Talk:Burglary

2005 to 2006 comments

03 MAY 2005

I would like the correct information regarding California's statutes on burglary to be in this article. Mainly the difference between first degree and second degree.

It turns out that the anonymous complainant is correct; however, it wasn't always this way, and day vs. night was formerly used in California to distinguish 1st-degree burglary from 2nd degree (in one Dragnet episode, an apprehended burglary suspect boasted that he would intentionally confine his burglaries to the daylight hours since that way it would only be second degree) — TOttenville 8 8:58 UTC May 30 2005

The word 'burglarise' or 'burglarize' is just awful. The origin of the word is already a verb - 'burgle'. Someone who carries out a burglary is a burglar. Who on earth dreamt up the word 'burglarize'? I know in America there is a tendency to make verbs out of nouns, hence 'hospitalise' or being 'tasked' with something, but there isn't even that excuse here since, as I said, there is already a verb JRJW January '06

I expect when you burglarize, the act is burglarizification. The Real Walrus 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of 'vehicular burglary', a crime in which someone breaks into and enters a motor vehicle with the intent to commit a crime other than vehiucle theft. The borderline between a motor vehicle and a dwelling is vague at times (example: a motor home).--66.231.41.57 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burglar stereotype

Is there room in this article to cover depictions of burglars in the media?

Feel free to start a new page Burglary (media). David91 03:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional stereotype of a burglar is a man wearing a striped sweater and a beret, carrying a bag marked "Swag" (as shown in the Swag (disambiguation) article) - from whence did this depiction originate? 217.155.20.163 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that's a theif. A burglar is someone in a black turtleneck(tucked in), black agile pants, and black shoes, with a black beanie. I would like an article on a Catburglar though, like Vincent Price looking guys.--PP

Who's saying this stuff??

"Habitual residential burglars tend to graduate to murderers more than other types of habitual criminals."

First of all this smacks of opinion that has no place in this article. If it were fact, then proof needs to be shown and statistics can be used to prove anything.

Fact is that most professional burglars will do everything they can to avoid violence. Unless it's a junkie looking for cash to buy a quick fix. In which case you could say "habitual junkies tend to graduate to murderers."

At any rate, I'm deleting that sentence from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaylectricity (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hear hear! 81.96.191.66 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the law in Cali and under the common law. The article is still sloppy and ambiguous. It probably need a complete rewrite. Reference is Ca Pen Code Sec 459 et Seq. Paul from Michigan 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I clarified the law in Cali and under the common law. The article is still sloppy and ambiguous. It probably need a complete rewrite. Reference is Ca Pen Code Sec 459 et Seq. Paul from Michigan 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I deleted one of the off-page links because it went directly to a site selling an e-book on alarm systems and had no information on burglary or crime prevention. Ryan from Vancouver 15:36, 26 June 2007 (PST)

Excessive legal focus

This article focuses excessively (that is to say, exclusively) on legal descriptions of burglary. It should also contain discussion of burglary in other contexts, including history, society, and notable techniques. —ptk✰fgs 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has a pseudo legal focus. Seems to have been written by a bush lawyer. It does not differentiate between 'entering' and 'break and enter'. Generally entering is not likely to result in a prosecution unless an attempt is made to steal. Breaking a door or lock to gain entry is always assumed to be for unlawful purposes. Home invasion must involve the presence of an occupant or an agent of an occupant, irrespective of how the invader gained entry. The occupant must make it clear he wishes the invader to leave, even if the invader was initially present with the occupant's consent. In many countries the occupant has the right to use any force that *S/HE* considers necessary to remove the invader, including deadly force. (It is not what the jury or law considers to be reasonable force.) This is known as the Castle Principle. 220.240.254.104 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burgle vs. burglari[sz]e

What's the real deal here? I was taught that "burglari[sz]e" is actually the verb that came first and that "burgle" is a back-formation coined by people under the mistaken assumption that it was "burglari[sz]e" that's a back-formation, but I'm not a linguist (or even a native English speaker). Would be nice if someone more knowledgeable than me could shed some light on this and amend the article. -- Schneelocke (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat burglar

The phrase Cat burglar redirects here but it's not used anywhere in the text. Should the redirect be removed or should something be added that defines the term? --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to add the same comment. It's been nearly three years, and still nothing has been added to resolve this problem. What is a cat burglar? What distinguishes "cat burglary" from regular burglary, and where does the term come from? I would doubt that there is any formal legal definition of "cat burglar," i.e. that it would be a formal legal term at all, but do the newspapers use it for some crooks and not for others? Is there a pattern or a mode or a definition that it matches? Were there any particularly famous cat burglars? When and how did the term originate? LordAmeth (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the original redirect as pointless, but I see it's been reinstated. Fair enough, but it isn't a legal term, and is covered only briefly at Wiktionary. Since the article is generally legal/criminology-based, treatment of the term doesn't seem to be encyclopedically possible. However, a link to Wiktionary in the "See also" section would seem to be helpful, so I'll add one. Rodhull andemu 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This article needs more citations/clean-up, and is of a commonly known topic to those outside of the legal profession. It is of High importance and B Class on the assessment scale. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common law elements

I added the common law elements of burglary to the U.S. section. --G77 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking and Entering

Someone changed the introductory language to state that Burglary is also known as Breaking and Entering. I reverted these changes to the original. Breaking and Entering are elements of the offense, not an alternative name for the offense. --G77 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"B & E" is a colloquial term but is actually used in some jurisdictions. I am currently doing a major rewrite of this article, as it is lacking. Have just finished section on "Aggravated Burglary" as a starter, but will add historical diffs between burglary & housebreaking under Larceny Act 1916 and amplify common law definitions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many jurisdictions have created the statutory offense of breaking or entering because of the narrow scope of common law burglary. For example, North Carolina has the statutory offense of felonious breaking or entering which makes it a felony to break or enter any building with the intent to commit a felony therein. Note the difference in scope between the statutory offense and common law buglary. (1) B or E requires only a breaking or entry while burglary requires both. (2) B or E applies to the breaking or entery into any structure while burglary is limited to residential break ins. (3) B or E does not include the aggravator that the offense occur at night.

In English law 'burglary' is an offence committed during the night, 'housebreaking' is the same offence committed during the day, and housebreaking is usually treated by the courts as being slightly less serious than burglary, as in the latter the residents are likely to be asleep and therefore vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. Both offences relate to unauthorised entry to another person's premises with the intended theft of belongings. 'Breaking and Entering' means what it says, e.g., effecting entry by causing damage to either a window, door, or lock, and does not necessarily involve an intent to steal, e.g., it may be committed with the intent of causing bodily harm against the person(s) inside.

The above offences apply equally to police officers and other government officials unless they have reasonable cause to suspect a crime is being committed, or possess a valid search warrant, or are invited onto the premises by the legal tenant or resident and discover a crime.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigating or exculpatory factors

Some entries to buildings are clearly permissible at law, including:

1. Break-ins by law enforcement officers to effect a lawful arrest, thwart a crime, or seize (with a warrant or in conjunction with an arrest or a response to a crime) evidence of criminal activity or contraband.

2. Break-ins by emergency responders (and perhaps others) to rescue persons or animals from perilous situations or to fight fires.

3. Entry of a dwelling or other enclosure by a locksmith with the implicit consent of a locked-out owner or dweller.

4. Entry by a landlord, creditor, or the lawful agents of either to evict a defaulting tenant or borrower.

These, although not permitted, would likely be forgiven:

1. Accidental wandering into a dwelling in error, as when intoxicated.

2. Entry of another's unoccupied or vacant building in an escape from an obvious danger (storm, fire, flood, animal attack) if the attempt to gain shelter appears necessary to save one's life or prevent severe injury.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all these cases, "entry as a trespasser" is not proved; therefore, there is no offence to exculpate. There is no point inserting "what X is not" into every article on WP. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat burglar

The article "Cat burglar" redirects here, but there is no information specifically stating what a "cat burglar" is anywhere in this article. Should the redirect be removed?64.180.167.227 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is deleted as a pointless redirect. There's probably a Wiktionary entry for it.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inchoate offence

I've included a sub-section with quotes and citations, about burglary as an inchoate crime. If any one can find other sources, that would improve the article. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject

In my opinion this page is just detailed information about the definition and legal facts. There should be a page about burglary containing a bigger spectrum about burglary with a link to this page, renamed to something more fitting to the content? Anonimous 1:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.119.39 (talk)

Finnish law (copyright issues)

I have just added the subsection Finland and the unofficial translation of Finnish penal code (by the name of The Criminal Code of Finland) in the references. If you follow the link, the PDF document claims that it is copyright © Ministry of Justice, Finland. Ignore this. The Copyright Act of Finland, as amended in 2005, explicitly states that copyright does not apply to laws and statutes [Section 9(1)(1)] or translations of public laws and other official documents issued or published by the Finnish government [Section 9(1)(5)]. There is no Crown Copyright in Finland as opposed to e.g. the United Kingdom. Translations of laws used to be protected by copyright, but the law was amended in 2005. --Pxos (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

As a native speaker of german language I simply cannot accept that "berg" should mean "home". It rather means mountain. I am not an expert in etymology, but the following link seems to provide a more reasonable explanation.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=burglar&searchmode=none —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.98.44 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if there was a separate section called Etymology explaining the origin of the words for burglary. Sir Edward Coke gives a more credible explanation at the start of Chapter 14 in the third part of Institutes of the Lawes of England, saying it is derived from burgh and laron, meaning house-thieves. - 122.57.243.61 (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

burgle

My understanding is that burgle is an informal usage, one that started as a joke in a song from The Pirates of Penzance. Is it really correct to claim that it's the British English usage in a formal legal article? --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a former practising criminal lawyer, and user of the British English language, you may take it as read from me that "burgle" is in common usage from the House of Lords down to the street. It's in my OED as "1. commit burglary. 2. rob by burglary (19th C; from back-formation)". Rodhull andemu 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the term originated in The Pirates of Penzance (1879). Indeed, the word does not appear in Pirates in that form. What evidence do you have for this? I suspect that the term is at least decades older. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I seem to remember hearing somewhere; couldn't give you an exact cite. But it makes sense to me. When the enterprising burglar's not a burgling just sounds inherently funny and I think the humor was intended. If burgle were a normal word at the time, it wouldn't have been. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. However, if you want to want to take it futrher back, that's up to you. Rodhull andemu 02:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamesukin (sp?)

every source i find spells it 'hamesucken'. googling 'hamesukin' produces no results Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burglary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402122855/http://www.rcmp-learning.org/copp/encopp/p_break.htm to http://www.rcmp-learning.org/copp/encopp/p_break.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burglary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530035318/http://www.nas.gov.uk:80/guides/legalTerms.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/legalTerms.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of car with broken window not appropriate?

I question whether the picture of the car with a broken window is appropriate for this article. Most of the definitions of "burglary" and "breaking and entering" refer to a place such as a dwelling place, a building and so on, not a vehicle. I think this picture should be deleted as not relevant to the topic. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No comment in three months, so I went ahead and deleted the picture. The only jurisdiction mentioned in the article that includes breaking into a vehicle in the definition of "burglary" appears to be Georgia; one example isn't enough to include it in the lead. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden: Foreign gangs

This seems to be part of a narrative pushed by an editor, on this and other pages, to frame "foreigners" as criminals. I don't have the stomach for an edit war at present, but if someone with greater WP political capital wants to edit or delete the subsection, that would be great. Cautioning the user adding that stuff may also be helpful.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done The excessively detailed content about burglary in Sweden and the alleged involvement of non-Swedes in it has been removed. This article is about the general nature of the crime of burglary and international variations in its legal definition, not a place for in-depth crime statistics and analysis for any specific country. I suggest @AadaamS look instead at Crime in Sweden, where this content may be more appropriate (if better sourced). General Ization ^Talk 02:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burglary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622011808/http://www.rcmp-learning.org/copp/encopp/p_break.htm to http://www.rcmp-learning.org/copp/encopp/p_break.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common-law definition of Burglary

I think describing Sir Matthew Hale's description of Burglary as a definition of the common-law is inappropriate, rather it is an observation and summary of the applicable case law. In Pleas of the Crown (1678), at page 79, he observes that one of 2 kinds of offences against the dwelling or habitation is Burglary, the other being Arson, or Burning. He observes that:

"Burglary by the Common Law is, where a person in the night time breaketh and entereth into the Mansion-House of another, to the intent to commit some Felony within the same, whether the felonious intent be executed or not."

He then proceeds to explain what each element of the crime means and what circumstances are included and excluded from each element of the offence, including the cases and statutes that are the sources of his observations. So rather than defining the offence, Hale is summarising the case law concerning the offence of Burglary. 122.57.243.61 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sir William Blackstone, in Commentaries on the Laws of England, (Book 4, Chapter 16), says it was Sir Edward Coke who first gave the definition of a burglar, rather than Hale. - 122.57.243.61 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection vs Prevention

I think the subsection about Protection against Burglars would be better called Burglary Prevention. Protection implies that a Burglar is already present and is in the act of committing a burglary, while prevention implies preemptive actions that seek to discourage burglars in the first place. Protection implies actions like the use of force to detain a burglar or disable them while prevention would mean the burglar did not have the opportunity to commit the burglary in the first place. While society previously tolerated the extrajudicial killing of a burglar caught in the act by the homeowner, this is no longer the case in modern society. Today, the preference is for preventing the burglar committing the crime. - 122.57.243.61 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text truncation?

Currently there is the following statement in the History section:

After reforms in France lead to the Napoleonic Code being established in 1804.

To me, grammar does not make sense as is. Was this line intended like this:

After reforms in France lead to the Napoleonic Code being established in 1804, something else happened.

... or like this?

Reforms in France lead to the Napoleonic Code being established in 1804.

How should it be fixed? -- Martinus KE (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Drawlatch" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Drawlatch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 4#Drawlatch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bears

Bears as a rule are wild animals and not socialized. They have broken into houses and cars, typically for foodstuffs. The damage due to ursid break-ins is far greater than any property taken. Bears are highly-dangerous because of their size and omnivorous eating habits. Bear burglaries are a legitimate concern.

Man has often into bear country which may have been bear-rich wilderness before it was transformed into resorts, including areas that bears pass through on the way to or from hibernation. Bears have gigantic appetites, and they are dangerous to confront. Similar to dogs in cleverness, but usually much larger and more muscular, they can break windows much as can a tool-using burglar. A bear paw is comparable to a human using a hammer.

Legal consequences for a bear may include being put down for the danger and destruction that they pose. https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/bears-in-cars-bears-in-condos-dont-be-the-next-victim-of-a-bear-burglary/ Pbrower2a (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a criminal offence. Animals cannot form criminal intent. MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]