View Full Version : The Law on defending your property from Burglars.
Right, this has always bugged me for years and it's surfaced again in the news today, I've had many a heated conversation in my local about what the "right thing to do" should be.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Suspected-Burglar-Stabbed-To-Death-After-Attempting-Midnight-Raid-On-Home/Article/201106416017355?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_16017355_Suspected_Burglar_Stabbed_To_ Death_After_Attempting_Midnight_Raid_On_Home
I remember a case a few years ago where a farmer shot a burglar on his property, killing him, and was sent to prison for what I think was manslaughter (Correct me if I'm wrong). I felt really sympathetic for the farmer, I always thought I’d have done the same in his position.
In my opinion, if ever I caught someone burgling my house I would have no regrets in defending my property & family with whatever means necessary. I know that the police’s view is that you shouldn’t take the law into your own hands and risk creating a dangerous situation, but I’m not sure I could let someone do this without taking my own retribution. I dread to think what I would do, especially if they had touched my PC!
Am I the only person that feels this way?
I know the GM is changing the law on what is deemed to be "necessary force", but what would you call necessary force?
I remember a case a few years ago where a farmer shot a burglar on his property, killing him, and was sent to prison for what I think was manslaughter (Correct me if I'm wrong). I felt really sympathetic for the farmer, I always thought I’d have done the same in his position.
The problem in that case is that it wasn't how you make it sound, i.e. the lad was shot as part of a struggle while in the act of burgling the house. In fact the kid was shot in the back while running away from the house, having already been scared off by the farmer with the shotgun... Personally, I think that could be fairly described as 'unnecessary force'.
taking my own retribution
As soon as you're doing this, you are very much acting against the law. Self defence is covered (and should be), and defense of property should also be covered/protected by the law. But if you think the law should allow for 'taking your own retribution' then you're basically moving into vigilante lynch mob territory. Same with the farmer and his shotgun; if he'd fired the gun to protect himself and his property, no problem, but firing at a fleeing target because he thought 'he deserved it' is another thing entirely.
Its my house and I will defend it anyway I can...even if I kill you!
The problem in that case is that it wasn't how you make it sound, i.e. the lad was shot as part of a struggle while in the act of burgling the house. In fact the kid was shot in the back while running away from the house, having already been scared off by the farmer with the shotgun... Personally, I think that could be fairly described as 'unnecessary force'.
Andy, I didn't lead to any information as to how the gun became involved, just that the farmer had shot a burglar on his property. I understand where you are coming from in regards to unnecessary force, considering the farmer had scared him off, and you are right. My point was that I felt I'd have done the same in that situation, and for that I felt sympathetic for the farmer
AFAIK you can't use reasonable/minimal or unncessary force to defend actual property, only those in it.
So if you saw someone spray painting your house you can't punch them or anything or even if they are breaking a window.
If however the act of them doing whatever to your property is likely to injure someone then you can take action.
Self defence is different, the law was changed from reasonable force to minimal force as what is reasonable to me might not be to you and blah blah.
In self defence you can even preempt an attack, so if a burglar enters your home and you fear for your safety and think you are about to be attacked you can defend yourself and attack him/her first.
If they enter the bedroom you are in then you can actually use lethal force to protect yourself and kill him/her.
this "my property, I can do what I want" way of thinking is very common in America and it's sad to see it becoming more common here, do you really value your PC more than someone's life? do you really think it's fair for your to be judge, jury and executioner? life's too short for these sorts of things, especially if everyone starts killing each other!
Taking the farmer scenario as explained here as the example.. If the guy is coming at you and you are concerned for the safety of your property/family etc, then shooting/other force could be justified.
If the guy is running away from you because they have already been frightened off, then you go and call the police and let them do their job. The key thing for me is, force doesnt always mean violence. In that case, the 'necessary force' was to threaten the burglar. It had the desired effect, made them stop their illegal actions, and leave the property and so neutralising the threat to your home and family.
The 'unnecessary force' was shooting the guy in the back while he was running away, and there is little excuse for that, other than anger/payback.
In regards to the article in the OP then thats fine that he was stabbed to death to be honest, law is kind of grey here as there could be a couple of different versions.
1) I'm making a sandwich and you break in, knife is in my hand and i kill you, Justifiable homicide in the eyes of the law.
2) You break in and i'm in bed, i go get a knife and stab you too death, not really allowed in the law but i doubt you would get sent to jail if the robbers were on the premises.
3) You break in and i come down stairs, i left a knife at the bottom of the stairs to trim the bottom of wallpaper i was doing, i then stab you too death, again Justifiable as it was there and you didn't go and get it.
As i said the law is still quite grey but it generally works in your favour in these situations.
this "my property, I can do what I want" way of thinking is very common in America and it's sad to see it becoming more common here, do you really value your PC more than someone's life? do you really think it's fair for your to be judge, jury and executioner? life's too short for these sorts of things, especially if everyone starts killing each other!
I never for one minute suggested I would kill someone because they tried to steal my PC, I'm not some sort of psycho!
In regards to the article in the OP then thats fine that he was stabbed to death to be honest, law is kind of grey here as there could be a couple of different versions.
1) I'm making a sandwich and you break in, knife is in my hand and i kill you, Justifiable homicide in the eyes of the law.
2) You break in and i'm in bed, i go get a knife and stab you too death, not really allowed in the law but i doubt you would get sent to jail if the robbers were on the premises.
3) You break in and i come down stairs, i left a knife at the bottom of the stairs to trim the bottom of wallpaper i was doing, i then stab you too death, again Justifiable as it was there and you didn't go and get it.
As i said the law is still quite grey but it generally works in your favour in these situations.
That's a good way of breaking it down, thanks
I dread to think what I would do, especially if they had touched my PC!
I know you were only kidding but still :P
Call me what you will but I suspect I'm further left than 99% of the people on here and actually highly value life and believe even 'scum' are worth saving, at the end of the day who gives a **** if they steal your car, your TV and your jewellery? It's much more of a crime to rob their parents of a child imo.
I know you were only kidding but still :P
Call me what you will but I suspect I'm further left than 99% of the people on here and actually highly value life and believe even 'scum' are worth saving, at the end of the day who gives a **** if they steal your car, your TV and your jewellery? It's much more of a crime to rob their parents of a child imo.
But what if they start to become violent towards you or your family?
I know you were only kidding but still :P
Call me what you will but I suspect I'm further left than 99% of the people on here and actually highly value life and believe even 'scum' are worth saving, at the end of the day who gives a **** if they steal your car, your TV and your jewellery? It's much more of a crime to rob their parents of a child imo.
Name calling in a discussion isn't my style mate, you're entitled to your own opinion and if you bring up a point that's better than mine, I will gracefully admit it lol.
As for the whole "killing someone over a PC", I don't think that's really the mentality I'm trying to put across, (my fault for not clearing it up). It's more the principle of someone invading my home, my safe place.
But what if they start to become violent towards you or your family?
then it's self defence, defence of yourself and defence of your family is okay, defence of your property or material goods isn't, most of us have insurance which covers theft anyway so it would be purely out of anger and revenge, not trying to prevent loss.
Terbinator
23-06-11, 12:40
I wouldn't mind but thats a relatively 'quiet' part of Swinton as well. I'd say there is more to this than meets the eye.
ive never understood how those that willingly break the law remain under the protection of it. personally as soon as your cross the threshold in my eyes your fair game
The problem in that case is that it wasn't how you make it sound, i.e. the lad was shot as part of a struggle while in the act of burgling the house. In fact the kid was shot in the back while running away from the house, having already been scared off by the farmer with the shotgun... Personally, I think that could be fairly described as 'unnecessary force'.
I think in this case the farmer had been having trouble with a spate of burglaries and was probably at the end of his tether.
I keep a Hockey stick under the bed :lol:
It makes me sick how some burglars sue home owners as they hurt themselves on a glass spiked fence or some other "trap" they deem the homeowner laid. The fact is they shouldn't be there in the first place.
ive never understood how those that willingly break the law remain under the protection of it. personally as soon as your cross the threshold in my eyes your fair game
So.. if you drop litter in the street it would be OK for a passerby to strike off your head with a machete?
Yeah.. that seems workable...
I think in this case the farmer had been having trouble with a spate of burglaries and was probably at the end of his tether.
I keep a Hockey stick under the bed :lol:
It makes me sick how some burglars sue home owners as they hurt themselves on a glass spiked fence or some other "trap" they deem the homeowner laid. The fact is they shouldn't be there in the first place.
OMG yeah that really winds me up, like the guy who fell through a sky light and broke his leg, then sued the owner!
So.. if you drop litter in the street it would be OK for a passerby to strike off your head with a machete?
Yeah.. that seems workable...
I'm pretty sure that's not the point he was making.
OMG yeah that really winds me up, like the guy who fell through a sky light and broke his leg, then sued the owner!
I'm pretty sure that's not the point he was making.
Yeah, but the point he was making was unworkable, is what I'm trying to say. He was saying that 'if you break the law, you're fair game'. I'm saying that the law has to protect everyone, even criminals, otherwise it's meaningless. It's not up to us to decide what the punishment for crime should be, that's the whole POINT of a legal system.
I'm not defending the 'criminal who fell through a skylight' scenario either (although, when you look at them, almost always that's something which happened in America, which is a country which makes litigiousness into a national pastime). I'm just saying that taking the law into your own hands = vigilantism = a big step towards the breakdown of law and order. Next step Honour Killings?
I think in this case the farmer had been having trouble with a spate of burglaries and was probably at the end of his tether.
I keep a Hockey stick under the bed :lol:This.
Yeah, but the point he was making was unworkable, is what I'm trying to say. He was saying that 'if you break the law, you're fair game'. I'm saying that the law has to protect everyone, even criminals, otherwise it's meaningless. It's not up to us to decide what the punishment for crime should be, that's the whole POINT of a legal system.
And this..
But isnt the "fell through a skylight story" an urban myth?
I think this is the case in question:
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
Bodine Vs Enterprise High School
Yeah, but as I said, that was in California.
I think if someone enters your properties you should be allowed to use force to stop them from stealing items or hurting yourself and others in the building.
The only problem with this is once most engage in such force its hard to keep it to a minimum (stop/restrain without serious injury ) and then turns out as more of a fight for life, Where you would then be trying to stop the 'Burglar' in a more brutal way (knifing ect.) and this is where things end badly for someone.
Weather its yourself or the person breaking in.
Unless you know how to fight (Boxing / Martial arts ect) and are able to stop someone quickly, easy and to an extent safely.
Broadsword1976
23-06-11, 13:30
It's an extremely emotive subject as the act of burglary is one of the most repulsive acts I can imagine...I've been robbed once while I was away at Uni and the anger and impotency I felt at the time is still vivid in my mind.
I would unleash a whole world of pain on anyone attempting to break into my home should I ever catch them.... I keep my 3D Maglite by my bed at all times, it's a solid bit of kit and if it's on when you hit someone with it the authorities will usually consider it self defence. (at least this is what I was told).
I keep my 3D Maglite by my bed at all times, it's a solid bit of kit and if it's on when you hit someone with it the authorities will usually consider it self defence. (at least this is what I was told).
Needs rewording, if you were using it to see what was going on then you came across a burglar and hit him with it then thats fine.
I wouldn't just say well its on so i can hit him with it.
But yeah, never been burglarized myself, but went to a few when i was in the Military Police, closest we came to actually having someone beat up a burglar was the Burglar got disturbed and when fleeing ran into a door and gave himself concussion, the guy whose house it was just phoned the police and waited with the guy, didn't beat him up or anything.
But yeah, never been burglarized myself, but went to a few when i was in the Military Police, closest we came to actually having someone beat up a burglar was the Burglar got disturbed and when fleeing ran into a door and gave himself concussion, the guy whose house it was just phoned the police and waited with the guy, didn't beat him up or anything.
Hahaha, hard to say which would be worse, the embarrassment or the jail sentence :).
I've got a big dog, and I'm not exactly a small guy... If someone has got enough balls to be breaking in to our house while we're in? I have to assume the worst and protect my family. However it needs to be done.
If they turn and leg it though I'll only set the dog on them ;)
I've got a big dog, and I'm not exactly a small guy... If someone has got enough balls to be breaking in to our house while we're in? I have to assume the worst and protect my family. However it needs to be done.
If they turn and leg it though I'll only set the dog on them ;)
Let the dog do time instead? Good thinking. :D
To be honest you aren't likely to get in trouble as long as you don't go over the top and really go for it. As longs as it's just quickly using whatever you have to hand and calling the police as soon as you can you shouldn't get in too much trouble.
Nah, hide the dog at a friends house and tell the coppers it wasn't mine, "it just came out of nowhere orrifice, honest" :p
Realistically I don't think I'd have anything to hide. The dog wouldn't even really hurt them, just scare the bejaysus out of them. He'd come back to me the instant I whistled. He's well trained like that (unless he sees a cat, then I have to yell at him) :)
I'm trying hard not to pre-judge this incident without knowing all the facts and again I'm biased because of the Tony Martin case. But I believe that homeowners have the automatic right to defend themselves and their property from criminals. That being said, it can be hard to judge where self-defence becomes vigilantism. It all boils down to what's reasonable.
And I'd also presume that a criminal is responsible for his actions, if he is injured in commission of a crime, the homeowner is not at fault unless it was a deliberate trap. If he falls and breaks his leg, that's his problem, the homeowner can't be responsible if a crook falls into a hole but plant a few stakes at the bottom and that's a different matter.
There's also the legal principle of "clean hands" that everyone seems to forget and is not applied fairly. You can't call the police when you buy cocaine from a dealer and it turns out all you received was baking powder.
I never for one minute suggested I would kill someone because they tried to steal my PC, I'm not some sort of psycho!
I nearly stabbed my brother for switching on my PC, nevermind some random stealing..
I hate people, I hate man's inhumanity to man (Irony I know).
I'm a uber-left, uber-right extremist.
I'd love communism, I'd love facism (Both by definition, not from history) but as we're not going to get either, I'm happy hating people.
Saying that, I'll give anyone a fair chance to prove to me that they're a nice and normal person but as soon as they disprove it I have no time for them. I think that's why I was put into CServe as I'm friendly and helpful until they start being arsey and then we can't deal with the person.
Back on topic- I think if someone comes into your house to take your property, they lose all rights they normally have of ANY sort. A society where criminals don't fear anything can not move ahead.
/rant.
heavywater
24-06-11, 13:14
I'm a uber-left, uber-right extremist.
I'd love communism, I'd love facism (Both by definition, not from history)
Are you sure properly understand these concepts..? :scratch
Are you sure properly understand these concepts..? :scratch
Haha, I don't fully support either idea, but I like the ideals of both.
But yeah, I've spent years reading and studying into them.
The Farmer incident happened just oop rord from me.. literally.
There is so much mis info out there in the public domain over this.
Tony Martins premises had been repeatedly burgled, most likely by the same kin as the two lads involved.
Tony actually shot low. It was his own mate Brendon who left Fred Barras lying in a ditch in the dark calling out to him to stop and help him but Brendon abandoned him (gooood mate huh) and as a consequence Fred Barras bled to death. He would have lived if his mate had helped him.
My own take
If you enter my premises unauthorised with intent then you lose ALL rights as a human.
gotta go out now.. will finish off comment on return
With regards to Tony Martin being repeatedly burgled, I understand that would drive a man to despair, I do think this actually lessened his sentence.
I'd argue your second point, Tony shot low - the fact he shot a man running away is all that needs addressing, the fact the blokes mate ran off isnt the reason he died, its because he was shot.
If his mate could of helped him, then so could Tony, no matter how you look at it, someone died because Tony shot him.
I think someone stated reasonable force doesn't exist any more its minimal force - I think its actually minimum force necessary?
Minimum force being that which is required, so if punching someone in the face is ok if it stops them, however if that one punch is enough, 2 punches would mean you face an assault charge!
By chasing the guys off the property Tony had already exercised minimum force, pulling the trigger, was too much.
I'm not going to get into how I think about things like this, as I do feel homeowners need more protection and rights, and if this had been the case for Tony on one of the first robberies he had to endure then this may not of happened.
If his mate could of helped him, then so could Tony, no matter how you look at it, someone died because Tony shot him.
.
If they hadn't burgled in the first place Tony wouldn't have shot anyone.
I'm all for what Tony did.
Imagine if we were the USA (of everyone owning firearms fame) they don't hesitate to defend their castle :kungfu:
Imagine if we were the USA
Honestly, I'd rather not... :P
The force used should be in my opinion to stop the person doing the robbing, not to punish them for it. If it is personal belongings then I would like to think I would not act in an unreasonable manor and would try to force the person to leave the property. Like it has been said before as soon as there is serious threat of the burglar harming me or anyone else I would use considerably more force.
Also you can't say that a burglar has no rights as soon as they step inside a house...just imagine what kind of sick things people could do based on that premise!
If they hadn't burgled in the first place Tony wouldn't have shot anyone.
I'm all for what Tony did.
Imagine if we were the USA (of everyone owning firearms fame) they don't hesitate to defend their castle :kungfu:
Thats the whole argument though isnt it really, The bloke was already fleeing the castle, so he wasnt defending anything.
If he had shot him whilst in the place then you could argue quite rightly that he was defending his castle.
almighty15
24-06-11, 14:57
You break into someone house you get what you deserve, As long as they aren't killed then **** the scum bag bastards.
Yeah I see where your coming from.
Tony probably knew if he didn't finally do something about it they'd be back the next night anyway.
If someone broke into my house I wouldn't even consider the law, id grab a knife or something close to do and do what I have to in order to protect my belongings.
I think you have the right to defend yourself, your family and all the posessions we work for and pay, in many cases, some form of stupid tax for.
If the Burgler is noticably unarmed, simply scaring them away is fine, but sometimes you cannot always be sure. These guys had masks and there was four of them, so what you gonna' do? Ask them if they have a gun or stab the prick before finding out? I'd stab him as well :|
If some little teen chav broke in you'd grab him and call the police, not really a big deal, but when four criminals break in outnumbering you wearing masks, adrenaline kicks in. That itself is enough to freak someone out enough to grab a knife.
Imagine if we were the USA
I feel degraded.....
Also you can't say that a burglar has no rights as soon as they step inside a house...just imagine what kind of sick things people could do based on that premise!
Would sure stop them though. S'all I'm saying. :)
please correct me if i'm wrong here, law isn't my speciality unfortunately.
It's to my understanding that there is some sort of "3 strikes and you're out system" in the UK in regards to persistent burglars, which could lead to a minimum 3 years behind bars.
Way I see it, that means they need to be caught 3 times before any real kind of conviction. Surely this is not enough of a deterrent? I also read somewhere that if the person in question is a drug addict or alcoholic, they are likely to avoid prison altogether! Is this true or another tabloid exaggeration?
It just goes to show this week that a persistent criminal (on bail at the time for a similar offence), attempted to commit another crime, showing a distinct lack of fear for any concequences. If there had been a more sever punishment for his previous crimes, could this have been avoidable?
please correct me if i'm wrong here, law isn't my speciality unfortunately.
It's to my understanding that there is some sort of "3 strikes and you're out system" in the UK in regards to persistent burglars, which could lead to a minimum 3 years behind bars.
Way I see it, that means they need to be caught 3 times before any real kind of conviction. Surely this is not enough of a deterrent? I also read somewhere that if the person in question is a drug addict or alcoholic, they are likely to avoid prison altogether! Is this true or another tabloid exaggeration?
It just goes to show this week that a persistent criminal (on bail at the time for a similar offence), attempted to commit another crime, showing a distinct lack of fear for any concequences. If there had been a more sever punishment for his previous crimes, could this have been avoidable?
I see where you're coming from, but there's a bit of a logistical problem with the 'lock everyone up for longah!' approach. Specifically that is that
a) We can't afford the prison population we have already, and
b) We already have the highest (per capita) prison population in Europe, and the fourth highest on the earth. Here's the "high score table":
United States of America: 756
Russian Federation: 611
NewZealand: 186
United Kingdom: 148
Netherlands: 128
Australia: 124.5
Canada: 107
Italy: 104
South Korea: 104
Ireland: 101
Germany: 95
Turkey: 91
France: 85
Sweden: 82
Denmark: 77
Japan: 62
Iceland: 40
India: 22
Given that the USA and Russia are not exactly famous for being crime-free, this does suggest that in the long term, having a high prison population doesn't help cut crime rate. Actually, sending someone to 'crime school' for a few years is often the best way to convert someone to a career criminal.
Australia: 124.5
How come Australia has a .5? Do they have half a prisoner locked up :lol:
Oh, I know that the prison's are over populated and the whole logistical problem will never be reduced. Surely slapping someone on the wrist isn't enough anymore though?
We could always turn Guernsey into an island prison, i hear they don't pay any VAT ;) lol jokes
If there had been a more sever punishment for his previous crimes, could this have been avoidable?
The logic of your statement is irrelevant to our nations "leaders".
Still I don't think that jail is the best solution most of the time, it often appears to be more a holiday camp that you can't leave than anything else. Better to set offenders to work on sweeping our streets, washing graffiti off wall of public buildings, and any other manual work the government is currently contracting out. They should be required to pay back society for their crimes by free labour.
I see where you're coming from, but there's a bit of a logistical problem with the 'lock everyone up for longah!' approach. Specifically that is that
a) We can't afford the prison population we have already, and
Given that the USA and Russia are not exactly famous for being crime-free, this does suggest that in the long term, having a high prison population doesn't help cut crime rate. Actually, sending someone to 'crime school' for a few years is often the best way to convert someone to a career criminal.
Shoot them in the head then?
7p per round
£1000 for the pistol
£20,000 for the shooter
£13,000 for a guy to dig a hole
Thats per year, i'm easily saving us about £100,000 per person here.
Its my house and I will defend it anyway I can...even if I kill you!
This, if someone broke into my house and i found them in the middle of the night taking my stuff, it's my property dammit i should be able to knock him/her a bit!
Suspected Burglar Held After Fatal Stabbing (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Salford-Burglar-John-Bennell-Stabbed-To-Death-Peter-Flanagan-Held-On-Suspicion-Of-Murder/Article/201106416017860?DCMP=News-search-sslc&lid=ARTICLE_16017860_SalfordBurglarJohnBennellStab bedToDeath:PeterFlanaganHeldOnSuspicionOfMurder&lpos=searchresults)
It also contains info about this topic :).
Asked whether the case raised issues over how far residents can go to protect themselves, he said: "We are investigating this matter within the legal framework as it stands and I don't want to speculate on political matters at this stage.
"If somebody was confronted by a burglar tonight, I would tell them to ring the police and use reasonable force to protect themselves."
The incident comes after David Cameron promised stronger support for people protecting their property from burglars.
Three days ago the Prime Minister vowed to bring in stronger measures to protect homeowners defending their property.
"We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted," he said.
United States of America: 756
Good form of cheap labour though :)
If you break into my house,,, your going to get a hockey stick in the back of your head......
But yes "reasonable force" is something that needs to be reasonably fixed...
This doesn't really apply to me, as anything that happens to the burglar will come from my German Shepherd :D
Years ago I had a guy trying to climb through the top window in my house while me and my ex were in bed. A neighbor seen what he was doing and ran over, grabbed him and knocked on my door.
I realised who it was that was trying to break in so I told my neighbor to let go of him as I knew his name and where he lived. I think the neighbor was gonna whoop him there and then, so didn't want him in trouble.
Called the police, they arrest him.
24 hours later, they let him go as what he did, they claim, was legal.
If someone believes the house is empty and there's a window open, they can enter it.
He didn't get away with it as I went to where he worked in a pub and dragged him over the bar and did my 'poetic justice' on him.
spleenharvester
26-06-11, 01:13
"You leave your human rights at the door"
How come Australia has a .5? Do they have half a prisoner locked up :lol:
maybe it's a midget
KarlHungus
26-06-11, 01:39
Anyone in they're right mind would defend they're family with reasonable force if an intruder was to enter they're home. I wouldnt think twice about grabbing the nearest thing i could use as a weapon to harm an intruder/burglar if i heard someone breaking into my house, i wouldnt give them the chance to attack me or my family first.
Having two young kids at home I would no hesitation on doing a number on the idiot who tried to break in. Whether it would be a golf club, fishing knife or other object would be the most difficult decision for me not whether its right or wrong. If they are in my house without petmission then their human rights dont exist.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
It's nice to see this issue is being resolved, I think it's about time we were given more rights as home owners. First thing I always grab when I hear a disturbance around my home is my fishing knife.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587
jasonst888
29-06-11, 13:58
This topic is one people will always get inflamed about, but whilst the law is there to protect you from others it is also there to stop you acting beyond 'reasonable' levels. Grab a knife? by all means if its all thats available...slash at them, threaten them until they leave fine! If your terrified stab them? maybe....but stab them where? in the heart? last time i checked we dont have the death penalty, and if we did I doubt it would be used for something as mundane as a burglary. You can defend yourself, but you don't have any right to choose death for someone because they invade your home...if you did the question becomes where does it stop? what happens if he was a drunk and thought it was his house? you kill him to 'defend' yourself? Does the law say, thats ok honest mistake man died but you thought he was a threat to your tv?
The family in this case were brave and defended themselves, they did what many would do, but we dont know the specifics, how was the man stabbed/ cut? was it a stab in the chest? were all of the intruders threatening the family or retreating out the door? how many times was the man stabbed?
Until you know the answers to at least some of these questions how can you condone what they did? Yes it might have been a terrified father striking out to protect his kids....equally he might have stabbed a retreating criminal in the back? Not so heroic or justifiable, instead it becomes an act of vindictive hatred....like the man who stabs the his wife when she has an affair....and i dont hear anybody defending such people?
I'm pretty sure no one has said out right they would attack an intruder with intent to kill them, you're reading too deply into what people have written. In my opinion, the general consensus is that if you found someone burgling your house, you should have the right to defend your family through whatever means necessary.
I think that if you feel the need to protect your loved ones, you do so in whatever way you can without thought of concequences. The other night my brother heard a strange noise in the house, woke me up and i instinctively grabbed the first weapon at hand, no thought went into it, it was just my natural reaction to the situation. Luckily it was only a glass falling off the shelf but I was still prepared for whatever was behind the kitchen door.
As for defending people that murder their wife because of an affair, I don't see how that has anything to do with what we have been discussing...
jasonst888
29-06-11, 14:42
My point was an exageration/ charactur of the way this type of thing is approached by people. Yes you would grab whatever is available but you are saying that you should be free to do whatever is necessary??? without thought of consequence? I say thats a cop out.. the law is there to hold us to a higher standard, perhaps even an unreasonable one sometimes but it is what it is. You would defend your home, this is fair and no one will fault you for it...but what is necessary? how far can society afford to let you go because you deem it necessary? Should you have the right to be judge jury and executioner just because someone came into your home? Last I checked my front room is still part of England and thus under English Law, not the law of Jason...mores the shame! :P
At the end of the day its a choice...you did not have to valiantly cast forth to defeat the fallen glass with a knife, no more than the family in this case had to go confront the burglers, they could have barricaded themselves in their rooms this would have been the safe, if less glamourous option. Instead they CHOOSE to confront them with a weapon, and they did so knowing full well they may use it....that is intent at the very least recklessness, there are mitigating circumstances yes, but the fact remains someone in that family killed another person, and that has to be, rightly so in my opinion, investigated and should they be found culpable then they should be held accountable in a court of law. To do any less is to allow people to take the law into their own hands, if you allow this in their homes where does it stop? next the whole street can enforce their own rules on the road? a charactuer yes but not so very far beyond what some advocate.
Let me be clear, I have choosen to defend my home in the past, I took a bat. And if I'd been forced to actually hit someone I would have aimed for the leg, or the arm....i did not take a sharp knife, with which I could so easily kill someone, and I dont know about you but laws aside, I wouldnt want someones death on my conscience, and I think anybody that wouldnt have a problem with it would be far more of a concern for society....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097
good stuff :thumb: but if he didn't have the machete and the home owner would have stabbed him many times it would have been a different story
I would hit them over the head with the wife!
I would hit them over the head with the wife!
haha like it.
I'd just say "love, that bloke in the balaclava said you have a fat ***" and watch her tear him apart lol
Any person should be able to defend himself, his family and his home. If that means killing someone to protect those you love then i say it should be allowed. I would kill to protect my family.
early days in this story, and not much is known. But it has some relevance to what we were discussing.
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/shopkeeper-held-over-stabbing-death
If someone breaks into your home you have no idea what they intend to do, it COULD be burglary but it could be so much more. Can you possibly blame anyone for expecting the worst of some smackhead crawling about their house? Or is "it's probably only a burglary, I'll just let him have the TV" a good enough reason to get yourself or your family members killed? I deny anyone brave enough to go challenge an intruder to NOT think about arming yourself as opposed to just wandering downstairs to check. If it's a burglar and they're running WITH my possessions I should be allowed to follow them and injure them DEFENDING my property. If they simply run away fine, the police will eventually deal with them and I'll sleep with a bat next to my bed until the next time one of his inbred mates give it a go -_-
At no point have I suggested killing by the way before I get jumped with the sanctity of life speech, but if someone comes AT me with a weapon and I have means of defending myself it's clearly them or me, and I choose me over worthless criminals thank you very much.
If someone breaks into your home you have no idea what they intend to do, it COULD be burglary but it could be so much more. Can you possibly blame anyone for expecting the worst of some smackhead crawling about their house? Or is "it's probably only a burglary, I'll just let him have the TV" a good enough reason to get yourself or your family members killed? I deny anyone brave enough to go challenge an intruder to NOT think about arming yourself as opposed to just wandering downstairs to check. If it's a burglar and they're running WITH my possessions I should be allowed to follow them and injure them DEFENDING my property. If they simply run away fine, the police will eventually deal with them and I'll sleep with a bat next to my bed until the next time one of his inbred mates give it a go -_-
At no point have I suggested killing by the way before I get jumped with the sanctity of life speech, but if someone comes AT me with a weapon and I have means of defending myself it's clearly them or me, and I choose me over worthless criminals thank you very much.
Minimum Force to achieve the objective should be the acceptable thing here.
If someone comes at you unarmed, then punching them in the face would be acceptable, probably get away with smacking their leg with a cricket bat, stabbing them should find you in hot water.
Selecting a knife as a weapon when you think you may have been broken into actually leaves you little room to manoeuvre.
no one should be allowed to stab someone unless they feel their life, or the life of their family is in danger, it should not be allowed to stab someone because they are in the process of unplugging your pride and joy 63" TV.
it should not be allowed to stab someone because they are in the process of unplugging your pride and joy 63" TV.
Threatening with a knife is easier than threatening with fists, less likely to retaliate if they're outclassed. Also if someone is running (somehow!?) with a big TV they just need a good leg sweep to bring them down, then insurance/courts will get the TV paid for.
Threatening with a knife is easier than threatening with fists, less likely to retaliate if they're outclassed. Also if someone is running (somehow!?) with a big TV they just need a good leg sweep to bring them down, then insurance/courts will get the TV paid for.
Yup, threatening with a knife is easier, however, if they are unarmed and do respond, do not expect a pat on the back for a job well done when you stab them, its excessive, and not needed. Hence my statement about room to manoeuvre.
By all means have a cricket bat to hand, which would be just as likely to stop them coming for you.
"It is the third incident of its kind in Greater Manchester in the last four months."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14968236
Yup, threatening with a knife is easier, however, if they are unarmed and do respond, do not expect a pat on the back for a job well done when you stab them, its excessive, and not needed. Hence my statement about room to manoeuvre.
By all means have a cricket bat to hand, which would be just as likely to stop them coming for you.
Still not the point if they're unarmed, what the :censored: are they doing in your house? They wouldn't get stabbed if they weren't breaking into people's houses.
"It is the third incident of its kind in Greater Manchester in the last four months."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14968236
certainly leading the way in testing out the new rights to defend your home in Manc :eek:
Unfortunately I can see this going either two ways.
1. Burglars start to be more prepared and bring heavier weapons with them to burgle a house for their " own protection" from homeowners, or
2. They become deterred from commiting more burglaries through fear of violent concequences.
Let's hope it's the latter
if someone broke into my house i would use ANY force needed to either stop them or get them out
an english mans home is his castle
Minimum Force to achieve the objective should be the acceptable thing here.
If someone comes at you unarmed, then punching them in the face would be acceptable, probably get away with smacking their leg with a cricket bat, stabbing them should find you in hot water.
Selecting a knife as a weapon when you think you may have been broken into actually leaves you little room to manoeuvre.
no one should be allowed to stab someone unless they feel their life, or the life of their family is in danger, it should not be allowed to stab someone because they are in the process of unplugging your pride and joy 63" TV.
The fact is though they shouldn't be in your house in the first place.
Minimum Force to achieve the objective should be the acceptable thing here.
If someone comes at you unarmed, then punching them in the face would be acceptable, probably get away with smacking their leg with a cricket bat, stabbing them should find you in hot water.
Selecting a knife as a weapon when you think you may have been broken into actually leaves you little room to manoeuvre.
no one should be allowed to stab someone unless they feel their life, or the life of their family is in danger, it should not be allowed to stab someone because they are in the process of unplugging your pride and joy 63" TV.
So all 20st and 6"4 of Bigian breaks into your house, your a 50 year old man with no self defence training, go punch him in the face?
Not likely is it.
They changed it all for a reason, they shouldn't be in your home anyway and lots are armed.
I doubt i'll stand there going "right, better not stab him".
certainly leading the way in testing out the new rights to defend your home in Manc :eek:
Bramhall is in Chesire ;)
Salford is a seperate city in its own right
So 1 in 3 is not to bad then
Also being a big American sports fan i have a baseball bat close by always handy for demonstrating my batting style to uninvited guests....
So all 20st and 6"4 of Bigian breaks into your house, your a 50 year old man with no self defence training, go punch him in the face?
......
I doubt i'll stand there going "right, better not stab him".
I dunno, probably best not to stab BigIan, you might make him mad :P.
Indeed lol, not saying you is a burglar or anything ian.
Reading shawry's post theres so many "what ifs" and political correctness when faced with a burgler by the time you've decided the best route to take you could be dead.
watercooled
21-09-11, 11:17
only thing you can do is make sure you have very secure house ie, doors and windows make sure you lock them at night,tough double glazing, dont leave your keys in view from the front doors letterbox.
i cant see anyone getting in our house without me hearing them first.
also have 2 dogs which are a great deterrent.
only thing you can do is make sure you have very secure house ie, doors and windows make sure you lock them at night,tough double glazing, dont leave your keys in view from the front doors letterbox.
i cant see anyone getting in our house without me hearing them first.
also have 2 dogs which are a great deterrent.
my dog barks when anyone approaches the front gate, rotty collie cross
hes very protective of my fiancee
Reading shawry's post theres so many "what ifs" and political correctness when faced with a burgler by the time you've decided the best route to take you could be dead.
I think its fairly obvious, if you kill someone and they are un-armed you are going to have to expect some consequences.
Same if they were trying to escape
Same if you continued beating them after they collapse.
Minimum force to stop them - if you think that you could justify killing someone under that regulation then cool, however I would use it as a yard stick, it doesnt take that long to process whats minimum force, anyone who has served in the forces will know its actually quite a logical and quick thought process).
If in doubt, dont do it.
Its your house/property and its instinct to protect it - but try to be realistic, we arent Americans (not all of anyway) we all know that entering a property illegally does not remove all your protective rights over here, like it appears to over there.
Its quite possible that you could get away with it, however its not cut and dried, and the flip side is that because you take things a step or 6 too far you end up in prison, your family left even more vulnerable.
I tend to advise peeps not to approach anyone thats broken into their houses, barricade in a room and call the police.
If they are in your bedroom, obviously this opens up a whole different thing, you are 'more' vulnerable, why are they there etc, and its more likely that you will get some leeway in a court.
Anyway, thats how I see things anyway :)
I think its fairly obvious, if you kill someone and they are un-armed you are going to have to expect some consequences.
Same if they were trying to escape
Same if you continued beating them after they collapse.
Minimum force to stop them - if you think that you could justify killing someone under that regulation then cool, however I would use it as a yard stick, it doesnt take that long to process whats minimum force, anyone who has served in the forces will know its actually quite a logical and quick thought process).
If in doubt, dont do it.
It happens so fast when actually in that kind of situation, you don't have the time to think what/how to do. It's almost like a reflex action.
It happens so fast when actually in that kind of situation, you don't have the time to think what/how to do. It's almost like a reflex action.
Dunno, I dont think its that at all.
If you keep a knife under your pillow then you've put thought into it, you know that if things go pear shaped, your intruder or you is dead.
If you go armed with a cricket bat, and things go pear shaped and they come at you with a knife, swinging a cricket bat will generally keep them at bay, you may do them a serious injury or even kill them, but it was self defence, and its easier to survive a cricket bat round the head than a knife in the stomach, as its unlikely you will get a clean swing, just enough to keep them out of arms length really till the police get there.
Grabbing a knife just doesnt feel very 'spur of the moment to me' neither does grabbing a cricket bat, but its not quite as lethal, so its easier to use it for minimum force.
It's a simple enough situation to avoid. Don't break into people's property and thieve their stuff, and nothing will happen to you. It's a conscious decision made by a burglar, and a reflex one made by the surprised occupant.
It's like saying to someone "don't stick your hand in a fire". If they do, and they get burnt, it's not the fires' fault. Same with a burglar.
Too many people on here living in their little bubbles with no real concept of what actually goes on in the world, might make good politicians i suppose.
It's a simple enough situation to avoid. Don't break into people's property and thieve their stuff, and nothing will happen to you. It's a conscious decision made by a burglar, and a reflex one made by the surprised occupant.
It's like saying to someone "don't stick your hand in a fire". If they do, and they get burnt, it's not the fires' fault. Same with a burglar.
you are joking yeah? If you get surprised you run downstairs, open a drawer and grab a knife, run to a room and confront an intruder, then stab them - thats not a reflex action.
Its too easy to dismiss laws saying well they shouldnt of been in my house.
At the end of the day, the law is (currently) there, no one is (or should be) above it, the intruder will get punished, why open yourself up to a whole new set of problems just because you think you should be allowed to do it as they shouldnt be in your house.
Added after 6 minutes:
Too many people on here living in their little bubbles with no real concept of what actually goes on in the world, might make good politicians i suppose.
This isnt about being in a bubble, its about taking responsibility, and until laws change everyone knows that if they take things too far then they face a real chance of being punished.
Now, when the laws change to allow people to be a bit stronger in defending their property then these sort of cases wont happen so often, but people will still need to be careful, as investigations will still need to be carried out.
As already stated, allowing homeowners to be 'firmer' in their actions will mean either less crime, or more armed intruders - and they will take guns, the problem is, we arent allowed to have them generally, and you cant get your gun out of your locked gun cabinet as a reflex action.
Theres no easy route for this, a lot of the time I would side with the home owner, but legally speaking I dont think thats right, but if you get jurors who do, then you are sorted anyway.
you are joking yeah? If you get surprised you run downstairs, open a drawer and grab a knife, run to a room and confront an intruder, then stab them - thats not a reflex action.
Its too easy to dismiss laws saying well they shouldnt of been in my house.
At the end of the day, the law is (currently) there, no one is (or should be) above it, the intruder will get punished, why open yourself up to a whole new set of problems just because you think you should be allowed to do it as they shouldnt be in your house.
Added after 6 minutes:
This isnt about being in a bubble, its about taking responsibility, and until laws change everyone knows that if they take things too far then they face a real chance of being punished.
Now, when the laws change to allow people to be a bit stronger in defending their property then these sort of cases wont happen so often, but people will still need to be careful, as investigations will still need to be carried out.
As already stated, allowing homeowners to be 'firmer' in their actions will mean either less crime, or more armed intruders - and they will take guns, the problem is, we arent allowed to have them generally, and you cant get your gun out of your locked gun cabinet as a reflex action.
Theres no easy route for this, a lot of the time I would side with the home owner, but legally speaking I dont think thats right, but if you get jurors who do, then you are sorted anyway.
As most houses are entered on the ground floor which contains the kitchen many would fear the burgler has already equipped himself with your finest cutlery :lol:
Suspect most burglars are not interested in getting into a fight tbh, I would have thought that 99.9% of them would just want to get out a.s.a.p on being rumbled.
a high % of burglaries are for car keys as they have trouble hotwiring modern cars.
The police advise leaving car keys downstairs in sight if someone were to break in (but away from windows obviously) to avoid an upstairs confrontation. Do many do this?
watercooled
21-09-11, 14:45
a high % of burglaries are for car keys as they have trouble hotwiring modern cars.
The police advise leaving car keys downstairs in sight if someone were to break in (but away from windows obviously) to avoid an upstairs confrontation. Do many do this?
yes on top of the microwave
yes on top of the microwave
probably makes sense, a cars not worth having a midnight knife fight over :+1 insurance can pay for stolen car.
watercooled
21-09-11, 14:56
probably makes sense, a cars not worth having a midnight knife fight over :+1 insurance can pay for stolen car.
i even leave my wallet on there to
if someone did get in then everything worth taking is down stairs
Sniperdude
21-09-11, 15:13
aIiVEF0DgV8
If someone breaks into my/anyone house to steal, in my eyes, they've already accepted that: 'yeah this could turn out bad and I could get arrested or seriously hurt' if they have'nt, then they are very silly indeed. I believe that you should have the right to defend your property from scum and if it come to it, I would. I'm not saying I would 'shoot to kill' as such, but i'd give em a good kickin and hand em in.
If someone breaks into my/anyone house to steal, in my eyes, they've already accepted that: 'yeah this could turn out bad and I could get arrested or seriously hurt' if they have'nt, then they are very silly indeed. I believe that you should have the right to defend your property from scum and if it come to it, I would. I'm not saying I would 'shoot to kill' as such, but i'd give em a good kickin and hand em in.
Thats the point though isnt it.
You can give them a kicking and as long as its clear you havent continued beating them whilst theyve been unconscious on the floor, then its easy to argue minimum force.
But the over riding fact is that it doesnt matter that anyone believes that the intruder should accept the consequences of breaking in regardless of what they are, the fact is that unfortunately they still have rights, and if you overstep the mark, you need to be prepared to accept the consequences - whether people agree with the law or not, the minimum that will happen atm is a very in depth investigation, which will likely end in prosecution.
I do think this will change somewhat (though if you stab someone you're still likely to get done) and for the lesser instances where the intruder gets a severe beating there wont be any real consequences.
heavywater
21-09-11, 16:47
a high % of burglaries are for car keys as they have trouble hotwiring modern cars.
The police advise leaving car keys downstairs in sight if someone were to break in (but away from windows obviously) to avoid an upstairs confrontation. Do many do this?
Leave them on the table in the hall. Then wire them sneakily into the mains. :knock:
Leave them on the table in the hall. Then wire them sneakily into the mains. :knock:
LOL, I know a guys who for a laugh built a flame thrower into his car so that if he was car-jacked he pressed a button and flames shot out.
Clearly this didnt get on the road, it was apparently done for 'fun' as he had read about someone in Germany (or somewhere) doing it. He just wanted to see if it could be done.
It worked well :) He decommissioned it immediately after his test run on the property as he was concerned he may get trigger happy in traffic jams on the motorway :)
LOL, I know a guys who for a laugh built a flame thrower into his car so that if he was car-jacked he pressed a button and flames shot out.
Clearly this didnt get on the road, it was apparently done for 'fun' as he had read about someone in Germany (or somewhere) doing it. He just wanted to see if it could be done.
It worked well :) He decommissioned it immediately after his test run on the property as he was concerned he may get trigger happy in traffic jams on the motorway :)
We need pics!
I think that was in South Africa.... Or I definitely know of them over there, and they're on the streets in SA to prevent carjackings!
Added after 2 minutes:
EDIT: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/
fDrzMGdYWZc
I think that was in South Africa.... Or I definitely know of them over there, and they're on the streets in SA to prevent carjackings!
Would certainly be an interesting hospital conversation with the nurse.
"So how did you end up with 2nd degree burns?"
"oh, I stole some dude's car not knowing it had a built in flamethrower..." :scratch
I think that was in South Africa.... Or I definitely know of them over there, and they're on the streets in SA to prevent carjackings!
Added after 2 minutes:
EDIT: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/
fDrzMGdYWZc
I remember seeing this a while back,
The south africans are kings when it comes to car security LOL
I remember seeing one that electrified the body of the car, so if you've got someone halfway through your window trying to rob your car, flip a little switch and watch em fry, brilliant ! :chuckle:
Though I think the flamethrower would have more of an effect on the thief.
DLDeadBolt
26-09-11, 08:49
Well, with the amount of highjackings, rape, murder, b&e, etc... We have become very adept at dealing with these situations now
Well, with the amount of highjackings, rape, murder, b&e, etc... We have become very adept at dealing with these situations now
it involves fire, never trust a South African :p
I haven't read the entire thread... so if this has been mentioned already just ignore me.
When I used to liaise with virtually every police force in the UK, I picked up a few tips... One of the key things that they look for is 'was the home owner in fear for their or their families safety/life' If the answer to that question is yes, then the use of force to defend yourself... whilst not yet enshrined in law... very unlikely to result in criminal charges.
I think the flame thrower car was a BMW and was shown on Top Gear some time ago.
Apparently it won the IG Nobel Peace prize
I think the flame thrower car was a BMW and was shown on Top Gear some time ago.
Apparently it won the IG Nobel Peace prize
I posted a video of it - I think even in this thread!
If someone comes and breaks in my house with a mask and a gun threatening me I will not hesitate to stab him a large knife for my own safety, is this ok lol? because that is seriously what I would do in that situation if I could, I have actually been in a few situations liek this before [although no where near to the extent] and when in fear I dont freeze like many others I just get a huge boost of adrenaline and go crazy quite the opposite.
Question is would I get done by the ploice for stabbing a burgular who breaks in with a gun and mask threatening me?
Yes... because you have come on to here and stated what you would do.. if some one does break into your house and you stab them... your posts would be proof of premeditation, thus it's murder and you go to jail. :)
Yes... because you have come on to here and stated what you would do.. if some one does break into your house and you stab them... your posts would be proof of premeditation, thus it's murder and you go to jail. :)
Doh, my bad!
Guess I will haveto stick to the baseball bat :) lol
Reading shawry's post theres so many "what ifs" and political correctness when faced with a burgler by the time you've decided the best route to take you could be dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo
For me it's all about self defense, if it's defending your self then whatever you do or use to defend your self against those buggers is all good in my book.
It's sad but sometimes its a case of be killed / or hospitalized with serious injury or defend your self with aggressive force.
Having seen it all before, I am always on extra alert even in the countryside where I live now. But having dogs who know how to protect your property comes in handy.
Let's see what happens regarding the latest incident then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-15194950
I know I'm just picking loose threads here, but surely if he meant to kill him and qualify for intended murder he wouldn't have shot him in the leg? If you're out to kill someone you go for the chest or head, if the guy was shot in the leg surely he could have finished the job had he meant to kill him.
I know I'm just picking loose threads here, but surely if he meant to kill him and qualify for intended murder he wouldn't have shot him in the leg? If you're out to kill someone you go for the chest or head, if the guy was shot in the leg surely he could have finished the job had he meant to kill him.
I know this might sound stupid, but who's to say he's that accurate with a gun? Especially on a moving target, adrenaline pumping, and probably being **** scared. He's no soldier by any means.
Personally, I think you should have the right to defend your home. I'd just say the burglar came for me and that it was self defence. I don't own a gun though, if I did, I'd give the burglar a chance to surrender or leave. If he didn't, I'd shoot him.
The law is basically saying "hide in a cupboard and hope for the best, they have the right of way here!" And the equal arms thing, "if he has a knife and you found one in the kitchen and injured him it's probably justified" rule totally depends on seeing what they have first and rummaging through the cutlery. You hear somebody in the house, you grab whatever is likely to bring a possible murderer down in one go and you hope they come through the door facing the wrong way.
The law is basically saying "hide in a cupboard and hope for the best, they have the right of way here!" And the equal arms thing, "if he has a knife and you found one in the kitchen and injured him it's probably justified" rule totally depends on seeing what they have first and rummaging through the cutlery. You hear somebody in the house, you grab whatever is likely to bring a possible murderer down in one go and you hope they come through the door facing the wrong way.
No its not, but its saying that if you stab an unarmed man then you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences.
If you shoot a guy who has a knife from 100 yards (eg running away with your tv) then be prepared for the consequences.
As for the point about grabbing whatever is likely to bring down a possible murderer, well I would say that if you are grabbing stuff and going to confront them then you are putting yourself at risk. Lets face it, if you have a baseball/cricket bat by your bed and you hear someone come in, then you stay in your room with your bat and call the police.
If the intruder comes into the room and has a knife, you can keep him at arms length with the bat, if he comes in with a gun youre :censored: anyway.
Ive said it time and time again, if you pick up a knife in these circumstances then you are backing yourself into a corner, and then potentially relying on a sympathy vote from the jury - this isnt always forthcoming.
Mate, who is in the Met said if you do beat them up etc, take them to your bedroom and then call the police!! Dont leave them at the bottom of the stairs or in another room. Looks better if they were in your bedroom at the time!! Right, wheres my baseball bat!
No its not, but its saying that if you stab an unarmed man then you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences.
Put a knife in his hand while he is bleeding to death
Mate, who is in the Met said if you do beat them up etc, take them to your bedroom and then call the police!! Dont leave them at the bottom of the stairs or in another room. Looks better if they were in your bedroom at the time!! Right, wheres my baseball bat!
Put a knife in his hand while he is bleeding to death
Now, tbh if that sort of thing happened, then I would say stuff you and hope you get caught out, as that goes from defending yourself and property, to being downright unlawful.
I have sympathy in situations where the intruder gets injured or killed (for the most part) but if you are then dragging unconscious intruders to your bedroom, or putting a knife in the hands of a dying man then theres far too much clarity of thought, and I would question whether you were defending anything, and just had the thought 'I'll :censored: teach you for coming in my house'
And this would the reason minimum force is in place, as if its that easy to fake minimum force then what will happen if people suddenly have the right to do what they like to intruders.
Rubbish mate.
If a burgular came in my house and i confronted him downstairs and beat the crap out of him to protect myself and my family and i thought i was going to be in the poo as he was say outside my property (After running away) or in the garage etc then i would haul him into my bedroom if it meant me not being singled out for anything.
If a moron decideds to break into a house then they have to understand that they would be in line to suffer the consequences. Simples.
Minimum force!! B.......ks to that. I have a 5yr old and believe me, if an intruder came into my house they would be in serious trouble. It would be maximum pain for them!
and i thought i was going to be in the poo as he was say outside my property (After running away) or in the garage etc then i would haul him into my bedroom if it meant me not being singled out for anything.
Thats the point though isnt it, hes outside your property, or in your garage, how is that protecting your family.
Basically it comes across as Im going to do as much damage to the intruder as I can, and hope I get away with it.
you cannot negate the law because you are in your house, or the person you are beating up/killing is a criminal.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Police/Army shooting are investigated fully, if they are found to of incorrectly followed rule of engagement then they are prosecuted.
I agree with being able to defend your own home, and family, but I disagree quite strongly with people who say maximum force possible.
Thats the point though isnt it, hes outside your property, or in your garage, how is that protecting your family.
Basically it comes across as Im going to do as much damage to the intruder as I can, and hope I get away with it.
you cannot negate the law because you are in your house, or the person you are beating up/killing is a criminal.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Police/Army shooting are investigated fully, if they are found to of incorrectly followed rule of engagement then they are prosecuted.
I agree with being able to defend your own home, and family, but I disagree quite strongly with people who say maximum force possible.
Whatever, it is still 'your' property. Be it in the garage or house. We have a right to defend our 'castles'. The law is too soft these days and crims get away with murder. The law should be changed so that if you break into someones house / property you should be prepared to loose your life or get seriously injured. Maybe this would then make those morons think twice before they tried to break in!!
Whatever, it is still 'your' property. Be it in the garage or house. We have a right to defend our 'castles'. The law is too soft these days and crims get away with murder. The law should be changed so that if you break into someones house / property you should be prepared to loose your life or get seriously injured. Maybe this would then make those morons think twice before they tried to break in!!
Or make them come in with their own guns putting you and your family in greater risk?
Most intruders will scarper if they know theyve been discovered - shouting downstairs that youve called the police, or similar, then barricade you and yours in your room with a good solid baseball bat.
If they dont, then yes, youve got good cause to defend yourself, but too many of these cases are because the intruders have been confronted, and I just feel thats unnecessary risk.
Or make them come in with their own guns putting you and your family in greater risk?
Most intruders will scarper if they know theyve been discovered - shouting downstairs that youve called the police, or similar, then barricade you and yours in your room with a good solid baseball bat.
If they dont, then yes, youve got good cause to defend yourself, but too many of these cases are because the intruders have been confronted, and I just feel thats unnecessary risk.
Still, change the law so that burglars etc know that if they enter someone property they have the risk of serious injury or death. Simples.
Still, change the law so that burglars etc know that if they enter someone property they have the risk of serious injury or death. Simples.
But thats what I mean, that wont happen, as it would possibly cause the intruders to go in with a whole new attitude and guns, and thats a scary thought :(
But thats what I mean, that wont happen, as it would possibly cause the intruders to go in with a whole new attitude and guns, and thats a scary thought :(
Prob more scary for the burglars as they know what might happen if they trespass etc.
Prob more scary for the burglars as they know what might happen if the trespass etc.
I dont think it would be a deterrent though, I just think it would make things even scarier, I mean its not like America has no breakins, just they all take guns!
though in fairness, I dont know if it would be worse if they werent allowed to defend with extreme prejudice :)
Seems the latest story on a burglar being shot has taken a surprise turn.
The two people in the property have been arrested on drug and firearm offences... as the house was a cannabis farm. :)
Seems the latest story on a burglar being shot has taken a surprise turn.
The two people in the property have been arrested on drug and firearm offences... as the house was a cannabis farm. :)
Excellent, kill 2 (or more) birds with one stone!! :D
I can't say I agree with the wording of this headline but this is definitely a move forward.
Homeowners Get New Rights To Attack Burglars
Frightened householders who over-react when confronted by burglars will get more protection under Government plans, the new Justice Secretary will say today.
Chris Grayling plans to change the law to ensure even householders who use force in a way that may seem disproportionate in the cold light of day will be protected from prosecution.
It comes after Britain's most senior judge reinforced the notion that a person's home is their castle, saying furious householders have the right to get rid of burglars in their homes and are not expected to remain calm when confronted by intruders.
Article: http://news.sky.com/story/995173/homeowners-get-new-rights-to-attack-burglars
I think this is great news, what do you guys reckon?
ChrisGlobe
09-10-12, 09:38
Let's see what happens once it's been watered down by the Houses, I think...
Only problem I can see with it is that it might encourage people to 'have a go' and get injured/killed in a fight with a burglar, whereas really the smart thing to do is call the police, and maybe make a lot of noise and try to scare off the intruder (who probably doesn't want to get into a confrontation either).
I have a hockey stick within easy reach!
Majority of the most recent burglar beatings have all favored the homeowner anyway
I see absolutely no grey area on this subject, If there was an intruder in the house where my wife and son were, and with what you see in the news almost daily regarding the depravity of the human race at the moment - I would see that intruder as an immense threat and I would feel that I had no other option than to remove that threat. If that meant scaring them and they ran away, or damaging them to a point where they were a threat no longer.
I think there is a grey area where you have someone in your house and you beat them up saying they were an intruder and get away with it.
Wow, long thread! /skiptoend
ok, same as i presume a lot have answered, regardless of this change in law, i have always maintained that if anyone entered my home without permission then i would constitute that as aggressive intent and take action. I would do whatever i could to stop them/put them down/get them out.
I wouldnt personally keep beating someone if i already had them down but i would do everything in my power to eject them from my house or keep them restrained till the police came, whichever was most appropriate in the situation.
From my point of view, any force i use would only be enough to reach that objective so i wouldnt be using excessive force anyway, just the minimal to get the job done.
Nice to know id now have at least some kind of lawful right to do this and about time too
yeah i think the law should be that if someone enters your home with the purpose to conduct criminal activities, whether it be burgulary, assault or rape or whatever then you should be able to do what you want to incapacitate that person.
@Avro, not sure you could have your mate round, have an argument and then beat him up and claim he's an intruder, there would be some sort of investigation into it, not, well thats all good in the eyes of the law, jolly good.
yeah i think the law should be that if someone enters your home with the purpose to conduct criminal activities, whether it be burgulary, assault or rape or whatever then you should be able to do what you want to incapacitate that person.
@Avro, not sure you could have your mate round, have an argument and then beat him up and claim he's an intruder, there would be some sort of investigation into it, not, well thats all good in the eyes of the law, jolly good.
i agree m8 u should be able to do what u want to people who try to break into your property, i hate lowlife people who are house thiefs
Something I was wondering is if you were allowed to do anything to someone that breaks in then what could stop you from killing someone anywhere, putting the body in your house, and saying they broke in?
The fact you can only use reasonable force, this isn't america so you can't kill someone for knocking on your door.
The fact you can only use reasonable force, this isn't america so you can't kill someone for knocking on your door.
I was on more about the new legislation being discussed where you won't get prosecuted even for what would normally seem a disproportionate amount of force as long as it's not grossly disproportionate. Seems like it'll be a very difficult rule to enforce and also wonder what would still be considered unacceptable?
The fact you can only use reasonable force, this isn't america so you can't kill someone for knocking on your door.
get out the baseball bats!!!
i don't really care about the law
if someone breaks in then they pose a threat to my fiancee and our son ( her kids i suppose included :P )
ild rather do a life sentence in prison for murder than a life sentence in my head knowing my family was hurt/possibly killed
ill fight to my last breath
i don't really care about the law
if someone breaks in then they pose a threat to my fiancee and our son ( her kids i suppose included :P )
ild rather do a life sentence in prison for murder than a life sentence in my head knowing my family was hurt/possibly killed
ill fight to my last breath
RAMBO??? :thumb:
Please stay ontopic and post in a serious manner. This is not General Discussion.
Please stay ontopic and post in a serious manner. This is not General Discussion.
Looks on topic to me??? ...Gavbon saying he would do what it takes....Just hitmans comment is a little tongue in cheek...I agree...i would go RAMBO too!
That was a reminder. I could have just deleted the post.
This is the problem for me, people saying they would rather do a life sentence etc.
Clearly if it was self defence, and reasonable force to meet the aim of protecting your family, then you would not go to prison at all, let alone a life sentence.
Smashing someone round the head repeatedly with a baseball bat when the first hit laid them out, then you have overstepped the mark.
Think of it as Pavlovian Conditioning....
This is the problem for me, people saying they would rather do a life sentence etc.
Clearly if it was self defence, and reasonable force to meet the aim of protecting your family, then you would not go to prison at all, let alone a life sentence.
Smashing someone round the head repeatedly with a baseball bat when the first hit laid them out, then you have overstepped the mark.
100% agree with you, but people can die tripping over their own shoe laces.
Its up to the courts to prove if what you did was excessive. I feel if i was in the moment, and feared for the safety of my fiancee and children, i can't tell you what i would be capable of in the moment.
well when some blokes broke into my house 5 years ago when i was living with my parents. They sprayed my mum with pepper or CS spray ( police said it was really strong)
My dad chased them down the road with all of our kitchen knives, 1 in each hand an all pockets filled with a knife( mad londoner )
The police arrested my dad , he got let off. We didnt get our knives back though.
The guys that broke in only got 4-6 months in prison.
IMO if someone breaks into your house with intent on hurting or stealing from you. You should be allowed to do anything too defend yourself even if that means killing them.
Tommytucka
16-01-13, 19:19
well when some blokes broke into my house 5 years ago when i was living with my parents. They sprayed my mum with pepper or CS spray ( police said it was really strong)
My dad chased them down the road with all of our kitchen knives, 1 in each hand an all pockets filled with a knife( mad londoner )
The police arrested my dad , he got let off. We didnt get our knives back though.
The guys that broke in only got 4-6 months in prison.
IMO if someone breaks into your house with intent on hurting or stealing from you. You should be allowed to do anything too defend yourself even if that means killing them.
I agree with this, if they're willing to do anything to get what they want, then you should be able to return the favour!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.