|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
shunaphil said: Breadvan72 said: La Liga said: I wouldn't worry beyond acting instinctively and honestly. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment (caselaw). This. The law is on the side of the defender of person and property. The tabloids say that it isn't, and the gullible and angry believe the tabloids. Absolutely this - I would be very surprised if this case results in anything other than NFA , and 'prosecution not in the public interest'. Personally, I probably wouldn't risk shooting if it was obvious only my property was in danger - however, if I perceived any threat to myself or others, then I wouldn't hesitate to shoot. I would not expect to be convicted, but would of course expect to be arrested and investigated. I would also fully expect that once vindicated, I would have my firearms returned to me (as the local constabulary would have no lawful reason to act otherwise). PS - very carefully checked for punctuation. Phew! That's lucky - my gun was loaded. In this case, there may perhaps be more than meets the eye. This may possibly have been crim vs crim, rather than stalwart householder vs Johnny Rascal, but let's wait and see!
|
|
|
Mr2Mike
9,463 posts
124 months
|
Breadvan72 said: there does appear to be some correlation between an inability to punctuate and antediluvian* socio-political views. Could you clarify the time period where it became unacceptable to defend your property?
|
|
|
blueg33
10,730 posts
93 months
|
Mr2Mike said: Breadvan72 said: there does appear to be some correlation between an inability to punctuate and antediluvian* socio-political views. Could you clarify the time period where it became unacceptable to defend your property? By antediluvian he must mean (by definition) prior to the biblical flood which made Noah famous  But I am pretty sure there were plenty of owners of castles in the middle ages who thought it was fine to torture and execute trespassers 
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
Mr2Mike said: Breadvan72 said: there does appear to be some correlation between an inability to punctuate and antediluvian* socio-political views. Could you clarify the time period where it became unacceptable to defend your property? It never became unacceptable to defend your property. I didn't say that it was unacceptable. Please don't mischaracterise other people's positions.
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,425 posts
57 months
|
Zeeky said: It is clear from many of the posts here that people believe it is justified to cause death or serious injury to someone who enters your property solely to steal your property.
That is the most likely reason for these cases being investigated so thoroughly. Indeed. Those who have the capacity to kill someone who intends to steal from them have worrying moral values and I would suggest are borderline sociapaths. However I suspect many people talk big without the ever being in that situation.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
JDRoest
991 posts
19 months
|
Zeeky said: "If there has been no attack, then clearly there will have been no need for defence. If there has been attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action." Why should you be subjected to an attack to decide that you need to protect yourself though? You have no idea of the intentions of the person when they enter the house, yet you are expected to take a beating before you can defend yourself? There should be no weighing up of the rights of a burglar in your home vs the interests of the home owner, the home owner should have complete benefit of doubt regardless of the outcome.
|
|
|
JDRoest
991 posts
19 months
|
Devil2575 said: Those who have the capacity to kill someone who intends to steal from them have worrying moral values and I would suggest are borderline sociapaths. Why shouldn't an intruder fear for their life? When did we become so weak that we have to weigh up the rights of an intruder to enter your home and have rights vs the rights of the home owner not to be stolen from/threatened/murdered etc?
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
Honest fear of an attack is enough. That is what the law says. Do not read one citation from one case as the whole of the relevant law.
|
|
|
JDRoest
991 posts
19 months
|
Breadvan72 said: Honest fear of an attack is enough. That is what the law says. Do not read one citation from one case as the whole of the relevant law. Trouble is that UK law does not get behind the home owner though. This case is a perfect example where they were arrested and detained for 36 hours (if I'm reading it right). What was the point of arresting the home owners? They could simply have been questioned. And imagine the stress of all this! You've been burgled, you used a gun to protect yourself, and you spend 36 hours dreading the consequences of the actions of simply defending your life, your home and your property?
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,223 posts
32 months
|
If arrested, the homeowner has enhanced legal protection, not available to someone merely questioned.
The law does get behind the homeowner. Case after case demonstrates this, but many just don't want to believe this, preferring to believe that everything is all to pot.
|
|
|
oobster
4,559 posts
80 months
|
Whilst I would agree with anyone that a homeowner has the right to defend his or her property by the use of reasonable force, perhaps with this particular case it is best to wait until there is confirmation that those who were shot were actually burglars.
|
|
|
JDRoest
991 posts
19 months
|
oobster said: Whilst I would agree with anyone that a homeowner has the right to defend his or her property by the use of reasonable force, perhaps with this particular case it is best to wait until there is confirmation that those who were shot were actually burglars. Indeed, maybe they were social workers.
|
|
|
smartphone hater
786 posts
12 months
|
JDRoest said: Indeed, maybe they were social workers. Yep, & no doubt they went round to do the home owner a favour of some sort.
|
|
|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
JDRoest said: Zeeky said: Palmer [1971]
Lord Morris
"In their Lordships' view the defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. It requires no set words by way of explanation. No formula need be employed in reference to it. Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. Of these a jury can decide. It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have a avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence. Of all these matters the good sense of a jury will be the arbiter. There are no prescribed words which must be employed in or adopted in a summing up. All that is needed is a clear exposition, in relation to the particular facts of the case, of the conception of necessary self-defence.If there has been no attack, then clearly there will have been no need for defence. If there has been attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action." Why should you be subjected to an attack to decide that you need to protect yourself though? You have no idea of the intentions of the person when they enter the house, yet you are expected to take a beating before you can defend yourself? There should be no weighing up of the rights of a burglar in your home vs the interests of the home owner, the home owner should have complete benefit of doubt regardless of the outcome. I've expanded the quote to put it into context. There are a lot of cases dealing with various elements of the defence but the above is informative particularly as it stresses that the law is not complex. So long as you genuinely believe - even if the belief is unreasonably held and notwithstanding that you may be mistaken - that a threat exists and is imminent then you can lawfully use reasonable force to defend against it. Self-defence does not include retribution.
|
|
|
TopOnePercent
49 posts
29 months
|
Devil2575 said: It won't stop you getting a VISA though will it. So while it may constitute an inconvenience it's hardly a major problem. It is 10 years from now when you have to explain to an employer why you can't attend a business meeting in Chicago the next day.
|
|
|
TopOnePercent
49 posts
29 months
|
Devil2575 said: Indeed.
Those who have the capacity to kill someone who intends to steal from them have worrying moral values and I would suggest are borderline sociapaths.
However I suspect many people talk big without the ever being in that situation. If you break into my house while I am there you accept the risk that I misinterpret your desire to have my telly for a desire to have my wife. If you then fail to follow my instruction to lie face down and await the police, you accept the risk I may view this as ongoing hostility and act accordingly. Its a just not cricket to cry about it afterwards.
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,425 posts
57 months
|
JDRoest said: Devil2575 said: Those who have the capacity to kill someone who intends to steal from them have worrying moral values and I would suggest are borderline sociapaths. Why shouldn't an intruder fear for their life? When did we become so weak that we have to weigh up the rights of an intruder to enter your home and have rights vs the rights of the home owner not to be stolen from/threatened/murdered etc? It's not about the intruder or their rights, it's about a home owners ability to execute somone who simply intends to steal. Someone who is genuinely on fear of their life will act out of instinct for survival. This is not the same as someone who believes a burglar gives up his rights and is capable of shooting them out of anger or as punishment.
|
|
|
SlimJim16v
116 posts
12 months
|
You do not know the intentions of, or how far a criminal will go when confronted, until he has actually done it. By then it is too late for you to do anything other than be a helpless victim.
So, do you wait and see if he is but a harmless thief who will just want to steal and/or escape, or if he moves toward you or your family, do you...................
Almost all of us will never know until it happens.
|
|
|
smegmore
1,696 posts
45 months
|
JDRoest said: Indeed, maybe they were social workers. In which case, definitely a legitimate target 
|
|
|
JDRoest
991 posts
19 months
|
Devil2575 said: It's not about the intruder or their rights, it's about a home owners ability to execute somone who simply intends to steal.
Someone who is genuinely on fear of their life will act out of instinct for survival. This is not the same as someone who believes a burglar gives up his rights and is capable of shooting them out of anger or as punishment. So someone breaks down your front door, enters your home, and you think "hey, it's okay, they're only here for the tv"? Right.... Interesting turn in events this evening. The couple in the UK are now on 'bail' pending investigations (UK law obviously backing them up), whilst a 90 year old in Kentucky puts a 22 in the chest of a burglar and the cops more or less have the case wrapped up in one, and he doesn't face any charges. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198384/Le...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198282/I-...
|
|
