Burglar / Thief broke into my office and stole 3 LCD Monitors + others

[goodsamaritan]

Cheer me up guys.

Burglar / Thief broke into my office last night.

Damn terrified neighbor lady already heard the loud banging at my gate railings yet was too chicken to call out the burglar.

He was able to yank out a bar in the grill, then smashed the door knob and the door bolt.

He was skinny enough or had a kid accomplice to slip through the gap he made and was able to take out three 22" lcd monitors.  2 toy pellet guns MP5 which I was going to auction off and a cell phone.  Also took a pair of cheap computer speakers and a computer mouse.

He couldn't take out a large cased cpu box but it was already ready to go.

The office staff was still able to work, I took a monitor from my house, but there's a lot to be done reinforcing the bars with a solid plate and buying a brand new door tomorrow.

Of course I had to buy 3 new LED monitors.

Cheer me up guys.

[Iguana]

What a hell!  Aren't you insured for that?

[TylerDurden]

Here in the UK, they don't give a damn about burglars. I was once burgled and had some DVDs stolen. The police sent someone round but nothing was done of course because burglary is seen as a very minor crime. The reason being that ever since the stupid Macpherson report, the police are so tied up with paperwork after every crime, that they are forced to concentrate only on really violent crimes.

The US has been a lot more civilised since the  Bernie Goetz trial and that law (in Ohio etc.?) which allowed anyone to shoot dead any criminal entering illegally onto one's property for whatever reason. Then there was that device I heard about, now legalised in South Africa I think, which fatally electrocutes anyone who steals and drives off someone else's  car.
If only the Europeans had such civilised laws. I mean I recall a case where a home-owner installed blockage of some sort in the lower part of his chimney in order to deter a chronic burglar - the burglar still tried to get in via the chimney as before, but, because of the blockage, couldn't get out and so died of starvation before the owner got back. The owner actually got jailed, which was a disgrace.

I suppose insurance is an idea. Also see what sort of anti-burglar measures you can take. I know some people in Europe who install things like sharp shards of glass, embedded on top of  concrete walls and the like. Perhaps a bit of barbed wire of the very sharpest kind ,in strategic places, might also help.

[miles]

Anything you do to repel criminals should be obvious, not underhand... Or you will have it in your conscience forever the damage you cause to them. You should be a paladin, make the defences very obvious, so the person can see what they are against. If you block your chimney put a sign, block it at the top, or make sure to be ready for when they are caught. If someone sets up a trap designed to catch out a criminal, and doesn't take the effort to either make sure they are aware of it, or that they do not come to harm when they are caught out, they SHOULD be locked up. Putting a block in the chimney, knowing someone will try to break in, and then not checking/ not letting them out, that is sick.

[Brother]

GoodSamaritan. Sorry to hear it mate. here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-rJ-6hBfSo

@Miles. I agree with you and I like your reasoning. However, IF people then decide to call bluff on my warning and they fall into an alligator pit on my property or are zapped by an industrial strength bull fence and catch fire. I wouldnt piss on them to put it out.

[miles]

However, IF people then decide to call bluff on my warning and they fall into an alligator pit on my property or are zapped by an industrial strength bull fence and catch fire. I wouldnt piss on them to put it out.

lol agreed.

[TylerDurden]

Anything you do to repel criminals should be obvious, not underhand... Or you will have it in your conscience forever the damage you cause to them. You should be a paladin, make the defences very obvious, so the person can see what they are against. If you block your chimney put a sign, block it at the top, or make sure to be ready for when they are caught. If someone sets up a trap designed to catch out a criminal, and doesn't take the effort to either make sure they are aware of it, or that they do not come to harm when they are caught out, they SHOULD be locked up. Putting a block in the chimney, knowing someone will try to break in, and then not checking/ not letting them out, that is sick.

You misread what I said. The guy was away on holiday and had no idea that the burglar had broken in until he had gotten back from holiday. And his intention was not to imprison the burglar but to prevent him from entering that way, not to kill him. The fact is that the burglar was stupid and did not think that the owner had been effective enough re that blockage so had tried anyway. So it was the burglar's fault.


There have been similiar cases where home-owners have sometimes not even known they would be burgled but had installed some sort of (non-burglary-related)thing which indirectly led to a burglar getting inadvertently injured , and yet got unfairly prosecuted.

There is an amusing Married With Children episode where this burglar breaks into the Bundy home and then gets caught but then sues Al Bundy for mistakenly touching his butt on waking up, so as to get away with burglary. Al Bundy gets successfully sued but then punches the burglar and then sues the burglar because he broke his hand in the process, thus getting his revenge by playing the corrupt judicial system.

Anyway, there is an old saying:- "a man's home is his castle". It is morally wrong to criticise any home-owner for defending his home in any way from intruders. As long as these defences don't affect the postman or similiar innocent, then that's fine.

[TylerDurden]

@Miles. I agree with you and I like your reasoning. However, IF people then decide to call bluff on my warning and they fall into an alligator pit on my property or are zapped by an industrial strength bull fence and catch fire. I wouldnt piss on them to put it out.

There is now a truly disgraceful French law which gets people jailed if they refuse to help any injured passersby, no matter what the circumstances. I mean, if someone I really hated was injured on the roadside, I would feel  I had the right not to have to help such a person. At best, I might walk very slowly to the nearest public phone box to call the emergency services, but that is all I would consider legitimate in that case.

[miles]

Anyway, there is an old saying:- "a man's home is his castle". It is morally wrong to criticise any home-owner for defending his home in any way from intruders. As long as these defences don't affect the postman or similiar innocent, then that's fine.

I don't believe in this. The law can't protect the home owner and then not protect the burglar. It's not right that someone can have the protection of the law for their home, and the burglar not have it. Either or. Be on your own and defend your home in your own way, or if the law is involved it must protect everyone, not one side.

If a man wants to make his home his castle, he can defend it himself without help.

The law must be fair and just. Like a Jedi!

[SkinnyDevil]

Anything you do to repel criminals should be obvious, not underhand...

Why?

A lock is obvious. Anything else that is done is an extra measure and can hardly be considered "underhanded". They get stuck in a chimney or electrocuted, fuck 'em. The burglar doesn't need "protection"; he needs to NOT be a leaching burglar.

A friend of mine had his car stereo stolen. He bought another, fixed the lock they broke, and 2 weeks later it was stolen again. He fixed the window they broke, bought yet another stereo, and then glued broken glass to the top of the stereo. About a week later he went to get in his car, saw the window broken and blood all over the inside of the car.

His stereo was still there and no one has tried to steal his stereo since.

[Brother]

There is now a truly disgraceful French law which gets people jailed if they refuse to help any injured passersby, no matter what the circumstances. I mean, if someone I really hated was injured on the roadside, I would feel  I had the right not to have to help such a person. At best, I might walk very slowly to the nearest public phone box to call the emergency services, but that is all I would consider legitimate in that case.

 

I don't believe in this. The law can't protect the home owner and then not protect the burglar. It's not right that someone can have the protection of the law for their home, and the burglar not have it. Either or. Be on your own and defend your home in your own way, or if the law is involved it must protect everyone, not one side.

Depends on the law. If the law states that you have the right to preserve you and yours and whatever property you have, then the homeowner is the exclusive subject of protection. I have a soft heart in these matters myself, but fear it is a main driver behind the way things have been allowed to run amok in our societies. There is good reason behind it though. The right not to be subjugated to cruel or unusual punishment. I could not agree more. The only way to ensure that, is a just system with a monopoly on violence. It all makes sense. on paper.

We have middle eastern and eastern european gangs running amok up here. Because, things that would get them put into shackles and beat mercilessly for hours on end, give them a ticket to what appears to be a holiday camp in which computers, xbox, tv (even on the room), lovely gardens to walk around in are made available to them. If they dont like the food they can make their own, or call in pizza. If you are within month of release you can leave the prison in the day time, just remember to be back before 22.00. Whats not to like?

1.Do serious crime
2.get caught
3-???
4.PROFIT!

[TylerDurden]

I don't believe in this. The law can't protect the home owner and then not protect the burglar. It's not right that someone can have the protection of the law for their home, and the burglar not have it. Either or. Be on your own and defend your home in your own way, or if the law is involved it must protect everyone, not one side.

If a man wants to make his home his castle, he can defend it himself without help.

The law must be fair and just. Like a Jedi!

This  is meaningless as the law is often unable or unwilling to deal with minor crimes such as burglaries. So, in order to prevent theft, a home-owner is morally entitled to do whatever he can to protect his property - the only exception would be if the police were always 100 percent capable of either preventing burglary or always bringing all burglars to justice soon after the crime - the true figure for success of law-enforcement re burglary is, however, extremely small.

Plus, burglary does at times involve more than just theft but also the threat of bodily harm. OK, some foolish believer in the innate goodness of human nature might want to phone the police and wait  the necessary 10-60+  minutes for the police to turn up if a knife-wielding thug broke into their own home, but the sensible thing in such a case would be to phone and then immediately use whatever weapon was to hand.

Besides, it would be the height of stupidity for any home-owner to have posters stating that they have electrified fences or whatever - it would just give burglars sufficient warning so  that they find ways round such methods.

[MoonStalkeR]

I remember how my parents' $2000 navigation system got stolen, years ago. The thieves broke through the car window and ripped it out. Of course, the police treated it as a joke and was useless in this case. Nothing was done about it.

[SkinnyDevil]

The law can't protect the home owner and then not protect the burglar. It's not right that someone can have the protection of the law for their home, and the burglar not have it.

How is that unfair? The burglar shouldn't be stealing. The homeowner isn't doing anything but earning his keep, while the burglar is actively placing OTHERS in need of defense.

[ys]

which allowed anyone to shoot dead any criminal entering illegally onto one's property for whatever reason.

Not exactly.  In most states the homeowner must prove that the burglar had been armed and homeowner life was in danger.
If homeowner kills unarmed intruder, he/she may go through lengthy criminal trial, which in most cases vindicates the homeowner. But the legal nightmare can continue with civil suits.

The laws are different from state to state, but this is general guideline.  Each US state defines it's own criminal statues.  Republican states usually favor homeowners, while deep Democratic states do not esp. in places like Chicago/DC/NY/CA which have the strictest anti-gun regulations.

[SkinnyDevil]

I like the stories about Bruce & Brandon Lee. Both had someone break into their homes.

Bruce dispatched the intruder quickly & efficiently.

Brandon busted the guy up, called the police, then took his time busting him up some more. The police were grumpy as they took the intruder to the hospital and then to jail.

[TylerDurden]

Not exactly.  In most states the homeowner must prove that the burglar had been armed and homeowner life was in danger.
If homeowner kills unarmed intruder, he/she may go through lengthy criminal trial, which in most cases vindicates the homeowner. But the legal nightmare can continue with civil suits.

The laws are different from state to state, but this is general guideline.  Each US state defines it's own criminal statues.  Republican states usually favor homeowners, while deep Democratic states do not esp. in places like Chicago/DC/NY/CA which have the strictest anti-gun regulations.

I was thinking of this Ohio law, though not sure, which meant that you could happily shoot dead any criminal on your property:-

http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp?sectionid=1&subsectionid=1&articleid=138362

The idea is that the burden of guilt is on the criminal, so it would be difficult if not impossible to launch a civil suit.

[ys]

The idea is that the burden of guilt is on the criminal, so it would be difficult if not impossible to launch a civil suit.

I wish that was the case. In US anyone can sue for anything.

Here is one from your neck of the woods.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-152478/Career-criminal-sues-Tony-Martin-lost-earnings.html

[TylerDurden]

I wish that was the case. In US anyone can sue for anything.

Here is one from your neck of the woods.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-152478/Career-criminal-sues-Tony-Martin-lost-earnings.html

  According to the wikipedia article, Tony Martin easily got off:-

"Compensation claim

During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained.[11] However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun, showing him "cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty" suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.[12] While the case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a conviction for dealing heroin.[13] Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim. Tens of thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on the case.[14] The BBC reported in 2003 that Fearon's supporters have put a bounty on Martin's head of several tens of thousands of pounds.[1] The Guardian reported that this had been confirmed by a cousin of In 2003, The Guardian reported that a cousin of Barras had said £60,000 bounty had been put on Martin's head..[15]

In October of 2003, the Daily Mirror paid Martin £125,000 for an exclusive interview on his release from prison. After investigation, the Press Complaints Commission ruled that the payment was justified and in the public interest because Martin "had a unique insight into an issue of great public concern".[16]
[edit] "

The above just goes to show, if you want to avoid a civil suit the best approach is to kill all the intruders. Leave just one alive and the survivor will sue you. If all are dead, sure their family members can try to sue you  but, without witnesses, the civil suit will fail inevitably. That was explained to me by a US citizen many years ago.

[yuli]

Cheer me up guys.
.....Cheer me up guys.

Ooooo no )=
Not much I can do to cheer you up but I feel so bad for you.

Why not get a big, powerful guard dog if burglary is common in your area?
You can bring the dog to the office in the evening and have him spend the nights there, I doubt the burglar will want to slip in when he sees a large Rottweiler growling at him through the crack  

EDIT: in my area its pretty good, we hardly even leave our house locked...but if it was common I'd definitely be getting a guard dog.

[ys]

if you want to avoid a civil suit the best approach is to kill all the intruders.

that probably is the best approach. off to loading mags.

well, in case of GS the office was empty.  when i was in Phil i was surprised to see guards armed with 12 gauge outside many office entrances.  looks very intimidating.

[nicole]

I always make sure to put salt on the walkway outside my office building so the criminals don't accidentally get hurt on their way out with the loot. I always unplug all my expensive devices at the end of the night so the burglers dont unintentionally get electrocuted while transporting the valuables. If I do happen to catch someone stealing I calmly and without making physical contact say to them: "Excuse me sir/mam/transgendered individual I would like that object back, that is if you are not to poor to pay for one of those yourself, and in that case I should not be hoarding all this wealth for myself and feel free to redistribute it to yourself. Oh by the way, did you get any wounds or abrasions while smashing through my window? Let me rub some neosporin on them, i wouldn't want you to get anything infected."

[SkinnyDevil]

I always make sure to put salt on the walkway outside my office building so the criminals don't accidentally get hurt on their way out with the loot. I always unplug all my expensive devices at the end of the night so the burglers dont unintentionally get electricuted while transporting the valuables. If I do happen to catch someone stealing I calmly and without making physical contact say to them: "Excuse me sir/mam/transgendered individual I would like that object back, that is if you are not to poor to pay for one of those yourself, and in that case I should not be hoarding all this wealth for myself and feel free to redistribute it to yourself. Oh by the way, did you get any wounds or abrasions while smashing through my window? Let me rub some neosporin on them, i wouldn't want you to get anything infected."

Hahahaha!!!! Beautiful! Reminds me of Roger Zelazny's "Agnostic's Prayer" (a.k.a. - "the Possibly Proper Death Litany").

"Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to ensure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen."

[djr_81]

Not exactly.  In most states the homeowner must prove that the burglar had been armed and homeowner life was in danger.
If homeowner kills unarmed intruder, he/she may go through lengthy criminal trial, which in most cases vindicates the homeowner. But the legal nightmare can continue with civil suits.

The laws are different from state to state, but this is general guideline.  Each US state defines it's own criminal statues.  Republican states usually favor homeowners, while deep Democratic states do not esp. in places like Chicago/DC/NY/CA which have the strictest anti-gun regulations.

From what I've seen the guns laws aren't much stricter here in New York State than most other states. Pistols need a permit, no fully automatic weapons, and no driving with a gun and ammo in the car cabin at the same time.

We have never had a burglary in the entire time my parents have owned this house. It's well known around town that we have many guns, we shoot them regularly, and we are not afraid to use lethal force if it came down to it. Thieves go after easy targets.
FWIW we had a string of robberies on our street maybe 10 years ago. Every single house, except ours, had their cars broken into and stereos stolen. We leave our doors unlocked in the cars and still no one messes with them.