Man arrested for beating up "burglar/rapist"
Discussion
A 24-year-old man has been arrested after he allegedly attacked bodybuilder Stuart Lynch when he discovered him in the bedroom with his girlfriend.
So, a man finds a 23 year old body builder climbing into his bed with his girlfriend having entered the property unlawfully and he doesn't have the right to push him down the stairs? I know the injured party was there in error but if I found a well built man trying to get into bed with my wife I'd like to think I had the right to protect her*.
Perhaps I have lived in the US for too long but here as long as you don't shoot him dead running away from your property you are covered.
(* the reality is that it would be the first time since we got married that a well built man got in bed with her and I may whimper and beg rather than be the man)
So, a man finds a 23 year old body builder climbing into his bed with his girlfriend having entered the property unlawfully and he doesn't have the right to push him down the stairs? I know the injured party was there in error but if I found a well built man trying to get into bed with my wife I'd like to think I had the right to protect her*.
Perhaps I have lived in the US for too long but here as long as you don't shoot him dead running away from your property you are covered.
(* the reality is that it would be the first time since we got married that a well built man got in bed with her and I may whimper and beg rather than be the man)
INAL
I think the definition for Self Defence is that you can use reasonable force until the danger is passed or abated...
So unless the chap still presented a danger after being 'evicted' from the bedroom, then no, I don't think you can 'just' push him downstairs for having the temerity of being near your 'bird'...
But trying to prove that will be pretty hard, I'd imagine, so the chap may get away with this...if he did in fact push him down the stairs after he got him out of the bedroom.
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
I think the definition for Self Defence is that you can use reasonable force until the danger is passed or abated...
So unless the chap still presented a danger after being 'evicted' from the bedroom, then no, I don't think you can 'just' push him downstairs for having the temerity of being near your 'bird'...
But trying to prove that will be pretty hard, I'd imagine, so the chap may get away with this...if he did in fact push him down the stairs after he got him out of the bedroom.
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
Benjurs said:
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
I thought that they changed that in the UK recently? (Like within the last 12mths) so you can now do pretty much what you want?mrmr96 said:
Benjurs said:
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
I thought that they changed that in the UK recently? (Like within the last 12mths) so you can now do pretty much what you want?Not that I don't believe you!
Maybe that Breadvan chappy can comment?
Benjurs said:
So unless the chap still presented a danger after being 'evicted' from the bedroom,
I'd say he still presents danger. He is still in my house. In the fantasy world of being a 17st company director I would beat him until he couldn't get up. Either that or he has run off my property. That's when he doesn't present a danger anymore.I understand the injured party was there by error (or so it is being said) but at what point do you start polite conversation with the person you find in your bedroom? You don't.
Edited by h0b0 on Thursday 18th April 21:42
And in this case, it seems that the householder probably carried on attacking the guy even after he'd shown that he posed no threat, had stopped resisting, had possibly apologised, etc.
If you read the article it suggests that the guy was there as a result of going to the wrong house, though an open door, up some stairs, and into what he thought was an empty bedroom but which had a woman of (presumably) about his own age sleeping in it. (What are the odds?)
Oh and this is all a bit R v Collins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Collins ) where the suspicion is that there was no 'rape' but rather a local girl from one crime family who was having an affair with someone from a rival organisation and the whole thing was fabricated by the complainant's family...
If you read the article it suggests that the guy was there as a result of going to the wrong house, though an open door, up some stairs, and into what he thought was an empty bedroom but which had a woman of (presumably) about his own age sleeping in it. (What are the odds?)
Oh and this is all a bit R v Collins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Collins ) where the suspicion is that there was no 'rape' but rather a local girl from one crime family who was having an affair with someone from a rival organisation and the whole thing was fabricated by the complainant's family...
h0b0 said:
Benjurs said:
So unless the chap still presented a danger after being 'evicted' from the bedroom,
I'd say he still presents danger. He is still in my house. In the fantasy world of being a 17st company director I would beat him until he couldn't get up. Either that or he has run off my property. That's when he doesn't present a danger anymore.I understand the injured party was there by error (or so it is being said) but at what point do you start polite conversation with the person you find in your bedroom? You don't.
Edited by h0b0 on Thursday 18th April 21:42
However I wasn't there and don't know the layout of the house, maybe there wasn't a door or it couldn't be closed or perhaps the stairs were right outside the door...
Of course this is all said with the benefit of hindsight and with rational thought...as I said your mileage may vary....
Something a bit dodgy about this story. I've been wrecked beyond belief and have never wondered into completely the wrong house. Also if he walked in to the bedroom and it was a bloke in that bed, you can bet he would have sobered up pretty quick.
On the other hand, it's completely legit that the man who did the assault would be arrested, the police don't know who they are and they could all have known each other and this man could have been trying to stitch up a freind who had entered the house when an argument / fight kicked off.
On the other hand, it's completely legit that the man who did the assault would be arrested, the police don't know who they are and they could all have known each other and this man could have been trying to stitch up a freind who had entered the house when an argument / fight kicked off.
premio said:
Something a bit dodgy about this story. I've been wrecked beyond belief and have never wondered into completely the wrong house. Also if he walked in to the bedroom and it was a bloke in that bed, you can bet he would have sobered up pretty quick.
...and how many people around there would leave their house unlocked all night?A country where one may not, arbitrarily, award an effective death sentence with no trial and is arrested when he tries versus a country where everyone is armed to the teeth and too dumb to be trusted with balloon animals. I know where I'd rather live.
Yes, we all like the idea of beating burglar scum to death, but when it comes down to it, the situation of State administered justice is a much better idea than just handing out guns in primary school and letting the people police themselves.
Still, nice of the guy to believe his girlfriend's story about the "wrong house".
Simon.
Yes, we all like the idea of beating burglar scum to death, but when it comes down to it, the situation of State administered justice is a much better idea than just handing out guns in primary school and letting the people police themselves.
Still, nice of the guy to believe his girlfriend's story about the "wrong house".
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
A country where one may not, arbitrarily, award an effective death sentence with no trial and is arrested when he tries versus a country where everyone is armed to the teeth and too dumb to be trusted with balloon animals. I know where I'd rather live.
Yes, we all like the idea of beating burglar scum to death, but when it comes down to it, the situation of State administered justice is a much better idea than just handing out guns in primary school and letting the people police themselves.
Still, nice of the guy to believe his girlfriend's story about the "wrong house".
Simon.
I think we'd generally be happy with the way things are here if the state was actually perceived as meting out justice. However, if the intruder gets a suspended community order, it's hardly likely to stop him doing it again.Yes, we all like the idea of beating burglar scum to death, but when it comes down to it, the situation of State administered justice is a much better idea than just handing out guns in primary school and letting the people police themselves.
Still, nice of the guy to believe his girlfriend's story about the "wrong house".
Simon.
Benjurs said:
mrmr96 said:
Benjurs said:
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
I thought that they changed that in the UK recently? (Like within the last 12mths) so you can now do pretty much what you want?Not that I don't believe you!
Maybe that Breadvan chappy can comment?
"In a sign of Downing Street's tougher approach on law and order, Grayling will pledge to change the law to ensure householders can use "disproportionate" force in certain circumstances."
Don't know whether/how this has been enacted, I just remember it being on the news.
mrmr96 said:
Benjurs said:
mrmr96 said:
Benjurs said:
As far as I know that self defence isn't a coverall for doing exactly what you like in your own house...Unlike in the good ol' USA...your mileage may vary!
I thought that they changed that in the UK recently? (Like within the last 12mths) so you can now do pretty much what you want?Not that I don't believe you!
Maybe that Breadvan chappy can comment?
"In a sign of Downing Street's tougher approach on law and order, Grayling will pledge to change the law to ensure householders can use "disproportionate" force in certain circumstances."
Don't know whether/how this has been enacted, I just remember it being on the news.
It hasn't been enacted. And even if it is, it won't let you do "pretty much what you want".
newspaper said:
"This is not about letting people go on the rampage. There is a difference between grabbing a bedside lamp and whacking an intruder because you are worried about the children and hitting someone and then stabbing them 17 times," one source said.
Given that the first is already generally legal and the second is illegal it's not clear what, if anything, they actually want to change. It looks mostly like grandstanding for the Tory party conference.h0b0 said:
And here is the US version
The parents of a Virginia teen who was fatally shot when he entered the wrong home early Sunday after a night of drinking with friends said they forgive the person who shot their son.
I'm so glad we don't like in a country where people get shot for making mistakes like this.The parents of a Virginia teen who was fatally shot when he entered the wrong home early Sunday after a night of drinking with friends said they forgive the person who shot their son.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff