Talk:Martin Stickles

Inconsistent use of the terms concerning burglary, robbery or theft offences

Under the heading of William Shanklin the article says, in part: "He then broke into the house and robbed any valuable items he could find, ...", while under the heading The Knapp couple the article then says "Like the previous case, he burgled into the house and stole all valuables, ...". Not only is this poor grammar, the writing uses inconsistent language to describe the same criminal behaviour and misapplies terms describing the crimes of burglary, robbery and theft. Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't understand the different meanings in terms they have used and how these words should be used. Firstly, the crime of burglary is the act of entering a building, usually with the application of force in order to effect entry to the premises, with the intent to commit further crime within. Thus if one "broke into the house", one burgled that house. It makes no sense to say one "burgled into the house" because the house entry is implicit in the verb to burgle, so it would be like saying one "broke into into the house" because "burgled" means "broke into". Secondly, the crime of robbery is a crime of using force against a person in order to steal their property. Since, in both cases, all the victims had already been shot dead before the burglary occurred, there is no person left alive to apply force to and so rob them of their valuables. Instead, the burglar is able steal the valuables in an act of theft, without threatening anybody. Had the burglary occurred first, with the victims being shot dead in the course of being robbed of their valuable then it would be fair to say the victims were robbed of their valuables, but since they were already dead the valuables can only be stolen from the home. This is a subtle but important difference between robbery, burglary and theft that many do not understand. Thus people will say "our house was robbed" when they mean it was burgled. But I would have thought Wikipedia editors ought to know the difference. How such an article can be considered "B" class, with such bad grammar and poor understanding of criminal terminology, baffles me. - 203.96.84.33 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I have copy-edited the article to make the changes suggested. I also found an additional clause saying that "... both were fatally shot with a rifle through a window, killing both." If one is "fatally shot" then this implies one is immediately killed by that shot. There is no need to repeat the fact that both were killed. However, I also think the construct "with a rifle through a window", which is used twice, is ambiguous and unclear and written in the passive voice. To me, it does not explain what happened, and raises more questions than it answers. Was the rifle poked through the window before the shots were taken. Were the windows open or closed and was glass in the windows broken before the shots, alerting the victims. Or does this mean that the shots were fired through the window by the perpetrator using a rifle. And was it the perpetrator taking the shot or did the rifle do this all by itself. Why is the perpetrator not mentioned? Is this an uncertain part of the case, or not? What did the perpetrator do? If he fatally shot the victims through the windows, with a rifle, say so in a way that demonstrates the causality of the events. This is better articulated by saying the perpetrator took an action against a victim using an implement causing an effect. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)