Don't bother about burglary, police told
Discussion
Don't know the truth behind this but it's scary stuff, I particularly "like" this bit
"The Met's policy document states that when crimes are of a less serious nature and there are no "special factors", such as a particularly vulnerable victim, they will now be logged but not solved."
I imagine that they will not bother with catching motorists speeding then as this is, mainly, a victimless crime of a less serious nature????
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/12/nburg12.xml
Police have been ordered not to bother investigating crimes such as burglary, vandalism and assaults unless evidence pointing to the culprits is easily available, The Telegraph can reveal.
Under new guidelines, officers have been informed that only "serious" crimes, such as murder, rape or so-called hate crimes, should be investigated as a matter of course.
In all other cases, unless there is immediate and compelling evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA material, the crime will be listed for no further action.
The new "crime screening" guidelines were quietly introduced in the Metropolitan Police area last month and similar measures are being brought into effect by forces across Britain as pressure grows on senior officers to maintain a tighter control over budgets.
A Met spokesman confirmed that "less serious crimes" would now only be investigated if they were considered to be "solvable using proportionate resources", or were part of a current crackdown on specific offences. He said: "It might mean that people who have had their bikes stolen from outside a shop might not get any investigation into it. It is looking at the high priorities for crime in the community."
The Met's policy document states that when crimes are of a less serious nature and there are no "special factors", such as a particularly vulnerable victim, they will now be logged but not solved.
Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said last night: "This news will be regarded as the final nail in the coffin of this Government's policy on crime. Instead of zero tolerance it seems we are to be faced with total tolerance."
The Home Office denied that it had originated the new policy. A spokesman said: "Crime screening is a matter for individual forces. We have made the investigation of burglaries a national priority and we are certainly not directing forces to avoid investigating them."
"The Met's policy document states that when crimes are of a less serious nature and there are no "special factors", such as a particularly vulnerable victim, they will now be logged but not solved."
I imagine that they will not bother with catching motorists speeding then as this is, mainly, a victimless crime of a less serious nature????
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/12/nburg12.xml
Police have been ordered not to bother investigating crimes such as burglary, vandalism and assaults unless evidence pointing to the culprits is easily available, The Telegraph can reveal.
Under new guidelines, officers have been informed that only "serious" crimes, such as murder, rape or so-called hate crimes, should be investigated as a matter of course.
In all other cases, unless there is immediate and compelling evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA material, the crime will be listed for no further action.
The new "crime screening" guidelines were quietly introduced in the Metropolitan Police area last month and similar measures are being brought into effect by forces across Britain as pressure grows on senior officers to maintain a tighter control over budgets.
A Met spokesman confirmed that "less serious crimes" would now only be investigated if they were considered to be "solvable using proportionate resources", or were part of a current crackdown on specific offences. He said: "It might mean that people who have had their bikes stolen from outside a shop might not get any investigation into it. It is looking at the high priorities for crime in the community."
The Met's policy document states that when crimes are of a less serious nature and there are no "special factors", such as a particularly vulnerable victim, they will now be logged but not solved.
Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, said last night: "This news will be regarded as the final nail in the coffin of this Government's policy on crime. Instead of zero tolerance it seems we are to be faced with total tolerance."
The Home Office denied that it had originated the new policy. A spokesman said: "Crime screening is a matter for individual forces. We have made the investigation of burglaries a national priority and we are certainly not directing forces to avoid investigating them."
So if i understand this correctly, if they have no proof easily available, theyll just "give up"?
Good stuff this.
Although i think theyve totally gone ga-ga on the tough on crime promise they gave us all.
Whats next then? De-classifying burglary as a crime altogether?
Just what are they trying to acheive here?
I kinda think that theyre deliberately pushing people to take the law into their own hands.
If plods not gonna do nowt about em, we may as well see em off.
Just dont leave any evidence behind and theyll give up on it....Britain 2003=deadcountry on verge of civil war.
Good stuff this.
Although i think theyve totally gone ga-ga on the tough on crime promise they gave us all.
Whats next then? De-classifying burglary as a crime altogether?
Just what are they trying to acheive here?
I kinda think that theyre deliberately pushing people to take the law into their own hands.
If plods not gonna do nowt about em, we may as well see em off.
Just dont leave any evidence behind and theyll give up on it....Britain 2003=deadcountry on verge of civil war.
This makes my blood boil.
Any Administration that allows such ideas to be proposed and not immediately quashed is unfit for power and should be removed (by democratic means) as soon as possible.
Similarly any Chief Constable who allows such an approach to a serious crime is negligent. Personally I believe the post of Chief Constable should be an elected post from a pool of qualified officers - madcop gets my vote. Then we'd see local law enforcement policies matching the concerns of residents....
Burglary is not a victimless crime. When it happens peoples lives are ruined - even if the insurance company pays. In addition the Burglar creates a situation in which the potential for violence arises. It is NOT the householder who creates this violent situation - it is the Burglar.
If a Burglar invaded my home - I would feel in fear of my life and lives of my family. They don't run away - they threaten. If I'm in fear of my life I will act accordingly and, if necessary, with lethal force.
This is a terrible situation to create - one in which people could be hurt or killed - and I feel not to investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law such a serious crime is unforgivable.
THE HOUSEHOLDERS ARE NOT TO BLAME!
Edited to fix the italics. Sorry.
>> Edited by Don on Sunday 12th January 13:23
Any Administration that allows such ideas to be proposed and not immediately quashed is unfit for power and should be removed (by democratic means) as soon as possible.
Similarly any Chief Constable who allows such an approach to a serious crime is negligent. Personally I believe the post of Chief Constable should be an elected post from a pool of qualified officers - madcop gets my vote. Then we'd see local law enforcement policies matching the concerns of residents....
Burglary is not a victimless crime. When it happens peoples lives are ruined - even if the insurance company pays. In addition the Burglar creates a situation in which the potential for violence arises. It is NOT the householder who creates this violent situation - it is the Burglar.
If a Burglar invaded my home - I would feel in fear of my life and lives of my family. They don't run away - they threaten. If I'm in fear of my life I will act accordingly and, if necessary, with lethal force.
This is a terrible situation to create - one in which people could be hurt or killed - and I feel not to investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law such a serious crime is unforgivable.
THE HOUSEHOLDERS ARE NOT TO BLAME!
Edited to fix the italics. Sorry.
>> Edited by Don on Sunday 12th January 13:23
"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."
The greatest fraudulent misrepresenation of the last ten years.
Govenment policy is now to sentence dwelling house burglars to community based sentences unless the defendant demonstrates that he will not comply with such a sentence.
We all know that prison does not rehabilitate people.
We all agree with the proposition that there is no sense in sending a person to prison and expecting him to come out reformed.
What the government has done, however, is completely to overlook the fact that sentencing has three objectives:
1. To rehabilitate
2. To punish
3. To deter
These are in no particular order.
Where is the punishment or deterrence in community based sentences for burglars of dwelling houses?
How is this consistent with being "tough on crime"?
There is now no reason for the serial shoplifter not to graduate to dwellinghouse burglary.
I agree that sending the burglar to prison does not rehabilitate him, but it certainly punishes him and deters others. Two out of three is not perfect, but it is much better than the one out of three that the government now wants to try.
If there was any sensible opposition to the Labour Government, then there is no way that this type of policy would be sustainable.
The greatest fraudulent misrepresenation of the last ten years.
Govenment policy is now to sentence dwelling house burglars to community based sentences unless the defendant demonstrates that he will not comply with such a sentence.
We all know that prison does not rehabilitate people.
We all agree with the proposition that there is no sense in sending a person to prison and expecting him to come out reformed.
What the government has done, however, is completely to overlook the fact that sentencing has three objectives:
1. To rehabilitate
2. To punish
3. To deter
These are in no particular order.
Where is the punishment or deterrence in community based sentences for burglars of dwelling houses?
How is this consistent with being "tough on crime"?
There is now no reason for the serial shoplifter not to graduate to dwellinghouse burglary.
I agree that sending the burglar to prison does not rehabilitate him, but it certainly punishes him and deters others. Two out of three is not perfect, but it is much better than the one out of three that the government now wants to try.
If there was any sensible opposition to the Labour Government, then there is no way that this type of policy would be sustainable.
deltaf has it spot on. Britain 2003=deadcountry. Don this may be of interest to you after your post, and others also. Everything is going downhill fast, public srevices and crime is a joke. Previous car was broken into, door was damaged, articles inside taken. Police gave me the crime no. and politely informed me that I would be charged when I suggested I would damage the person concerned with a baseball bat as they saw insufficient evidence to mount an investigation (they never came to look at the car).
Handy tip here though, straight from a friendly magistates mouth (seriously it did, the bottom bit is just protection for me) all to do with the reasonable force rule especially in a house burgurlary situation.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend your property, this follows that if some person threatens you with a knife them you may use a knife against them, (fearing for your life and intent to do you harm and all that)the same follows for a gun and other lethal weapon. If a person shouts/motions they have such a weapon (including breaking into your house in the middle of the night when it is dark and you can't see) then you must take their word for this and fearing for your family and own life defend yourself appropriatley including lethal force using whatever weapons you may have available. This, i believe, would not be deemed unreasonable force as you were only responding to the threat of the criminal and if he/she is not around to tell a different story then no magistrate could, I believe find you guilty of using unreasonable force.
Yes, it is a bit heavy but used where appropriate could be very useful, even if a criminal is still about to tell a different story then they should not be trusted in a courtroom over a law abiding citizen. So to clarify, if a criminal has suggested to you they have a weapon of such offence as to make you fear for your life then you may use to same force to defend yourself, I think. Disclaimer time, I do not give legal advice and accept no reponsibility for any action arising from use of this information. All of the information may be totaly incorrect and I would not suggest otherwise. I do not suggest anyone follow this information and this is written only for informational purposes. Sorry, but I need to protect myself in this day and age.
Handy tip here though, straight from a friendly magistates mouth (seriously it did, the bottom bit is just protection for me) all to do with the reasonable force rule especially in a house burgurlary situation.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend your property, this follows that if some person threatens you with a knife them you may use a knife against them, (fearing for your life and intent to do you harm and all that)the same follows for a gun and other lethal weapon. If a person shouts/motions they have such a weapon (including breaking into your house in the middle of the night when it is dark and you can't see) then you must take their word for this and fearing for your family and own life defend yourself appropriatley including lethal force using whatever weapons you may have available. This, i believe, would not be deemed unreasonable force as you were only responding to the threat of the criminal and if he/she is not around to tell a different story then no magistrate could, I believe find you guilty of using unreasonable force.
Yes, it is a bit heavy but used where appropriate could be very useful, even if a criminal is still about to tell a different story then they should not be trusted in a courtroom over a law abiding citizen. So to clarify, if a criminal has suggested to you they have a weapon of such offence as to make you fear for your life then you may use to same force to defend yourself, I think. Disclaimer time, I do not give legal advice and accept no reponsibility for any action arising from use of this information. All of the information may be totaly incorrect and I would not suggest otherwise. I do not suggest anyone follow this information and this is written only for informational purposes. Sorry, but I need to protect myself in this day and age.
redcarracer
I agree with much of what you say, but it has been shown on many occaisions that the home owner or victim of the offence, if they fight back they usually get charged with a worse offence than the original offence attempted against them, or they find themselves dead trying to protect their own or their property!!!
I agree with all the comments and find it frankly disturbing that the police will not investigate a large proportion of reported crimes, unfortunately for all us PH'ers speeding is a crime all forces seem to be concentrating on??? unsuprising really due to the revenue generation!!!
In a few years all home owners will be forced into taking steps, on their own to protect their property and I'm not talking about alarms (the police will no longer respond to audible alarms!!) buy a very big dog or a big bat, if the burgulars, theives and muggers start getting shot, eaten and beaten hopefully this will deter them more than nothing!!
A bit extreme maybe and please don't flame for my point of view, but I think a lot of us will agree that if the police won't do anything then the public must!!
I agree with much of what you say, but it has been shown on many occaisions that the home owner or victim of the offence, if they fight back they usually get charged with a worse offence than the original offence attempted against them, or they find themselves dead trying to protect their own or their property!!!
I agree with all the comments and find it frankly disturbing that the police will not investigate a large proportion of reported crimes, unfortunately for all us PH'ers speeding is a crime all forces seem to be concentrating on??? unsuprising really due to the revenue generation!!!
In a few years all home owners will be forced into taking steps, on their own to protect their property and I'm not talking about alarms (the police will no longer respond to audible alarms!!) buy a very big dog or a big bat, if the burgulars, theives and muggers start getting shot, eaten and beaten hopefully this will deter them more than nothing!!
A bit extreme maybe and please don't flame for my point of view, but I think a lot of us will agree that if the police won't do anything then the public must!!
redcarracer said: deltaf has it spot on. Britain 2003=deadcountry. Don this may be of interest to you after your post, and others also. Everything is going downhill fast, public srevices and crime is a joke. Previous car was broken into, door was damaged, articles inside taken. Police gave me the crime no. and politely informed me that I would be charged when I suggested I would damage the person concerned with a baseball bat as they saw insufficient evidence to mount an investigation (they never came to look at the car).
Handy tip here though, straight from a friendly magistates mouth (seriously it did, the bottom bit is just protection for me) all to do with the reasonable force rule especially in a house burgurlary situation.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend your property, this follows that if some person threatens you with a knife them you may use a knife against them, (fearing for your life and intent to do you harm and all that)the same follows for a gun and other lethal weapon. If a person shouts/motions they have such a weapon (including breaking into your house in the middle of the night when it is dark and you can't see) then you must take their word for this and fearing for your family and own life defend yourself appropriatley including lethal force using whatever weapons you may have available. This, i believe, would not be deemed unreasonable force as you were only responding to the threat of the criminal and if he/she is not around to tell a different story then no magistrate could, I believe find you guilty of using unreasonable force.
That would not stop you from spending 9 months in jail on remand in the wait for a jury to decide whether the force used was reasonable if someone died as a result!
Yes, it is a bit heavy but used where appropriate could be very useful, even if a criminal is still about to tell a different story then they should not be trusted in a courtroom over a law abiding citizen. So to clarify, if a criminal has suggested to you they have a weapon of such offence as to make you fear for your life then you may use to same force to defend yourself, I think. Disclaimer time, I do not give legal advice and accept no reponsibility for any action arising from use of this information. All of the information may be totaly incorrect and I would not suggest otherwise. I do not suggest anyone follow this information and this is written only for informational purposes. Sorry, but I need to protect myself in this day and age.
Quite right and the law allows you to do so. If you are ever in the situation where you have to use force to protect yourself or your property, then you must only use the force that is necessary to achieve that.
One strike with the baseball bat to drop him, not 10 more to make sure he does not get up again.
Also not when he is running away from you. A crack over the back of the head which causes severe damage will not be classed as reasonable force as it could show that the offender was possibly trying to leave the situation rather than confront it further!
The Act that covers this is Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967.
madcop said:
Also not when he is running away from you. A crack over the back of the head which causes severe damage will not be classed as reasonable force as it could show that the offender was possibly trying to leave the situation rather than confront it further!
The Act that covers this is Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967.
Guess I'd end up doing 7 to 10 then
Sorry but If it gets to the situation where I have some scrote in my house, nicking the Video, I don't give a shit which way he is facing. the fcuker is in my property uninvited. Duty of care my arse they'd have to get forensics to hoover bits of him out of the carpet.
Sorry but this really gets my goat, I can't believe the completely missplaced priorities of the modern police force. and with this latest revelation you can bet that more people will have to get a means to defend themselves and there will be more and more cases of homeowners being killed and scrotes being mashed into the carpet.
Fecking bollocks!!!!!!!
I can see this situation coming:
20-stone 6'4" scrote breaks in and is confronted by 11-stone 5'8" house-owner who is wielding a blank-firer replica handgun because he fears for his safety if 'un-armed'. Two court cases result in the following:
Scrote breaking in let off because first offence (that he has been caught for).
House-owner in jail for 5 years.
Is this fair and just.....answers on a postcard to Justices Woolf and Irving (if I have spelt the names right).
20-stone 6'4" scrote breaks in and is confronted by 11-stone 5'8" house-owner who is wielding a blank-firer replica handgun because he fears for his safety if 'un-armed'. Two court cases result in the following:
Scrote breaking in let off because first offence (that he has been caught for).
House-owner in jail for 5 years.
Is this fair and just.....answers on a postcard to Justices Woolf and Irving (if I have spelt the names right).
An excellent synopsis Kevinday, and as a scenario, absolutely credible.
Isn't it a crazy world where you can be chased relentlessly (multiple letters, threats etc) for doing 76mph on a dry dual carriageway in a modern car, yet at the same time fully expect to get away with crimes against property/person if the Police decide it's too hard to investigate?
What I want to know is who will make this decision and against what criteria will the decision be judged?
I suspect there will be a further "refining" of the crime statistics in the near future to reflect a new category : " crimes reported but not acted upon" This will quickly get renamed " Non crimes" and will eventually mean that "non crimes" will be exempt from inclusion in the crime stats atall!
It's like a bad magic show - Hey presto! a 40% drop in "crime" will be the banner headline.
We can however use this new "crims weapon" for our own good. Gatso's could and should be targeted for "elimination" in those places where they are not performing a valuable road safety role. Just make sure you don't leave enough evidence to warrant a police investigation. Likewise if you can locate your local burglar, vandal, car thief, robber etc you can, provided you follow the no evidence rule exact suitable community punishments on these individuals without fear of impunity.
OK, so I'm not being serious with the above, but it's frightening that decent law abiding citizens are being encouraged to think the law (and it's protection)has abandoned them and their families. Ordinary people are at risk of becoming outlaws if they carry on this way, whilst the crims become increasingly unrestrained.
Because of the wrong headed, woolly minded thinking of the liberal nincompoops that pervade our current ruling elite, we are bystanders at the active destruction of the fabric of our society.
What a mess
Andy 400se
Isn't it a crazy world where you can be chased relentlessly (multiple letters, threats etc) for doing 76mph on a dry dual carriageway in a modern car, yet at the same time fully expect to get away with crimes against property/person if the Police decide it's too hard to investigate?
What I want to know is who will make this decision and against what criteria will the decision be judged?
I suspect there will be a further "refining" of the crime statistics in the near future to reflect a new category : " crimes reported but not acted upon" This will quickly get renamed " Non crimes" and will eventually mean that "non crimes" will be exempt from inclusion in the crime stats atall!
It's like a bad magic show - Hey presto! a 40% drop in "crime" will be the banner headline.
We can however use this new "crims weapon" for our own good. Gatso's could and should be targeted for "elimination" in those places where they are not performing a valuable road safety role. Just make sure you don't leave enough evidence to warrant a police investigation. Likewise if you can locate your local burglar, vandal, car thief, robber etc you can, provided you follow the no evidence rule exact suitable community punishments on these individuals without fear of impunity.
OK, so I'm not being serious with the above, but it's frightening that decent law abiding citizens are being encouraged to think the law (and it's protection)has abandoned them and their families. Ordinary people are at risk of becoming outlaws if they carry on this way, whilst the crims become increasingly unrestrained.
Because of the wrong headed, woolly minded thinking of the liberal nincompoops that pervade our current ruling elite, we are bystanders at the active destruction of the fabric of our society.
What a mess
Andy 400se
I read this article as well this morning in the free Metro paper, and it made my blood boil. It is just ridiculous to say that someone can break into to your house, steal or damage the things you have worked hard to; buy, make, collect over the years and then get away with it.
It is stupidity, to even print a story like this, as the idiots who do stuff like this will do more, as now they have no deterrent.
and yes, if we use too much force defending our home, then we will get punished for using too much force.
It is just ridiculous, and I am not blaming the police as they do not have the people to do the job, it is the government again, that should sort this mess out.
David
Madcop, what exactly defines "reasonable force" in a situation such as being burgled at 3am?
Speaking purely for myself here cos i dont know how anyone else would react, but, if im faced with this scenario,; im hyped on adrenaline, its dark, im half awake, and im faced with being possibly assaulted by this burglar, im angry and scared.
All this sensory stimulation puts a person in a different state of mind, and given the conditions stated above, id not be in a rational state of mind to make a descision on what was or wasnt reasonable at that time.
Would any of us?
This reasonable force argument is meaningless because it means different things to different folks, and the power of reason goes out the window when faced with a possible threat of this nature.
We need a law change to allow WHATEVER FORCE is deemed necessary AT THAT TIME to be implemented.
Only then will burglars be afraid of the consequences.
At the moment its the other way around.
Lets have a change of law, we need it.
Speaking purely for myself here cos i dont know how anyone else would react, but, if im faced with this scenario,; im hyped on adrenaline, its dark, im half awake, and im faced with being possibly assaulted by this burglar, im angry and scared.
All this sensory stimulation puts a person in a different state of mind, and given the conditions stated above, id not be in a rational state of mind to make a descision on what was or wasnt reasonable at that time.
Would any of us?
This reasonable force argument is meaningless because it means different things to different folks, and the power of reason goes out the window when faced with a possible threat of this nature.
We need a law change to allow WHATEVER FORCE is deemed necessary AT THAT TIME to be implemented.
Only then will burglars be afraid of the consequences.
At the moment its the other way around.
Lets have a change of law, we need it.
Utter utter insanity.
I truely hope that many decent coppers are as upset about this as we are.
On a side note. If a large man enters my house and threatens me with a weapon, I will quite happily show him to the valuables. I'll even help him load up his van. I am a coward, and no amount of possessions are worth getting killed over.
If he threatens my GF or her daughter, I will attempt to go through him and out the other side with whatever I have to hand.
I truely hope that many decent coppers are as upset about this as we are.
On a side note. If a large man enters my house and threatens me with a weapon, I will quite happily show him to the valuables. I'll even help him load up his van. I am a coward, and no amount of possessions are worth getting killed over.
If he threatens my GF or her daughter, I will attempt to go through him and out the other side with whatever I have to hand.
deltaf said: Madcop, what exactly defines "reasonable force" in a situation such as being burgled at 3am?
The Jury that are 'trying' you for the relevant offence for which you stand before them. It is the decision of the 12 that will ultimately say whether it was excessive. It is very subjective and open to lots of interpretations. You just have to pick jurors that look as though they may have been burgled in the past and hope they have a great deal of sympathy with the situation that you find yourself in.
Speaking purely for myself here cos i dont know how anyone else would react, but, if im faced with this scenario,; im hyped on adrenaline, its dark, im half awake, and im faced with being possibly assaulted by this burglar, im angry and scared.
This has been subject of case law. Acts done on the spur of the moment which are an honestly held belief due to the circumstances i.e. reflex actions have been ruled to be acceptable, even if the resulting action has fatal consequences.
This came about when an RUC officer some years ago was in possession of a baton round gun. He and a couple colleagues came under attack from a large group of youths. They were surrounded and had taken quite a beating. From the corner of his eye, the officer with the baton gun perceived that one of his his colleagues was about to be struck over the head from behind by an assailant with a metal bar. Fearing his colleague would be seriously injured or killed, he reacted instinctively by turning and discharging the baton gun at very close range in the direction of the assailant. He was not in a position to aim or assess where the baton round would strike the assailant. It hit the assailant in the head, killing him instantly. The iron bar turned out to be an umbrella!
The judges who heard the appeal after he was convicted of manslaughter overturned the decision as they ruled that he acted instinctively to protect the life of another.
That is the standard that would need to be judged against, in the event of seriously injuring someone who was not offering an imminent and persistent attack after you had warned them off from doing so.
All this sensory stimulation puts a person in a different state of mind, and given the conditions stated above, id not be in a rational state of mind to make a descision on what was or wasnt reasonable at that time.
Would any of us?
That is why it is decided by 12 people that you have the choice of selecting.
This reasonable force argument is meaningless because it means different things to different folks, and the power of reason goes out the window when faced with a possible threat of this nature.
It is not meaningless. It means that you can go as far is as necessary to protect your life, that of a member of your family and to protect your property. It does not mean that you can beat ten bells out of someone after you have caught them committing offences against you or your property (unless they offer similar sort of violence to you and you have to go a level above to repel it)
Impact factors such as the size of the offender and the victim, special knowledge, like you know this person is a 6th Dan expert in KWiagfungho or the number of offenders will determine in favour of either less or more force depending where the advantage lies.
We need a law change to allow WHATEVER FORCE is deemed necessary AT THAT TIME to be implemented.
Only then will burglars be afraid of the consequences.
At the moment its the other way around.
Lets have a change of law, we need it.
I hope no one you know, when having been out on the lash on holiday, mistakenly stumbles into someone elses chalet at Butlins to be met by a barrage from meat cleavers and baseball bats because someone happens to be scared!
I agree with redcarracer and anyone who says they would defend there property and fully understand what he is getting at. If this 20 stone bloke with a bat/knife/gun is in your house wether or not he has seen the error of his ways and tries to escape he is still in your house where he shouldn't be with a weapon. If you clonk him on the head enough times that he isn't around to tell a different story then this would be reasonable as he had the same weapon as you used against him and last time I checked knives and guns were not required to break and enter a building to burgle. If you were to stand up in court and say you had been threatened and nobody can say otherwise then you should be fine. You may even have witnesses to back your story up. You may even have to lie in court to get yourself out of a charge. Fancy that, what a shame innocent people have to resort to this sort of tactic to protect their property and that the justice system now hunts innocent people while vandals, drug dealers, muggers etc etc are left to roam as there is no chance of catching them or extracing any money from them when they do.
Sorry missed a bit and this is directed towards madcop mainly. Surely you are missing the point of most peoples argument in this thread. You say about a criminal trying to run away or leave the crime, if this is in your home what right does he have to be there in the first place, he has no business to be there and has committed a crime by being there through breaking and entering. Im sure I would try to leave the scene if confronted with a homeowner with a sawn-off. I don't think as a criminal you should be able to choose a house and if you pick the wrong one have the right and protection of the law to walk away. Pay your money and take your choice. Badluck if you pick the wrong one. No one says you have to burgle. Wether you hit him once or 100 times surely the fact the guy is in your house is what counts. We really need to look at the whole justice system in the UK especially the motorist getting canned as an easy target. And while we are on this what is wrong with getting all the useless **ckers in jail that we pay tax for and getting them out the clean the streets/highways etc as in the US and getting to do something useful instead of sitting there and earning priviledges such as Playstations and TV's.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff