THERE has been a debate on the bravery of burglars.
Judge Peter Bowers of Teesside Crown Court described a housebreaker in the dock as "courageous". His judgeship said he himself would not have the nerve to go a-burgling. Prime Minister David Cameron disagreed, saying burglars are cowards.
On the whole, I have to agree with Judge Bowers. Especially since it seems burglars are likely to be shot while in pursuit of their unlawful business.
That is the other debate. Is it OK to shoot an intruder who has entered your house with malice aforethought? I think it is. As long as the shooting is done in a caring manner and in an effort to encourage the offender to give up a life of crime.
Health, safety, and hygiene factors should obviously be taken into consideration. Wear a set of shooting-range ear muffs. Try, if possible, to lay down some plastic sheeting to avoid blood-spatter on carpets and soft furnishings.
A gun with quality night-sight will be a worthwhile investment. Regular SWAT team practice for all the family is recommended.
Be careful to avoid friendly fire. Pistol-packing women should make sure the figure stumbling about in the dark is a burglar and not the husband returning home late from the pub.
Apprehended intruders should be offered reasonable options. They will not be shot if they stay perfectly still until police arrive. Instead of a bullet, would they prefer to be knocked senseless with a mashie niblick? If gunfire is to be inevitable, where would the burglar like the flesh wound to be located?
On no account should the householder appear to enjoy the experience. Do not at any time say: "Well, punk, do you feel lucky?" Before you shoot, try to get the burglar to sign an admission of guilt.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article