Don't defend yourself if you are burgled!!

[Noggin]

What if the person was just using a knife to ward them off and there was a struggle then?? Especially when you are out numbered two to one!!

The same goes if they try to attack you and you hit them with whatever is to hand. What if the attacker is injured(or worse) in that case??

If you are scared for you life then what are you meant to do then in the heat of the moment?? I am not condoning physical violence but on the other hand what right have these ruffians got to ransack your house. I get the impression that if I even touch these chaps you will end in trouble and they will get some light sentence or community service.

you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and that would include using a knife if necessary, if you pick up a knife to protect yourself and they attack and you kill them while there would be an investigation the law is on your side.

If you pick up a knife to defend yourself and they panic and run and you chase them and attack then you will be done for murder.

I think the law is fine and most of the you can't defend yourself posts just arn't accurate. We don't have the facts at hand to know if this person is being unfairly treated by being charged with murder.

[peterb]

<---snip

And whatever happened to freedom of speech 0iD

Freedom of speech is a right - and with rights come responsibilities - which include not using language that may be deemed offensive to others (who also have rights). Hexus rules clearly state the boundaries (and that includes guidance on language and use of characters to defeat the swear filter.)

It's a good thread - but keep things cool....

[Andeh13]

Thanked the comments I agree with. Release him, thank him & praise as a hero IMO. One less yob, saved the police some time, and ultimately helped prevent other families being burgled further down the road!

[Revilgo]

No, you CAN defend yourself when your home is burgled while you're at home. As Saracen previously mentioned, it depends on whether the force you use is "reasonable". The question of what is "reasonable" is both a matter of fact and with consideration to the householder's state of mind.

For ex. if the burglar came armed with any tools such as crowbars or even just a screw driver etc. and the householder saw this and is fearful for his or his family members' life, it would be reasonable for him to arm himself and confront the burglar. Should the burglar then attack the householder and is killed by the householder in the process, then that would be in reasonable self-defense. However, if, as in the Martin case, the burglar turns and run and the householder gives chase and kills the burglar then the force use would be deemed "unreasonable". The key here is not only the householder's state of mind, but also whether the "escalation" of force and of arms is porportional and therefore reasonable.

So it is not enough simply for the householder to claim to be in fear for his or his family members' life and safety. The facts, both in testimony and from forensic evidence, need to born that out. But where the forensic evidence and reconstructed sequence of events are indeterminable and in doubt, the chances are reasonably good that the jury will find in favour of the householder, particularly as the standard of proof in such cases need to be beyond reasonable doubt, which is much higher than on a balance of probablities in civil disputes. But even then the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) may still try their luck if they feel the chances are good for a successful prosecution, based on available evidence. It's a judgement call.

I should be charging for this........but then I'll be liable.

So here's the disclaimer: Should any Hexus members find themselves in similar situtions - consult a qualified legal professional.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Probably need an ED209!!



If it kills the burglar blame the faulty programming!!

[mmh]

No, you CAN defend yourself when your home is burgled while you're at home. As Saracen previously mentioned, it depends on whether the force you use is "reasonable". The question of what is "reasonable" is both a matter of fact and with consideration to the householder's state of mind.

For ex. if the burglar came armed with any tools such as crowbars or even just a screw driver etc. and the householder saw this and is fearful for his or his family members' life, it would be reasonable for him to arm himself and confront the burglar. Should the burglar then attack the householder and is killed by the householder in the process, then that would be in reasonable self-defense. However, if, as in the Martin case, the burglar turns and run and the householder gives chase and kills the burglar then the force use would be deemed "unreasonable". The key here is not only the householder's state of mind, but also whether the "escalation" of force and of arms is porportional and therefore reasonable.

So it is not enough simply for the householder to claim to be in fear for his or his family members' life and safety. The facts, both in testimony and from forensic evidence, need to born that out. But where the forensic evidence and reconstructed sequence of events are indeterminable and in doubt, the chances are reasonably good that the jury will find in favour of the householder, particularly as the standard of proof in such cases need to be beyond reasonable doubt, which is much higher than on a balance of probablities in civil disputes. But even then the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) may still try their luck if they feel the chances are good for a successful prosecution, based on available evidence. It's a judgement call.

I should be charging for this........but then I'll be liable.

So here's the disclaimer: Should any Hexus members find themselves in similar situtions - consult a qualified legal professional.

I dont care how the law stands... reasonable force stops at the door/window they came in through...

is it reasonable to be burgalled?

is it reasonable to be fearful that it might happen again?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The funny thing is that in the UK is that the occupiers of the home need to know their legal rights during home invasions but not obviously the ruffians doing the actually invading. If anything once these criminals are caught they should not only serve time in prison but also be made to pay back any costs incurred to the people they have burgled. In many poor countries it is understandable why people are involved in burglary as they would be on the street but here we have a welfare state which provides basic amenities which people can survive on.

[Revilgo]

I dont care how the law stands... reasonable force stops at the door/window they came in through...

is it reasonable to be burgalled?

is it reasonable to be fearful that it might happen again?

That would be a question for political debate... please consult your local MP to legislate otherwise should you feel that strongly about it. Most laws unfortunately tended to legislate "for the lowest common denominator" in that it needed to suit the interest of the highest number of people, i.e. the society as a whole. Moral questions of right or wrong is often irrelevant and more often than not needed to be balanced against other interests, even if it is cold comfort to victims of crimes.

[Saracen]

I dont care how the law stands... reasonable force stops at the door/window they came in through...

is it reasonable to be burgalled?

is it reasonable to be fearful that it might happen again?

It can be argued that it should stop at the door/window, but as I said before, the risk is that more householders would get hurt, or killed, if it did. And of course, the law says it doesn't, which is why extreme force, unless justified as "reasonable", can land the householder in a LOT of trouble. On the one hand, you get burgled. But go too far and you get burgled and end up at the very least the subject of a murder investigation and have that hanging over you for a year or more. And if convicted ......

No, it's not reasonable to be burgled or fearful of being burgled again. But anyone applying grossly excessive force can end up paying a very high price for it indeed. It's rare, but not a price worth paying in my opinion, however morally justifiable most householders might think it is. The law isn't what we might want it to be, but it is what it is and you ignore that at your peril.

[Knoxville]

I dont care how the law stands... reasonable force stops at the door/window they came in through...

is it reasonable to be burgalled?

is it reasonable to be fearful that it might happen again?

I agree, how the law would treat me is the last thing I thought of when I caught some toe rag trying to get into my house but is it reasonable to beat someone senseless just for being on your property? Not unless they act in a manner that leads me to believe they intend to do harm to me and mine in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to arm myself with something, you know this, but unless the burglar in question wields anything in my direction other than harsh language I'll be the last to swing at them because to beat someone senseless that doesn't intend to do the same to you is far worse than creeping through an open window and having away with a flatscreen.

[TooNice]

I can think of a number of scenarios where I am not sure where 'reasonable' is drawn.

Let's say a single mom, 5.3", weighing barely 50kg wakes up in the middle of the night after hearing glass break in the kitchen. Not quite suspecting a break in, she goes down to check it out, only to see a man, towering her by a just over a feet holding a baseball bat who also spots her. The man's intention is unknown, but what is fairly clear is that she can't outrun the man, or outscuffle him if he gets his hand on her first (fact she understood as soon as she saw him).

If by chance she snaps out of being startled before the would-be robber (lets say he was an amateur and did not actually expected anyone to be in the house) and decides to risk it all and use her element of surprise by grabbing a cleaver and slash right at the guy's throat (and it actually connected) before he could react, and the man dies before the ambulance arrived. Would that be excessive force? If it is what would one expect the woman to do under those circumstances?

- Should she have tried to initiate a dialogue?
- Wait and see if the man would retreat first?
- Wait and see until the man make a threatening gesture towards her?

The problem is that all those options takes away her element of surprise and in her mind she doesn't know if she's dealing with a burglar, rapist or murderer (or some combination).

[In this example, I used a large man vs a small woman to exaggerate the difference, but it could be something else like big guy vs small guy, two vs one, gun vs knife, basically, a case where the householder could be at a significant advantage if a surprise pre-emptive strike]

Personally, I do agree to having a line drawn somewhere. I don't think that one should be allowed to kidnap a would-be burglar then slowly torture and cut the person to pieces. But most of the time, we aren't dealing with extremes like this and I worry that law-abiding people would not know what they are allowed to do to deal with a greater number/better armed or physically more imposing invader.

[TeePee]

There should be no obligation to retreat within ones own home.

Anyone breaking into my house when occupied would be met with 9mm or 12 gauge.

As the saying goes, it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

[MadduckUK]

As the saying goes, it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

i haven't heard that saying before, but i like it!

[Revilgo]

Let's say a single mom, 5.3", weighing barely 50kg wakes up in the middle of the night...

That would relate to the householder's state of mind relative to his/her "status" and reasoning, ie. her physical fitness, past history, personality etc.. The assessment of the householder's state of mind is therefore a subjective test, i.e. it is what she feels that is of relevance.

In contrast, what is "reasonable" is an objective test in that would a third person similar to the householder and in her position react in the same way under those condition so as to render her actions "reasonable"? The other consideration is whether she has other viable, alternative courses of action, such as screaming for help or run away etc.

The difficulty with discussing hypothetical scenarios is that there are just potentially too many different variables so that apart from case studies that are based on past cases, each individual case must necessarily be considered on its own merit.

Anyone breaking into my house when occupied would be met with 9mm or 12 gauge.

Each nation's laws are based on that nation's history, culture and experience so as render meaningful comparison kinda difficult. You may meet the burglar with a 12 gauge or a 9mm, but the burglar too will also likely come "packing" as well. I rather prefer not to have an arms race from the word go.

[TooNice]

The difficulty with discussing hypothetical scenarios is that there are just potentially too many different variables so that apart from case studies that are based on past cases, each individual case must necessarily be considered on its own merit.

Yet the burden of uncertainty is one a householder end up carrying. 'Can I try to restrain him without causing harm? Should I wait to see he does first? What are the risks if insufficient force is applied? What I am about to do is viewed as excessive? Can I outrun him?' are probably some of the things that may go through one's mind. And those thoughts may well give the aggressor the advantage.

Another potential issue is, without experiencing or at least see a number of similar situation, can the jury objectively able determine if a third person would react in similar manner? Or that it is the appropriate choice?

[aidanjt]

There is a simple way to deal with the problem. Stop tying up householders hands. Make it a no-holds barred turkey-shoot on burglars. You kill multiple problems with one stone. And cut down on paperwork at the same time, which is always a good thing.

All this huggyfeely crap for the 'poor, misunderstood criminals' makes my blood boil and my stomach regurgitate my lunch.