"courageous" burglar

Crooked Jack

So, do you consider burglars courageous?
There are probably individual circumstances where they are, like stealing nazi war criminal files or something but on the whole I'd have to disagree with this.
Going out and getting a job would be courageous.
Dont agree with the victim either however. "I did 22 years with Her Majesty's forces. I've done a lot of things that took immense courage." Pffffft. right

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19503922


The judge who described a drug-addicted serial thief as "courageous" is to be investigated by the judicial watchdog.

Judge Peter Bowers reportedly made the remark while sentencing 26-year-old Richard Rochford for burglary.

The Teesside Crown Court judge also said he thought that prison did criminals "little good".

His remarks sparked criticism, and Prime Minister David Cameron said burglars were "cowards" whose "hateful crime" violated victims.

Rochford, of Westbourne Grove, Redcar, admitted two burglaries and asked for one more burglary and one attempted burglary to be taken into account.

He was given a two-year supervision order with drug rehabilitation and 200 hours' unpaid work, with a one-year driving ban.

'Not bravery'
The judge reportedly told the offender on Tuesday: "It takes a huge amount of courage, as far as I can see, for somebody to burgle somebody's house. I wouldn't have the nerve."

A spokesperson for the Office for Judicial Complaints said it had "received a number of complaints in relation to comments that His Honour Judge Bowers made in relation to a case in Teesside Crown Court on 4th September 2012".

"Those complaints will be considered under the Judicial Discipline Regulations in the usual way. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage," the spokesperson said.

Speaking to ITV's Daybreak programme, Mr Cameron said: "I haven't seen the specific case.


David Cameron on ITV Daybreak: "Burglars should be sent to jail"
"Judges sometimes say things that, you have to read the full context and the rest of it.

"But I'm very clear; burglary is not bravery, burglary is cowardice, burglary is a hateful crime.

"People sometimes say it is not a violent crime, but actually, if you've been burgled, you do feel it was violent, breaking into your home.

"That's why this government is actually changing the law to toughen the rules on self-defence towards burglars."

'Too lenient'
One of Rochford's victims, Mark Clayton, of Lingdale, North Yorkshire, condemned Judge Bowers' comments.

He said: "How can a man who is burgling houses be told it takes courage and be let off? He hasn't learnt anything from his mistakes.

"What is courage? I did 22 years with Her Majesty's forces. I've done a lot of things that took immense courage.


Richard Rochford will undergo a drug rehabilitation course
"The judge has been too lenient towards this guy's mental state. It's hardly fair.

"I don't know anything about the prison service, but I'm sure it's all about rehabilitating people. That's why it's there."

Mr Clayton said Rochford had broken into his house in the early hours, ransacked it and taken laptops, televisions and items of sentimental value.

He added: "I thought Rochford would get some sentence. He has to learn from what he's done. He can't just be let off for the crimes he's committed."

Javed Khan, chief executive of the national charity Victim Support, said burglars should be brought to justice because of the impact of their actions on victims.

"Burglary can be a traumatic experience for victims and leave long lasting scars", he said.

"It is therefore disappointing to see it being taken lightly by anyone - not least someone whose role it is to make sure offenders are brought to justice."

A Ministry of Justice Spokeswoman said: "Sentencing is purely a matter for the courts, as only they have the full facts of a case before them."

Tipsy McSwagger

No they are scum.

Ronin247

Good to see we are not the only nation with idiots for judges.......

Rigol

Yes they're scum.

But if you isolate the act all by itself, and forget the moral judgement and the context. Then in certain cases it must take a *huge pair to climb through a window where you might find a frightened, armed father who may be 6'8 and utterly mental for all you know.


*(that or being in dire need of drugs or just being thick as a brick)

ScumLord

Well up to a point I'd agree with the judge when comparing it to Camerons media whoring. Courageous is the wrong word to use, it takes balls to break into someone's house knowing you could get beat or arrested. Cameron calling them cowards when they're taking those kind of risks is just playing up to the media. Everyone's choice of words was just poor.

Myrddin

That judge should be out of a job, simple as.

Shryke

ScumLord wrote: »

Well up to a point I'd agree with the judge when comparing it to Camerons media whoring. Courageous is the wrong word to use, it takes balls to break into someone's house knowing you could get beat or arrested. Cameron calling them cowards when they're taking those kind of risks is just playing up to the media. Everyone's choice of words was just poor.

It takes some balls to do the first few times I would imagine but at the end of the day they're not kicking down doors to rooms filled with gun toting maniacs, not unless they call to mine. The shotgun is in easy reach.
Burglars will often target the elderly, especially in rural areas, or stalk neighborhoods during holidays for easy pickings. They are cowardly.

The King of Moo

This is a typical case of the media sensationalising what was clearly an off-the-cuff remark by the judge, who undoubtedly meant to use "courageous" in a less positive sense than it's normally used, to mean that a burglar must be unafraid of being attacked when entering someone's house. I don't think many people would disagree with that, and see it as praising the burglar.
"Fearlessness" or "nerve" would probably have been better words to use.

Was it a silly thing to say? Yes, but this seems to be being blown way out of proportion.

As for the sentence, it doesn't seem to be so bad. It's a lot of unpaid work, and prison might well just harden the burglar.

Chuck Stone

I chased one wielding a golf club one night (I had the golf club). I was only trying to scare him.

I think it worked judging by his lighting pace.

bbam

Rigol wrote: »

Yes they're scum.

But if you isolate the act all by itself, and forget the moral judgement and the context. Then in certain cases it must take a *huge pair to climb through a window where you might find a frightened, armed father who may be 6'8 and utterly mental for all you know.


*(that or being in dire need of drugs or just being thick as a brick)

I think your mixing up the notion of courage and the truth.
The truth is these people have no regard for privacy, no regard for you, your family nor your property. They have no inhibitions regarding other people and have no feelings towards strangers. They are cold callus calculating criminals, they see ordinary people as a source of income and feel they have the right to take whatever they want in order to further their own lives at the expense of the victim.

When you have such indifference to the rule of law it isn't courage its just what they do. They have little or no fear of being caught as being taken away from their families means nothing.

Serial criminals like this are different to you and me, and it's only a small step from smashing your head in so they can continue their ways.

Crooked Jack

The King of Moo wrote: »

This is a typical case of the media sensationalising what was clearly an off-the-cuff remark by the judge, who undoubtedly meant to use "courageous" in a less positive sense than it's normally used, to mean that a burglar must be unafraid of being attacked when entering someone's house. I don't think many people would disagree with that, and see it as praising the burglar.
"Fearless" would probably have been a better word to use.

Was it a silly thing to say? Yes, but this seems to be being blown way out of proportion.

As for the sentence, it doesn't seem to be so bad. It's a lot of unpaid work, and prison might well just harden the burglar.

Perhaps 'brazen' was the word he was after

mitosis

The Teesside Crown Court judge also said he thought that prison did criminals "little good".

Why is it always about doing the criminal "good"?

At least while the prick is locked up there's one less fecker breaking into houses.

blatantrereg

Shryke wrote: »

It takes some balls to do the first few times I would imagine but at the end of the day they're not kicking down doors to rooms filled with gun toting maniacs, not unless they call to mine. The shotgun is in easy reach.
Burglars will often target the elderly, especially in rural areas, or stalk neighborhoods during holidays for easy pickings. They are cowardly.

Yes they case houses to find potential targets with a good risk/reward ratio for them. They expect not to meet anyone at all.

Judges come out with the biggest ****e sometimes.

Shryke

mitosis wrote: »

Why is it always about doing the criminal "good"?

At least while the prick is locked up there's one less fecker breaking into houses.

Rehabilitation and humanitarian reasons I would say. It doesn't mean a person shouldn't serve a sentence, I take it more as a critique of the prison system considering a lot of people can and do come out worse for wear having picked up new tricks and connections.
There's nothing black and white about life and that includes locking up criminals.

floggg

bbam wrote: »

I think your mixing up the notion of courage and the truth.
The truth is these people have no regard for privacy, no regard for you, your family nor your property. They have no inhibitions regarding other people and have no feelings towards strangers. They are cold callus calculating criminals, they see ordinary people as a source of income and feel they have the right to take whatever they want in order to further their own lives at the expense of the victim.

When you have such indifference to the rule of law it isn't courage its just what they do. They have little or no fear of being caught as being taken away from their families means nothing.

Serial criminals like this are different to you and me, and it's only a small step from smashing your head in so they can continue their ways.

I assume you are a burglar yourself given that you are so sure of their way of thinking?

Some of them will undoubtedly fit the description above. Some will just know no other way of life. Some will know their actions are wrong but do it out of desperation or fear or because they see no other option. I imagine there are burglars out there who do it once, regret their choice and never do it again.

But they are still human beings and I imagine some of them would feel a degree of fear before engaging on their first few thefts.

Some will not give a **** about other but still be afraid of getting caught/shot. Some will have a degree of regard for others but still not be scared because they think they are too bad ass to get caught.

There is no point in talking about "truth" and then hashing out a black and white generalisation about how the human mind works. Because the "truth" is, it works different for everybody and everybody sees things differently.

PS - as for the prison's aren't meant to help criminals line of thinking, wouldn't society be better served by steering a young offender away from a life of crime or lengthy incarceration towards being a productive member of society rather than having him become a repeat offender or paying to lock him up?

If you want to look at criminal justice from a utilitarian perspective, society gains far more by rehabilitating a criminal then punishing them.

Rigol

bbam wrote: »

I think your mixing up the notion of courage and the truth.
They have little or no fear of being caught as being taken away from their families means nothing.

How do you know, some of them might be bricking it while they do it. I know I would be. Good chance they're on parole too, some might love their kids and not want to be locked away (not that I'd give a small shyte about what such scumbags want)

To go into a place knowing theres a pretty good chance of a serious kicking can be desperation or stupidity or courage.

But to cross that line [B}must[/B] at some stage must take courage, to say 'ok here we go move slowly and quietly' 'hope I don't end up under the patio'.

telecaster

Judge sacked, Burglar jailed, Cameron ignored....

Next question please.

galwayrush

Wonder what the judge would think if he was a victim of a robbery?

brummytom

I met a convicted re-offending burglar once, and asked him if he didn't see the damage he did to people. He said 'no, I just takes things'. I said 'what about the sentimental value? My mom had her grandmother's engagement ring stolen last year, along with thousands of pounds worth of other things'.

He said, 'listen. If my daughter has a ring stolen, I steal another one. Right?'. Anyway. Scumbags. Not courageous, stupid and horrible.

MaroonAndGreen

Wrong thing to do...

But ye cant dispute that it would take balls to break into a house? :P

Latchy

The problem is when Judges like this open their gob and spew out this type of shyte ,it somehow comes across as feeling sorry for the burglars ie, '' gosh ...such a brave chap '' and making it sound acceptable ( to the burglars) who must hope and prey that when caught ,they come up against somebody as soft as this judge.

telecaster

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

But ye cant dispute that it would take balls to break into a house? :P

I dispute it.

Desperation prevails over bravery (or balls as you call it) in the case of a junkie who's body is craving a fix. Its unlikely they make a clear evaluation of the danger of the situation they are entering.

Ignorance can also be a factor.

A career burglar would have their homework done and be well aware who was and wasnt in the house they had intended to break into.

In contrast:
It takes balls and bravery to enter a house when its ablaze and go room to room making sure its cleared of all occupants. Lets not tarnish the word and concept of bravery any further.

kowloon

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I chased one wielding a golf club one night (I had the golf club). I was only trying to scare him.

I think it worked judging by his lighting pace.

Robbing houses is just a job like any other. There was no need for you to chase me around the course like a maniac on my night off.

Dangerous Man

telecaster wrote: »

I dispute it.

Desperation prevails over bravery (or balls as you call it) in the case of a junkie who's body is craving a fix. Its unlikely they make a clear evaluation of the danger of the situation they are entering.

Ignorance can also be a factor.

A career burglar would have their homework done and be well aware who was and wasnt in the house they had intended to break into.

In contrast:
It takes balls and bravery to enter a house when its ablaze and go room to room making sure its cleared of all occupants. Lets not tarnish the word and concept of bravery any further.

Absolutely - well bloody put.

kowloon

mitosis wrote: »

Why is it always about doing the criminal "good"?

At least while the prick is locked up there's one less fecker breaking into houses.

You do hear a lot of BS about punishing criminals and protecting victims while at simultaneously rehabilitating the offender. I wonder if it's possible to achieve both.

indioblack

brummytom wrote: »

I met a convicted re-offending burglar once, and asked him if he didn't see the damage he did to people. He said 'no, I just takes things'. I said 'what about the sentimental value? My mom had her grandmother's engagement ring stolen last year, along with thousands of pounds worth of other things'.

He said, 'listen. If my daughter has a ring stolen, I steal another one. Right?'. Anyway. Scumbags. Not courageous, stupid and horrible.

Dead right - good post.

Pottler

Takes serious courage to burglarise, balls of steel in fact. I'll qualify that by adding "round here" to the end of that. Last "attemtees" got away pretty intact, but they were quite fast and did a great job running across the open bog to get away. Apparently they only suffered minor injuries as well. Never mind.

PizzamanIRL

What did I just not read?

floggg

telecaster wrote: »

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

But ye cant dispute that it would take balls to break into a house? :P

I dispute it.

Desperation prevails over bravery (or balls as you call it) in the case of a junkie who's body is craving a fix. Its unlikely they make a clear evaluation of the danger of the situation they are entering.

Ignorance can also be a factor.

A career burglar would have their homework done and be well aware who was and wasnt in the house they had intended to break into.

In contrast:
It takes balls and bravery to enter a house when its ablaze and go room to room making sure its cleared of all occupants. Lets not tarnish the word and concept of bravery any further.

I'll start off by saying I think theft is despicable and I don't condone their actions.

But I don't think you can say words like bravery or courage can only be reserved for so-called noble causes.

Per dictionary.com, courage is the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain etc without fear.

The quality of the actions doesn't matter, it's whether or not you can overcome fear.

For example, if you take (an overly simplified) look at Syria. The freedom fighters are fighting for freedom and to end oppression. The government forces are fighting to maintain an injust and corrupt system.

One side could objectively be viewed as doing something good, thr other as doing something bad.

Fighters on each side however show courage when they face down armed opponents, even if one side is fighting an immoral cause.

telecaster

floggg wrote: »

The quality of the actions doesn't matter, it's whether or not you can overcome fear.

Interesting.

Apply your logic to this ficticious scenario for me.

Its the morning of the day when a long planned suicide terrorist attack is to be carried out. The attackers have had a restless night before, in anticipation of the day ahead.

One of the group decides not to go through with it. He makes a BRAVE decision to vanish from the cell and live the rest of his days in hiding from those he has betrayed.

Another of the group wrestles with similar thoughts. But makes a BRAVE decision to stay loyal to his comrades and cause, and execute the audacious plan.

We have actions that are polar opposites. Both men have overcome different sets of fears. Are both brave? Are both cowards?

Manic Moran

telecaster wrote: »

floggg wrote: »

The quality of the actions doesn't matter, it's whether or not you can overcome fear.

We have actions that are polar opposites. Both men have overcome different sets of fears. Are both brave? Are both cowards?

Given the way you put the example, both brave. I've no problem with the concept, bravery and honour are two entirely separate ideas.

Burglars may well be courageous (especially around here where we get to shoot them) but that does not mean that they have honour, care or integrity. Speaking perhaps immodestly, I would submit that servicemen generally have both.