Slashdot Mirror
Serial Burglar Caught on Webcam
Metatron writes "The BBC is reporting about a serial burlgar caught after images recorded by a webcam were automatically emailed to an outside server. The evidence was made available to the police even though the computer itself had been stolen! This is also discussed on the victims own web site and the local newspaper in Cambridge." From the article: "I was relieved it did what I'd intended it to when I was burgled again. It was nice to catch him in the act - but it didn't stop him from stealing my things."
It doesn't say a whole lot (and the victim agrees) when a serial burglar who had been imprisoned for burglary before and who was out on bail for yet another attempt only gets 11 months in prison.
:(
At 19 years old with several prior convictions and now this and they think that it will rehabilitate him to stick him in prison for another year?
Glad that this guy was able to quickly solve his case (sad that he had to pay the price once before years ago) and get this guy behind bars but I'm sure it won't stop someone else from being burglarized by this guy again.
Yeah, but if the guy who set up the webcam had actually been in the house and tried to stop the burglar, he'd be the one in jail, at least until recently.
Only if he'd, say, tied him up and set fire to him, or shot him dead when he was running away.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to repel intruders, and always have been.
That's not the case. We've always been able to use 'reasonable force' to deal with burglars. The law hasn't changed at all.
You're a genius! If we legalize drugs, there will never be another reason to commit crimes. All crimes can be tracked to this single cause! Cop killers - the cops were trying to keep them away from their inalienable right to get loaded. Wife beaters - because drugs are illegal, the perpetrators needed some other way to amuse themselves. We should all sign a petition to make drugs legal immediately!
Sigh. OK, now seriously - is there any evidence behind your first claim or any data to back up your second claim, or is this just a dead horse that you're fond of beating?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
He had over 13 previous convictions for theft and this time, caught red handed, he got a whole 11 months. I would say, fast justice is not as good as fair justice. This idiot should be put away for a few years at least.
;)
11 months is practically a slap on the wrist.
Anyway, I want that guy's webcam software.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
the Brit's don't mess around!
Yes, they do. The criminal in question was out on bail when committing this robbery and had 13 priors. For this, he gets all of 11 months? WTF, that's a pansy slap on the wrist for such a serial criminal.
Given he was 19, most of the priors were presumably when he was legally a child.
Not that I'm saying that should have limited his sentence, but I suspect that is what did so.
I do wonder what he will get when the earlier offence he was on bail for comes up, assuming he is found guilty.
What tickles me is how he was dressed. It's the modern equivalent of a stripy jersey and a bag labeled SWAG (assuming that image has any salience for non UK people). They might as well have arrested him as he left home dressed like that, the only problem being they wouldn't know if he planned burglary, car theft or just being an embarassment to the species.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
1. Pick up "smart water"
2. Break into someone's house and spray his stuff with it
3. Walk over to the cops and request a search warrant
4. Have the stuff delivered to your house at HIS cost.
5. Sit back and laugh as he's led to jail
6. Profit?
The worst drug of them all when looking at health effects and violence towards others is alcohol. Are you in favour of making it illegal?
it's in my head
About as hard as not shooting to kill.
Shooting/Not shooting to kill is for the movies. In the real world you shoot someone else only because you need to stop them. (Which means in this particular case where the guy was shot in the back doesn't qualify as reason to shoot) Unless you practice with 200 rounds a week you are not a good enough shot to hit anything other than the torso - a killing shot - at any time. When you consider that you are likely to be under stress at the time you have to shoot an attacker (If you are not in danger don't shoot) there is no reason to believe that you can hit someone anywhere other than the chest area which is also the are to aim at if you want to kill.
They'd broken in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
The first is not a reasonable assumption. You could die if this time they are interested in murder not robbery. (Robbery because you are there) Though I agree that once you prevent someone from committing a crime you should leave it to the police. (Unless you have good reason to believe they will do more)
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
No, but it is up to private individuals to protect themselves. The police are under no obligation to respond to any incident. Even when they do respond fast talkers have told the police everything was okay and then went back into the bedroom to finish the rape. Most of us cannot protect ourselves from these incidents, but that is our fault. (though the risk in general is low enough that it is a safe risk to take)
What a totally senseless, trolling thing to say. I could see "If you'd been victimized yourself you'd feel differently." (Personally, I have. It was really jarring, and nobody was ever caught, and I eventually got over it.)
We all know there's difference between a justice system and a revenge system, but you haven't quite gone there. Instead you're talking about potential consequences that need to be prevented.
Do you recommend that we sentence people based on the potential consequences that might result from their crimes -- if they'd happened under different circumstances? That's what you seem to be saying. ("What if the wife [if there was one] of the owner was home at the time -- alone" is particularly rich. Ooh, what if it was the daughter? What if it was a troop of Girl Scouts and he took their cookies??)
You want to be tough on crime. Tell us: what sentence do you recommend? Is this going to turn into one of those "three strikes" laws that take sentencing out of the judge's hands, or what? I want a specific recommendation. It's pretty easy to moan about sentences not being tough enough.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
About as hard as not shooting to kill.
Well, that's glib. I rather think it's much easier to not break into someone's house, though. Not to mention that it isn't as easy to shoot as you apparently believe. You've been watching too much television. I dare you to take any police 'street course' and use disabling shots exclusively. In any case, it is MUCH easier to NOT break into a house than it is to shoot perfectly in the event someone breaks into your house.
Killed perhaps. Bur murdered in retribution? I think we're more civilised than this.
Aren't we more civilised than to break into other people's houses and steal what isn't ours? No? Then I believe your question is answered.
They'd brokwn in several times before to steal. It's reasonable to assume this was their plan. Even if it wasn't, they had been prevented from doing this.
So now we're expected to know not only *who* our burglars are (that they're the same ones who've broken in before) but also what their intentions are? Shouldn't we have then just prevented their entry? Since we know so much...
Is this likely? A burglar has access to weapons, commits a crime, but doesn't actually think perhaps the weapon may be useful. Having been shot at, rather than retreating, why would he go back?
Ummmmmmm yes. It is easily possible. Burlgars caught carrying guns get tougher sanctions. However, it is entirely possible that their gun is stashed somewhere nearby, in case they need it. Is it a certainty? Nope. But neither is it certain that they are simply running away.
So is it up to private individuals to convict and punish criminals?
Nope. You sure are a good talker, though. Nice phrasing. It is up to individuals NOT to break into my house. It is up to *me* to protect my family, myself, and my belongings. It is up to the police to prosecute in the event that I am not home or not shooting straight.
http://xkcd.com/386/
You don't pull a gun on someone unless you mean to kill them.
Why not? Guns are very effective for frightening people.
I have mine record movements while out as well as speak "Intruder alert, intruder alert" hoping to scare any would-be burglers away while snapping their photo.
.. you want to play something that would arouse their curiosity, not scare them. That way, they walk over and stare at the computer (and camera).
No no no
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again