Don't defend yourself if you are burgled!!

[badass]

IMO the underlying problem here isn't the definition of reasonable force. It's the lack of a cap on the punishment of a householder going over the top.
It is possible that you have situations where the only difference is that one householder stabs the would be burgler one more time than the other and gets a mandatory life sentence whilst the other gets no punishment at all. Both murder and manslaughter carry a mandatory life sentence, although eligibility for parole and whether to suspend the sentence are up to the judge.
The punishment needs to be capped at something like 2 years in prison for someone who commits murder on a would be burgler and the sentencing guidelines need to make it clear that is only ever to be used for a repeat offender where they have deliberately planned the murder.
Pretty much everything else should be at worst a couple of months and it should be suspended. Going through court for this is enough punishment and deterrant for someone that essentially went over the top defending their house. Also, the burden of proof needs to move when someone's house is invaded. It should be up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the house wasn't being burgled/robbed to pursue a householder fro murder.
Currently, I believe that although the CPS have to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt, to use the "self defence" defence the accused does not simply have to introduce reasonable doubt. IIRC they have to show "on the balance of probabilities" or somesuch that it was self defence.
Secondly, this piece of crap government should start funding charities for victims. There are over 30 government institutions to assist the offender and not a single one for victims yet they have the balls to add a victim surcharge of speeding fines.
A properly set up charity should then assist the victims in civil recovery from the scum. Yes, you can currently sue any burgler that got caught and everyone in that situation should do so and should have the free assistance in doing so.

[aidanjt]

Exactly. The institutional victim punishment and criminal aid is repulsive, and wholly unjust.

[Noggin]

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.

Killing him (with 1 slash) is almost certainly reasonable force in this situation (if he runs and you persue and finish the job it would be murder though). The law really does protect the home owners if what you are doing is to protect yourself or your family especially if you are acting instinctivly. As soon you as what you are doing is not about protection and instead about punishment or revenge then it's unreasonable.

I think there are areas where I'm not sure what is right too though if your children are upstairs and you catch an intruder going up the stairs and a small women hits him around the head with a frying pan and knock him out cold what happens next has to be a really grey area. We've all been conditioned on tv shows where the baddy is incapacitated and then gets up, he is between the woman and her kids (being on the stairs) and the women doesn't feel she could take him if he grabs her as she goes past him for her children. If I were this women I'd want to lay a few extra blows to his head with the frying pan while he was unconcious to protect myself and the children but I'm not sure this would be classed as reasonable.

[Noggin]

does anyone actually have an example where someone has been jailed while simply protecting their family in their home? The only cases I can think off were obviously unreasonable force like shooting someone in the back as they ran.

[Noggin]

Exactly. The institutional victim punishment and criminal aid is repulsive, and wholly unjust.

it would be unjust if it existed, I really don't belive it does. I have no sympathy for murdered burglers but who really feels that death is a fair punishment for non agrevated burglary of a TV by kids?

we don't have any facts to know what happend but it's been made very clear that it's ok to use force to protect yourself and your family.

[aidanjt]

http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...ml#post1804293

You were saying?

[matty-hodgson]

it would be unjust if it existed, I really don't belive it does. I have no sympathy for murdered burglers but who really feels that death is a fair punishment for non agrevated burglary of a TV by kids?

I feel that death is a very fair punishment. Breaking into someone else's house and trying and take their hard earned possessions is one thing, but the fright and unexpected trauma of having two unwanted people, probably dressed in hoods, etc., is worth a lot more in terms of punishment.

The fact that he got killed due to him trying to burgle this poor man's house really doesn't bother me one tiny little iota.

I hope he rots in hell.

[Noggin]

http://forums.hexus.net/question-tim...ml#post1804293

You were saying?

I'd like to see much harsher punishments for burglary and clearly if the daily mail version of events is accurate (and I trust them as much as I trust the sun to give a reasonable view) he has been treated stupidly lightly but that doesn't in the slightest conflict with what I've been saying, I have no idea why you think it does.

[Noggin]

I feel that death is a very fair punishment. Breaking into someone else's house and trying and take their hard earned possessions is one thing, but the fright and unexpected trauma of having two unwanted people, probably dressed in hoods, etc., is worth a lot more in terms of punishment.

The fact that he got killed due to him trying to burgle this poor man's house really doesn't bother me one tiny little iota.

I hope he rots in hell.

I think burglary should be worth years in jail, but you really belive we should have the death penalty for burglary no matter the age of the criminal? Is there a single country in the world that has a justice system as harsh as that? How easy it would be to exploit it to get rid of someone you don't like too.

[shaithis]

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 the phrase "excessive force" that annoys me in all this. I find it a complete joke that anything could be excessive when it comes to defending yourself and your property.

The law really needs to change, although I doubt it will any time soon and theiving scum will continue to be protected by "the law".

And the police wonder why so many do not respect them.

[matty-hodgson]

I think burglary should be worth years in jail, but you really belive we should have the death penalty for burglary no matter the age of the criminal? Is there a single country in the world that has a justice system as harsh as that? How easy it would be to exploit it to get rid of someone you don't like too.

I don't believe we should have the death penalty, that's just not even an option, but I do believe that this kid got what he deserved.
If you're prepared to break into someone's house and take their things then you should be prepared to lose all human rights at the gate.

One other aspect of this I really think should be taken into account is mens rea and actus reus, as far as I can tell from this case, this man will have possessed neither of these mental states during his act of protecting his home.

So, I'll ask you one question, do you really think this man should get prosecuted for murder just because he protected his home?

[aidanjt]

I'd like to see much harsher punishments for burglary and clearly if the daily mail version of events is accurate (and I trust them as much as I trust the sun to give a reasonable view) he has been treated stupidly lightly but that doesn't in the slightest conflict with what I've been saying, I have no idea why you think it does.

He wasn't just treated lightly for his crimes, on the contrary, he was rewarded and given a pat on the head. And how was his victims compensated?.. Probably told 'tough ****'. Had he been killed in the commission of a crime, the victim would probably have been jailed, and/or fined, because 'excessive force' was used.

That aside, all this huggyfeely crap costs the tax payer significant sums of money, so these low lifes are still leaching off their victims.

[Noggin]

He wasn't just treated lightly for his crimes, on the contrary, he was rewarded and given a pat on the head. And how was his victims compensated?.. Probably told 'tough ****'. Had he been killed in the commission of a crime, the victim would probably have been jailed, and/or fined, because 'excessive force' was used.

That aside, all this huggyfeely crap costs the tax payer significant sums of money, so these low lifes are still leaching off their victims.

He wasn't rewarded though was he? thats the daily mail twisting things, unemployed people get their rent paid for them. So he got a curfew, community service and forced to leave the area but getting his rent paid is the same as if he hadn't commited these crimes.

While I would lock him up too he hasn't been rewarded and anyone should take anything the daily mail say with a huge pinch of salt.

[Noggin]

I don't believe we should have the death penalty, that's just not even an option, but I do believe that this kid got what he deserved.
If you're prepared to break into someone's house and take their things then you should be prepared to lose all human rights at the gate.

One other aspect of this I really think should be taken into account is mens rea and actus reus, as far as I can tell from this case, this man will have possessed neither of these mental states during his act of protecting his home.

So, I'll ask you one question, do you really think this man should get prosecuted for murder just because he protected his home?

He chased the guy up the street to stab him (or stabbed him and then chased him up the street with a knife, the news articles arn't clear) so yes I do think there is a case to answer.

I don't belive anyone who kills someone while defending themselves or their family should be prosecuted for murder but the simple fact of the matter that so many seem to be missing is the law doesn't think they should either. running up the street with a knife isn't protecting yourself, in fact it's actually increasing the chances of you getting hurt.

[matty-hodgson]

He chased the guy up the street to stab him (or stabbed him and then chased him up the street with a knife, the news articles arn't clear) so yes I do think there is a case to answer.

I don't belive anyone who kills someone while defending themselves or their family should be prosecuted for murder but the simple fact of the matter that so many seem to be missing is the law doesn't think they should either.

can I ask how you know how he chased him up the street with a knife?

[aidanjt]

He wasn't rewarded though was he? thats the daily mail twisting things, unemployed people get their rent paid for them. So he got a curfew, community service and forced to leave the area but getting his rent paid is the same as if he hadn't commited these crimes.

While I would lock him up too he hasn't been rewarded and anyone should take anything the daily mail say with a huge pinch of salt.

Are you serious? He isn't unemployed, he's a career criminal, and the moment the heat dies down he'll start all over again. Even if he actually did honest to God work from now until he was 70, and paid every penny he earned back to his victims, he still wouldn't cover the cost of his criminal rampage. And for that, he was dumped somewhere else, board and spread paid for, by the tax payer. And that doesn't even go near the cost involved with investigation and prosecution.

How was he punished?.. Please, I'd love to know.