LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksif it were down to me i'd have my house lookign like "home alone" every time i went on holiday
if it were down to me i'd have my house lookign like "home alone" every time i went on holiday
if it ain't broke...fix it till it is
Pretty useless post to be honest, doesnt really add anything to the thread, just seems kinda childish to me.Originally Posted by TKPeters
I can't really give my view on this from someone who has experienced this, as well because I haven't. All I have experienced is attempted muggings when both on my own and with friends, some I stood and fought and some I knew better and knew of the people so knew they carried weapons, in which case I turned tail and ran.
BUT, if I were at home and someone broke in, there is no way I would let them leave without atleast getting a bit of a kick in, after all it is MY home and they have NO right to be there, im not saying I would go as far as stabbing them or chasing them down the street, but I would make sure they were in pain when they left.
It didn't fall off, it merely became insufficient at it's purpose and got a bit droopy...
Not quite the same thing - but there was a local woman who got killed by her own car the other day, after trying to stop thieves driving off with it
Everyone should be entitled to defend his home etc.
Everyone is allowed to. The issue is how, how far you can go.
A car is a little different to your home, although a very tragic case.Not quite the same thing - but there was a local woman who got killed by her own car the other day, after trying to stop thieves driving off with it
Personally I would have done the same although shifted out the way when the engine was being revved up, after all its insured & I'd rather lose a car than my life.
It is a good reason why you don't leave the keys in the car whilst warming it up
Of course it doesn't make the experience less traumatic, and I didn't say that it implied "all's well that ends well, no hard done".
But nor does beating the proverbial out of someone with a medical condition make it any better for the family, and giving someone that didn't know what they were doing a beating severe enough to cause permanent brain damage doesn't help either. It won't make the family any less traumatised.
That kind of a beating was, as far as I'm concerned, simply about handing out vengeance, and we don't have a society where we allow that.
If we did have a society where we were allowed to take the law into our own hands, how long before someone handing out their own severe vengeance kills in vengeance? And how long before someone doing that does it in error, and gets the wrong person?
HOw would you feel if a close member of your family was killed, in error, by someone that decided to take the law into their own hands? And, if they killed your relative by mistake, then what> Do you take the law into your own hands and go kill them?
That way lies anarchy, or at the very least, the law of the jungle.
And, just for the record, using diminished capacity as a defence isn't increasingly popular, It's actually very difficult to establish, because the bar to proving that is set very high. And, if you do establish it, it doesn't mean you get off with the offence either. For instance, it means you can't be guilty of murder because you lack the necessary mens rea, but you can be convicted of manslaughter which, by the way, can still carry a life sentence. And, if you do establish diminished capacity in a violent attack, the likely outcome is that instead of a determinate sentence in jail, you'll probably end up with an indeterminate compulsory stay in a mental hospital, which may well mean you don't get out until you can convince the doctors you're no longer a risk to others.
Using "mental incapacity" as a defence is not only quite hard to achieve, but is not necessarily a cushy option even if you succeed, and certainly isn't any form of 'get out of jail free' card.
He shouldnt of chased the guy down the road, but at the end of the day I dont give a toss, you break into my house you pay, end of conversation.
The problem starts with the "reasonable" force thing, its very open to interpretation and also depends on the house holder, if you break into next door's house and he breaks your arm struggling your fine, if I break an arm as what would be classed as a martial arts expert (Been doing it for 4 years, however I hold no belts nor certificates) I would get bollocked for it as I should be able to show restraint and control, and I'm guessing "I broke his arm not his neck" wouldnt count as being restrained ior showing control lol...
I agree, Trig, it's open to interpretation. And that's why it's hard to explain to people definitively what you can and can't do.
A good rule of thumb, therefore, is to try top use the minimum force necessary that's consistent with defending yourself, other people or your property. At the same time, the CPS seems to use the yardstick of giving leeway unless the force appears to be clearly excessive and probably grossly excessive.
However .... if someone burgling your house comes away with serous injuries inflicted by you, you're almost certainly going to face an investigation into how those injuries occurred with at least the possibility of being charged. So .... if you want to avoid having that hanging over you for weeks or months, it's best to avoid inflicting serious injury in the first place if you can.
But at the end of the day, the CPS know full well that getting a conviction means getting it past a jury, most of whom will be homeowners thinking "that could have been me he burgled" and variations of "the scumbag deserved it" reaction as seen in this thread. So they know they're likely wasting their time taking it to a jury unless they can show it was clearly excessive.
'Reasonable Force' eh?
Ok, FWIW I didn't stab my intruder. He had left me alone in bed assuming I'd be too scared to follow I suppose, and I followed him downstairs. He saw me, lunged at me with a knife (a letter opener, actually) smiled then wandered into my living room.
He was in there helping himself to my stereo and I went into the kitchen looking for a weapon. He'd taken all the big sharp knives from the cutlery draw and hid them so I looked around for something suitable.
My eyes fell on a full bottle of brandy, a christmas present.
I picked that up, walked up behind him and brought it down hard across the back of his head. that's why there was so much blood. He was unconcious for several minutes.
Try and picture my state of mind at the time, I was scared and angry and my main overwhelming thought was to get the intruder out of my home. He had also tried to stab me when I came downstairs initially.
Everybody says 'I'll do this, I'll do that' but imo an individual really doesn't know how they'll react until experiencing a situation. This is what I found.
In all honesty, I'm not violent, always tried to avoid a ruck when younger and hadn't had a fight in 15 years at least prior to that incident.
Anyway, point I'm trying to make is a senior female police officer at Greenwich police station had to make a decision whether to charge me or not and she decided not to charge, as in her opinion I had used 'reasonable force'.
I will add that once I was free to go I still had to make a statemnet as a witness, during whch time I was warmly recieved by what seemed like the entire personnel on duty in the police station and given a look at two of their incident setups, one for burglary, the other for mugging. They had lots of pictures for each group pinned up on the wall. Two large walls.
That was interesting, there was a distinct likeness about all suspects in each group and a very distinct difference between suspects in both groups. You can work out for yourself what that difference was.
It's my guess that lots of cases similar to mine don't make headlines simply because the police have acted with reason. But I could be wrong.
As for this argument about showing leniency to an intruder with a mental health condition, perhaps I've not read this entirely correctly but how are you supposed to know?
I suppose if all mentally ill burglars wore a badge proclaiming 'forgive me I'm a loony' then maybe you'd hesitate before beating the living crap out of him. Maybe.
And also FWIW, I don't uphold rough justice and I mostly oppose the death penalty, though sometimes I question that view.
CAT-THE-FIFTH (16-01-2010),samcross (17-01-2010)
What is being discussed on that topic, is the charge dispensed by the justice system, not how it influences how one defends their home.
Exactly!
Also more importantly the justice system should be ascertaining why someone has illegally entered your home in the first place and giving an appropriate punishment instead of trying to sympathise with them.
Most people will probably get into deeper trouble not paying their TV license or council tax as opposed to breaking into someone's home and even threatening them with violence. Calling it a justice system is a bit rich TBH!!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 17-01-2010 at 12:06 AM.
Aye, suppose so, but topics meander don't they?
And most of what I read here is related, I certainly consider what I've posted to be relevant.
I think perhaps you did misinterpret what I meant.
It's not about showing leniency in the sense of not using reasonable force. Based on your description, protecting yourself with reasonable force is reasonable regardless of the mental state of the intruder. It's about not using grossly excessive force to hand out mob justice when you and some friends have chased the intruder down the street. I'm using it as one reason why mob justice is a bad idea, not suggesting that it impacts on you using reasonable force to defend yourself.
And, of course, you can't "know" most of the time, which is partly why it's a reason for not handing out mob justice.
No objection if you wanted to introduce a related view, but up to that point I don't think anyone has said that you need to take someone's mental condition in mind when defending your home. It's not even an argument I've heard before so I've got to ask "whose argument" are you referring to, and had to ask if you did not indeed misread what some posters have said.
On the subject of an intruder's mental condition I believe it was this comment by Saracen which sparked off this part of the debate:
This thread was started by CAT-THE-FIFTH with a couple of links to news stories that told of a person being prosecuted for killing an intruder in their home.
I have commented on that and also written a couple of posts pointing out that I came close to being in that person's shoes all of which I believe to be relevant.
And my experience, if I may say, was far from pleasant, I sincerely hope it doesn't happen to anybody here.
I could expostulate further but tbh I can't be arsed to ponder over hundreds of lines of text here and quote this that and the other to justify your nit-picking question.
As for you 'having no objection' to me 'introducing a related view' with all respect just who are you to object or not?
I stand by what I've posted as being relevant and of interest to this thread and I really don't give a monkeys if you object or not, in this instance.
Had I wandered off-topic or posted something frivolous or lacking some definite contribution - like that comment about the shotgun/tripwire - you'd be justified in your objection, but not in this instance, I feel.
Sorry, but I just had to voice that. I wish you well.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote