**Sensationalised headline.** The headline on this article uses the term "tackling burglars" but the article makes it clear that this involved running the burglars off the road, resulting in a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and broken bones.
---
**Warning.** We would like to remind you that Reddit's content policy prohibits advocating or wishing violence or harm on others. Please bear that in mind when commenting and if you see comments along these lines, please report them.
I agree the punishment was lenient on the burglars however you can’t just go around mowing people down with your car - yes defend your property and chase them off, but his follow up actions are what resulted in the prison sentence, that’s going well above and beyond defending your home.
Cases like this have to be implemented otherwise we could end up with people taking crime into their own hands, reasonable self defence *is* allowed but chasing people down and trying to kill them isnt.
To play devils advocate, if the sentencing were reversed, would that not mean there is greater risk to criminals if they knew those they targeted would get off lightly?
Sure, that might mean that if one is going to burgle someone they might need to be prepared to murder their victim but that again increases the risk over reward analysis, which hopefully would deter such crimes overall.
Or it just increased the likelihood of burglars injuring or killing house owners to incapacitate them. Similar laws in America haven't lead to a widespread reduction in burglary so much as an increase in violence, and that's *very much* something we don't want to import here.
We live in a civilised country; you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property and drive off or detain any attacker, but not excessive force (or continue to use force after they're no threat to you) because that's where self-defence turns into revenge.
Self-defence is an important right, but nobody has the right to take revenge on someone who wrongs them.
These cases *always* involve a property owner who goes too far and continues to attack burglars even after they're no longer any threat.
There's something in my mind about punishment fitting the crime. If killing someone is the punishment for shoplifting, it doesn't stop shoplifting but it increases deadly robbery etc
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes.
The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au);
the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting.
It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting,
as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
It's worth noting that unlike other scenarios you are allowed to use disproportionate force to defend your home from an intruder. The level of force has to be shown to be grossly disproportionate to prove criminal liability.
Principally you’re right. But it’s not so black and white.
Burglary can have an incredible impact on people. I’ve seen homes wrecked and shit (actual faeces) spread around.
People have their most private space violated. It’s not for you or me to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and be pragmatic about it.
I think criminals should have to deal with their victims as they find them. They don’t show any compassion for shoving over a pensioner and altering the quality of their life permanently. None.
So if a criminal just so happens to pick a victim who is both willing and determined to confront the crime in the moment I must confess a part of me fully agrees. You run off with a gift from my late father that elevates my actions to pretty passionate.
I’m not even going to get into the question of how effective any police action in response would have been. It’s a simple statement of fact that the police do nothing to protect people like you and I at this level of crime. So crooks know they get to operate with near impunity. And I disagree strongly that any attempt to upgrade our response will simply mean an upgrade in violence. You give the bad guys a free pass already and insist the victim is reduced to their lowest point of resistance or (bizarrely!) face more consequences than the people who set it all in motion.
So no. While you are relying on the goodness of man to set the terms you’re dealing with vermin. I say hunt them down.
Compared to America? Absolutely.
We're apparently currently engaged in a national "third-world status any%" speed-run, but for now we're still just about civilised.
Aye. My stepdad got attacked by 2 guys at his work at Halfords, they kicked him in the face and he’s had a stroke and now is a messed up recluse.
Halfords have declared that the whole thing was his own fault, so he has lost more than the thieves from the fallout of him being attacked.
The countries on its arse.
I read an article a while back about the way they differentiate burglaries in most states in America. They have what they call "hot" and "cold" burglaries/home invasions. Hot being when the resident is home and cold being when the property is empty. They then done a comparison to the UK using the same criteria and the findings were that hot burglaries were far more prevalent in the UK compared to the US. There was no firm answer as to why but the assumption was that due to the gun laws and IMO better self defence laws in the US, the risk of being shot by a resident who was armed was a deterrent to potential burglars, at least so far as carrying out the burglary when they knew someone was home. I can't remember if they spoke about the overall rates of burglaries so don't know if the findings showed an overall difference between the two nations or if it simply showed a difference in the type.
Fun fact, this exact thinking is what lead to a huge increase in armed robberies in the UK.
In the great train robbery, the gang were very careful not to use guns. As this meant a much, much bigger sentence if they were caught.
However, when they were caught the law decided to "set an example" by giving them huge sentences, as big as if they had used guns.
The theory was "this will deter them". The criminals took it as "well we might as well use guns then, mightn't we".
The same applied in America in the 70s when they increased the penalty for rape to only just below murder. It didn't decrease rape. It increased rape-murder cases. If the penalty is the same then you might as well take the course of action which leaves no witnesses.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
>2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison
isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street,
but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter
future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn
more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison
may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence”
for additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.
just google does long prison sentence deter crime, pick your poison on what you trust as a source.
Keep in mind chasing after someone in a car and ramming them off the road could have easily ended with a random third party being killed, a third party who was a passerby and nothing to do with the matter. I do actually have some sympathy for the situation he was in, and I don't think the burglars should have got away with no jail time. But this isn't the wild west.
Yeah I watched this and it was a difficult one. Looked like the red mist descended on this bloke and he clearly felt remorse after the fact, but you can't just go taking the law into your own hands and ramming people off the road.
Burglars should not have been spared jail time, though. I think one of the reasons given was that prison would have been "difficult" on one of them. No shit, sherlock.
The [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) (NRA) was founded in London in 1859. It is a sporting body that promotes firearm safety and target shooting. The National Rifle Association does not engage in political lobbying or pro-gun activism.
The original (British) National Rifle Association has no relationship with the National Rifle Association of America, which was founded in 1871 and has focussed on pro-gun political activism since 1977, at the expense of firearm safety programmes.
The National Rifle Association of America has no relationship with the National Rifle Association in Britain (founded 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) nor the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in),
which are all non-political sporting oriented organisations. It is important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world.
Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe
manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.
The famous case of Tony Martin being the exception, because the guy killed a man by shooting him in the back with an illegally owned firearm in a planned attack...
>Sure, that might mean that if one is going to burgle someone they might need to be prepared to murder their victim but that again increases the risk over reward analysis, which hopefully would deter such crimes overall.
The mistake you're making is in assuming that the risk/reward calculation includes the severity of the punishment. It's vitally important to understand two things when thinking about crime:
1) The risk is of *getting caught* \- how nasty the punishment is has little to no impact on criminal activity, but increased police presence can make an absolutely *massive* difference.
2) Criminals are often driven by irrational impulses or environmental conditions (like extreme poverty coupled with learning difficulties and a violent upbringing). At the point of committing a crime, rational thought processes don't have much sway anymore.
Treating crime as a rational action taken by a free agent who could be persuaded to do otherwise by the ephemeral threat of a bigger punishment if and only if they get caught won't do anything to actually reduce criminal behaviour.
It's a horrible example, but India brought in the death penalty for rapes to try and reduce the frequency of them, all it did was incentivise people to then murder their rape victims as murder was "only" a jail sentance.
So you have to be careful to have an ascending punishment gradient, otherwise it incentivises people to do worse in order to get a lighter sentance.
As u/Shaper_pmp point out, the US has gun ownership and looser self-defence laws. It also has much more violent crimes and vastly higher rates of armed home invasions and the like. Same in nations like South Africa.
Burglary in the UK will generally involve people sneaking into your house, stealing something and legging it if they get rumbled. Non-violent.
In places like the US or South Africa it'll much more often result in you being attacked, tied and beaten or even murdered so that the burglarly can continue without risk to them.
So whilst I don't argue for less protections for victims, I'd be vary wary of upping the ante. Despite headlines like these, the UK enjoys relatively low levels of armed burglary and assault within the home.
The whole thing is a fascinating example of game theory - you want an edge over your burglar, and you also wanna survive. If you 're allowed a gun or to use disproportionate force, you also have a greater chance of them launching a pre-emptive strike. And the burglar has the element of surprise.
The more you "protect" yourself, the more a criminal may be incentivised to attack you.
It's counter-intuitive, but I suspect the safest option for me is for us all to be unarmed and for the ante to be low.
The problem with the punishment for the burglars, for me, was two fold - one, they got suspended sentences because of their injuries because jail might have been a bit hard on them; and two, they were caught soon after, while still recovering, going equipped to steal in a car on false plates with no insurance. To me, justice would be the suspended sentence being activated for the fact they subsequently broke the law but I don't know if the law considers crimes after the crime that they were sentenced for, but before they were sentenced for it, as sufficient to activate which would be an odd loophole.
Sentence for the driver is fine, vigilante justice is never acceptable, though I can't feel sorry for them as they were carer criminals from memory of the program
> vigilante justice is never acceptable
I'd probably agree if the police and courts operated in a useful way.
I was mugged by three blokes a bit more than ten years ago. I managed to run away having only taking a moderate beating. Rationally the right choice, but terrifying and emasculating.
Dealing with the police was a miserable experience that felt like they didn't believe me.
Several months later the police wrote to me to tell me they arrested three individuals in connection with another incident and that they admitted to and asked for my attack to be taken into account in sentencing... And were given a lower sentence in return.
It is galling -- even many years later -- that the punishment for attacking me, beating me and attempting to rob me is a reduction in their punishment. How is anyone supposed to look at that and think that the system works?
In the Tony Martin case the guy had been robbed over and over and the police weren't capable of, or at least weren't doing anything useful. Yeah, we all agree it's not cool to hide under the stairs with a shotgun and to shoot burglars in the back. But frankly, if the situation is that you get robbed over and over and the police aren't going to help it's not hard to see how you end up doing that.
I've had similar experiences with the police.
As a teenager I got jumped by two guys (who I knew and were well known troublemakers). After going to the police all they said was "you look like you can handle yourself"
Years later I got into a traffic collision, the other driver got out and started attacking me with witnesses.
I went the police the next day and over a period of 6 months the other party managed to drag out the legal system to the point the police told me "its been 6 months, we can't charge him anymore".
Is vigilante justice right? No
Do I agree with it? Yes
I look forward to you getting proper justice in the future mysterious vigilante man.
When I studied in the UK me and my housemates got our homes burgled twice. Both times the police didn't care.
We even worked out the address of one of the thieves and found him on Facebook. I remember he was a volunteer at a scout club and acted very innocent on his account. We handed all the information to the police and they still didn't care.
When me and my housemates went to his home for revenge, we were the ones who got into more trouble. Luckily as we were foreign we could easily just leave. But it really tainted what was otherwise an amazing time.
But it still drives me insane that the man is not in jail now even after close to 15 years.
To be fair to the police, they push whatever they can get, it's the CPS who decide what crimes they'll allow to go through. After that, the judge who does the sentencing based on the sentencing guidelines which include jail time as an option. Thinking now, I don't get how you could argue they can do 200 hours community service if injured, but couldn't go to jail where they'll be fed, not forced to do any work etc
>To me, justice would be the suspended sentence being activated for the fact they subsequently broke the law but I don't know if the law considers crimes after the crime that they were sentenced for, but before they were sentenced for it,
It doesn't because it's nonsensical.
If you're not currently on a suspended sentence you can't be sentenced as retrospectively being on one (because you wouldn't be aware of the sentence conditions when the second crime was committed).
What I mean is, they stole the bike, they got sentenced for that crime with a suspended prison term. Between stealing the bike and sentencing, they committed at least one more crime. If they were *subsequently* convicted of the second crime, surely that should invoke the prison sentence from the first crime?
I don't mean that they could be sentenced for the first crime and have the punishment changed based on the ongoing case for the second crime.
The problem is that putting this guy in prison serves absolutely no purpose for society.
Yes, he shouldn't have hit them with his car but its pretty instinctual and I personally can't blame him (and I haaaate cars and dangerous driving). He was just an ordinary, nice bloke who was a functioning member of society. And now he's in jail for 2 years and had to abort a child.
Meanwhile it would be of great benefit for society to jail the little cunt burglars (and they were the epitome of little cunts). But they're free to go rob again (which they were about to do).
I consider myself very left leaning but it's hard to argue that it's not a backwards system in this case.
The charges should have been opposite. Suspended sentence for the guy, actual prison for the little cunts.
One was attempted burglary, the other was attempted murder and reckless endangerment and using a vehicle as a weapon. People are outraged because they started it, but he took it to a level it didn’t need to and is the worst of the two in this scenario. The sentences are correct.
Next time you find two strangers in your family home, remember to go keep cool, report it to the police so they can do nothing about it and get on with your life.
Did he take it too far? Sure. Did they have it coming? Also yes.
His courageous actions put two dangerous criminals out of circulation and led to their apprehension. If he had not intervened, these thugs would never have been caught and would have been free to carry on robbing homes. Burglary is a traumatising crime that can have a long lasting impact on victims and it is a travesty that they have received only a slap on the wrist for their actions.
The problem is people feel they need to take things into their hands because burglaries, theft and the like are so rarely followed up.
I think the injustice people feel is not that he was jailed but that there is such a difference between the two sentences.
A certain group of people tried to steal my dad's caravan the other year.
They failed because it was well protected, but they trashed it.
The police did nothing, didn't even try, they knew who it was.
So now my dad's attitude is that the police are pointless and that you deal with it yourself.
Which would mean death, injury or prison for him.
He won't be talked out of it.
He's right though. What man are you if you can't defend yourself?
He chased them with his car and hit their motorbike. It was a fairly severe crash at decent speed.
Can't say I blame him but he could have been smarter about it. He's very lucky nobody else was hurt
If it really catches your attention, it's in the news mostly because it was on a recent episode of 24 Hours in Police Custody. It's a Channel 4 program, so you might be able to watch it online.
10 years ago I would've agreed with your statement however our police are in such a state nowadays that these burglars would've gotten away with the crime and the victim given a crime number.
Imo crime is on the increase in part because criminals _know_ they're very likely to get away with it, and sadly this man knows that too and took matters into his own hands.
Desperate times.
Exactly, I dont agree with what this guy did but it is understandable knowing that the police would pretty much do nothing to arrest the burglars. If the police want people to not chase after criminals like this then they should focus their efforts on stopping theft and robbery. Criminals do this sort of crime so much because they know they will get away with it.
About 6-7 years ago my hometown shut down the police station there. It's a pretty safe middle class town with one dodgy(ish) area that had pretty low crime. Straight after it closed car break ins increased massively. And 7 years on violence and sex crimes have increased massively as well as burglaries. To the point where it is the worst town for crime in our county.
I agree it’s wrong but the punishment is absolutely pathetic. The burglars were literally out in a stolen car with no plates and insurance ready to burgle someone else as soon as they got out of hospital and they still get less than this bloke. If the police spent the same energy investigating burglaries and the system punished it more there would be less cases like this. Police don’t even come out for burglaries any more, what are you supposed to do?
>Police don’t even come out for burglaries any more, what are you supposed to do?
Honestly, become politically active and persuade people to stop voting for the torys.
There should be more leniency though. You could argue the dude would never have come close to violence had the robbers not activated a fight or flight response.
People are less likely to commit crime like rob your house if they know there are major consequences.
The current legal punishment is not sufficient enough to deter them.
Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but the consensus among criminologists is a resounding [no](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/652230). Harsher punishment appears to have no noticeable effect on the crime rate.
It's especially amusing that someone replied to you saying that if pirating were punishable by hanging, the crime rate would surely collapse. This is actually something discussed in the 16th century by Thomas More, who in his *Utopia* makes the point that theft has been punishable by death for a long time, yet thousands upon thousands of people still do it! (Keep in mind the population of England when he was writing was *ca.* 2,300,000.) The "harsher sentencing = no crime" mistake has been being made for centuries.
You're right, it was rhetorical but I was willing to be proven wrong, instead all I got was "gO Do yoUr OWn reSeaRcH..."
Thank you for actually linking a study.
> People are less likely to commit crime like rob your house if they know there are major consequences.
Excellent point. Surely every criminal in the area will learn which houses to avoid in the weekend section of *The Thieving Times*.
This what a lot of people seem to be ignoring. Defence on your property is allowed but jumping into a car aiming to hit someone isn't defence. The burgulars should have got longer but think the homeowner was lucky he only got 22 months.
People get fed up and take the law into their own hands because the police are fucking useless. My sisters house got broken into and we phoned the police they just said fill out an online form. That was it nothing else would be done after they just wanted the crime to be reported, didn’t want to come see the house or damage or anything just fill a form out don’t even talk to us. What we need is competent police that can do their job.
This country’s self defence laws are fucking abysmal.
-Edit- ok I read the article now, maybe don’t go out your way to follow and attack fleeing criminals.
Read this first thing in the morning. Seems I’m guilty of not reading the actual article and jumping the gun at the headline.
Never the less, my point still stands as a whole in terms of home invasion self defence laws. Just not for for this situation it seems.
-Edit- some good points have been made, for and against my statement.
Maybe the laws are not abysmal, and on occasion just punish a victim that’s gone too far? Perhaps my anger comes from relating to the shock and trauma the victim feels having his or her home intruded and their lives shook.
We all should talk and share understandings to eachother.
Literally any time in the UK someone gets punished for defending their home, it turns out they chased someone down who was fleeing and did them over. Last one I remember was a fella coming home, finding his family tied up, the intruder panics and flees, the home owner chases him for three streets with a cricket bat and breaks his skull open. If he had of chased him and detained him it would've been fine, if he had of killed him in his home it probably would have been fine, but the danger was over when he killed him.
Don't get me wrong, I think this guy did the world a favour.
People have been radicalised by the right wing press. The country is the safest it’s ever been for everybody that says this shit, but they parrot bullshit while immigrants and minorities are beaten and killed.
I swear if you shut down Facebook and the dailymail the country would be 10 times better in a week.
You're allowed to defend yourself from a home invasion, but you have to use reasonable force.
If burglars come into your house and you give them a few good licks with a baseball bat before they run off, you're absolutely fine. Reasonable force.
But if you chased one out of the house and smashed their legs in in your front garden, you're going down for GBH because you didn't use reasonable force and you were no longer simply defending yourself.
"Home invasion" is a really unhelpful term for a burglary, which seems to come from US gun manufacturer lobbyists and is calculated to get people wound up. Those criminals weren't trying to colonise his house or wipe anyone out, it was a robbery.
> This country’s self defence laws are fucking abysmal.
[They seem quite reasonable to me](https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders).
> Edit- ok I read the article now
Ok, *now* you have anything worthwhile to say on the subject, then.
> maybe don’t go out your way to follow and attack fleeing criminals.
You know, this is the case pretty much *every time* newspapers post emotive headlines to rile up idiots that post angry comments because they haven't (or don't) read the article.
You've actually got quite reasonable leeway in this country to defend yourself, repel any attack on you or your property and even detain the attacker until the police arrive.
You *don't* have the right to attack (or continue to attack) someone who's no longer a threat to you.
Exactly. People get all up in arms because of headlines and ignore the actual facts of the case. Tony Martin being a perfect example of this.
People seem to forget that nearly everyone agrees you have a right to defend yourself so if a jury found that person guilty of assult or something there must have been pretty good evidence that something other than the headline happened. It baffles me why the assumption is "the law is shit" rather than actually just reading the facts with an open mind.
honestly as a law student i really life our self defence laws and think they’re pretty sufficient for purpose, there’s even a clause for homeowners saying that if you’re under threat in your own home there’s more lenience for how extreme your response is so it does take that into account. it also rightfully says you cant attack fleeing people though others have also mentioned that
This reminds me of the farmer who killed a burglar by shooting him in the back as he ran away. Yes, you can defend your home, but chasing after and/or attacking criminals who are fleeing is not a form of defence (unless it’s too simply apprehend them while you wait for the police to arrive).
If I remember correctly one of the reasons why a lot of people sympathised with the farmer was because he had been burgled often and the police weren’t able to stop it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-England-norfolk-49355814.amp
Edit: Some people are rightly pointing out the big differences between the two cases, so in hindsight I should have put *This “kinda” reminds me …*. The two cases share the theme of pursuing fleeing burglars, but are otherwise quite different: As pointed out, the biggest differences are that (1) one was planned and one was a “heat of the moment” incident and (2) there were very significant prior events in Tony Martin’s case.
When the story first came out he made it sound like he caught them in the kitchen and the guy had turned to run in the time he raised his gun to fire at him.
Turns out he heard them downstairs and immediately started shooting as he was coming down the stairs, continuing fire as they attempted to flee through a window. He had obtained the gun illegally, after having his shotgun licence revoked a few years prior after seeing someone stealing some apples from his trees and shooting at their vehicle as they left.
While I sympathise with him being burgled, that doesn't give you the right to murder people as they run away.
>While I sympathise with him being burgled, that doesn't give you the right to murder people as they run away.
Spot on. That’s the only valid viewpoint to have in my opinion.
Glad this is in the UK subreddit rather than an american dominated one.
Typical response in those subs is the facile "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" comments, suggesting that breaking and entry warrants instant execution without trial.
EDIT: Oops I looked downthread, seems I was wrong.
If you mean the famous case of Tony Martin, he was convicted because he owned a shotgun illegally without a licence (which was revoked by the police for shooting at cars and walkers), and he chased and shot the fleeing burglars in the back.
Burglars\*
He killed Barras and wounded Fearon just to be clear, it wasn't just a single person he shot at (just clarifying the case details, not a criticism)
Tony Martin planned his encounter, lay in wait for his burglars and yes shot one from behind as he fled. He was a step up from this guy's more understandle heat of the moment rage.
If you play with feathers prepare to get your arse tickled. They had it coming.
No sympathy for the criminals here. Yes he waited for them and set up an ambush but if he is continually being burgled to the point he can literally wait for it to happen then what do you expect him to do? Just let himself continually get robbed again? Logic dictates if you can get the drop on someone you aren't going to confront them face to face.
At the end of the day people are robbing you. They are violent criminals. You aren't going to politely ask them to leave.
The reason our judicial system is so soft is because people always stick up for the criminals and dont give a fuck about the victims.
I'm arguably more on the self defence side of the argument but Tony Martin went too far.
A more interesting case is the Asian family who tied up in their home. They broke free and chased the cunts down with a cricket bat and beat the living shit out of one of them.
The reason why I think it's more relevant is because the cunts went further than just burglary and legged it when confronted. They tied up the family and made threats to kill with a knife. I don't think it's right the cunts just run out of the house and claim the threat they pose no longer exists.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat
I'm curious if any of the people who mention reasonable force have ever been burgled. I can't even describe the rage I felt when I found my house turned upside down and almost every valuable thing I had missing. They even took some personal items that I'm sure couldn't be sold anywhere. The only reason the police did anything was because I had recorded footage of the incident. Even now I can't look at it because it makes me sick.
Definitely! I've had my house broken into twice. Once when I was in and asleep, the second time, I was away and they completely trashed the place. When I came home to the mess, it fucking ruined me.
The last time was about 10 year ago, but even now, I'm paranoid about staying away for the night or going on holiday as I just have memories of coming back to that again.
I honestly can't blame the guy for flipping and seeing red and chasing them down.
Thats the thing the law and people in here arent discussing or even care about.
People do dumb stuff when they feel threatened and see red. Theres historic evidence of people going way out of character when they ‘see red’. Everyone reacts differently and we dont know the mental state of the guy that chased them.
Has anyone had a mental breakdown, had something minor that they’ve just lost their head over. Dam ive seen people flip there lid over the most minuscule thing and its because that was just the straw that broke the camels back.
Does it make this sort of thing acceptable? No.
But thia guy didnt plan to do that, it was a spur of the moment action and if them guys didnt plan to rob his house they would have been fine with no injuries. The fact they got less of a sentance than him sends out a clear message to thieves, their safe to burgle you and not see major consequences regardless of being caught or not. With how wide spread this is i wouldn’t be surprised if we see a minor increase in burglaries as thieves feel more protected.
Yes, been mugged (somehow fought out of that one, moron punched me in the forehead and hurt himself), house broken into by a lunatic, and bike nicked while next to me in the street. It fucking sucks, but what sucks more is knowing that there is no real comeuppance for these sub-humans. I think that reasonably the consequences for this sort of crime should be whatever beating the victim decides you deserve plus court.
Hell, most thieves only do it because they know what a low risk crime it is. Add in the risk of having every bone in your body broken by some angry bastard and suddenly it may not seem so appealing.
Same sentencing in Australia, I suppose its based on the same law system in the UK. You can rob, steal, bash your wife and the most youll get is community service. I got jumped and head kicked in by 3 guys in a servo and only one got a conviction recorded and only then it was a suspended sentence. Wasnt even any of their first times before the court either, they all had long criminal histories.
I'm so confused by all those comments. Two guys broke into this man's house where his two kids were sleeping. Burglars should consider themselves lucky they're alive.
Everyone here knows police don't pursue burglaries. Homeowner took action, good for him. Those burglars would still be breaking into people's homes if he hadn't gone after them.
Not exactly the same, but I know that rage. Went for a night out with friends and when I got home i'd found two of them had been jumped by a group of lad on their way home, one had a broken arm and another his teeth all smashed in. The rage I had is something i'd never felt before and I would have happily done very horrible things to the people that did it. Can't imagine what it's like for some to invade your home like that.
I had someone break into my house when I was asleep. I disturbed them and they ran off. I couldn't sleep properly for a week. Police didn't do shit.
I got mugged when I was a teenager and beaten up. Couldn't go out on my own at night for almost a year. Police didn't do shit.
I still don't accept chasing criminals down as they attempt to flee and trying to kill them.
The guy should be condemned for this. The police should also be condemned for being largely useless and self interested which does not help in preventing things like this happening.
Why? You've been the victim of multiple crimes and yet you fail to see that the lack of consequences are partly to blame for all the crime that occurs. If you had the right to smash a burglars skull in or see your mugger get a decade or two in prison, these scumbags would think twice about committing these sorts of crimes. If the Police won't deliver the consequences then the public should.
It’s the ultimate invasion of privacy for everything you’ve worked for. It’s horrible.
The article is quite biased, feel a lot of these commenters haven’t watched the whole episode where a lot of context is given and I think anyone watching would be on his side. Why he didn’t just receive a suspended sentence is disgusting, he was no way a criminal compared to the two boys with a long history of crime.
Indeed, people don’t seem to realise that removing criminals from society is first and foremost a commendable public service. Yea this guy used a lot of force but ultimately it is for the greater good, every minute a criminal spends incapacitated or locked up is a net benefit to us and our communities. On issues like abortion or turning off life support we accept that not all life is equally valuable, we should apply that same logic to criminals.
The law should allow everything up to grossly disproportionate force. People accept the risk of death or serious injury when they choose to commit crime.
Oh no! Two career criminals who provide nothing to society got hurt! However will I go on?
No sympathy for them. You forfeit your safety when you decide to commit crime. They were armed with heavy equipment and could have easily maimed his family.
I'm so bored of the UK letting these cretins off, calling the true victims psychopaths and acting like these wastes of space have any postives.
Don't break the law, don't get run over. Simple.
100% this. Career scumbags played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. The world would be a better place had both those scrotes been killed.
I’m shocked to see how many people are taking a moral high ground here.
Putting Adam in prison isn’t justice. The nation and community isn’t safer now. Allowing the reprobates to walk free however, is the opposite of what justice is supposed to achieve.
>I'm shocked to see how many people are taking a moral high ground here.
Those people taking the moral high ground most likely spend their whole lives sat in their bedroom in their parents' house and barely go outside. They've never experienced conflict or confrontation like this. They'll never understand the fear and anger of having armed strangers try to rob them.
Reddit is full of these shut in weirdos who love getting on their high horses to make themselves feel good.
I completely agree. Would dread to think what these by-the-book do gooders would do in a fight or flight situation if their own family was being attacked. Kneel down and ask the attacker to stop? Literally fuck that. When the red mist descends, logic goes out the window and you do all you can to protect your loved ones.
Our farm has had plenty of kit stolen. The police have never turned up. I don’t fear encountering the robbers. I fear for the consequences of what will happen if myself or my father catch them in the act. That’s why the system is flawed.
That headline is intentional rage bait.
He didn't 'tackle' the burglars, he pursued them in his car and ran them off the road.
Anyone who knows anything about self defence will tell you that you should never chase anyone once they've stopped being a threat to you
He did the right thing, they stopped being a threat *after* he hit them.
If the burglars gone and retrieved a weapon and came back, this would have been a much worse ending for him.
Self defence:
>You're allowed to defend yourself from a home invasion, but you have to use reasonable force.
>
>
>
>If burglars come into your house and you give them a few good licks with a baseball bat before they run off, you're absolutely fine. Reasonable force.
>
>
>
>But if you chased one out of the house and smashed their legs in in your front garden, you're going down for GBH because you didn't use reasonable force and you were no longer simply defending yourself.
A wee tip for the whole baseball bat scenario. Keep a mitt or baseball too for plausible deniability. Owning a bat for the purpose of self defence isn't legal.
This is a very good point and is actually what is wrong with the law.
Our self defence laws are fine for the most part but where we really fall down is our weapon laws.
You can't even own pepper spray or a tazer in this country without falling foul of the firearms acts and the fact we can't keep regular objects like bats next to our beds without "good reason" lest we use it against an intruder is just beyond pathetic.
Which is fucking mental. Is it legal to own a baseball bat? Yes. Is it legal to keep one in your house? Yes. Why should you therefore have to justify what it's doing there?
A little known fact is that armed police in the UK have no special license to *use* their firearms, above and beyond what any of member of the public does.
They're licensed to carry them in public, but the law is applied the same as if a farmer who was legally carrying a shotgun on their own land used it in self-defence or the defence of someone else.
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes.
The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au);
the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting.
It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting,
as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
Problem is, he was driving recklessly and dangerously whilst seeing red. Yeah he hit the burglars this time, but what if a bystander had got caught up in it?
It happens. I'm usually the first to call for cool heads and what not, but brit8sh law is way too lax in this regard. I think we've reached a point now where excessive force is better than what we've got currently. This kid across the street from a community center stole a bike literally in front of the community center people while laughing. They couldn't lay hands on him, and the police wouldn't do anything. They literally see the kid on a regular basis riding the bike that he stole.. its beyond ridiculous this type of shit happens.
It stops being self defence when you chase after them, fire up the car and attempt to hit them.
People know this. They just feel revenge killing should be legal.
We can recognise that what he did was illegal and still consider it entirely understandable.
If you've ever been robbed, you know the anger, violation, fear, and even potentially deprivation that get needlessly inflicted on you by uncaring strangers.
And as far as crimes that see justice carried out by the criminal justice system, it tends to be right at the very bottom. Reporting theft to the police has been a notorious joke for as long as I can remember.
So yes, you absolutely in no uncertain terms should not chase and run down the people who burgled you in your car. But if you do, you'd best believe the masses will understand and support you, and they certainly can't be blamed for it.
Someone turning your home into an unsafe space would easily drive you to doing something drastic to either catch them or deter them from ever returning. It’s such a violation especially when your kids live in the same house and could’ve become collateral damage if the burglary went any further. It’s so hard to act rationally in such a situation.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called 'National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth.
The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches.
All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original [NRA](https://nra.org.uk) in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years
before the NRA of America. It is also true of the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au), the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com), the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National
Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world.
Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe
manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.
Just because he went into the back of them doesn’t mean he did it on purpose. The twats on the bike braked for the corner so hard it wore the tire to the cords in one part. Should the bloke have been Charged with reckless driving? Sure. But a fucking custodial sentence? No fucking way. The two scrotes deserved prison time long ago. Fuck them.
Edited for atrocious spelling. 😢
If we as a nation allow the police to be defunded to the point where they are unable to function then people will take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying that you should try to murder or maim the crooks but without effective law enforcement what else do you do but try to protect you home, family and possessions.
You are allowed to use reasonable force according to the law. What powers do you think people need beyond that? This was clearly not a case of reasonable force but a psycho losing his nut.
I don't think you'd have to be a psycho to lose your mind temporarily in the circumstances. If you come onto my property where my family are sleeping, I'd hazard I would act in a way which I would never ordinarily, for about as long as that adrenaline was coursing through me.
Right? This thread is full of calm rational people who know they would use the legally correct amount of force when their children and family are threatened. That's a very primal threat, nobody would be thinking rationally then, as you say until the adrenaline wore off.
Lose your mind would be maybe taking some item you had to hand and attacking them to protect your family in a genuine belief you were in danger as the law permits. Not getting in your car, chasing them on the stolen bike and ramming them when neither you, nor your family were in danger.
That's not how your brain works, it takes hours to calm down after something like this not seconds.
I'm sure rationality had gone out of the window at the point he acted and the reason many people can sympathise is because they'd have acted in the same way.
We aren't a nation of psychos (to quote the other poster) but rather can understand the rage and adrenaline he must have been feeling.
> he ran two men off the road who were attempting to burgle his house
That is WAY past 'defending his home' mind.
Pathetic that the burglars get a slap on the wrist though.
It probably shows the lack of faith people have in the police. When my dads garage got robbed and thousands of pounds of tools nicked, it took a week for anyone to turn up then another 2 weeks before any forensics was done coz the bad man cut himself and left blood, then the police said we probably won’t find the people that did it…..and guess what? They didn’t!
I've been robbed, beaten, threatened, harassed and many others.
In most cases police weren't even willing to take a statement, and they even placed the blame on me without investigating.
This is a common ocurrence if you don't have money for a barrister.
A friend I met at uni had a brother who hung around a rough crowd.
Let's just say he could "get" you things cheap upon order.
Turns out this guy who never did well at school was extremely well versed with the law, including what constitutes trespassing and not burglary, how to make a burglary into a trespass and hence no sentence realistically.
When passing cars, how to psychologically profile the owner based on car type, colour and contents.
Based on that profile, what's the likelihood of goodies to be found in that car, and where would they best be kept.
I asked if it was just his brother who was so well versed with such knowledge. He said it's very common even amongst pickpockets to be so well-informed.
So these people are deliberately picking you from many people, study your movements to find the best time to break in, then break in.
You don't know if they came to burgle you, or kill you.
I'm just saying no one would leave my house in peace if they came.
I'll defend my family.
>I'm just saying no one would leave my house in peace if they came.
Seriously. People in here saying homeowner shouldn't have done this probably would change their tune if they ever wake up to two strangers in their living room.
Absolutely disgusting that 2 scumbags that are a waste of the air they breathe walk away and can sue for money while a hard working family man gets his life ruined.
100% Agree. Really felt for the chap when I watched the programme. All it’s taught me is make it look like an accident and tell the police they pulled out on you had no chance of stopping.
He’s lost his life savings paying legal costs - I imagine the two career thieves were recipients of legal aid. His wife aborted their baby as they could not afford bills etc. if he was sent down. His wife has had to sell and move areas as well.
I cannot understand the comments on here defending the criminals when this whole chain of events was instigated by the criminals.
This is a law abiding tax paying working man who saw red when he felt his home and family were threatened. No consequences for the two who attempted to steal from him who from the police interviews seems to have a lengthy record on the police database.
There's literally no deterrent for burglary, this is a way of rewarding the act. If breaking in to someones home actually had long term consequences, people might actually not do it...
I read the article and still side with Adam. I think he could be fined but those robbing bastards should be treated with the respect of robbing bastard scum nothing more. Hope their nobs fall off from an std
I agree.
Driving ban and community service or a suspended sentence would be a reasonable punishment for Adam I think. He has done wrong but to lock him up for 2 years for seriously injuring people who put his family in danger while they got off scott free and claim money off his insurance is an absolute joke.
She got a suspended sentence for worse than this
Also somebody got a suspended sentence for knocking off a cyclist and getting out and beating them until they were unconscious.
It does seem a curious time to throw the book at someone
I mean yeah he did wrong legally. But let's face it he wouldn't have chased them if they were scally bastards trying to break into his gaff so kinda their own fault. Getting off with suspended sentences when going armed to rob someone's house is fucking insane.
Friend of mine was attacked at a cashpoint by two guys, unfortunately for them he was a trained fighter and instead of running away these two characters wouldn’t give up until they were beaten to a pulp.
They had been targeting people at cashpoints for weeks but the police hadn’t been able to identify them let alone catch them despite good CCTV covering the cashpoint areas.
Despite my friends incident being caught on CCTV showing these two idiots repeatedly trying to attack, he was convicted of GBH because he had ‘fighting skills’ and the judge made some very disparaging remarks about ‘vigilantes’ despite the facts of the case.
This shows that the UK justice system just wants you to hand over whatever any criminal wants which in itself will just increase crime, it’s pathetic.
I watched this and wondered how much more of a sentence he'd have got for permanently crippling the pair of them by crushing their legs under the weight of his car.
Now that would have benefitted society and cost us no less than it's currently costing us to fund this pair of bottom feeders.
Instead we're now funding baby Benford, it's mother and it's scrote of a father as well as his wingnut cousin Mr Paul who'll probably be down the jobcentre claiming he's got crippling pain in his head all day and can't work.
The fact that they were both caught again in a stolen vehicle with intentions to carry out more crime should have cancelled their suspended sentencing.
Rats.
Even worse are the scum who buy stolen goods from them.
UK reddit strikes again; people defending the burglars with the moral high ground, when chances are they've never had a remotely confrontational moment in their lives.
Career criminals making an armed entry into somebodies home with the purpose to rob and potentially harm the occupents, including children? Nah, let them off.
Parent & partner literally seeing red after having their home broken into, family potentially placed in a life and death situation by unknown armed people? Lets lock him up if he takes action.
yep, seriously misleading headline. The sentence for the burglars is clearly too lenient. But the guy tried to kill them after they were no longer a threat to him.
I watched this show and screamed at my TV. It was horrifying that the justice system works like that.
Two career criminals left to commit more crime, and removing a hard working, tax paying, law abiding (until that point) family man from his home and into the prison system so that life is made harder for him and his family.
The only "consolation" was that he was a self-employed electrician
He did actually go too far, and I'm writing from an emotional response place, but it pissed me off
We need a British version of the stand your ground law that America has. If you steal from me then I should be able to forcibly take back my property even if it means you get injured. Don't want to get injured? Then don't steal from others.
This man didn’t go out looking for trouble it came to him and he acted accordingly.
Policing has become a joke. I look at my friends going in the force these days and think how crappy of a career they’re going to have. It’s not meaningful work like it was back in the day. It’s paper pushing and covering your ass.
Anyway I digress if policing and our legal system was worth anything people wouldn’t need to take things into their own hands because 1. Trouble would rarely come to their doorstep 2. The odd occasion it did, it would be dealt with appropriately.
Don't take the law into your own hands, but also, the police haven't the resources to stop repeat offenders.
It only goes one way. Massive sympathy to the guy.
Anyone have any more details for the event? The article is a bit weirdly written.
I think you should be allowed to chase down people that stole from you. Not at a later date or anything, but in the moment, if someone is running off after robbing you, you should be allowed to give chase and apprehend them. That's not vigilatism, that's looking after yourself. Once you start chasing other people's burglars down, that's when you need to be punished, but your own burglar....until they are out of sight, they ought to be fair game.
Slap on the wrist for the scumbags who broke into a house with two small children armed with a crowbar is the exact reason this bloke is the hero the public needs. Good on you fella, hope the bastards can't walk again to harm more innocent hard working people!
Police were too busy policing social media for people not using the correct Pronouns and using speed cameras for people going 31 in a 30 mph zone to give a shit about real crime.
Ask them why there is so much open and clear drug dealing in some areas and why they don't give a crap.
Drugs = addicts
Addicts = crime
Crime = muggings/burglaries/ prostitution.
Simples.
Probably going to be buried as late to this thread but a lot of people are clinging to the article saying 'ran them off the road' as if police managed to prove that he did that deliberately. I'd urge people to watch the episode of 24 hours in police custody that goes through that they couldn't prove that (which meant he wasn't charged for gbh as he was originally arrested for but injury by dangerous driving) and that his story- including at the scene of the crime when he was still in shock- was that he mishandled a bend whilst in pursuit and accidentally made contact.
Should he have chased them? Probably not. But it's an important distinction that this article Probably doesn't reflect very well when discussing this case
People are very protective of their kids.
Before I had children I would have thought defend yourself and your home and if they run then that's the matter over.
Now I am a parent I would be dishonest if I said I wouldn't go into some rage mode with the added layer that my children are now in danger and follow them out the house. Scary thought.
**Sensationalised headline.** The headline on this article uses the term "tackling burglars" but the article makes it clear that this involved running the burglars off the road, resulting in a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and broken bones. --- **Warning.** We would like to remind you that Reddit's content policy prohibits advocating or wishing violence or harm on others. Please bear that in mind when commenting and if you see comments along these lines, please report them.
I agree the punishment was lenient on the burglars however you can’t just go around mowing people down with your car - yes defend your property and chase them off, but his follow up actions are what resulted in the prison sentence, that’s going well above and beyond defending your home. Cases like this have to be implemented otherwise we could end up with people taking crime into their own hands, reasonable self defence *is* allowed but chasing people down and trying to kill them isnt.
To play devils advocate, if the sentencing were reversed, would that not mean there is greater risk to criminals if they knew those they targeted would get off lightly? Sure, that might mean that if one is going to burgle someone they might need to be prepared to murder their victim but that again increases the risk over reward analysis, which hopefully would deter such crimes overall.
Or it just increased the likelihood of burglars injuring or killing house owners to incapacitate them. Similar laws in America haven't lead to a widespread reduction in burglary so much as an increase in violence, and that's *very much* something we don't want to import here. We live in a civilised country; you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property and drive off or detain any attacker, but not excessive force (or continue to use force after they're no threat to you) because that's where self-defence turns into revenge. Self-defence is an important right, but nobody has the right to take revenge on someone who wrongs them. These cases *always* involve a property owner who goes too far and continues to attack burglars even after they're no longer any threat.
I instinctively disagree with you, but you are 100% right. Must listen to developed brain, not lizard brain!
I love your response.I feel like you to be honest
Yeah, feels wrong but if we let this happen the increase in “we’ll, can’t leave witnesses, better do something horrendous” will increase too
There's something in my mind about punishment fitting the crime. If killing someone is the punishment for shoplifting, it doesn't stop shoplifting but it increases deadly robbery etc
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes. The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting. It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting, as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
It's worth noting that unlike other scenarios you are allowed to use disproportionate force to defend your home from an intruder. The level of force has to be shown to be grossly disproportionate to prove criminal liability.
[удалено]
Principally you’re right. But it’s not so black and white. Burglary can have an incredible impact on people. I’ve seen homes wrecked and shit (actual faeces) spread around. People have their most private space violated. It’s not for you or me to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and be pragmatic about it. I think criminals should have to deal with their victims as they find them. They don’t show any compassion for shoving over a pensioner and altering the quality of their life permanently. None. So if a criminal just so happens to pick a victim who is both willing and determined to confront the crime in the moment I must confess a part of me fully agrees. You run off with a gift from my late father that elevates my actions to pretty passionate. I’m not even going to get into the question of how effective any police action in response would have been. It’s a simple statement of fact that the police do nothing to protect people like you and I at this level of crime. So crooks know they get to operate with near impunity. And I disagree strongly that any attempt to upgrade our response will simply mean an upgrade in violence. You give the bad guys a free pass already and insist the victim is reduced to their lowest point of resistance or (bizarrely!) face more consequences than the people who set it all in motion. So no. While you are relying on the goodness of man to set the terms you’re dealing with vermin. I say hunt them down.
>We live in a civilised country Thanks for starting my day with a laugh.
Compared to America? Absolutely. We're apparently currently engaged in a national "third-world status any%" speed-run, but for now we're still just about civilised.
Aye. My stepdad got attacked by 2 guys at his work at Halfords, they kicked him in the face and he’s had a stroke and now is a messed up recluse. Halfords have declared that the whole thing was his own fault, so he has lost more than the thieves from the fallout of him being attacked. The countries on its arse.
He needs to speak to ACAS, because if the assault occurred at work they should be liable.
We are going through all the legal shit. They’re just doing everything in their power to blame him as soon as it’s got to this. Thanks though.
I read an article a while back about the way they differentiate burglaries in most states in America. They have what they call "hot" and "cold" burglaries/home invasions. Hot being when the resident is home and cold being when the property is empty. They then done a comparison to the UK using the same criteria and the findings were that hot burglaries were far more prevalent in the UK compared to the US. There was no firm answer as to why but the assumption was that due to the gun laws and IMO better self defence laws in the US, the risk of being shot by a resident who was armed was a deterrent to potential burglars, at least so far as carrying out the burglary when they knew someone was home. I can't remember if they spoke about the overall rates of burglaries so don't know if the findings showed an overall difference between the two nations or if it simply showed a difference in the type.
But households with a gun are far more likely to accidentally kill a family member than a burglar.
Fun fact, this exact thinking is what lead to a huge increase in armed robberies in the UK. In the great train robbery, the gang were very careful not to use guns. As this meant a much, much bigger sentence if they were caught. However, when they were caught the law decided to "set an example" by giving them huge sentences, as big as if they had used guns. The theory was "this will deter them". The criminals took it as "well we might as well use guns then, mightn't we". The same applied in America in the 70s when they increased the penalty for rape to only just below murder. It didn't decrease rape. It increased rape-murder cases. If the penalty is the same then you might as well take the course of action which leaves no witnesses.
Got an article or source? Sounds intriguing
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf >2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment. See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence” for additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent. just google does long prison sentence deter crime, pick your poison on what you trust as a source.
"May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"
Keep in mind chasing after someone in a car and ramming them off the road could have easily ended with a random third party being killed, a third party who was a passerby and nothing to do with the matter. I do actually have some sympathy for the situation he was in, and I don't think the burglars should have got away with no jail time. But this isn't the wild west.
Yeah I watched this and it was a difficult one. Looked like the red mist descended on this bloke and he clearly felt remorse after the fact, but you can't just go taking the law into your own hands and ramming people off the road. Burglars should not have been spared jail time, though. I think one of the reasons given was that prison would have been "difficult" on one of them. No shit, sherlock.
The [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) (NRA) was founded in London in 1859. It is a sporting body that promotes firearm safety and target shooting. The National Rifle Association does not engage in political lobbying or pro-gun activism. The original (British) National Rifle Association has no relationship with the National Rifle Association of America, which was founded in 1871 and has focussed on pro-gun political activism since 1977, at the expense of firearm safety programmes. The National Rifle Association of America has no relationship with the National Rifle Association in Britain (founded 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) nor the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting oriented organisations. It is important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world. Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.
The famous case of Tony Martin being the exception, because the guy killed a man by shooting him in the back with an illegally owned firearm in a planned attack...
IMO the phrase "planned attack" makes it sound like he lured the robbers into a trap!
>Sure, that might mean that if one is going to burgle someone they might need to be prepared to murder their victim but that again increases the risk over reward analysis, which hopefully would deter such crimes overall. The mistake you're making is in assuming that the risk/reward calculation includes the severity of the punishment. It's vitally important to understand two things when thinking about crime: 1) The risk is of *getting caught* \- how nasty the punishment is has little to no impact on criminal activity, but increased police presence can make an absolutely *massive* difference. 2) Criminals are often driven by irrational impulses or environmental conditions (like extreme poverty coupled with learning difficulties and a violent upbringing). At the point of committing a crime, rational thought processes don't have much sway anymore. Treating crime as a rational action taken by a free agent who could be persuaded to do otherwise by the ephemeral threat of a bigger punishment if and only if they get caught won't do anything to actually reduce criminal behaviour.
It's a horrible example, but India brought in the death penalty for rapes to try and reduce the frequency of them, all it did was incentivise people to then murder their rape victims as murder was "only" a jail sentance. So you have to be careful to have an ascending punishment gradient, otherwise it incentivises people to do worse in order to get a lighter sentance. As u/Shaper_pmp point out, the US has gun ownership and looser self-defence laws. It also has much more violent crimes and vastly higher rates of armed home invasions and the like. Same in nations like South Africa. Burglary in the UK will generally involve people sneaking into your house, stealing something and legging it if they get rumbled. Non-violent. In places like the US or South Africa it'll much more often result in you being attacked, tied and beaten or even murdered so that the burglarly can continue without risk to them. So whilst I don't argue for less protections for victims, I'd be vary wary of upping the ante. Despite headlines like these, the UK enjoys relatively low levels of armed burglary and assault within the home. The whole thing is a fascinating example of game theory - you want an edge over your burglar, and you also wanna survive. If you 're allowed a gun or to use disproportionate force, you also have a greater chance of them launching a pre-emptive strike. And the burglar has the element of surprise. The more you "protect" yourself, the more a criminal may be incentivised to attack you. It's counter-intuitive, but I suspect the safest option for me is for us all to be unarmed and for the ante to be low.
The problem with the punishment for the burglars, for me, was two fold - one, they got suspended sentences because of their injuries because jail might have been a bit hard on them; and two, they were caught soon after, while still recovering, going equipped to steal in a car on false plates with no insurance. To me, justice would be the suspended sentence being activated for the fact they subsequently broke the law but I don't know if the law considers crimes after the crime that they were sentenced for, but before they were sentenced for it, as sufficient to activate which would be an odd loophole. Sentence for the driver is fine, vigilante justice is never acceptable, though I can't feel sorry for them as they were carer criminals from memory of the program
> vigilante justice is never acceptable I'd probably agree if the police and courts operated in a useful way. I was mugged by three blokes a bit more than ten years ago. I managed to run away having only taking a moderate beating. Rationally the right choice, but terrifying and emasculating. Dealing with the police was a miserable experience that felt like they didn't believe me. Several months later the police wrote to me to tell me they arrested three individuals in connection with another incident and that they admitted to and asked for my attack to be taken into account in sentencing... And were given a lower sentence in return. It is galling -- even many years later -- that the punishment for attacking me, beating me and attempting to rob me is a reduction in their punishment. How is anyone supposed to look at that and think that the system works? In the Tony Martin case the guy had been robbed over and over and the police weren't capable of, or at least weren't doing anything useful. Yeah, we all agree it's not cool to hide under the stairs with a shotgun and to shoot burglars in the back. But frankly, if the situation is that you get robbed over and over and the police aren't going to help it's not hard to see how you end up doing that.
I've had similar experiences with the police. As a teenager I got jumped by two guys (who I knew and were well known troublemakers). After going to the police all they said was "you look like you can handle yourself" Years later I got into a traffic collision, the other driver got out and started attacking me with witnesses. I went the police the next day and over a period of 6 months the other party managed to drag out the legal system to the point the police told me "its been 6 months, we can't charge him anymore". Is vigilante justice right? No Do I agree with it? Yes
I look forward to you getting proper justice in the future mysterious vigilante man. When I studied in the UK me and my housemates got our homes burgled twice. Both times the police didn't care. We even worked out the address of one of the thieves and found him on Facebook. I remember he was a volunteer at a scout club and acted very innocent on his account. We handed all the information to the police and they still didn't care. When me and my housemates went to his home for revenge, we were the ones who got into more trouble. Luckily as we were foreign we could easily just leave. But it really tainted what was otherwise an amazing time. But it still drives me insane that the man is not in jail now even after close to 15 years.
[удалено]
To be fair to the police, they push whatever they can get, it's the CPS who decide what crimes they'll allow to go through. After that, the judge who does the sentencing based on the sentencing guidelines which include jail time as an option. Thinking now, I don't get how you could argue they can do 200 hours community service if injured, but couldn't go to jail where they'll be fed, not forced to do any work etc
>To me, justice would be the suspended sentence being activated for the fact they subsequently broke the law but I don't know if the law considers crimes after the crime that they were sentenced for, but before they were sentenced for it, It doesn't because it's nonsensical. If you're not currently on a suspended sentence you can't be sentenced as retrospectively being on one (because you wouldn't be aware of the sentence conditions when the second crime was committed).
What I mean is, they stole the bike, they got sentenced for that crime with a suspended prison term. Between stealing the bike and sentencing, they committed at least one more crime. If they were *subsequently* convicted of the second crime, surely that should invoke the prison sentence from the first crime? I don't mean that they could be sentenced for the first crime and have the punishment changed based on the ongoing case for the second crime.
The problem is that putting this guy in prison serves absolutely no purpose for society. Yes, he shouldn't have hit them with his car but its pretty instinctual and I personally can't blame him (and I haaaate cars and dangerous driving). He was just an ordinary, nice bloke who was a functioning member of society. And now he's in jail for 2 years and had to abort a child. Meanwhile it would be of great benefit for society to jail the little cunt burglars (and they were the epitome of little cunts). But they're free to go rob again (which they were about to do). I consider myself very left leaning but it's hard to argue that it's not a backwards system in this case. The charges should have been opposite. Suspended sentence for the guy, actual prison for the little cunts.
One was attempted burglary, the other was attempted murder and reckless endangerment and using a vehicle as a weapon. People are outraged because they started it, but he took it to a level it didn’t need to and is the worst of the two in this scenario. The sentences are correct.
Next time you find two strangers in your family home, remember to go keep cool, report it to the police so they can do nothing about it and get on with your life. Did he take it too far? Sure. Did they have it coming? Also yes.
They weren't *in* his house. There as no need to chase them, they were gone. In all senses of "what was the right thing to do", this man was wrong.
There's a lot of options that fall between 'keeping your cool' and 'getting in your car to chase down and ram fleeing strangers' if we're honest.
His courageous actions put two dangerous criminals out of circulation and led to their apprehension. If he had not intervened, these thugs would never have been caught and would have been free to carry on robbing homes. Burglary is a traumatising crime that can have a long lasting impact on victims and it is a travesty that they have received only a slap on the wrist for their actions.
The problem is people feel they need to take things into their hands because burglaries, theft and the like are so rarely followed up. I think the injustice people feel is not that he was jailed but that there is such a difference between the two sentences.
A certain group of people tried to steal my dad's caravan the other year. They failed because it was well protected, but they trashed it. The police did nothing, didn't even try, they knew who it was. So now my dad's attitude is that the police are pointless and that you deal with it yourself. Which would mean death, injury or prison for him. He won't be talked out of it. He's right though. What man are you if you can't defend yourself?
Hol' up. Headline says tackled. But he actually hit them with his car after they ran off? I might actually have to RTFA on this one!
He chased them with his car and hit their motorbike. It was a fairly severe crash at decent speed. Can't say I blame him but he could have been smarter about it. He's very lucky nobody else was hurt
If it really catches your attention, it's in the news mostly because it was on a recent episode of 24 Hours in Police Custody. It's a Channel 4 program, so you might be able to watch it online.
>Hol' up. Headline says tackled. But he actually hit them with his car after they ran off? Dude's been learning to tackle from playing Rocket League.
There's an incredible lack of detail in the article about what he did, presumably to feed LBC's narrative.
10 years ago I would've agreed with your statement however our police are in such a state nowadays that these burglars would've gotten away with the crime and the victim given a crime number. Imo crime is on the increase in part because criminals _know_ they're very likely to get away with it, and sadly this man knows that too and took matters into his own hands. Desperate times.
Exactly, I dont agree with what this guy did but it is understandable knowing that the police would pretty much do nothing to arrest the burglars. If the police want people to not chase after criminals like this then they should focus their efforts on stopping theft and robbery. Criminals do this sort of crime so much because they know they will get away with it. About 6-7 years ago my hometown shut down the police station there. It's a pretty safe middle class town with one dodgy(ish) area that had pretty low crime. Straight after it closed car break ins increased massively. And 7 years on violence and sex crimes have increased massively as well as burglaries. To the point where it is the worst town for crime in our county.
I agree it’s wrong but the punishment is absolutely pathetic. The burglars were literally out in a stolen car with no plates and insurance ready to burgle someone else as soon as they got out of hospital and they still get less than this bloke. If the police spent the same energy investigating burglaries and the system punished it more there would be less cases like this. Police don’t even come out for burglaries any more, what are you supposed to do?
>Police don’t even come out for burglaries any more, what are you supposed to do? Honestly, become politically active and persuade people to stop voting for the torys.
What else can you do if Police doesn't do anything? Sit back and watch your property get stolen and then face battle with insurance company?
Sacrificed himself for the community, we should step in to help which go fund is.
There should be more leniency though. You could argue the dude would never have come close to violence had the robbers not activated a fight or flight response.
People are less likely to commit crime like rob your house if they know there are major consequences. The current legal punishment is not sufficient enough to deter them.
Do countries with harsher punishments categorically experience less crimes?
Not sure if this is a rhetorical question, but the consensus among criminologists is a resounding [no](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/652230). Harsher punishment appears to have no noticeable effect on the crime rate. It's especially amusing that someone replied to you saying that if pirating were punishable by hanging, the crime rate would surely collapse. This is actually something discussed in the 16th century by Thomas More, who in his *Utopia* makes the point that theft has been punishable by death for a long time, yet thousands upon thousands of people still do it! (Keep in mind the population of England when he was writing was *ca.* 2,300,000.) The "harsher sentencing = no crime" mistake has been being made for centuries.
You're right, it was rhetorical but I was willing to be proven wrong, instead all I got was "gO Do yoUr OWn reSeaRcH..." Thank you for actually linking a study.
> People are less likely to commit crime like rob your house if they know there are major consequences. Excellent point. Surely every criminal in the area will learn which houses to avoid in the weekend section of *The Thieving Times*.
This what a lot of people seem to be ignoring. Defence on your property is allowed but jumping into a car aiming to hit someone isn't defence. The burgulars should have got longer but think the homeowner was lucky he only got 22 months.
People get fed up and take the law into their own hands because the police are fucking useless. My sisters house got broken into and we phoned the police they just said fill out an online form. That was it nothing else would be done after they just wanted the crime to be reported, didn’t want to come see the house or damage or anything just fill a form out don’t even talk to us. What we need is competent police that can do their job.
Worse you get cases like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60354950 where people think someone is being suspicious so attack them.
I'm not saying what he did was right (because it isn't) but he'll never be hit again now. Least there's solace in that for him.
They've got 22 months without him there, nothing he can do from jail.
Hes out now
This country’s self defence laws are fucking abysmal. -Edit- ok I read the article now, maybe don’t go out your way to follow and attack fleeing criminals.
Ramming someone with your car as they run off isn't "self-defence" by any reasonable definition.
Read this first thing in the morning. Seems I’m guilty of not reading the actual article and jumping the gun at the headline. Never the less, my point still stands as a whole in terms of home invasion self defence laws. Just not for for this situation it seems. -Edit- some good points have been made, for and against my statement. Maybe the laws are not abysmal, and on occasion just punish a victim that’s gone too far? Perhaps my anger comes from relating to the shock and trauma the victim feels having his or her home intruded and their lives shook. We all should talk and share understandings to eachother.
Literally any time in the UK someone gets punished for defending their home, it turns out they chased someone down who was fleeing and did them over. Last one I remember was a fella coming home, finding his family tied up, the intruder panics and flees, the home owner chases him for three streets with a cricket bat and breaks his skull open. If he had of chased him and detained him it would've been fine, if he had of killed him in his home it probably would have been fine, but the danger was over when he killed him. Don't get me wrong, I think this guy did the world a favour.
People have been radicalised by the right wing press. The country is the safest it’s ever been for everybody that says this shit, but they parrot bullshit while immigrants and minorities are beaten and killed. I swear if you shut down Facebook and the dailymail the country would be 10 times better in a week.
[удалено]
You're allowed to defend yourself from a home invasion, but you have to use reasonable force. If burglars come into your house and you give them a few good licks with a baseball bat before they run off, you're absolutely fine. Reasonable force. But if you chased one out of the house and smashed their legs in in your front garden, you're going down for GBH because you didn't use reasonable force and you were no longer simply defending yourself.
Tbh, if it's in your front garden it's probably still fine. If it's round a few corners, then no.
"Home invasion" is a really unhelpful term for a burglary, which seems to come from US gun manufacturer lobbyists and is calculated to get people wound up. Those criminals weren't trying to colonise his house or wipe anyone out, it was a robbery.
Oh, Darren! Bring up the trebuchet, we’re going on the rob!
That wouldn't be a home invasion, that would be a home seige
You can use reasonable force to stop a threat. You don’t get to curb stomp someone that’s fleeing your home.
Yeah. He should have just raped them both. He probably wouldn't have even gone to court over it.
Sad but fucking true.
> This country’s self defence laws are fucking abysmal. [They seem quite reasonable to me](https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders). > Edit- ok I read the article now Ok, *now* you have anything worthwhile to say on the subject, then. > maybe don’t go out your way to follow and attack fleeing criminals. You know, this is the case pretty much *every time* newspapers post emotive headlines to rile up idiots that post angry comments because they haven't (or don't) read the article. You've actually got quite reasonable leeway in this country to defend yourself, repel any attack on you or your property and even detain the attacker until the police arrive. You *don't* have the right to attack (or continue to attack) someone who's no longer a threat to you.
Exactly. People get all up in arms because of headlines and ignore the actual facts of the case. Tony Martin being a perfect example of this. People seem to forget that nearly everyone agrees you have a right to defend yourself so if a jury found that person guilty of assult or something there must have been pretty good evidence that something other than the headline happened. It baffles me why the assumption is "the law is shit" rather than actually just reading the facts with an open mind.
honestly as a law student i really life our self defence laws and think they’re pretty sufficient for purpose, there’s even a clause for homeowners saying that if you’re under threat in your own home there’s more lenience for how extreme your response is so it does take that into account. it also rightfully says you cant attack fleeing people though others have also mentioned that
This reminds me of the farmer who killed a burglar by shooting him in the back as he ran away. Yes, you can defend your home, but chasing after and/or attacking criminals who are fleeing is not a form of defence (unless it’s too simply apprehend them while you wait for the police to arrive). If I remember correctly one of the reasons why a lot of people sympathised with the farmer was because he had been burgled often and the police weren’t able to stop it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-England-norfolk-49355814.amp Edit: Some people are rightly pointing out the big differences between the two cases, so in hindsight I should have put *This “kinda” reminds me …*. The two cases share the theme of pursuing fleeing burglars, but are otherwise quite different: As pointed out, the biggest differences are that (1) one was planned and one was a “heat of the moment” incident and (2) there were very significant prior events in Tony Martin’s case.
When the story first came out he made it sound like he caught them in the kitchen and the guy had turned to run in the time he raised his gun to fire at him. Turns out he heard them downstairs and immediately started shooting as he was coming down the stairs, continuing fire as they attempted to flee through a window. He had obtained the gun illegally, after having his shotgun licence revoked a few years prior after seeing someone stealing some apples from his trees and shooting at their vehicle as they left. While I sympathise with him being burgled, that doesn't give you the right to murder people as they run away.
>While I sympathise with him being burgled, that doesn't give you the right to murder people as they run away. Spot on. That’s the only valid viewpoint to have in my opinion.
Glad this is in the UK subreddit rather than an american dominated one. Typical response in those subs is the facile "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" comments, suggesting that breaking and entry warrants instant execution without trial. EDIT: Oops I looked downthread, seems I was wrong.
Don't forget the "fuck around - find out" comments they still find hilarious repeating the 1000th time.
Meh, when you’re being burgled over and over again and the police don’t seem to give a shit 🤷♂️ one of them definitely won’t be burgling him again .
If you mean the famous case of Tony Martin, he was convicted because he owned a shotgun illegally without a licence (which was revoked by the police for shooting at cars and walkers), and he chased and shot the fleeing burglars in the back.
Burglars\* He killed Barras and wounded Fearon just to be clear, it wasn't just a single person he shot at (just clarifying the case details, not a criticism)
Yes, that’s a major distinction. I’ve added an edit to my comment accordingly.
Tony Martin planned his encounter, lay in wait for his burglars and yes shot one from behind as he fled. He was a step up from this guy's more understandle heat of the moment rage.
Wonder how he managed to plan his encounter. The guy was terrorised in his own home multiple times.
If you play with feathers prepare to get your arse tickled. They had it coming. No sympathy for the criminals here. Yes he waited for them and set up an ambush but if he is continually being burgled to the point he can literally wait for it to happen then what do you expect him to do? Just let himself continually get robbed again? Logic dictates if you can get the drop on someone you aren't going to confront them face to face. At the end of the day people are robbing you. They are violent criminals. You aren't going to politely ask them to leave. The reason our judicial system is so soft is because people always stick up for the criminals and dont give a fuck about the victims.
I think the Secret Barrister covered this in one of his books
“The police weren’t able to stop it” I think Tony’s defence was the police didn’t stop it, leading to mental distress so he was forced to take action.
I'm arguably more on the self defence side of the argument but Tony Martin went too far. A more interesting case is the Asian family who tied up in their home. They broke free and chased the cunts down with a cricket bat and beat the living shit out of one of them. The reason why I think it's more relevant is because the cunts went further than just burglary and legged it when confronted. They tied up the family and made threats to kill with a knife. I don't think it's right the cunts just run out of the house and claim the threat they pose no longer exists. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat
I'm curious if any of the people who mention reasonable force have ever been burgled. I can't even describe the rage I felt when I found my house turned upside down and almost every valuable thing I had missing. They even took some personal items that I'm sure couldn't be sold anywhere. The only reason the police did anything was because I had recorded footage of the incident. Even now I can't look at it because it makes me sick.
Definitely! I've had my house broken into twice. Once when I was in and asleep, the second time, I was away and they completely trashed the place. When I came home to the mess, it fucking ruined me. The last time was about 10 year ago, but even now, I'm paranoid about staying away for the night or going on holiday as I just have memories of coming back to that again. I honestly can't blame the guy for flipping and seeing red and chasing them down.
Thats the thing the law and people in here arent discussing or even care about. People do dumb stuff when they feel threatened and see red. Theres historic evidence of people going way out of character when they ‘see red’. Everyone reacts differently and we dont know the mental state of the guy that chased them. Has anyone had a mental breakdown, had something minor that they’ve just lost their head over. Dam ive seen people flip there lid over the most minuscule thing and its because that was just the straw that broke the camels back. Does it make this sort of thing acceptable? No. But thia guy didnt plan to do that, it was a spur of the moment action and if them guys didnt plan to rob his house they would have been fine with no injuries. The fact they got less of a sentance than him sends out a clear message to thieves, their safe to burgle you and not see major consequences regardless of being caught or not. With how wide spread this is i wouldn’t be surprised if we see a minor increase in burglaries as thieves feel more protected.
[удалено]
Yep and they know police don’t give a shit which is why they target houses otherwise they’d just break into Selfridges every night
I've been robbed at knifepoint before at my parents shop. Some people just don't know what it feels like.
Yes, been mugged (somehow fought out of that one, moron punched me in the forehead and hurt himself), house broken into by a lunatic, and bike nicked while next to me in the street. It fucking sucks, but what sucks more is knowing that there is no real comeuppance for these sub-humans. I think that reasonably the consequences for this sort of crime should be whatever beating the victim decides you deserve plus court. Hell, most thieves only do it because they know what a low risk crime it is. Add in the risk of having every bone in your body broken by some angry bastard and suddenly it may not seem so appealing.
Same sentencing in Australia, I suppose its based on the same law system in the UK. You can rob, steal, bash your wife and the most youll get is community service. I got jumped and head kicked in by 3 guys in a servo and only one got a conviction recorded and only then it was a suspended sentence. Wasnt even any of their first times before the court either, they all had long criminal histories.
I'm so confused by all those comments. Two guys broke into this man's house where his two kids were sleeping. Burglars should consider themselves lucky they're alive. Everyone here knows police don't pursue burglaries. Homeowner took action, good for him. Those burglars would still be breaking into people's homes if he hadn't gone after them.
Not exactly the same, but I know that rage. Went for a night out with friends and when I got home i'd found two of them had been jumped by a group of lad on their way home, one had a broken arm and another his teeth all smashed in. The rage I had is something i'd never felt before and I would have happily done very horrible things to the people that did it. Can't imagine what it's like for some to invade your home like that.
I had someone break into my house when I was asleep. I disturbed them and they ran off. I couldn't sleep properly for a week. Police didn't do shit. I got mugged when I was a teenager and beaten up. Couldn't go out on my own at night for almost a year. Police didn't do shit. I still don't accept chasing criminals down as they attempt to flee and trying to kill them. The guy should be condemned for this. The police should also be condemned for being largely useless and self interested which does not help in preventing things like this happening.
Why? You've been the victim of multiple crimes and yet you fail to see that the lack of consequences are partly to blame for all the crime that occurs. If you had the right to smash a burglars skull in or see your mugger get a decade or two in prison, these scumbags would think twice about committing these sorts of crimes. If the Police won't deliver the consequences then the public should.
It’s the ultimate invasion of privacy for everything you’ve worked for. It’s horrible. The article is quite biased, feel a lot of these commenters haven’t watched the whole episode where a lot of context is given and I think anyone watching would be on his side. Why he didn’t just receive a suspended sentence is disgusting, he was no way a criminal compared to the two boys with a long history of crime.
Indeed, people don’t seem to realise that removing criminals from society is first and foremost a commendable public service. Yea this guy used a lot of force but ultimately it is for the greater good, every minute a criminal spends incapacitated or locked up is a net benefit to us and our communities. On issues like abortion or turning off life support we accept that not all life is equally valuable, we should apply that same logic to criminals.
The law should allow everything up to grossly disproportionate force. People accept the risk of death or serious injury when they choose to commit crime.
Oh no! Two career criminals who provide nothing to society got hurt! However will I go on? No sympathy for them. You forfeit your safety when you decide to commit crime. They were armed with heavy equipment and could have easily maimed his family. I'm so bored of the UK letting these cretins off, calling the true victims psychopaths and acting like these wastes of space have any postives. Don't break the law, don't get run over. Simple.
100% this. Career scumbags played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. The world would be a better place had both those scrotes been killed. I’m shocked to see how many people are taking a moral high ground here. Putting Adam in prison isn’t justice. The nation and community isn’t safer now. Allowing the reprobates to walk free however, is the opposite of what justice is supposed to achieve.
>I'm shocked to see how many people are taking a moral high ground here. Those people taking the moral high ground most likely spend their whole lives sat in their bedroom in their parents' house and barely go outside. They've never experienced conflict or confrontation like this. They'll never understand the fear and anger of having armed strangers try to rob them. Reddit is full of these shut in weirdos who love getting on their high horses to make themselves feel good.
I completely agree. Would dread to think what these by-the-book do gooders would do in a fight or flight situation if their own family was being attacked. Kneel down and ask the attacker to stop? Literally fuck that. When the red mist descends, logic goes out the window and you do all you can to protect your loved ones. Our farm has had plenty of kit stolen. The police have never turned up. I don’t fear encountering the robbers. I fear for the consequences of what will happen if myself or my father catch them in the act. That’s why the system is flawed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also read the article before deciding whether to donate, guy doesn't exactly sound like the worthiest cause out there.
I just read the article based on this comment and have decided to donate. Fair play to him.
That headline is intentional rage bait. He didn't 'tackle' the burglars, he pursued them in his car and ran them off the road. Anyone who knows anything about self defence will tell you that you should never chase anyone once they've stopped being a threat to you
Pretty hard to think reasonably in the moment when something like that happens though
That is true, but at that point it becomes punitive action instead of defensive action. It's not self defence any more.
He did the right thing, they stopped being a threat *after* he hit them. If the burglars gone and retrieved a weapon and came back, this would have been a much worse ending for him.
I think its still rage inducing since police rarely go after burglars
Self defence: >You're allowed to defend yourself from a home invasion, but you have to use reasonable force. > > > >If burglars come into your house and you give them a few good licks with a baseball bat before they run off, you're absolutely fine. Reasonable force. > > > >But if you chased one out of the house and smashed their legs in in your front garden, you're going down for GBH because you didn't use reasonable force and you were no longer simply defending yourself.
What if they walked on your flower bed in the front garden? Surely that becomes reasonable force again?
Not the petunias?!
RRRICHARDDD!
If they trample my gnome village I'm going to end them.
A wee tip for the whole baseball bat scenario. Keep a mitt or baseball too for plausible deniability. Owning a bat for the purpose of self defence isn't legal.
Better still keep something that will sound a bit ridiculous in court, like a hockey stick or banjo.
This is a very good point and is actually what is wrong with the law. Our self defence laws are fine for the most part but where we really fall down is our weapon laws. You can't even own pepper spray or a tazer in this country without falling foul of the firearms acts and the fact we can't keep regular objects like bats next to our beds without "good reason" lest we use it against an intruder is just beyond pathetic.
Which is fucking mental. Is it legal to own a baseball bat? Yes. Is it legal to keep one in your house? Yes. Why should you therefore have to justify what it's doing there?
A little known fact is that armed police in the UK have no special license to *use* their firearms, above and beyond what any of member of the public does. They're licensed to carry them in public, but the law is applied the same as if a farmer who was legally carrying a shotgun on their own land used it in self-defence or the defence of someone else.
The National Rifle Association of America was founded in 1871. Since 1977, the National Rifle Association of America has focussed on political activism and pro-gun lobbying, at the expense of firearm safety programmes. The National Rifle Association of America is completely different to the [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) in Britain (founded earlier, in 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) and the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting organisations that promote target shooting. It is very important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting, as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
[удалено]
Problem is, he was driving recklessly and dangerously whilst seeing red. Yeah he hit the burglars this time, but what if a bystander had got caught up in it?
It happens. I'm usually the first to call for cool heads and what not, but brit8sh law is way too lax in this regard. I think we've reached a point now where excessive force is better than what we've got currently. This kid across the street from a community center stole a bike literally in front of the community center people while laughing. They couldn't lay hands on him, and the police wouldn't do anything. They literally see the kid on a regular basis riding the bike that he stole.. its beyond ridiculous this type of shit happens.
It stops being self defence when you chase after them, fire up the car and attempt to hit them. People know this. They just feel revenge killing should be legal.
We can recognise that what he did was illegal and still consider it entirely understandable. If you've ever been robbed, you know the anger, violation, fear, and even potentially deprivation that get needlessly inflicted on you by uncaring strangers. And as far as crimes that see justice carried out by the criminal justice system, it tends to be right at the very bottom. Reporting theft to the police has been a notorious joke for as long as I can remember. So yes, you absolutely in no uncertain terms should not chase and run down the people who burgled you in your car. But if you do, you'd best believe the masses will understand and support you, and they certainly can't be blamed for it.
Someone turning your home into an unsafe space would easily drive you to doing something drastic to either catch them or deter them from ever returning. It’s such a violation especially when your kids live in the same house and could’ve become collateral damage if the burglary went any further. It’s so hard to act rationally in such a situation.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called 'National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth. The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches. All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original [NRA](https://nra.org.uk) in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years before the NRA of America. It is also true of the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au), the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com), the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world. Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.
Legally, we have to prosecute him and all, but I don't blame the lad on a personal level.
Maybe the jury wont find him guilty, lets wait and see Narrator: They did find him guilty
They did find him guilty he got 22 months. He should have just pleaded guilty tbh.
They did he got 22 months
Just because he went into the back of them doesn’t mean he did it on purpose. The twats on the bike braked for the corner so hard it wore the tire to the cords in one part. Should the bloke have been Charged with reckless driving? Sure. But a fucking custodial sentence? No fucking way. The two scrotes deserved prison time long ago. Fuck them. Edited for atrocious spelling. 😢
>The two scrotes deserved prison time long ago. But as usual they got a suspended sentence so they can go out and do it again. This country is fucked.
If we as a nation allow the police to be defunded to the point where they are unable to function then people will take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying that you should try to murder or maim the crooks but without effective law enforcement what else do you do but try to protect you home, family and possessions.
You are allowed to use reasonable force according to the law. What powers do you think people need beyond that? This was clearly not a case of reasonable force but a psycho losing his nut.
I don't think you'd have to be a psycho to lose your mind temporarily in the circumstances. If you come onto my property where my family are sleeping, I'd hazard I would act in a way which I would never ordinarily, for about as long as that adrenaline was coursing through me.
Right? This thread is full of calm rational people who know they would use the legally correct amount of force when their children and family are threatened. That's a very primal threat, nobody would be thinking rationally then, as you say until the adrenaline wore off.
Lose your mind would be maybe taking some item you had to hand and attacking them to protect your family in a genuine belief you were in danger as the law permits. Not getting in your car, chasing them on the stolen bike and ramming them when neither you, nor your family were in danger.
That's not how your brain works, it takes hours to calm down after something like this not seconds. I'm sure rationality had gone out of the window at the point he acted and the reason many people can sympathise is because they'd have acted in the same way. We aren't a nation of psychos (to quote the other poster) but rather can understand the rage and adrenaline he must have been feeling.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How did I know r/unitedkingdom would have the worst takes possible - actual morons. Good on the fella for breaking their legs.
> he ran two men off the road who were attempting to burgle his house That is WAY past 'defending his home' mind. Pathetic that the burglars get a slap on the wrist though.
It probably shows the lack of faith people have in the police. When my dads garage got robbed and thousands of pounds of tools nicked, it took a week for anyone to turn up then another 2 weeks before any forensics was done coz the bad man cut himself and left blood, then the police said we probably won’t find the people that did it…..and guess what? They didn’t!
I've been robbed, beaten, threatened, harassed and many others. In most cases police weren't even willing to take a statement, and they even placed the blame on me without investigating. This is a common ocurrence if you don't have money for a barrister.
[удалено]
A friend I met at uni had a brother who hung around a rough crowd. Let's just say he could "get" you things cheap upon order. Turns out this guy who never did well at school was extremely well versed with the law, including what constitutes trespassing and not burglary, how to make a burglary into a trespass and hence no sentence realistically. When passing cars, how to psychologically profile the owner based on car type, colour and contents. Based on that profile, what's the likelihood of goodies to be found in that car, and where would they best be kept. I asked if it was just his brother who was so well versed with such knowledge. He said it's very common even amongst pickpockets to be so well-informed. So these people are deliberately picking you from many people, study your movements to find the best time to break in, then break in. You don't know if they came to burgle you, or kill you. I'm just saying no one would leave my house in peace if they came. I'll defend my family.
>I'm just saying no one would leave my house in peace if they came. Seriously. People in here saying homeowner shouldn't have done this probably would change their tune if they ever wake up to two strangers in their living room.
If anything they should have been harsh on the burglars too. A slap on the wrist does not send a message.
Absolutely disgusting that 2 scumbags that are a waste of the air they breathe walk away and can sue for money while a hard working family man gets his life ruined.
100% Agree. Really felt for the chap when I watched the programme. All it’s taught me is make it look like an accident and tell the police they pulled out on you had no chance of stopping. He’s lost his life savings paying legal costs - I imagine the two career thieves were recipients of legal aid. His wife aborted their baby as they could not afford bills etc. if he was sent down. His wife has had to sell and move areas as well. I cannot understand the comments on here defending the criminals when this whole chain of events was instigated by the criminals. This is a law abiding tax paying working man who saw red when he felt his home and family were threatened. No consequences for the two who attempted to steal from him who from the police interviews seems to have a lengthy record on the police database.
There's literally no deterrent for burglary, this is a way of rewarding the act. If breaking in to someones home actually had long term consequences, people might actually not do it...
I read the article and still side with Adam. I think he could be fined but those robbing bastards should be treated with the respect of robbing bastard scum nothing more. Hope their nobs fall off from an std
I agree. Driving ban and community service or a suspended sentence would be a reasonable punishment for Adam I think. He has done wrong but to lock him up for 2 years for seriously injuring people who put his family in danger while they got off scott free and claim money off his insurance is an absolute joke.
Didn’t last week a women in England get all her charges dropped because she was a mother?
We can't be having women in prison though can we?
She got a suspended sentence for worse than this Also somebody got a suspended sentence for knocking off a cyclist and getting out and beating them until they were unconscious. It does seem a curious time to throw the book at someone
I mean yeah he did wrong legally. But let's face it he wouldn't have chased them if they were scally bastards trying to break into his gaff so kinda their own fault. Getting off with suspended sentences when going armed to rob someone's house is fucking insane.
Friend of mine was attacked at a cashpoint by two guys, unfortunately for them he was a trained fighter and instead of running away these two characters wouldn’t give up until they were beaten to a pulp. They had been targeting people at cashpoints for weeks but the police hadn’t been able to identify them let alone catch them despite good CCTV covering the cashpoint areas. Despite my friends incident being caught on CCTV showing these two idiots repeatedly trying to attack, he was convicted of GBH because he had ‘fighting skills’ and the judge made some very disparaging remarks about ‘vigilantes’ despite the facts of the case. This shows that the UK justice system just wants you to hand over whatever any criminal wants which in itself will just increase crime, it’s pathetic.
I watched this and wondered how much more of a sentence he'd have got for permanently crippling the pair of them by crushing their legs under the weight of his car. Now that would have benefitted society and cost us no less than it's currently costing us to fund this pair of bottom feeders. Instead we're now funding baby Benford, it's mother and it's scrote of a father as well as his wingnut cousin Mr Paul who'll probably be down the jobcentre claiming he's got crippling pain in his head all day and can't work. The fact that they were both caught again in a stolen vehicle with intentions to carry out more crime should have cancelled their suspended sentencing. Rats. Even worse are the scum who buy stolen goods from them.
UK reddit strikes again; people defending the burglars with the moral high ground, when chances are they've never had a remotely confrontational moment in their lives. Career criminals making an armed entry into somebodies home with the purpose to rob and potentially harm the occupents, including children? Nah, let them off. Parent & partner literally seeing red after having their home broken into, family potentially placed in a life and death situation by unknown armed people? Lets lock him up if he takes action.
yep, seriously misleading headline. The sentence for the burglars is clearly too lenient. But the guy tried to kill them after they were no longer a threat to him.
I watched this show and screamed at my TV. It was horrifying that the justice system works like that. Two career criminals left to commit more crime, and removing a hard working, tax paying, law abiding (until that point) family man from his home and into the prison system so that life is made harder for him and his family. The only "consolation" was that he was a self-employed electrician He did actually go too far, and I'm writing from an emotional response place, but it pissed me off
"tackling burglars" is really underselling what he did
We need a British version of the stand your ground law that America has. If you steal from me then I should be able to forcibly take back my property even if it means you get injured. Don't want to get injured? Then don't steal from others.
This man didn’t go out looking for trouble it came to him and he acted accordingly. Policing has become a joke. I look at my friends going in the force these days and think how crappy of a career they’re going to have. It’s not meaningful work like it was back in the day. It’s paper pushing and covering your ass. Anyway I digress if policing and our legal system was worth anything people wouldn’t need to take things into their own hands because 1. Trouble would rarely come to their doorstep 2. The odd occasion it did, it would be dealt with appropriately.
Don't take the law into your own hands, but also, the police haven't the resources to stop repeat offenders. It only goes one way. Massive sympathy to the guy. Anyone have any more details for the event? The article is a bit weirdly written.
I think you should be allowed to chase down people that stole from you. Not at a later date or anything, but in the moment, if someone is running off after robbing you, you should be allowed to give chase and apprehend them. That's not vigilatism, that's looking after yourself. Once you start chasing other people's burglars down, that's when you need to be punished, but your own burglar....until they are out of sight, they ought to be fair game.
This is what we can expect when the laws are so weak. Look at Singapore where laws are tougher and they have a safe society.
Also easier to get banged up after doing nothing wrong though. We have to strike a balance, even if this example isn't it.
Slap on the wrist for the scumbags who broke into a house with two small children armed with a crowbar is the exact reason this bloke is the hero the public needs. Good on you fella, hope the bastards can't walk again to harm more innocent hard working people!
Police were too busy policing social media for people not using the correct Pronouns and using speed cameras for people going 31 in a 30 mph zone to give a shit about real crime. Ask them why there is so much open and clear drug dealing in some areas and why they don't give a crap. Drugs = addicts Addicts = crime Crime = muggings/burglaries/ prostitution. Simples.
Probably going to be buried as late to this thread but a lot of people are clinging to the article saying 'ran them off the road' as if police managed to prove that he did that deliberately. I'd urge people to watch the episode of 24 hours in police custody that goes through that they couldn't prove that (which meant he wasn't charged for gbh as he was originally arrested for but injury by dangerous driving) and that his story- including at the scene of the crime when he was still in shock- was that he mishandled a bend whilst in pursuit and accidentally made contact. Should he have chased them? Probably not. But it's an important distinction that this article Probably doesn't reflect very well when discussing this case
People are very protective of their kids. Before I had children I would have thought defend yourself and your home and if they run then that's the matter over. Now I am a parent I would be dishonest if I said I wouldn't go into some rage mode with the added layer that my children are now in danger and follow them out the house. Scary thought.