Workshop burgled, now my tools are on eBay

[Phil Pascoe]

Victim: Yes I have CCTV footage of the little scumbags in the act, look here on my mobile/Tablet, sadly you can't see their faces.

Copper: I recognize that scumbag by his gate, he's well know to us.

(Did you mean "gait"?)
A builder my neighbour works with had his van done over and a load of stuff nicked. He took the cctv of the scrote smiling and sticking a finger up to the camera to the police and the police said there was nothing they could do as the picture wasn't clear enough. This was despite its being of a known thief.

 

[Luckosaurous]

Victim: Is CCTV worth it?

Copper/ insurance co: You claim that your shed was broken into and your tools were stolen, do you have any proof of that sir?

Victim: Err um No.

OR

Victim: Yes I have CCTV footage of the little scumbags in the act, look here on my mobile/Tablet, sadly you can't see their faces.

Copper: I recognize that scumbag by his gate, he's well know to us.

Victim: So glad I had that camera installed.

CrazyDave Can I make it anymore simple for you doubting Thomas's?
Horse to water, not thirsty then.

When I was a victim the police gave me a crime number before they even came to my house, and the insurance company paid out based on the crime number. I didn’t have or need cctv for it. It just feels like the kind of waste of money that people spend to make themselves feel better.

Also you will never secure a conviction based on the way somebody walks.

 

[Luckosaurous]

I doubt CCTV is much of a deterrent because all to easy to hide their faces, but covert CCTV within the workshop might work better especially with audio because the scum might let there guard down and also talk. The smartwater spray is solid proof they were on your property and as I have said marking everything with smartwater can prove ownership if recovered. Often it is the more basic security nmeasures that work, again something that will sound loud enough to wake the neighbourhood if the door is forced open and plenty of lighting, these scum do not like being highlighted. On the subject of fences, any weak spots you could grow suitable plants, something like Pyracantha or one of the many spiky shrubs out there which will if nothing else ensure the scum leaves there DNA behind.

I don’t trust myself with smart water. I’d end up forgetting i had set an alarm and cover myself in it when I nip out to the garage for a bottle of wine or something

 

[Cobbs]

What has not been mentioned is that apart from the physical loss of property it is going to be a traumatic experience knowing that some scumbag has decided that he should own your tools to sell for well less than market value and intruded into your space. The tools can be replaced but what about the impact on society, these sort of experiences change peoples outlook on society and unless this has happened to you it is not easy to understand what is going through the OP's mind and lets not forget that everything does not always have a monetary value, some things cannot be replaced due to there history or significance in the persons life.

There are an awful lot of people who just vanish every year in the UK,

View attachment 171511
some will be deliberate, maybe some alien abductions and others taking a break from the rat race but how many are disposals !!

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but what has the number of missing persons got to do with the OP getting burgled? Also of course, if you're going to quote the number of people who go missing, for the sake of balance, you should also give the figures for how many reappear and please give your sources...

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You can still get your stuff marked with SmartWater. I costs about £90 p. a. iirc. Virtually everything I own worth over about £30 has been marked for years.

I don’t trust myself with smart water. I’d end up forgetting i had set an alarm and cover myself in it when I nip out to the garage for a bottle of wine or something

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I wonder sometimes if the police prioritise cases (they have to sometimes, surely?) - if they have two near identical cases, one of which where the person has alarms, cameras, SmartWater etc. and the other person hasn't made any attempt to prevent the theft, which case do they take?

 

[sploo]

Copper: I recognize that scumbag by his gate, he's well know to us.

I know what you meant, but I now have an image in my head of some little scrote going round nicking stuff while carrying a garden gate.

I suppose it might help him offload stuff later.... you know... if he's also a fence.




(I'll get my coat)

 

[Adam W.]

Let me get your gate.

 

[Luckosaurous]

You can still get your stuff marked with SmartWater. I costs about £90 p. a. iirc. Virtually everything I own worth over about £30 has been marked for years.

Oh I thought it was some kind of sprinkler system that doused everything in the event of the alarm being triggered

 

[Agent_zed]

Oh I thought it was some kind of sprinkler system that doused everything in the event of the alarm being triggered

There is a system on the market at the moment that fills the room with a non-toxic smoke. I think it's mostly for corner shops etc. Only takes like 30secs and you can't see anything. If you can't see it, you can't steal it

I had wondered about this in the past, setting up a smoke grenade and a trip wire or alarm connected to solenoid etc. They aren't very expensive and I reckon you'd be better off if someone heard an alarm and saw smoke as they might call the fire brigade, rather than just ignoring the alarm like usual.

like this perhaps...https://www.gingerray.co.uk/white-wedding-smoke-bomb although I'm not sure if it's normal to throw smoke bombs at the bride and groom these days or not?

 

[Crazy Dave]

(Did you mean "gait"?)
A builder my neighbour works with had his van done over and a load of stuff nicked. He took the cctv of the scrote smiling and sticking a finger up to the camera to the police and the police said there was nothing they could do as the picture wasn't clear enough. This was despite its being of a known thief.

Yes sorry Dyslexia even gets the better of me when I use the spell checker.
I used to be called stupid at school then they changed the name to something non of us Dyslexic folk could spell so I guess we're cured, probably.

That is clearly a reflection of that force but CCTV is still proof that the event took place.
Maybe a better camera would have helped or maybe it just need a clean.

 

[Crazy Dave]

Let me get your gate.

Sorry I'm not perfect like you.

 

[XTiffy]

I have seen U.S. youtube videos of "glitter bombs" used to combat Porch Pirates who steal doorstep deliverys, don't know what they are but would give you satisfaction!
Must also add, I am rather tired at the Daily Mail taunts. I do not read any newspapers as you are deluding yourself that any paper can be trusted, they all twist stories to suit their intended audience. No mainstream media can be trusted, full stop.

 

[AndyMc]

Oh I thought it was some kind of sprinkler system that doused everything in the event of the alarm being triggered

Turns out it is. From the wikipedia page: " Another application is a sprinkler system that sprays a burglar with the liquid to generate evidence that connects a suspect to a specific location."

 

[Stan]

- The state owns the monopoly on violence

Not quite accurate.

Under English/Welsh law the following applies:

1. "If you have an honestly held belief that you or another are in imminent danger, you may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to avert that danger".
- Common Law right of self defence

2. "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
- s3 Criminal law Act 1967

Both these laws apply to everyone, not just police etc. ( When interpreting law be aware that it might not actually say what you think it does - they are written in legal technobabble, not everyday English ).

Under 1 the force must only be for the purposes of self defence for yourself or somebody else, not for defending property. Once the threat has gone the force must stop. Number 2 above is what justifies use of some force to prevent crime on your property. Using force for any other purposes is illegal*, so revenge/retaliation/punishment is illegal. It is possible that you may legally use force to detain somebody but when they attack you, the first part then applies as well.

If you are unlawfully trying to detain somebody and they resist, as long as they are reasonable then you are in the wrong and they are just lawfully resisting an assault! So before you do something, make sure you are in the right!!!!!!

(*exceptions for certain legally defined persons in specific situations, eg police officer carrying out a lawful search.)

Both parts talk about "reasonable" force ( not "minimum", please note). It is not the person who uses the force who decides what is reasonable but a court of law.

Brief examples to illustrate the points:

1. You catch somebody breaking into your shed. They run off but you chase after them and give them a good kicking.

Morally, they might or might not deserve it depending on your interpretation of morals. Legally you are guilty of an assault because the purpose of the force is not to protect yourself or to prevent crime or to arrest the offender, but to punish them. The state reserves this right and you might well serve time in prison, depending on factors such as the level of injury received and any past criminal history you may have. Not much in the way of grey areas here.

2. You catch somebody breaking into your shed and you try to detain them for the police to deal with. A struggle takes place with them using force to attempt to escape and you using force to try and stop them.

The aim of the force is to arrest a suspected offender, so as long as the arrest is lawful, the use of reasonable force is legal. The arrest or attempted arrest HAS to be lawful. An honest error by you resulting in trying to arrest an innocent person can get you into a lot of trouble. This is a subject in itself requiring more detail to explain fully.

These examples are very simplistic - real life is much more complicated.

A couple of extra points to bear in mind:-

Just because it is legal to do something it does not necessarily mean it is sensible or wise to do it. Eg if you are in your seventies with a heart condition and you tackle a twenty year old, you are likely to end up lying on the floor turning a bad colour. Is that worth it?

Secondly, this whole concept of what is or is not reasonable force is a huge complicated subject. It is difficult to bear in mind in the heat of the moment. Once you decide to use force the other party is quite likely to reply, or up their level if already using some. If you underdo the level of force you get a good hiding. If you overdo it ( or are suspected of doing so), expect to find yourself standing in the dock.

A court will take into acount a number of factors when deciding whether or not force was reasonable. These include but are not limited to:
level of threat presented
any weapons involved
number of people involved
age/health/size limitations etc of people involved
any special skills/knowledge of person using force ( eg black belt judo)

DISCLAIMER:
All the above is not enough if you are accused of using excessive force - get a lawyer. it is only presented as food for thought not as a basis for making legal decisions.
If you think because you are innocent you don't need a lawyer - WRONG - you need a lawyer more than ever.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes sorry Dyslexia even gets the better of me when I use the spell checker ...

Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word and weight four it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh - my chequer tolled me sew.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Oh I thought it was some kind of sprinkler system that doused everything in the event of the alarm being triggered

Same company, different product.

 

[AndyMc]

Not quite accurate.

Under English/Welsh law the following applies:

1. "If you have an honestly held belief that you or another are in imminent danger, you may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to avert that danger".
- Common Law right of self defence

2. "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
- s3 Criminal law Act 1967

Both these laws apply to everyone, not just police etc. ( When interpreting law be aware that it might not actually say what you think it does - they are written in legal technobabble, not everyday English ).

Under 1 the force must only be for the purposes of self defence for yourself or somebody else, not for defending property. Once the threat has gone the force must stop. Number 2 above is what justifies use of some force to prevent crime on your property. Using force for any other purposes is illegal*, so revenge/retaliation/punishment is illegal. It is possible that you may legally use force to detain somebody but when they attack you, the first part then applies as well.

If you are unlawfully trying to detain somebody and they resist, as long as they are reasonable then you are in the wrong and they are just lawfully resisting an assault! So before you do something, make sure you are in the right!!!!!!

(*exceptions for certain legally defined persons in specific situations, eg police officer carrying out a lawful search.)

Both parts talk about "reasonable" force ( not "minimum", please note). It is not the person who uses the force who decides what is reasonable but a court of law.

Brief examples to illustrate the points:

1. You catch somebody breaking into your shed. They run off but you chase after them and give them a good kicking.

Morally, they might or might not deserve it depending on your interpretation of morals. Legally you are guilty of an assault because the purpose of the force is not to protect yourself or to prevent crime or to arrest the offender, but to punish them. The state reserves this right and you might well serve time in prison, depending on factors such as the level of injury received and any past criminal history you may have. Not much in the way of grey areas here.

2. You catch somebody breaking into your shed and you try to detain them for the police to deal with. A struggle takes place with them using force to attempt to escape and you using force to try and stop them.

The aim of the force is to arrest a suspected offender, so as long as the arrest is lawful, the use of reasonable force is legal. The arrest or attempted arrest HAS to be lawful. An honest error by you resulting in trying to arrest an innocent person can get you into a lot of trouble. This is a subject in itself requiring more detail to explain fully.

These examples are very simplistic - real life is much more complicated.

A couple of extra points to bear in mind:-

Just because it is legal to do something it does not necessarily mean it is sensible or wise to do it. Eg if you are in your seventies with a heart condition and you tackle a twenty year old, you are likely to end up lying on the floor turning a bad colour. Is that worth it?

Secondly, this whole concept of what is or is not reasonable force is a huge complicated subject. It is difficult to bear in mind in the heat of the moment. Once you decide to use force the other party is quite likely to reply, or up their level if already using some. If you underdo the level of force you get a good hiding. If you overdo it ( or are suspected of doing so), expect to find yourself standing in the dock.

A court will take into acount a number of factors when deciding whether or not force was reasonable. These include but are not limited to:
level of threat presented
any weapons involved
number of people involved
age/health/size limitations etc of people involved
any special skills/knowledge of person using force ( eg black belt judo)

DISCLAIMER:
All the above is not enough if you are accused of using excessive force - get a lawyer. it is only presented as food for thought not as a basis for making legal decisions.
If you think because you are innocent you don't need a lawyer - WRONG - you need a lawyer more than ever.

All excellent points; I agree.
However the state still owns the monopoly. I'd argue the state has effectively outsourced enforcement to you as an individual in these very limited circumstances, which is why we have to have explicit legislation defining the circumstances in which you as an individual are permitted to take forceful action. The state could withdraw that right with a change of legislation.

 

[Spectric]

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but what has the number of missing persons got to do with the OP getting burgled?

Nothing but with that number of people vanishing then probability says that some must be disposals, like it or not there are some very naughty people out there who would not take to kindly to being burgled.

So how do we resolve the issue of people being burgled, is it now just something we have to accept and turn it into a game where the emphasis is on the innocent to spend money on security, do you just have minimal security and accept the insurance payout which will just increase premiums or maybe we could take really drastic action and do what mr peel did all those years ago and come up with an effective police force.

The problem is much like global warming in that people are willing to talk but not much more. When you look at the Saudi justice system which must be one of the toughest around it becomes evident that even the possibility of losing a hand or being beheaded does not stop crime otherwise they would have zero crime so then look at the UK system which is completely the opposite and then you realise the threat of being burgled is much the same risk as catching flu, crime does pay in our society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

[Terry - Somerset]

All policing seems to flow down from the Home Office which sets national priorities - terrorism, drugs, serious crime, violent crime, national level law and order.

Regional police add their own priorities depending on the nature of their communities - domestic abuse, roads, drug misuse, crime prevention, education, etc. I suspect that national level pressures, weigh heavily and that resources available to meet more regional priorities are limited.

Chief constables and police commissioners may understandably prioritise drug misuse, domestic violence etc over the more mundane. We may personally be upset over the loss of tools with sentimental or relatively limited value, but the reality is that they are not on the priority radar.

More police may not increase effort applied to lower priority issues - more likely add resources applied to serious crime. This is not helped by a bureaucratic process for taking a case through the courts and a broken court system with many cases taking over a year to be heard.

I am currently enjoying a few weeks winter sun in Spain. Their police forces are organised quite differently with a Policia Local under local control to deliver local policing. This can deal with issues of day to day concern locally without the distraction of wider regional and national issues.

The solution as noted above is to make your workshop a more difficult target, ensure you have photos, invoices, serial numbers etc of all kit, and a decent insurance policy.