Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh.

Serial Burglar Caught on Webcam 561

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Serial Burglar Caught on Webcam

Comments Filter:
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:12AM (#11699360)
    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. :(
  • by slashrogue ( 775436 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:20AM (#11699472)
    Yeah, but when's the last time sending someone to jail meant actual attempts at rehabilitating those kinds of criminal tendencies (in this case, burglary)? Just throwing someone in jail isn't going to make them "wise up" or whatever. Without actually attempting to make changes, we won't see any.
  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:24AM (#11699522) Journal
    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.
  • by DanBrusca ( 197887 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:26AM (#11699545) Homepage
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:26AM (#11699549)
    People don't *need* to rob and steal for drugs at all. That's the basic premise of your argument, and it's fatally flawed.

    They rob and steal because they *want* money for drugs. Not because they *need* it.

    All legalising 'hard' drugs is going to do is generate a lot of useless people who will still end up robbing and stealing for their drugs, no matter how little they cost.
  • by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:28AM (#11699571) Homepage
    don't forget on average he will serve only half his sentence. So even if he factors in the odd 8 months inside (full bed and board) given breaking into houses or a minimum wage job hes probably behaving rationally.
    Given the threat of 5 years seriously hard labour in prison with no TV, no radio, nothing but basic food water and a cell would he be as likely to break in again? I know I wouldn't.
  • 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?

  • by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:29AM (#11699585) Journal
    Whatt is going to rehabilitate him?

    I do agree with your sentiment on this issue. But, in this case:

    Police eventually tracked down Park, who has 33 previous convictions of theft, to Kingsway Flats in Cambridge where he tried to escape by climbing over the balcony on February 10.

    The guy has 33 convictions. Is there a point where rehabilitations can even work?

  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:30AM (#11699602) Homepage
    Well, speaking from a country which has even less sentences for crime:

    The only thing that can rehabilitate him is the desire to change.

    Far too many here are so busy "rushing" them back to society, only to find out that when they do get out, they go back in the old habits regardless of the choices. Why? There was no punishment the last time. There's a path of lawfulness and a path of crime, and all the did was bring you back to the crossroad. It doesn't help that prison is basicly a decent hotel, except you can't leave the premises. I know students who almost lived that way voluntarily, think EQ addicts or similar, except you don't have to waste time working or cooking.

    11 months is more than long enough. But I would like him to know how much other people have worked to earn the money to buy what he stole. Have him work in prison, but get nothing in return. That's what he's been putting other people through. Even a sociopath would get the picture when it happens to himself.

    Kjella
  • 11 months??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yog ( 19073 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:31AM (#11699616) Homepage Journal
    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. ;)

  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:36AM (#11699690)
    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.
  • by d3ac0n ( 715594 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:41AM (#11699752)
    Two most commonly stolen items in convenience store robberies (other than money, of course)

    1. Alcohol (legal product)
    2. Tobacco (legal product)

    Bad guys are bad guys. Just because something addictive is legal does not mean that it will stop crime related to the possesion of that product. The type of crime will just change. So the whole, "Legalize drugs, it will stop crime" argument is bogus just on the face of it. Now stop trying to use unrelated Slashdot stories to push your personal political agenda.
  • by d3ac0n ( 715594 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @11:56AM (#11699947)
    Wait. You mean a repeat criminal might NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT? OMGWTFBBQ! How can we let this happen? The poor unsuspecting bad guys might get offended! We should stop this right away!
    /sarcasm
    Seriously, OF COURSE they are going to work harder to try and get away AFTER commiting thier 3rd offense if they know the penalty will be more severe. I mean, who WANTS to go to prison? The fact that they are willing to be even more violent just to get away only proves that they need to be seperated from society and that they are NOT REFORMABLE. 3 Strikes is a good setup. It should be used in MORE places around the world. Not less.
  • by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:04PM (#11700115)
    The criminal in question was out on bail when committing this robbery and had 13 priors. For this, he gets all of 11 months?

    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.

  • by Quixote ( 154172 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:08PM (#11700188) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:15PM (#11700313)
    don't forget on average he will serve only half his sentence.

    Somehow I doubt that someone who got 33 convictions by 19 will manage to keep his nose clean in jail and get full remission for good behaviour.

    This guy is not only antisocial, he is stupid when he is being antisocial and gets caught a lot.

  • by Troed ( 102527 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:18PM (#11700372) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • by bluGill ( 862 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @12:55PM (#11701013)

    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)

  • by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:00PM (#11701106)
    Bleeding heart liberals need to be victimized more often...

    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.

  • by untaken_name ( 660789 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @01:27PM (#11701530) Homepage
    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.
  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:35PM (#11706694) Journal
    You don't pull a gun on someone unless you mean to kill them.

    Why not? Guns are very effective for frightening people.
  • by Mike Schiraldi ( 18296 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @09:02PM (#11706912) Homepage Journal
    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.

    No no no .. 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).

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...