“BAITING” A BURGLAR.

Otago Witness, Issue 3619, 24 July 1923, Page 24

“BAITING” A BURGLAR.

RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, July 11. A little time back a shopkeeper, tired of having his place burgled, and disgusted with what he regarded as the lethargy of the police, took the law into his own hands. He laid a whisky “bait” for the latest burglar he was expecting. The next morning the glass was empty, and the bird flown, but the shopkeeper told the police they would probably find the man in hospital. They did. He was lying prostrate ill bed. He went out to the “bait,” and now has two years in which to repent, behind the gaol walls. But what if he had died? Has a householder the light thus to lake the law into his own hands? Are not even burglars, like other human beings, members of society? The question of the rights of householders in this respect has given rise to an interesting controversy. The general view is that a civilian is treading on dangerous ground in such a case, and that a householder, on discovering a burglar on his premises, is not justified in shooting or taking other such extreme measures unless he believes the intruder intends violence. His job. in short, is narrowed down to the feat of capturing the burglar intact, leaving it to the police and the judge and jury to do the rest. The pioneer of this now way of catching burglars stoutly defended his action in court, on tlie ground that the police could not catch the burglars for him. One of tho afternoon papers, in discussing the question, says that, strictlyspeaking, a householder should, boforo shooting or laying “baits,” find out if the burglar intends violence. But. as it admits, burglars sometimes have hasty tempers, and might resent being questioned. It ia certainly an interesting point.