and whoever wanted to take advantage of him, God bless. BTW, when I was a kid and you did something stupid it was all on you.

jockeys · 10-10-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickyspaghetti

it does mean the criminal has one and you don't. It is just safer generally.

how is it safer for the criminal to be armed and you to be unarmed???

I just really don't understand.

here in Texas, if someone is on your property, and they are misbehaving, it is perfectly legal to shoot them dead. Also, interesting enough, Texas is the ONLY state where you can kill someone over property without being in fear for your life. (old cattle rustling laws that are still on the books.) Interesting enough, if you catch someone with a runnin' iron, you can still shoot them. (Now how many people know what one of those is today, eh?)

Quick Orange · 10-10-2008, 07:02 PM

Does anyone actually carry a running iron any more these days?

The way I see it, your land is your land. If someone comes uninvited onto your land, you have the right to do what you will. If your government tells you that you cannot protect yourself in your own home, then is it really yours? I would say no.

Even in my apartment, if someone came barging in right now, I would be perfectly within reason to pull out one of my weapons and beat the daylights out of that person. They would get charged with breaking and entering, and I would be a hero for beating them down.

zenshaver · 10-10-2008, 07:15 PM

We have to protect ourselves. Last night I caught a bear going through my garbage cans. I wonder if I could protect myself in that case too? I don't know. if I shot the bear they would probably charge me with something too.Not that I would unless I had to defend myself.

gssixgun · 10-10-2008, 07:31 PM

Keep in mind that as you answer here, that regardless of the Criminal case outcome..... You will most likely, be brought into court on a Civil case (read $$$$), especially if you use anything other than a gun to protect yourself.....
I am saying in the US, I am not sure of other countries laws ....

Also in regards to the bear, puma, coyote, etc: the un-written rule is Shoot , Shovel, Shut up......

hoglahoo · 10-10-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

The way I see it, your land is your land. If someone comes uninvited onto your land, you have the right to do what you will. If your government tells you that you cannot protect yourself in your own home, then is it really yours? I would say no.

I think it depends on the context. Do you think you have the right to capture the mailman as he walks up to your porch to deliver your latest RAD acquisition and then kidnap him and force him to be your test shave subject?

And is there an age limit? Do I have the right to snatch up the neighbor's toddler who wandered over to my side of the sidewalk and then cook him for dinner?

I don't think we should expect government to protect such "rights" as those that I just made up out of thin air

zenshaver · 10-10-2008, 07:47 PM

I like that. Shoot,Shovel, Shut up.

JimmyH-AD · 10-10-2008, 08:17 PM

Thirty years ago there were bumper stickers that said,"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". It sounds like an oversimplification but it is really the truth.

Take the National_Firearms Act introduced in the 1930s limiting the ownership of fully automatic weapons. To legally own one you had to apply to ATF to be checked out and pay a fairly large tax. Seems like every cocaine cowboy that made the news was carrying an Uzi or some such weapon. Nowadays these kids in gangs doing the drive by shootins have them and I am sure they are not registered with the ATF.

Or the Sullivan law in NYC circa 1911. It is very stringent and hasn't stopped gun violence in NY since it was passed. Don't get me wrong, I believe that gun laws are appropriate. I just wish they would enforce what they have before they write new ones.

To be honest I would give up my small collection of guns if I thought that they could get them all off of the street. Unfortunately here in the USA the gun culture is so deep and has been around so long that they could never get them all and the criminals would be armed at the honest citizens peril.

There was another old saying popular back then,"I would rather be tried by twelve then carried by six".

End of rant.

icedog · 10-10-2008, 11:52 PM

A few years back a man fell through a skylight into the living room of the house he was in the process of breaking into. When the would be burglar hit the floor he broke his collar bone. The homeowner was sued and lost to the burglar. The homeowner was found to be at fault because he installed the skylight in his living room ceiling. Apparently the skylight presented "an attractive nuisance". If it wasn't there, the guy would not have been tempted to break into that house.

YIKES!!!!

Brad

gugi · 10-11-2008, 12:07 AM

The question in my mind is - 'Is there any way to resolve such things?'. As far as know the current legal system in most of the world provides an escalation of the trials. Is that prohibitively expensive?
I just don't think that the judicial system is well represented by the cited cases - they seem to be the fringe exceptions, not the rule.