Burglar takes his victim to court

The Telegraph ^ | : 17/08/2002 | David Sapsted

[ijcr]

A burglar is suing a householder who chased him, caught him and held him by the scruff of the neck until police came.

Anthony McCoy, 31, a repeat offender who was sentenced to two years in prison last month for burgling the £300,000 home on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent, claims that he was assaulted by Len Johnson, 37, who caught him after a half-mile chase.

Mr Johnson vowed yesterday that, even if McCoy's prosecution was successful, he would go to prison himself rather than pay a penny in compensation.

The case, the subject of an initial hearing in Sittingbourne next Tuesday, arose out of an incident last November when Mr Johnson and his wife Jackie, 35, drove home after dropping off their 11-year-old son at his judo class.

As they entered the drive of their three-bedroom, detached home, they saw McCoy staring at them from a bedroom window.

"As we got out of the car, two men ran out of the back door, so I chased after them," said Mr Johnson, a self-employed carpenter.

"I ran behind them for about half a mile, over the top of the cliffs, and caught one of them. He couldn't run any more and he just collapsed into a ball because he thought I was going to hit him.

"But all I did was drag him by the coat and march him back to the road. He said to the police I had assaulted him.

"He created such a fuss a doctor examined him when he was taken into custody and all he found was a red mark on his neck. It's outrageous that this has ended up in court.

"All I was doing was protecting my family and our home. I did everything by the book."

[bernie_g]

We Brits have a nice middle-aged housewife, who doesn't really cause any trouble or push her 'subjects' around.

You folks have John Ashcroft who appears, at least to an outsider such as myself, to be taking your wise and far-sighted Constitution, Bill of Rights etc to the shredder.

I'll stick with her Majesty thanks.

[bernie_g]

In my limited experience it depends on the cops you get on the day.

Some years ago, I was visiting relatives in my home-town, a rather rough place, which had a major junkie burglar scum problem at that time.

We heard a noise, someone was trying to break in at the back of the house, in the part where my Granma lived.

Preparations had been made preparations for this kind of thing, and we came flying down the connecting stairs with 'items' in hand.

The guy was fleet of foot, and neither of us felt like chasing him much beyond the end of the road. I was waving an ax handle, which is hard to conceal in public or to use on junkie scum discreetly.

When the cops came, my Gran, bless her heart, said:

'They went chasing him down the road, our Bernie had a great big stick and was going to bash his head in with it.'

To say that I was concerned that she'd said this to the cops would be understatement. I must have looked horrified because the lead cop said in effect:

'Don't worry son, just leave the stave next to the body, we hate these little junkie ****'s too and we'll back your story.'

Clearly though, some cops don't share that enlightened attitude, and it was some years ago. I certainly wouldn't like to put it to the test again any time soon.

A bouncer/martial arts instructor of my acquaintance, who has thought long and hard about these issues for professional reasons says in effect:

'90% of the time in these situations, if you get in trouble it's because of something you or someone else *said* not what you did.'

The case of that farmer a couple of years ago is a classic example. He shotgunned two obvious junkie scum, killing one, *in his own house* but still went to jail.

He went to jail because he'd been broadcasting his intent to do exactly that kind of thing to the next set of burglars as some kind of ill-conceived deterrent. So lots of people said in court. "Tony often said he was going to ... etc'

[gieriscm]

'90% of the time in these situations, if you get in trouble it's because of something you or someone else *said* not what you did.'

Which is why, in my concealed-carry course, the attorney advising us on the laws about the use of lethal force stated that if we students ever were in a self-defense shooting, to NOT SAY A WORD about it to the cops and to demand to have an attorney present while we were being questions. This was even if we were not placed under arrest.

Why? The cops don't know if the incident was a good shoot or not. All they know is they have a shooter (you) and (if you did things right) a body.

[Mulder]

We Brits have a nice middle-aged housewife, who doesn't really cause any trouble or push her 'subjects' around.

Are you referring to Tony Blair or the Queen? "Middle-aged housewife" is an apt description for both (assuming the Queen isn't that old-- I'm ignorant of such matters).

You folks have John Ashcroft who appears, at least to an outsider such as myself, to be taking your wise and far-sighted Constitution, Bill of Rights etc to the shredder.

The attack on our Rights has been going on for a long time. It's been accelerating under the last three Presidents.

But at least there are millions of Americans who support the Constitution and are armed sufficiently to defend it from "all enemies foreign and domestic". You Brits are SOL on that one.

[bernie_g]

Don't misunderstand me here. I'm *glad* there are people in the US who would give their lives for their Constitution. I unreservedly admire the foresightedness and wisdom of those who framed it.

Questions arise though: suppose you do decide the time has come to rise up, arm yourselves and remove an oppressive government.

What's the government in question going to be doing while this is happening? Won't it just decide that you're terrorists and promptly apply the full weight of the forces at it's command for dealing with terrorists? Surely it's the government who gets to decide who the terrorists are?

[Bob]

I've never been to snopes.com that I know of and don't follow urban legends or joke sites.

It's painfully obvious that you've never seen the snopes.com site. Most of your emailed 'cases' are thoroughly debunked hoaxes. Would you like a worm to go with that hook, line, and sinker? You've been fished big time, dude.

[Thommas]

I don't know of the accuracy of the mentioned cases, but in California, in the early '80s, there was a similar case to the burglar trapped in the home that awarded nearly a million bucks. The case was similar, but the one in California had the perp trapped under the malfunctioning garage door. I actually read that one...

[Thommas]

Well, bernie, I haven't noticed a single infringement on my Constitutional rights with the advent of Mr. Ashcroft on the scene. Nothing transparent, that is. Maybe I am missing some nebulous fear of free ranging dirt bags.

However, the Americans and Brits have more in common with legislated reduction in freedoms and deterioration of lifestyle than they have in contention.

Cheers.

[csvset]

Mr Johnson, a "self employed carpenter" can live in a home valued at $450,000?

Perhaps he restored the house, inherited it, has a wife with a high paying job, etc. You have a problem with the guy living in a nice house?

[MissAmericanPie]

Don't cry for Brittania, the exact same thing happened to my Uncle in Cula Vista. The perp sued him for public humilation and won.

[CharacterCounts]

You Brits are so fair minded. It is so evil of Ascroft not to want to give those terrorists an even chance.

[bernie_g]

Over here, similar considerations apply to self-defence based on fighting arts and/or 'improvised' weapons.

Some key points I've picked up, mostly from the bouncer guy I mentioned earlier and his co-instructor.

Read the situation in advance and try to avoid it as a first option. So be aware of people lurking where they shouldn't and don't walk around in a dreamworld unless you know you're on safe territory.

Judge early, what the threat is likely to be and decide how you deal with it as far in advance as possible. That way you aren't trying to decide whether you're going to be able to justify your chosen approach in court while you're fighting.

If you can reasonably claim that you're certain you're about to be attacked and can't avoid it somehow: bamboozle them a bit if you can (e.g. by telling them that you don't want any trouble as you line 'em up or by yelling a confusing question 'what did you say about my mum!') and then hit them as hard as you possibly can, with blows that probably won't actually kill or maim, ideally 'queensbury rules' looking boxing punches, while giving them the minimum of warning.

If you can reasonably claim certainty that your life was in danger (i.e. they pull a blade or they're mob-handed and you *can't* run) then do the above but using much harsher techniques like throat/eye strikes and blitz them until they aren't moving.

Afterwards, avoid having to deal with the cops if you possibly can, but if you can't, then make sure you don't say anything except "I was certain they were going to attack/maim/kill me" to them. It's very important to remember at this point, that you've just been attacked, you're in possibly in shock, you certainly have all kinds of adrenaline breakdown products flying around your blood stream.

The cops want a simple life and no question marks, so if you say the 'wrong' thing while quivering in shock, you can go to jail. Just say to them that you're not feeling well enough to give a statement until you're calm and have a lawyer's advice. Be polite but firm, they can't *make* you talk and claiming to be in shock has the advantage of truth.

[cookiedough]

I researched these cases on google and they are all urban legends.

[Consort]

Ru£e Brittania.

[Shooter 2.5]

"You folks have John Ashcroft who appears, at least to an outsider such as myself, to be taking your wise and far-sighted Constitution, Bill of Rights etc to the shredder.

After 40 years of thinking that our right is a collective one, John Ashcroft stated that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Individual Right. Although our Bill of Rights has been ignored and misunderstood at times, it still is The Law of the Land.

[CharacterCounts]

I researched these cases on google and they are all urban legends.

This isn't

About ten years ago, I was appointed by the court to represent a burglar. He was only able to steal the homeowners piggy bank which contained about $37.00. However, while in the house, the burglar lost his wallet. The home owner fould the wallet and gave it to the police but not before taking $50.00 of the burglars cash from it. The police used the ID in the wallet to arrest the nurglar.

The burglar wanted me to sue the homeowner to recover the fifty bucks. He said "that guy's a thief."

[Shooter 2.5]

Bernie, it's my hope that if my government pushes too far, when it's time to do something about it, the soldiers and the police officers will be on the citizen's side.

[bernie_g]

I think it's an *excellent* idea to go after terrorists with all the force at your command. I'm all for it. I spent years wondering if I'd get blown up every time I got on a bus or went in a pub. I've had three near misses (different bus, 30 mins late, 3 hrs early) which is about average for anyone who lived in London during the IRA's mainland campaigns.

I'm just a bit worried, and I guess this would be true of anybody who I'd see as a religious loony, about just what Ashcroft's definition of a terrorist might *be* That's all.

[Righty1]

I agree it is almost always the cops protecting their union positions that cause problems for people legally defending themselves. I have known DAs and the only time they really go against the cops is when gross police misconduct has occurred and the public knows it.

[bernie_g]

What usually happens here is that the magistrate or jury, depending on the seriousness, make their minds up based on the police account. So it's a bit like the situation you have in the US about the *kind* of gun you shot him with.

If it's some kind of scary-looking piece: say one of those 'Terminator' style automatic shotguns, matt black, military heat shield and folding stock, you'd get a different reaction from the cops, court and DA than for say a traditional lever-action varmint rifle. Am I right?

Same thing here. If you can't run the hell away or talk your way out of it (always to be preferred, because in a brawl *everybody* get hurt at least a bit and/or has other cause to regret getting involved)

If you do have to defend yourself in mostly gun free country, your best outcome by far is a straight knockout, for which boxing is great a) because it works really well in the close to middle range, b) because, like the varmint rifle it isn't scary to people.

If on the other hand you stance up, scream orientally, sweep their legs and axe kick them a few times in the head as they swim the rug, some old magistrate or liberal jury is going to decide you're the problem and take a very dim view, especially if it was pre-emptive, which it pretty much has to be to avoid getting hurt yourself.