Don't defend yourself if you are burgled!!

[Behemoth]

Sorry, but if any thieving scum bag entered my house by forceful means and I had something to batter him, I would.

[Saracen]

I reckon that most people would recognised a uniformed officer/fireman even if they did not hear an announcement, and I would expect that most people won't rush in to incapacitate the 'intruder' in those instances (just hope no burglars get the idea of impersonating a uniformed individual).

Perhaps they would .... if a police officer is in uniform.

But did you know that there are circumstances under which gas and electricity officials can force entry? Aside from emergency situations, like a gas leak, landlords have legal obligations to carry out safety checks and servicing on gas appliances, and if they haven't been able to obtain entry voluntarily, can and will be given a warrant to force entry by Magistrates.

But that's all getting aside from the point, which was that "open season" on intruders could go wrong in all sorts of ways, including visiting serious violence on people legitimately on the premises simply to do their job. Granted, it's not likely to be a gas engineer wanting to service the boiler at 5AM, but it could be police, or emergency access, or even a Customs raid. And at more sociable hours, it could be a court bailiff acting on an execution order for payment of fines. Our homes are not entirely our castles, however much we might like to think they are. And if it were a court bailiff acting on a warrant, and you used serious force to "defend" your goods, you're in a whole world of trouble.

Should homeowners be allowed to defend themselves, and their possessions, against criminals breaking into their homes? Yes, of course. And we are.

But there has to be an element of perspective about it, and about how much force is reasonable. We do have considerable latitude, but a burglar just being on the premises is not a licence to kill. and nor, in my view, should it be.

But I would just reiterate what I said right at the start of my first post on this subject. If a burglar did get killed burgling, I would have not one iota of sympathy, and it would take one hell of a convincing case of grossly excessive force to get me to convict if the court were stupid enough to require me to serve on the jury.

[SammEl]

It should be like this.

The second you step into someone's house if you are a thief - You lose ALL rights.

Whatever happens to you once you are inside is now up to the homeowner or whoever is staying in the house. If you get killed or tortured, burnt or decapitated, there should be NO charge against whoever did it.

[Perfectionist]

That's pretty much how it is in the US. Really, there's not many reasons left to stay in the UK, it's changed beyond recognition, the whole non-violence thing just doesn't work in modern times.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

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 you even touch these chaps you will end in trouble and they will get some light sentence or community service.

i would simply kill the burgular and face prison if need be. that way i myself is still alive and well in a prison where their is a swiming pool, xbox 360's etc

kill or be killed

[badass]

It should be like this.

The second you step into someone's house if you are a thief - You lose ALL rights.

Whatever happens to you once you are inside is now up to the homeowner or whoever is staying in the house. If you get killed or tortured, burnt or decapitated, there should be NO charge against whoever did it.

What if the homeowner invites someone in then stabs them?
What about all of the points Saracen has raised?

[GaryRW]

I'm with Saracen on this one. Pretty much everything he has said. I don't want anyone breaking into my house thinking I've got a legal right to kill them and jumping me the moment they see me.

On balance, they're going to beat the bejesus out of me rather than the other way around (I have no ego on such things). They are likely to be the one who knows what's going on and are awake - I've lost count of the times I've come down stairs at silly o'clock in the morning because my sodding cats have knocked something over, and I'm pretty sure any burglar would have been in a much better position to start fighting than I would be when I've just woken up.

I do not want them thinking I have a free reign to kill and that I'm one of the psychopaths (kidding ) in this thread who'll kill a burglar without hesitation because there's no repercussions.

BUT - I'm with Saracen on the lack of sympathy front. Get me on a jury, and reasonable force is going to have a very wide definition. Chasing someone up the road to stab them in the back is about the point where I would start to consider you might have crossed the line.

And that is the safety net in this system. Yes you may have a horrible year or so waiting for the trial (& I don't underestimate what that must be like) but the very, very good chances are that any jury is going to take the majority view here i.e. you can do pretty much anything other than stabbing an unconscious person.

[j_r_f]

The law in the UK seems to have turned too much into an intellectual exercise after the fact rather than taking into account the true motives of the perpetrator and the emotional state of the victim. I have not been the victim of burglary but have been assaulted and then accused by the attacker of being the instigator of the situation - at the time you just want to remove the threat to yourself and your family by any means and not weigh up the pro's and con's of how "forceful" you should be.

[j_r_f]

and as an addendum - this case ended up 5 minutes away from actually going into court before the attackers changed their plea - even if you are in the right and the victim you still potentially have the stress of court many months after the incident

[Barrichello]

Another example.....

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs who were threatening to kill his family has been jailed for 30 months, while his attackers escaped a jail sentence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...ffset=0&page=1

I do not deny that the force used was excessive but at the same time, your loved ones have just been held hostage by knife wielding intruders, who wouldn't lose it?

Would the verdict of been different if he had attacked the intruder in his house rather than in the street?

[usxhe190]

Well, that is the beauty of having a word like "reasonable" - it can change over time.

So to anyone who thinks it is reasonable for a thief to be killed the moment he is in the house, then that's fine, just get enough people on the jury and then you are set.

Reasonable is a fact that is decided by a reasonable person

[Saracen]

That's a rather different scenario, though, Barrichello. Violence in direct defence is one thing. Even chasing the bloke down the street and using force to "arrest" him is fair enoguh, though you've got to be a bit careful.

But when it goes as far as, once you've got him, beating him around the head with a cricket bat so hard the bat broke in three palces, and when witnesses describe three men laying into him with weapons including a metal pole, resulting in "permanent brain damage", then I'm afraid it's no longer self-defence. It ceased being self-defence when the offender fled and got chased down the street, and turned into the modern equivalent of lynch mob justice.

I've said in many threads like this that I have no sympathy for burglars hurt while burgling. For instance, I have no sympathy for Fred Barras and if I have a regret about the Tony Martin case it;s that he wasn't a better shot and didn't nail Fearon too. But ..... mangling a burglar is one thing, chasing the bloke down the street to administer your own justice is entirely another. It's anger and revenge speaking, not self-defence.

I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal when it comes to what happens to burglars, but in going as far as Munir Hussain did, you go from victim to offender yourself. And it seems to me given the nature of the injuries that he got off lightly because of the burglary, but I'd agree with the judge, he should not have taken it anything like that far.

[educatedfool]

And yet many people in this thread will scoff at the draconian measures several middle eastern countries use to deter criminals.

[Barrichello]

That's a rather different scenario, though, Barrichello. Violence in direct defence is one thing. Even chasing the bloke down the street and using force to "arrest" him is fair enoguh, though you've got to be a bit careful.

But when it goes as far as, once you've got him, beating him around the head with a cricket bat so hard the bat broke in three palces, and when witnesses describe three men laying into him with weapons including a metal pole, resulting in "permanent brain damage", then I'm afraid it's no longer self-defence. It ceased being self-defence when the offender fled and got chased down the street, and turned into the modern equivalent of lynch mob justice.

I've said in many threads like this that I have no sympathy for burglars hurt while burgling. For instance, I have no sympathy for Fred Barras and if I have a regret about the Tony Martin case it;s that he wasn't a better shot and didn't nail Fearon too. But ..... mangling a burglar is one thing, chasing the bloke down the street to administer your own justice is entirely another. It's anger and revenge speaking, not self-defence.

I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal when it comes to what happens to burglars, but in going as far as Munir Hussain did, you go from victim to offender yourself. And it seems to me given the nature of the injuries that he got off lightly because of the burglary, but I'd agree with the judge, he should not have taken it anything like that far.

hmmm - I appreciate, its a different scenario in that he actively pursued the offender, i was just highlighting how the thief (who has offended over 50 times) got no sentence at all and has since re-offended, whats that about?

[IronWarrior]

He got what he deserved, we so need to change our crap laws in regards to persons breaking into peoples homes.

[shaithis]

I feel sorry for the guy......while he (and the others with him) did take the law into their own hands, it has gotten to the point where you feel you need to if you want to see burglars brought to any kind of justice..........because half the time, the police will never catch them.