I caught the last bit of a discussion today on the Richard and Judy show about protecting your property.

Do you think we have the right to protect our property/family even if it means hurting someone if they break in to our homes?

They gave statistics that house break ins in America are less likely ( forgot exact number ) because they know they are likely at being shot and killed.

What are your views. Has anyone had intruders or been burgled and if so did you do anything if you came across the swines.

In America you are also far more likely to be harmed by someone you know with a weapon (usually by accident) than by a stranger breaking in.

You should be able to use reasonable force, but stabbing and shooting someone is way too much, unless your own life is genuinly put at risk.

Blowing some kid away with a shotgun because you're a bit of a crazy old farmer is just murder.

you only have the right to protect yourself, anyone else and your property by using reasonable force, there is no right to 'hurt' a burglar enshrined in english law.

And I don't see how anyone could answer 'no' to having the right to defend yourself or your property.

The only reason the farmer has been aquitted (in my opinion, IAMAL) is that he is elderly and would be incapable of physically defending his property in any other way.
Also the key difference between this case and Tony Martin, is that he did not shoot the burglar in the back as he ran away (that and the burglar didn't die, but that's a lesser point).

Originally posted by Cyclone
And I don't see how anyone could answer 'no' to having the right to defend yourself or your property.

I agree, but i voted no because it also says 'by whatever means necessary'.

If someone breaks in to your home then as far as i'm concerned they have lost any rights they had when they crossed the door.
I will do whatever it takes to defend my home and I dont give a toss if they get hurt or not.
Tony martin had the right idea shoot the ****s,they deserve all they get.

Originally posted by royjames
If someone breaks in to your home then as far as i'm concerned they have lost any rights they had when they crossed the door.
I will do whatever it takes to defend my home and I dont give a toss if they get hurt or not.
Tony martin had the right idea shoot the ****s,they deserve all they get.

If somebody nicks my telly they deserve to die? Bit harsh, isn't it?

Not really... They shouldn't be in the house. My house was burgled recently whilst I was away and my girlfriend was upstairs.

Had I been in the house, the idiot who came in would've found himself on the wrong end of a baseball bat... And to make matters worse, the last thing he would've seen before he slipped into unconsciousness would've been me in my shorts.

That'd put the scummy b****** of robbing for a bit

Obviously as the law stands, the answer is no. Are those who said yes saying that it's morally ok to murder someone who steals from you?

Originally posted by smedley
Not really... They shouldn't be in the house. My house was burgled recently whilst I was away and my girlfriend was upstairs.

Had I been in the house, the idiot who came in would've found himself on the wrong end of a baseball bat... And to make matters worse, the last thing he would've seen before he slipped into unconsciousness would've been me in my shorts.

That'd put the scummy b****** of robbing for a bit
Everyone thinks that they will be a 'have a go hero', but it's just not going to be like that when it happens.

It's happened to us twice while we have been asleep upstairs, and believe me, you don't hear them. The second time when the alarm went off it must have taken me half a minute to come round before I realised that it was the burglar alarm going off like crazy in the house!

I'm well built and perfectly capable of looking after myself. Unfortunately, you need to factor in the small detail that your brain doesn't work at 3am in the middle of a deep sleep, so luckily you don't get a chance, making the large Maglight by the bed totally useless.

I know of people who have been woken up while their bedroom is being ransacked!!! You don't stand a chance of 'making an impression'.

The best solution. A big dog!

Put an electrified fence around your property to deter Burglars and see how you get on.

It is of course in order around the commons to protect MPs.

Again, one law for them, another for us. :rant:

Originally posted by royjames
If someone breaks in to your home then as far as i'm concerned they have lost any rights they had when they crossed the door.
I will do whatever it takes to defend my home and I dont give a toss if they get hurt or not.
Tony martin had the right idea shoot the ****s,they deserve all they get.

Dont you just love that gung-holier than though attitude :roll:

I voted yes, but I still think maybe Tony Martin used more force than necessary and therefore should have been taken to court.

I voted YES, 100% YES!!

Not only to protect my property, but to get my property back.

I heard a Conservative MP on radio today stating that the law is an ass, and a burglar etc has 'chosen' to enter your home by free will. You, however, have not chosen to be in this position and have therefore had your rights taken away by the burglar.

If they were making off with something as trivial as my son's Lego set, I'd still beat them to pulp if I could. It's my way of saying, "Keep your thieving mitts to yourselves you slimy lowlife gits!"

(I have no faith in the courts to punish these scum in an appropriate manner.)

we have two extremes here then...

Actually, let me reconsider. We don't. We have a few people who feel that rather than using appropriate force to subdue a burglar and wait for the police that it's perfectly reasonable to kill them. And a few others who understand reasonable force, and a few more who understand that violence in reality isn't nice.

Tony Martin was taken to court, he was no longer defending himself or his property, if someone is running away then not much is needed in the way of defence, certainly not shooting them.

If a burglar is armed, then it is reasonable force to kill them as you can only assume that they intend to use that weapon to kill you. But i'd recommend running away if you have the option.

Originally posted by Cyclone
We have a few people who feel that rather than using appropriate force to subdue a burglar and wait for the police that it's perfectly reasonable to kill them........................ If a burglar is armed, then it is reasonable force to kill them as you can only assume that they intend to use that weapon to kill you. But i'd recommend running away if you have the option.

In a lot of cases it would be virtually impossible to restrain a burglar long enough for the police to arrive. And how do you restrain them and call the police at the same time if you're on your own?

If the burglar is moving away, and they've still got your goods, why should you let them just 'go away'?

Or if they have dropped your goods and are leaving, why should they be allowed to leave scot-free, and unharmed?

It's no good phoning the police with a description, cos the chances of your description being good enough for the scum to be traced are very slim.

Finally, I don't consider these ****s to be worthy of consideration if they think it's OK to break into MY property and steal MY goods.

Simple rule for them to follow......BUY YOUR OWN, OR GO WITHOUT,....OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. The choice is totally theirs, not mine.

Is this the case in question?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3954033.stm

I agree with markham %110 as for the case highlighted it's not right that a old man of 73 can't live in peace in his own home withiut scum coming along and doing what they did.
After all the burgular was in his twenties so the old man dont have much chance does he.
Shame he only got 7 yrs he shoul'd have got double that.

In reality, people in the UK are not allowed to protect themselves with whatever means necessary, therefore the correct answer to the question is no.
This is unfortunate since there is very little protection afforded by the law enforcement agencies.

i agree with roy and markham anyone who sets foot into my property without an invitation loses any rights they have as soon as they do so.

My opinion is that if someone is breaking into your house to steal some of your belongings - they do not deserve to be hurt physically by the owner of that home as i dont believe physical pain up until the point of possible death due to this (eg - hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat or stabbing them) is equal to the harm they are causing the home owner.

Lets be fair we're all greedy in this world and must of us have got loads of items that are of luxury (TVs, DVD players, CD players etc) and other people want to steal this stuff but come on its not the end of the world if someone nicks the precious TV is it?

Its HIGHLY unlikely the burglar is going to physically harm the owner of the home if they are, in fact, a burglar who is not interrupted and not a murderer or someone who goes around brutally attacking random people (very rare.)

If someone came into my house (luckily it hasnt happened yet - only the garage has been broken into thus far) Id be absolutely terrified and id be fuming that someone was helping themselves to my things but id just stay where i was - out of the way - and let them take what they want. If theyre that desperate then fine. Ill call the police and let them track them down and hopefully get my stuff back. If not - ill claim it back on the insurance and a nice new TV for me thankyou very much!

Now is it really worth the hassle of potentially killing someone?
Come off it!

the people who insist that they will cause harm to a burglar whether it's required or not are the ones who would be seeing a stretch on the inside (ala Tony Martin).
But then again, hiding away and letting them take what they want, whilst possibly the most sensible option would rather stick in most peoples throats.
I'd certainly rather confront the burglar and use reasonable force to remove them from my property or if possible to detain them. As to what they deserve, well, if you tell them to stop and leave and they do so, there is no injury, if they resist then it's not really your fault, it's not like you went down there with the intent of braining them (intent is an important factor when you go to court to defend yourself).

I'll agree that detaining them until the police arrive would be a fairly difficult prospect, and contrary to hollywood portrayals, judging how hard to hit someone to knock them out and not kill them isn't that easy.

Someone said something about if they are running off with an armful of property. At that point you can still use reasonable force to protect that property, so by all means run after them, just don't stab them in the back with a kitchen knife, it's not reasonable.

You want to be carefull Cyclone - a display of reasonably rationality like that will get you a reputation as a 'lefty do gooder'!

Anyone who's been a victim of crime will no doubt recall the immense feeling of rage against the culprits (especially when they never get caught/get a sentence that's not worth bothering with). This type of crime affects everyone, as all our insurance premiums are increased by these s***bags.
I agree with previous poster's sentiments - the law needs changing here. Would be difficult to "prove" in court, but in my opinion as soon as someone can be deemed to be in the process of committing a crime against my family or property, they should lose all rights whatsoever. My responsibility should be to not use unreasonable force, but not have to fear any prosecution should the criminal suffer injury or death through my actions. For example, burglar breaks into my house, I tw*t him with big stick, he suffers massive brain damage and drops my telly - far from him being allowed to sue me, I should be able to sue him for a new window/door and telly.

Originally posted by smedley
Not really... They shouldn't be in the house. My house was burgled recently whilst I was away and my girlfriend was upstairs.

Had I been in the house, the idiot who came in would've found himself on the wrong end of a baseball bat... And to make matters worse, the last thing he would've seen before he slipped into unconsciousness would've been me in my shorts.

That'd put the scummy b****** of robbing for a bit

But if he fought back and killed you it would be self defence as you attacked him.

Fair do's... But I'm well-handy

Originally posted by smedley
Fair do's... But I'm well-handy

Perhaps they should bring in some kind of Thunderdome thing, so the victim and the robber can sort it out between themselves.

Would be more entertaining than whats on TV now.

You give up your rights when you enter someone's home. If you get killed... tough.

I think it's fair-enough that people come on here and say extreme force shouldn't be used, but what do you suggest then?

You're in the house, middle of the night, gyppos/scousers/manorites/chavs break-in...

You've got a wife/kids/plasma TV...

You know for a fact the rozzers won't dilly-dally their way across for at least two hours...

What do you do?

Originally posted by wasp
You give up your rights when you enter someone's home. If you get killed... tough.

So I could kill the gas man ?

yes, if he notices you've clocked the meter

Clocked ? No. Iit's broken, honest.

Originally posted by smedley
I think it's fair-enough that people come on here and say extreme force shouldn't be used, but what do you suggest then?

You're in the house, middle of the night, gyppos/scousers/manorites/chavs break-in...

You've got a wife/kids/plasma TV...

You know for a fact the rozzers won't dilly-dally their way across for at least two hours...

What do you do?

Good question, personally I don't feel that material possessions are worth taking someone's life and facing the legal and possibly mental repercussions, not to mention what would happen if something was to go wrong and a fight was to break out, being "well handy" ,means nothing if your faced with an armed group, it also doesn't take away the fact that you are commiting murder.

Surely the best defence is to make sure burglars don't get into your property in the first place.

"You're in the house, middle of the night, gyppos/scousers/manorites/chavs break-in..."

Nice use of the same old, tired, prejudiced stereotypes by the way ;)

You totally dodged answering the question...

Again, they're in your house (sorry about the stereotyping... It was light-hearted jest)...

Your expensive security system has let you down. Your wife and kids are in the house...

What do you do?

I would do nothing, I answered the question in my previous post. I do not value material possessions enough to put my own life at risk or to believe that I have the right to take someone else's life. Plasma screen TV or not.

wife and kids, du**ass! They're not material possessions. what would you do if you were in the unlikely position of having a happy family and someone broke in???

Are we assuming they are going to steal said wife and child? Does this happen a lot?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Are we assuming they are going to steal said wife and child? Does this happen a lot?

It does in Mexico City and San Paulo, I don't think it's as common in Sheffield.

Again, I'd do nothing unless there was a definate threat to my family, perhaps we need to make it clear if we're talking about protecting property or protecting family. Two totally different situations and it seems you're assuming that someone who breaks into your house is automatically a threat to your family.

Joking aside, I don't see a straight answer. Your wife and kids are in danger. Let's say for instance there's a chance something horrible could happen to the missus. What are you going to do? Sit back and read the Guardian, whilst watching everything unfold from the moral high-ground?

Originally posted by wasp
You give up your rights when you enter someone's home. If you get killed... tough.

and this level of legal knowledge will land you square in jail.

Originally posted by smedley
Joking aside, I don't see a straight answer. Your wife and kids are in danger. Let's say for instance there's a chance something horrible could happen to the missus. What are you going to do? Sit back and read the Guardian, whilst watching everything unfold from the moral high-ground?

Well I'd stop it happening if I could

Originally posted by fyybj
Again, I'd do nothing unless there was a definate threat to my family, perhaps we need to make it clear if we're talking about protecting property or protecting family. Two totally different situations and it seems you're assuming that someone who breaks into your house is automatically a threat to your family.

But haven't there been cases in the past where families, including the kids, have been assaulted and tied up during robberies?

Maybe if we drop the 'kill them' line for a minute, and just say that if you manage to get the top side of them in the act then what's wrong with giving them two broken collar bones and a hefty kick or two in the nuts! At least they won't be carrying someone elses goods off for a while and possibly won't be able to breed either. The police can then collect them from casualty later.

And yes, my family's possessions are worth more to me than the life of the scum who try to nick them.

Look at all these BIG BOY's bangin on about how they would blow the low life scum into next week.

I just hope they would know how to use the said, baseball bat, knife, gun ect....

The odds are the "perp" would help him self to your weapon of choice and you would find yourself on the recieving end of your own bat or whatever.

They're lifestyle dictates that they would be far more uesd to the aggressive situation than you!

Their is alway's going to be someone out their wanting a bit of what you've got, make thing's easy for yourself and instead of planning, in what way you would bring them down, start planning on what way you're going to keep them out and put them off from even considering your home.

"Maybe if we drop the 'kill them' line for a minute, and just say that if you manage to get the top side of them in the act then what's wrong with giving them two broken collar bones and a hefty kick or two in the nuts! At least they won't be carrying someone elses goods off for a while and possibly won't be able to breed either. The police can then collect them from casualty later."

Apart from the legal conseqences and the high chances of retaliation after the event? That's assuming that you do get "the top side" of them and don't end up on the recieving end, especially if there's more than one intruder. Is it really worth risking your life?

What about if the intruder was just a child?

Originally posted by Modesty
Look at all these BIG BOY's bangin on about how they would blow the low life scum into next week.

All the brainless gung-ho machismo does make you wonder what they are covering up doesn't it!

It doesn't matter if the intruder is a child. The legal eagle wasp has spoken:

Originally posted by wasp
You give up your rights when you enter someone's home. If you get killed... tough.

;)

Seriously though, proportional force is key here. Someone stealing your favourite Dido CD may be extremely distressing - it's an invasion of the safe, comfortable personal bubble we all live in - but it doesn't merit going Robocop on someone's ass, surely.

Originally posted by Modesty
Look at all these BIG BOY's bangin on about how they would blow the low life scum into next week.

I just hope they would know how to use the said, baseball bat, knife, gun ect....

The odds are the "perp" would help him self to your weapon of choice and you would find yourself on the recieving end of your own bat or whatever.

They're lifestyle dictates that they would be far more uesd to the aggressive situation than you!



That's an interesting point.

I remember being told years ago by someone who was something of a 'gutter fighter' that most civilised people are too squeamish to really hurt someone else 'close up'.

In a way, therefore, the 'civilised person' should be able to use more force than the more experienced attacker in order to 'balance the odds'. The defender is going to be caught by surprise by someone who may or may not have a weapon and may or may not be planning to use it.

Surely, therefore, someone defending themselves and their family should be able to use something like a taser, mace spray or even a gun to defend themselves. After all, it's not a fair fight, otherwise, is it? A sort of handicapping system, if you like...:)

On a more serious note, my mother was mugged a couple of years before she died. The low-life concerned got a few quid and totally ruined the quality of life for her. Her confidence and health declined after that. Although we found out from the grapevine who's done it, and my cousins were raring to go and beat the crap out of the 'perp', we didn't. Looking back at what happened to my mum subsequently, I think I now regret that decision especially as no custodial sentence was handed out.

This is a different situation to what is mooted in the original question, but is still about protection of ones family AND the issue of punishment. If society and the police cannot protect, and the legislature will not punish, is it a surprise that people want to take things in to their own hands?

I'm afraid that if my family were threatened then I'd do anything I could with whatever was to hand to stop the bad guys from getting any where near them. If that meant sneaking up behind the intruder and whacking them on the head before me and mine go running out of the front door yelling 'Fire', then so be it.

I'll deal with the legal problems later. Better that then have to live with my family being harmed because I did nothing.

Joe

So that's it then, the lowlife tealeafs have it. We'll not stop you, cos that wouldn't be fair on you. Oh, and careful when you run off in case you trip and hurt yourself in my garden. I wouldn't want sueing by you.

Come and help yourselves to our belongings.:loopy:

By the way, if they do get the top side of me then at least I'll be able to hold my head up and say I tried to defend what's mine!!

Originally posted by Greenback
It doesn't matter if the intruder is a child. The legal eagle wasp has spoken:

;)

Seriously though, proportional force is key here. Someone stealing your favourite Dido CD may be extremely distressing - it's an invasion of the safe, comfortable personal bubble we all live in - but it doesn't merit going Robocop on someone's ass, surely.

I doubt it's the loss of your CD that's the issue. It's the sense of losing security that matters to most people. And wheras a CD costs a tenner or whatever, you cannot buy that security back.

It's also the vandalism - years ago my car was broken into and the radio nicked. Didn't mind that too much - but some photos that had been on the back seat of the car (and yes, I know I should have bought them in immediately I parked outside the house) were just opened up, dumped in the road and walked over. No need for that.

It's the thoughtless, petty, small minded vandalism that indicates that these idiots are either deliberately being hurtful and nasty or that they're too dumb, stoned or drunk to realise what they're doing. Either way I don't want them any where near me and mine.

Joe

i don't think that the law is interested in some sort of "fair" fight.
nor do you have to use the minimum force possible. You just have to be sure that you can convince a jury of your peers that the force you used was what any reasonable person would have used.

Shooting dead an unarmed man running away from you is quite clearly excessive. Shooting dead a child is excessive, shooting dead a large man running at you weilding a chain saw is perfectly reasonable.

It's just a shame that the law doesn't more tightly define what is and is not excessive, at the moment it purely depends on the jury.

Originally posted by markham
So that's it then, the lowlife tealeafs have it. We'll not stop you, cos that wouldn't be fair on you. Oh, and careful when you run off in case you trip and hurt yourself in my garden. I wouldn't want sueing by you.

Come and help yourselves to our belongings.:loopy:

By the way, if they do get the top side of me then at least I'll be able to hold my head up and say I tried to defend what's mine!!

Bit of a knee-jerk reaction isn't it? No one said it was ok for people to help themselves to your belongings. I'm just pointing out that this issue is far more complex to simply say that you have the right to use any means necesary to protect your property. You can't apply the same logic to all situations, obviously you've got different circumstances at each end of the scale. Would you be comfortable in attacking a 14 year old girl who was stealing CDs from you, Markham?

"By the way, if they do get the top side of me then at least I'll be able to hold my head up and say I tried to defend what's mine!!"

Not if you're murdered in a botched attempt at protecting your stuff.

And if I was on that jury I'd only need to know whether the injured, or dead, yob was in the defendant's property, uninvited and intending to steal. If so, then the property owner would get my 'not guilty' vote. Irrespective of force necessary!

Originally posted by markham
And if I was on that jury I'd only need to know whether the injured, or dead, yob was in the defendant's property, uninvited and intending to steal. If so, then the property owner would get my 'not guilty' vote. Irrespective of force necessary!

Just to clear something up..are you saying that you believe it is morally and legally acceptable to murder someone under the conditions you mentioned above?

Do you feel that you personally could murder someone using any means necasary if they were on your property uninvited?

Originally posted by markham
So that's it then, the lowlife tealeafs have it. We'll not stop you, cos that wouldn't be fair on you. Oh, and careful when you run off in case you trip and hurt yourself in my garden. I wouldn't want sueing by you.

Come and help yourselves to our belongings.:loopy:

By the way, if they do get the top side of me then at least I'll be able to hold my head up and say I tried to defend what's mine!!
Let me tell you a short story that was relayed to me on Tuesday.

A friend of mine teaches personal protection and martial arts at a high level and recently an acquaintance of his was involved in a minor 'road rage' incident.

He got out of his car to remonstrate, unfortunately the other guy just got out and stabbed him through the breastbone, causing life threatening injury.

The guy has since recovered and he asked my friend 'you're a self defence expert - what did I do wrong'

The answer was very short... 'You got out of your car and got involved'.


On a personal note...

We have been burgled twice while we were asleep. I used to think I would charge downstairs and half kill an intruder. I now know that the reality is that on one occasion we didn't know anything until the morning, long after they were gone.

On the second occasion the burglar alarm went off and it took me over a minute to realise what the noise was, and another minute to stagger out of bed, find the big metal torch immediately at the side of the bed, and wobble downstairs,squinting through the light that was hurting my eyes.

Don't even think you would be any different. I'm 35, big, fit and strong, a light sleeper with a potential weapon that I would probably (mistakenly) use.

I've realised that I wouldn't have stood a chance!

Stay in bed, get a big dog and set the burglar alarm before you go upstairs along with all your house and car keys.

You've got insurance - the low lifes aren't worth prison or hospital or a 6' hole in the ground.


If I can pinch JoePritchard's sig for a moment...

'"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity" - Goethe

They could have my properity or hurt me but if they went for my children that would be a diffrent issue and if necessary I would do whatever it takes to protect my children even the ultimate of killing someone.

I had my children to protect them and with my last breath that is what I would do.

Originally posted by fyybj
Would you be comfortable in attacking a 14 year old girl who was stealing CDs from you, Markham?

Not if you're murdered in a botched attempt at protecting your stuff.

I would be comfortable restraining ANYBODY who I caught in my property until the police got here. If that person put up a fight then I would find it necessary to use the force necessary. Boy, girl? What's the difference? A lowlife is a lowlife. And believe me, there are a lot of 14 year old girls around today who put bricklayers to shame.

As for smaller kids, obviously I would act accordingly. Sit on them maybe!

Sorry, but I can't understand why anybody is defending the rights or wellbeing of someone who breaks into someone elses home to steal.

The husband has been burgled on more than one occasion. One of them involved his neighbours in Burngreave stealing his daughters christmas presents.....you could aparently see them through the living room window, they hadn't even bothered to take off the tags!

The police did nothing.

Since then he has slept with a piece of wood next to the bed. On every occasion the burglars came into the house whilst they were asleep.

We were burgled...well if you can honestly call it that, about two years ago now. Despite having window locks on we had stupidly just left the small kitchen window open. They managed to grab two bags (including my step daughters school bag...wonder if they learnt anything) and some change in a money bag off the microwave before my daughter (who was then just a baby) started to cry for her bottle.. We didn't hear a thing.

My husband and daughter were a complete wreck but I was determined to sort the scroats out - cancelled all our cards, arranged for the insurance to pay for a change of locks and got the police out within the hour. I didn't feel violated but perhaps that is because they only got as far as the kitchen, in fact the whole experience was a joke on them because they were stupid enough to try and use our video card to rent games and videos the same day they had taken them from our house :loopy:

The chances of a burglary happening now are slim simply because of Tor...he has problems with anyone coming up the jennel never mind trying to get into the house univited...he isn't exactly quiet either. And here was me reading that Border Collies don't make good guard dogs!

Moon

i'm not, i'm just telling you the way law stands at the moment.

Originally posted by fyybj
Just to clear something up..are you saying that you believe it is morally and legally acceptable to murder someone under the conditions you mentioned above?

Do you feel that you personally could murder someone using any means necasary if they were on your property uninvited?

I'm saying that the intruder would still be alive if they'd stayed off the property. The fact that they're dead is of their doing.

No, I could not knowingly murder someone, but I wouldn't feel bad if someone died whilst trying to steal my property. Either during a scuffle with me, or during their escape. I wouldn't intend to kill the person, just stop them getting away. They would decide how much force is needed, not me.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'm not, i'm just telling you the way law stands at the moment.

I understand this Cyclone, but we all know that the law is an ass.

I am commenting on the ethical viewpoint, not the legal one.

The law needs changing in the householder's favour.

Originally posted by markham
I'm saying that the intruder would still be alive if they'd stayed off the property. The fact that they're dead is of their doing.

No, I could not knowingly murder someone, but I wouldn't feel bad if someone died whilst trying to steal my property. Either during a scuffle with me, or during their escape. I wouldn't intend to kill the person, just stop them getting away. They would decide how much force is needed, not me.

Well, as the law stands you would likely be guilty of murder as you are responsible for your own actions, not the intruder. How will you protect your family and possessions from prison?

Are you trained in the correct way to restrain someone or will you just use your own judgement? I take it you have experience in this? What if a knife was pulled?

Originally posted by Tony


The guy has since recovered and he asked my friend 'you're a self defence expert - what did I do wrong'

The answer was very short... 'You got out of your car and got involved'.



So true....

The fellow I mentioned earlier on always advised that people run away if you can, and if you do find yourself having to fight, hit them very hard so they stay hit...THEN run away.

I suppose the issue in many cases is where the 'run away' option has been removed or where you're just angry as hell. For me I'd only even consider getting involved in a scrap if people or pets were involved. The material world can look after itself...

Joe

It seems most of our rights as people have been taken away from us one by one.

Parents can`t disipline their children and you can`t look after your property that you have worked had to get. But the people that want it from you have all the rights and will keep them no matter what they do.

Something wrong somewhere.

Originally posted by fyybj
Well, as the law stands you would likely be guilty of murder as you are responsible for your own actions, not the intruder. How will you protect your family and possessions from prison?

Are you trained in the correct way to restrain someone or will you just use your own judgement? I take it you have experience in this? What if a knife was pulled?

As has been mentioned on this thread by several posters there are priorities.

a) Safety of my wife and kids.

b) Safety of myself.

c) Safety of the property.

In that order. (notice safety of the intruder doesn't get a mention!)

If I can safely handle the intruder I will. If he is bigger than me and I can't handle him then I'm in the brown stuff and will HAVE to let him get away, obviously. But if I can handle him then I will and I'll use any force necessary to handle him. I won't be thinking, 'Hang on a minute I'm hurting him, I'd better let him go.'

Even if they dropped the stuff and made a getaway, if I could handle them I'd stop them (using such force as they made necessary) so at least I'd know they were nicked. Believe me, they'd be in pain!

And no, this isn't 'MACHISMO', its a bloke who's ****** off with seeing the criminal lowlife getting away with it all too often.

You didn't answer my questions which I feel are relevant:

1. Are you trained in the correct way to restrain someone or will you just use your own judgement? I'm not talking about hurting the intruder, I'm talking about the possibility of death, either yours or the intruders.

2. I take it you have experience in restraining people? Have you ever had to restrain someone in this way?

3. What if a knife was pulled? What would you do?

Surely all these things must be taken into account before risking your life or freedom? Or would you just jump in and hope for the best?

Yet still, for all your whinging... No-one has answered the question (again)...

Whether you're trained or not, you're in the house. Your wife and kids are in danger. The only thing stopping the intruder from getting to them is you...

What do you do?

Either answer, or stay quiet!

I would have a go, if the other guy was the same size as me (or preferably smaller), but I wouldn't tackle two blokes.
My boyfriend has no sense of danger though and would just attack like a pitbull.

Originally posted by fyybj
You didn't answer my questions which I feel are relevant:

1. Are you trained in the correct way to restrain someone or will you just use your own judgement? I'm not talking about hurting the intruder, I'm talking about the possibility of death, either yours or the intruders.

2. I take it you have experience in restraining people? Have you ever had to restrain someone in this way?

3. What if a knife was pulled? What would you do?

Surely all these things must be taken into account before risking your life or freedom? Or would you just jump in and hope for the best?

I'll try to answer each question.

1. I would use my judgement. I was trained in the army for service in Belfast, but am rusty now. If I could I would. My safety is my only concern, not the intruder's. Like every other person who finds themselves in this situation, each scenario would call for gut reaction to suit the situation.

2. As far as restraining is concerned, I will be carrying a baseball bat and would incapacitate them with this by a blow to the collarbone or knees, or anywhere other than the head (unless circumstances dictate otherwise) and plead self defence.

3. If a knife was pulled then I would assume that they were intending to use it and I wouldn't pull any punches. For my safety, and the safety of others in the house, I'd go for the head in self defence.

Finally, some sense.

I think people forget that before we built houses and phone masts and tanks, we lived in caves that were under constant attack from stuff trying to eat the missus and the kids. It's natural instant to protect one's self and one's family.

Law isn't natural, remember. Insinct is.

Breaking the law to knock off bent DVDs is deliberately breaking it. Protecting your family is quite simply going against a law that disagrees with nature.

Originally posted by smedley
Yet still, for all your whinging... No-one has answered the question (again)...

Whether you're trained or not, you're in the house. Your wife and kids are in danger. The only thing stopping the intruder from getting to them is you...

What do you do?

Either answer, or stay quiet!

.......I go down stairs with a white flag and strike a deal.
Giving them your address and saying you're right up for IT!

How's about that Action Man.
Oh and I did'nt realise that you are the only one allowed to have an opinion on this site.

Originally posted by smedley
Finally, some sense.

I think people forget that before we built houses and phone masts and tanks, we lived in caves that were under constant attack from stuff trying to eat the missus and the kids. It's natural instant to protect one's self and one's family.

Law isn't natural, remember. Insinct is.

Breaking the law to knock off bent DVDs is deliberately breaking it. Protecting your family is quite simply going against a law that disagrees with nature.

And that is the Gospel according to Smedley:thumbsup:

Nice one son!!:clap:

So you go downtairs waving a white flag, saying "please don't rape the wife and kill the kids or take any of my stuff"

Yep, sounds plausible.

Please come and live in our house so we can sleep safe at night.

i am trained in some ways of restraining people.
i wouldn't claim to be experienced in it, but i practice regularly.
if a knife is pulled your best bet is to run away, but given that the running options from my front room are limited at that point it's perfectly reasonable to use lethal force.

i don't think it's unreasonable to want to defend your property, you just have to be aware that if you intend to kill or seriously injure a burglar then you are making yourself liable for prosecution.

i do agree that the law is an ass, the whole area of self-defence (which covers this aspect) needs re-examining and thinking through again. It's ridiculous that you can defend yourself from attack, and then be prosecuted for defending yourself too vigorously, as if you could somehow judge in advance exactly what level of force was needed...

Originally posted by fyybj
You didn't answer my questions which I feel are relevant:

1. Are you trained in the correct way to restrain someone or will you just use your own judgement? I'm not talking about hurting the intruder, I'm talking about the possibility of death, either yours or the intruders.

2. I take it you have experience in restraining people? Have you ever had to restrain someone in this way?

3. What if a knife was pulled? What would you do?

Surely all these things must be taken into account before risking your life or freedom? Or would you just jump in and hope for the best?

Originally posted by smedley
So you go downtairs waving a white flag, saying "please don't rape the wife and kill the kids or take any of my stuff"

Yep, sounds plausible.

Please come and live in our house so we can sleep safe at night.

Hahah, ok boss, as you've obviously not understood the points a few people have made on this thread, I'll try and make it a little simpler for you in case you get upset again and tell people to be quiet on an internet messageboard. :D

There is a massive difference in protecting your property and protecting your family from an immediate danger. The way that each situation should be handled will be different in each case, you cannot apply the same logic to all cases. You just said..."rape the wife and kill the kids or take any of my stuff", surely you can make the distinction between theft of property and rape/murder. Or are you saying that all robberies end in rape and murder? In this case are you assuming that all robberies are carried out by the type of people who would rape/murder children? There are far too many circumstances to be considered in this complex issue and it's impossible to come to a definate clear answer...perhaps the subject is too broad?

So....

No, I would not attack someone who was stealing from me, however if my family was in immediate threat then I would act on that threat in the best way I could at the time but only if I was sure that a threat was present.

The best protection is to not get in that situation in the first place, confronting someone will only end in retaliation.

You know, in some way, i think you're actually almost admitting that, if your family was in danger, you might actually do something about it.

Well done.

I can see your point, and yes, most robberies probably don't end in physical assault, but if you were in the situation, surely you wouldn't hang about to see if they were going to harm you and yours!

If I was in that situation I would make sure that confronting an intruder would only be done if there was no other possible solution and I was 100% sure that there was an immediate threat. If that means hiding away, begging, letting them take my stuff to prevent any harm coming to me or my family then so be it.

Originally posted by fyybj
If I was in that situation I would make sure that confronting an intruder would only be done if there was no other possible solution and I was 100% sure that there was an immediate threat. If that means hiding away, begging, letting them take my stuff to prevent any harm coming to me or my family then so be it.

no one ever said we had to agree did they. (I don't mean you and me, i mean all of us).

Most people seem to agree that we have the right to defend ourselves and property if we wish too, and most seem to think that the current vague 'reasonable force' definition in law is rather pathetic.

Originally posted by Cyclone
If a burglar is armed, then it is reasonable force to kill them as you can only assume that they intend to use that weapon to kill you. But i'd recommend running away if you have the option.

"excuse me, mr burgular sir, can we just discuss this a moment please, are you armed?"

HMMM ... you just don't know do you, and by the time you've found out, it may well be too late ("oh yes, you were armed with a knife, and it's stuck nicely in to my side").

If you don't know if they are armed of not, it is only reasonable to work on the assumption that they are armed and intent on harming you / your family.

I think on that basis, it's OK to use any level or force to defend yourself / your family / your property.

They have created the situation, therefore, they should lose all legal right to fair play.

good theory, unfortunately it wouldn't hold up in court.

Or at least it might not hold up. Again it's down to convincing the jury that you believed that they were armed. If you don't know, then you aren't justified in braining them with a baseball bat.

You can act as if they were armed without immediately attempting to kill them though... although i'll agree that that increases the risks to yourself, which is why the law is an ass.

I may sound like a wimp here but having just had someone steal my car keys from the living room while I was asleep upstairs and in the same week reading of a teacher who was killed in the same circumstances my reaction would be to arm myself with a bedroom door and telephone. Me and mine aren't replaceable my car is.

As to the reasonable force thing, imo there isn't a court in the land who would convict you from deterring an intruder. Sitting in a darkened room with an illegally held shotgun and waiting night after night, that's a different story.

Originally posted by max
I may sound like a wimp here but having just had someone steal my car keys from the living room while I was asleep upstairs and in the same week reading of a teacher who was killed in the same circumstances my reaction would be to arm myself with a bedroom door and telephone. Me and mine aren't replaceable my car is.

Seems eminantly sensible to me! The fact is that if someone breaks into your house the chances are high that they are either a kid or a strung out junkie and after something small and easily fencible to get money quickly and with minimal effort - they are not likely to be some heavilly armed thug intent on doing you or your family personal harm...

Originally posted by max
I may sound like a wimp here but having just had someone steal my car keys from the living room while I was asleep upstairs and in the same week reading of a teacher who was killed in the same circumstances my reaction would be to arm myself with a bedroom door and telephone. Me and mine aren't replaceable my car is.

Seems like a reasonable course of action to me. If you don't have to confront an inruder ... why risk it !?

You don't sound like a wimp to me max. How could you be? You were asleep? (or am I missing the point).

The poll asks.........

Do you think we have the right to protect our property with whatever means necessary?

The simple answer is.......

NO, as the law stands now we don't.

If the poll question was.........

Do you think we SHOULD have the right to protect our property with whatever means necessary?

Then my answer would be YES pending a law change.

As each individual will act differently in different circumstances, and rightly so, the arguement about who will and who won't defend their property using overwhelming force is just theoretical.

A person who says they won't now may act differently with a few lagers inside them and the right mood swing. Also, a person who says they would now (me included), might chicken out at the last minute. Who knows?

My comments on here are relevant to how I feel burglars/muggers/thieves etc SHOULD and OUGHT to be dealt with by their victims wherever possible.

Here's another one for us to ponder.....

How many of us own a dog that has been a loyal friend and companion for years?

Imagine this scenario. You are taking good old Rover for his walk along the river or canal, when some scrote snatches your watch/wallet/handbag or whatever. Faithful Rover runs after them, catches them and a tussle ensues.

Rover and the scrote roll into the canal together and it's freezing in there. They are both in difficulty and it's clear that they both need rescueing but there is only time to save one of them.

Which one do you rescue? Faithful old Rover who has been so loyal and loving and protective all these years and is now on the verge of dying because of this last selfless act of loyalty, or the scrote who just robbed you?

Do you put the human before the dog?

Originally posted by Cyclone
good theory, unfortunately it wouldn't hold up in court.

Or at least it might not hold up. Again it's down to convincing the jury that you believed that they were armed. If you don't know, then you aren't justified in braining them with a baseball bat.

You can act as if they were armed without immediately attempting to kill them though... although i'll agree that that increases the risks to yourself, which is why the law is an ass.

It seems that the burden of risk is with the home owner.

Is the home owner to assume that the intruder has no concealed weapons ... because to act on the possibility that the intruder is armed ... is unlawful on the part of the home owner !?

To act within the law ... the innocent home owner must put himself in risk.

The law is a total ass.

I believe a persons right to defend himself and his family (and property) ... is much higher than any law.

It is your divine animal right.

I think often it is apprpriate to break the law ... and this is perhaps one of those times ... it is also appropriate not to get caught out by the law.

Originally posted by Jamie
Seems like a reasonable course of action to me. If you don't have to confront an inruder ... why risk it !?

You don't sound like a wimp to me max. How could you be? You were asleep? (or am I missing the point).

Thanks Jamie. The wimpy bit is if I heard someone in my house I wouldn't confront them. If they tried to get into my bedroom then that would be different.

The police who came advised me to keep my keys in the bedroom in future. Duh, no way. If all they want is my car then I'll leave the keys where they can find them without waking me up.

Well isn't that sweet.

I have an idea. Why don't we all post our addresses, so that the criminals know that if they come to my house, they're likely to struggle to get anything other than a solid beating, whereas they know if they come to some of your houses, they'll get let in, maybe have a couple of crumpets and a pot of tea, a quick look through the photo ablums, and all the electrical goods they can carry.

Originally posted by markham
The poll asks.........

Do you think we have the right to protect our property with whatever means necessary?

The simple answer is.......

NO, as the law stands now we don't.

But there you seem to be equating 'right' to 'legal right' ... it is not necassarily the same thing ...

"It is your divine animal right."

Humans aren't animals and "divine" suggests your god gives you the right to kill, so are you basing this belief on religion?

Well done on confusing mammals with animals by the way, an easy mistake I'm sure. :s

Originally posted by fyybj
"It is your divine animal right."

Humans aren't animals and "divine" suggests your god gives you the right to kill, so are you basing this belief on religion?

Lots of people justify killing with religion.

Since when haven't humans been animals?

Originally posted by smedley
Well isn't that sweet.

I have an idea. Why don't we all post our addresses, so that the criminals know that if they come to my house, they're likely to struggle to get anything other than a solid beating, whereas they know if they come to some of your houses, they'll get let in, maybe have a couple of crumpets and a pot of tea, a quick look through the photo ablums, and all the electrical goods they can carry.

It has nothing to do with being sweet ... and more to do with doing what is appropriate and strategically wise.

Your bravado may well end you up in trouble one day ...

Sure ... be brave and confrontational if there is a need to be so ... I don't dispute that ... but to indiscriminately confront in every situation without weighing things up is not at all clever.

But good luck anyway.

Originally posted by Jamie
But there you seem to be equating 'right' to 'legal right' ... it is not necassarily the same thing ...

That's the point Jamie, the law says we don't have the right. And the law is what I think this thread is about, not ethics.

Ethically we should, I agree, but some idiot passing laws says we can't.

Originally posted by fyybj
"It is your divine animal right."

Humans aren't animals and "divine" suggests your god gives you the right to kill, so are you basing this belief on religion?

Well done on confusing mammals with animals by the way, an easy mistake I'm sure. :s

Of course we're animals ... we're just complex monkeys.

Sod religion / god ... I mean something much more basic ... your right as a living organic being (animal?) to defend yourself against other organic beings (animals?) that will seek to do you harm.

Originally posted by markham
That's the point Jamie, the law says we don't have the right. And the law is what I think this thread is about, not ethics.

Ethically we should, I agree, but some idiot passing laws says we can't.

No problemo markham.

My view on the law / legal system is that it is an artificial human construct ...

It's not at all perfect is it ... but then ... maybe we're a lot better of with it than without it.

Humans AND monkeys are mammals not animals although it's becoming more difficult to tell the difference nowadays eh?

All mammals are animals as far as I know.

Originally posted by Jamie
maybe we're a lot better of with it than without it.

Well, considering we're the only species on earth using it (and religion, I might add), and the only species on earth doing as much damage as we are, I tend to disagree.

Originally posted by fyybj
Humans are mammals not animals although it's becoming more difficult to tell the difference nowadays eh?

But that's still just a human catagorisation thing ... if you see what I mean.

Just a name.

I guess we often like to think of ourselves as being above / better than animals ... and we do seem to see ourselves as being seperate to animals.

I still think we're just highly evolved and complex monkeys ... oooh oooh oooh *insert chimp noises here*.

Originally posted by smedley
Well, considering we're the only species on earth using it (and religion, I might add), and the only species on earth doing as much damage as we are, I tend to disagree.

But without a legal system (as flawed and ass like as it is) ... wouldn't the whole structure and complexity of modern society collapse !?

We would probably be a lot more war like than we already are ... fighting and killing each other over possession of resources and property ... banding together in groups of various sizes with shared agendas ... fighting with other groups ...

Hmmm ... maybe things wouldn't be too different to as they are now !?

What do you think would happen if the legal system just vanished !?

And humans are the only animals on earth who pay for, and depend on, other members of our species to protect us, and suffer punishment if we dare to protect ourselves when the people we depend on fail us.

Without this legal system most of us, and our kids, would be dead by now. I appreciate it for that. But we have had the rights to self preservation taken away from us. And because of this we are now dependant solely on people who seem to have lost the plot with regards individual rights.

We are domesticated primates, an evolved mammal genus. We are not animals, there are many differences and you ought to go an learn them or you may come across as uneducated halfwits.

the law started off as just a codified system that represented generally accepted moral behaviour.

It then grew like a hideous beast and now seems to have more power than the people it exists to protect... But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by fyybj
... or you may come across as uneducated halfwits.

ohh ohh eee ooh eek ohh ooh ... *more chimp noises*

Originally posted by fyybj
We are domesticated primates, an evolved mammal genus. We are not animals, there are many differences and you ought to go an learn them or you may come across as uneducated halfwits.

i'm pretty sure than 'animal' encompasses living things that are not plant life. thus the entire mammal genus along with the genus for reptiles, avians, and whatever else you care to randomly think off comes under this classification.

if you think i'm wrong, what exact genus or group of genus does animal describe?

a link in case you need a primary school level education in what an animal is and how mammals are an example of animals.

http://www.everythingesl.net/lessons/animalstwo.php

Originally posted by fyybj
We are domesticated primates, an evolved mammal genus. We are not animals, there are many differences and you ought to go an learn them or you may come across as uneducated halfwits.

Well this uneducated halfwit stands by the fact that we are evolved from lower animal species, the same as rats, dogs and monkeys etc and as such we are animals still except for the fact that some paleantologist, biologist, or whoever has deemed himself holy enough to decide that we won't be classified as animals anymore. At what point did we cease to be mere animals?

Cos if we're not animals then we must be vegetable or mineral.

this is just a quirk of british law, and you have not had the right to defend yourself taken away, you are just not allowed to excessively defend yourself... I'm sure at the time it was a very good idea, it just needs rethinking for today.

Originally posted by markham
And humans are the only animals on earth who pay for, and depend on, other members of our species to protect us, and suffer punishment if we dare to protect ourselves when the people we depend on fail us.

Without this legal system most of us, and our kids, would be dead by now. I appreciate it for that. But we have had the rights to self preservation taken away from us. And because of this we are now dependant solely on people who seem to have lost the plot with regards individual rights.

Originally posted by markham

Here's another one for us to ponder.....

How many of us own a dog that has been a loyal friend and companion for years?

Imagine this scenario. You are taking good old Rover for his walk along the river or canal, when some scrote snatches your watch/wallet/handbag or whatever. Faithful Rover runs after them, catches them and a tussle ensues.

Rover and the scrote roll into the canal together and it's freezing in there. They are both in difficulty and it's clear that they both need rescueing but there is only time to save one of them.

Which one do you rescue? Faithful old Rover who has been so loyal and loving and protective all these years and is now on the verge of dying because of this last selfless act of loyalty, or the scrote who just robbed you?

Do you put the human before the dog?

So what are everyone's reactions to the above? Replace 'Rover' with your dog's name and think about it.

Originally posted by markham
So what are everyone's reactions to the above? Replace 'Rover' with your dog's name and think about it.

I don't think you would think in that scenario ... just act on the energy and appropriateness of the situation.

I would have to say my dog (dougal) tho.

If we are all animals ... why should a human life be placed above the life of an animal !? (apart from any legal reason of course).

If the theif had fallen in to the canal but not my dog ... I would let him drown ... I would not jump in to save him and risk my own life ... although having said that ... you never know do you ... until you're in such a situation.

I have read most of the postings and with interest.

A few years ago I worked for Victim Support and as part of my role I was a VS volunteer. Whilst in the job I had to work on crime sheets, send letters out to victims and organise home visits. I too went on these visits and I can tell you there is a vast difference in people's reactions to burglary. To some it's an invasion of privacy and others just part of life's bad luck.

If we had a 'proper' judicial system then I don't think we would be that bothered if sometimes the swines got away, knowing that just maybe they would be tracked down and brought to justice. Alas, that's not the case is it? We are forced in a way to take the law into our own hands and sometimes it can go horribly wrong. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I was face to face with an intruder. Is it worth getting maimed or killed over a CD player? Don't get me wrong I think if you have the physical strength and know-how then good luck to you but I don't and I would probably come off worse.

Long live Charles Bronson in Vigilante:clap:

A friend of mine had his home broken into a few years ago.

His Dad confronted the guy, the guy was extremely mental and seemed to be suffering from withdrawl from something.

He was threatened with swear words and a knife(I think). My mate's dad was unarmed. He didn't put his life at risk for a few possesions. In response the the guys threat, he backed off letting him leave.

Just give the ******** what they want, don't risk your life which is the best possesion you have. (lol how corny is that last thing)

Originally posted by markham
So what are everyone's reactions to the above? Replace 'Rover' with your dog's name and think about it.

I wouldn't set Rover on anyone. Unless (s)he was trained for it and wasn't some kind of chiahuahua.

Suppose you didn't set him/her on the lowlife. Suppose the dog did it out of loyalty. You can save one or the other, dog or scrote. Which one?

And Jamie, I agree with you.

scrote - no question.

thankfully I wont have to ever make that decision.

Originally posted by markham
Do you put the human before the dog?

I really don't see what relevance this has Markham. :huh:

But... to answer the question...

I would rescue my dog of course, and may well leave the scrote in the river.

On the other hand...

I see the likelihood of doing physical harm to an intruder as being remote.

What if your dog, who used to be your best friend, robbed your house, then fell in a canal?!

Some of the hypothectical situations are veering a little...

Originally posted by smedley
What if your dog, who used to be your best friend, robbed your house, then fell in a canal?!

Some of the hypothectical situations are veering a little...

That's just what I was thinking. What if you and the dog fell in the canal and the scrote could only save one of you, which one should he save?

And what if your granny was watching from a tall building with a high powered rifle and scope, should she shoot the scrote or put your dog out of its watery misery as the scrote pulls you to safety?

All these tough decisions.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That's just what I was thinking. What if you and the dog fell in the canal and the scrote could only save one of you, which one should he save?

And what if your granny was watching from a tall building with a high powered rifle and scope, should she shoot the scrote or put your dog out of its watery misery as the scrote pulls you to safety?

All these tough decisions.

Well ...

She would have to factor in the fact that her eyesight isn't what it used to be ... and she shakes a little ... so there is a percentage chance that she'll miss her target in the canal and shoot poor old grandad who is playing with great-grandson johnny in the living room.

At what percentage chance should she not pull the trigger !?

Originally posted by Jamie
Well ...

She would have to factor in the fact that her eyesight isn't what it used to be ... and she shakes a little ... so there is a percentage chance that she'll miss her target in the canal and shoot poor old grandad who is playing with great-grandson johnny in the living room.

At what percentage chance should she not pull the trigger !?

I dunno Jamie, but all I can say is that with these scrotes, mad dogs and gun toting grannies on the loose, the streets are looking meaner every day.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I dunno Jamie, but all I can say is that with these scrotes, mad dogs and gun toting grannies on the loose, the streets are looking meaner every day.

I blame the courts, they are just not handing down the sentences on gun toting grannies they used to. Plus, where're the dog wardens when you need them?

Damn these do-gooders who make the streets unsafe.

Originally posted by max
Plus, where're the dog wardens when you need them?

A. In the canal.
B. In the morgue (granny shot them last week).

Originally posted by Jamie
At what percentage chance should she not pull the trigger !?
Of course, being old, she may actually die before you freeze to death in the river.

Would the dog only go after cat burglars?