Stupidest Burglar Stories – Burglar Robs Home: Falls Asleep There, is Found and Arrested

Posted by , , at 2:41 pm

The latest in my long line of stupid burglar stories comes from overseas – in fact, all the way from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. If nothing else, this post proves that I get to sort through a wide array of crime reports to find the ones worth sharing, not matter where they occur. And as stupid burglar stories go, this one is definitely one to pass along. Clearly, as indicated in a recent article from CBS/AP, one particular intruder has been burning the candle at both ends.

A court in Malaysia has sentenced a burglar who was found sleeping in a house he had broken into to five years in prison. Prosecutor Muhammad Ashraff Diah says the 35-year-old man broke into a house in southern Malaysia last week – then spent the night sleeping there. The homeowner returned in the morning and called the authorities before the man woke up.

What Happened Next

The unemployed man tried to run away when the police arrived. They caught him and recovered several hundred ringgit he had taken from the house. A ringgit is a denomination of Malaysian currency, roughly the equivalent of a dollar. Muhammad Ashraff said Wednesday that the man pleaded guilty to a burglary charge this week.

Boy, this perp must have been pretty pooped to sleep in the house he just robbed. I’m not sure who was more surprised: the homeowner who found the burglar asleep in his home, or the burglar who woke up to find the police standing around him.

Police Response – US vs. Abroad

One thing most US residents don’t realize is how lucky we are when it comes to relying on public safety services for peace of mind. Those of us with monitored alarm systems (still only about one in five US homes) depend on the local police to respond when authorities are called by the monitoring center after an alarm system activation. Of course, the monitoring center is generally required to try reaching the homeowner on two separate phone numbers before calling the police, but in 99% of the jurisdictions in this country, the police will respond without requiring verification of an actual alarm.

In many countries there is very little initial police response to alarm activations. The norm in Europe, for instance, is for the initial responder to be a private response company. The police only respond if there is a confirmed incident. It therefore takes longer, and also costs more, to get police response. There are a few locations in the US that follow this policy, but so far the list of jurisdictions requiring on-site verification is short. Far more common is the requirement to register your alarm with your local police department, along with a schedule for false alarm fines that can escalate with each response when nothing is wrong. Here’s a recent post covering the topics of alarm permits and false alarm fines.

We’ll keep tracking the crime scene around the US (and elsewhere!), and report whenever we see important news about residential burglaries. It’s our goal to be your resource for the crime statistics, burglar behaviors, and the latest technologies to thwart intruders – including our very popular Top 10 Home Security Tips. FrontPoint is the only alarm company in the country to use safer cellular monitoring in every system we sell – and charge less for it. But what people really know us for is our smarter Interactive level of monitoring. Make sure your home is protected: by FrontPoint, the #1 ranked alarm company in the US.

Comments (4)

Post a Comment | View Comments
  1. Alan

    Funny burglar story Peter.

    Even more interesting to me is your commentary on some of the different police response standards around the world.

    I think we have a good system here with (usually) reasonable graduated false alarm fines (and registration). That way, the cost is still lower and actual police response is usually faster than it would be with private verification in the mix. And with the false alarm fees no imposed most places, it doesn’t really cost the police department much to provide this service. Sometimes it can be a slight profit center overall even. I think it’s the best compromise (of these two systems at least).

    • Peter M. Rogers

      Alan – I agree, and thanks for your comment. The few jurisdictions that have moved to on-site verification have generally done so despite significant protests. For one thing, people living in those jurisdictions are afraid that intruders will become more aggressive, knowing that police response may be delayed. Of note: several jurisdictions that adopted on-site verification prior to police dispatch are no longer requiring it – and have gone back to the “old way” of handling alarms.

  2. Alan

    Funny burglar story Peter.

    Even more interesting to me is your commentary on some of the different police response standards around the world.

    I think we have a good system here with (usually) reasonable graduated false alarm fines (and registration). That way, the cost is still lower and actual police response is usually faster than it would be with private verification in the mix. And with the false alarm fees no imposed most places, it doesn’t really cost the police department much to provide this service. Sometimes it can be a slight profit center overall even. I think it’s the best compromise (of these two systems at least).

    • Peter M. Rogers

      Alan – I agree, and thanks for your comment. The few jurisdictions that have moved to on-site verification have generally done so despite significant protests. For one thing, people living in those jurisdictions are afraid that intruders will become more aggressive, knowing that police response may be delayed. Of note: several jurisdictions that adopted on-site verification prior to police dispatch are no longer requiring it – and have gone back to the “old way” of handling alarms.