Burglars beware!
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
How about almost certainly, but it all depends on the circumstances. Frankly, there is little doubt in the light of repeated judicial statements. The law is clear, and doesn't need changing.
Agreed. DPP has already issued guidance hasn't he? Thought that that would be enough, but seems the Tories want to score some points with 'the man in the street' i.e. Daily Mail readers. Wonder if shotgun licence applications will go up...Breadvan72 said:
How about almost certainly, but it all depends on the circumstances. Frankly, there is little doubt in the light of repeated judicial statements. The law is clear, and doesn't need changing.
I don't disagree with you. But there will ALWAYS have to be the 'probably/almost certainly' in there, unless you give carte blanche for householders to kill any intruder (which as I understand it is how it is in America).Personally, I cannot see how the law can be changed from what it is now unless you give that carte blanche permission. There will always be someone who oversteps the mark, albeit that this happens extremely rarely.
That is not how it is in America. Each State has its own criminal code, and some States have so called "castle laws", but even they are not supposed to give absolute freedom to shoot anyone you like at home. Injustices can arise, as in the case of a Japanese tourist shot dead by a paranoid homeowner when the tourist knocked to ask for directions.
The common law in the US took a different turning from that in England during the frontier era of the nineteenth century. English self defence law encompasses a duty to retreat (not usually an option in a home defence case), but the law in the US does not.
Gunfight standoffs as (romantically) depicted in Westerns required someone to go for his gun before he could lawfully be shot. That is where the mythology of the quick draw starts from.
The common law in the US took a different turning from that in England during the frontier era of the nineteenth century. English self defence law encompasses a duty to retreat (not usually an option in a home defence case), but the law in the US does not.
Gunfight standoffs as (romantically) depicted in Westerns required someone to go for his gun before he could lawfully be shot. That is where the mythology of the quick draw starts from.
Fair enough. I don't know exactly how the States law works, but I did hear that the reason the paperboys throw the paper at the doorstep is not that they are lazy, but that there is a right to shoot intruders.
As you say, different states have different laws, but the general understanding I have is that it is easier to 'get away' with seeing off intruders with force. Whether I would actually want to live in a society like that is another matter.
As you say, different states have different laws, but the general understanding I have is that it is easier to 'get away' with seeing off intruders with force. Whether I would actually want to live in a society like that is another matter.
What about defending property as opposed to oneself or one's family (which I agree is covered already by law)?
If I see confront someone in my front room, about to walk out with both hands carrying say a blu-ray player, I think reasonable force should be permitted to a) prevent that theft and b) detain the burglar. How reasonable? How about a cricket bat to the back of his knees for starters?
If I see confront someone in my front room, about to walk out with both hands carrying say a blu-ray player, I think reasonable force should be permitted to a) prevent that theft and b) detain the burglar. How reasonable? How about a cricket bat to the back of his knees for starters?
Extant law allows the use of reasonable force to protect property and apprehend a crim.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/...
mcsnaga said:
What about defending property as opposed to oneself or one's family (which I agree is covered already by law)?
If I see confront someone in my front room, about to walk out with both hands carrying say a blu-ray player, I think reasonable force should be permitted to a) prevent that theft and b) detain the burglar. How reasonable? How about a cricket bat to the back of his knees for starters?
I guess the fact that he has his back to you is a point of question. What threat does he pose?If I see confront someone in my front room, about to walk out with both hands carrying say a blu-ray player, I think reasonable force should be permitted to a) prevent that theft and b) detain the burglar. How reasonable? How about a cricket bat to the back of his knees for starters?
He has his hands full (you said both hands on player), so what threat does he pose?
My immediate thought is that I would think a bat to his knees is excessive. That said, in the heat of the moment I may be more tempted to smack him across the back of the head with said bat, such that he no longer poses any threat to me or my family (only once mind, hard enough to render him unconscious).
redback911 said:
Not planning on running out to buy a shotgun just yet. Although I have a couple of labradors, except the only way they are likely to protect my house is if I dropped one of them, from height, onto a burglar as they attempted to break in. Would that be disproportionate force?
We have a couple of labs too. Worst that burglars could fear is being licked to death.Breadvan72 said:
Indeed. This is pandering to meeja furore and public ignorance. The extant law works pretty well. Every recent case in which a householder has used defensive force against an intruder has resulted in exoneration of the householder. The last case involved the householders being detained for too long, but the result was still that the injured scrotes were jailed, not the householders. If this is the criminals winning, I wonder what happens when they lose.
Also, this is nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. Self defence is a well established Common Law concept.
The problem for me is the word "defensive". If someone had broken into my house to steal from me, then it should be a reasonable assumption I will be in fear for my safety on that ground alone.Also, this is nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. Self defence is a well established Common Law concept.
I know someone who was procecuted for assault for punching (and breaking the jaw) of an intruder. It didn't help that in court he said he was trying to kill the bloke by punching him in the throat, but he missed and hit his jaw. The intruder claimed he was hit with a 2x4, which he wasn't.
While he "only" got a fine, his wife could no longer live in the house, and they had to move.
Breadvan72 said:
Also, this is nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. Self defence is a well established Common Law concept.
How does the Human Rights Act sit with this? Always we hear of the offenders Human Rights, but seem to forget the rights of the person wronged.How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
98elise said:
The problem for me is the word "defensive". If someone had broken into my house to steal from me, then it should be a reasonable assumption I will be in fear for my safety on that ground alone.
I know someone who was procecuted for assault for punching (and breaking the jaw) of an intruder. It didn't help that in court he said he was trying to kill the bloke by punching him in the throat, but he missed and hit his jaw. The intruder claimed he was hit with a 2x4, which he wasn't.
While he "only" got a fine, his wife could no longer live in the house, and they had to move.
Shame. This is exactly why the law needs to be on the side of the householder .... I know someone who was procecuted for assault for punching (and breaking the jaw) of an intruder. It didn't help that in court he said he was trying to kill the bloke by punching him in the throat, but he missed and hit his jaw. The intruder claimed he was hit with a 2x4, which he wasn't.
While he "only" got a fine, his wife could no longer live in the house, and they had to move.
daz3210 said:
How does the Human Rights Act sit with this? Always we hear of the offenders Human Rights, but seem to forget the rights of the person wronged.
How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
The Americans have the right idea, if they're dead, they can't sue you! How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
Dave Hedgehog said:
Breadvan72 said:
You would probably be OK to shoot, if in fear, as the most recent case shows. Tony Martin shot the scrotes as they ran away. That is why he was potted.
i consider that a reasonable action thou It can't be self defence, the opportunity for self defence being an argument has passed immediately they opt to leave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff