Burglars

[RVF500]

Define 'reasonable force'

This is the sticking point. Where does one person's reasonable force meet anothers grossly excessive? Just what was going on when Mrs Bouquet rammed the carving knife into the burglars chest? Or more likely Mrs B was curled up on the floor getting a shoeing because she was too afraid of the law to do anything. No doubt hoping that the assailant doesn't decide to add rape to his list of crimes.

The call has not been for open season on burglars but for a shifting of emphasis. The media has done a great deal to promote this feeling of victims being criminalised. The authorities haven't helped. It needs to be loud and clear. It's all very well Nicho knowing about the workings of the law. He has a law degree. I don't. Nor, like the vast majority of people, am I going to spend time familiarising myself with the niceties. It's not high on the list of priorities for most people. Therefore we take our news from the loudest source. That source is not govt or authority. What we hear from that direction is a loud warning not to take the law into our own hands as that will be severely dealt with. Which most translate as "thump a burglar and you go to jail". Right or wrong, that is what people think.

The current 'reasonable force' test is too grey an area. It needs to be shifted so that people feel secure that the law will protect them. People do not feel that. Many feel it will persecute them.

Recorded burglaries are down. I wonder what the true number is? Given the example of 4 days to respond and then made to feel as if the victim is the criminal. How many people feel there is no point reporting it? Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime? My ar*e.

Personally, would I batter an intruder if I got the drop on them? Damn right. Would I call the police? No, I don't trust them.

[Rave]

I don't actually get your point though RVF. The reasonable force test can only really be a grey area, I don't see how you can change the law so that a judgement of some kind is not required. If you make it so that it's always legal to attack intruders, then you'd have to have a system to judge whether someone is an intruder or not. It can never be a black and white issue.

You can rattle on all you like about people not feeling secure in their homes, but the point remains that the law does allow you to defend yourself and your property. If you actually want to make a difference you should be campaigning aginst the press who spread the misinformation, and campaigning for the police to apply the law more fairly and more effectively. These calls for the law to be changed are a dangerous red herring because they distract attention away from the real problem.

Rich :¬)

[nichomach]

To deal with RVF's last point first, you don't have to rely upon reported crime, indeed given the way the police rejig the figures every so often to give themselves a better clearup rate, reported crime is a very dubious way of estimating actual crime. The British Crime Survey, on the other hand has recorded crime falling year on year since 1994. They note that some offences are on the increase (public order offences like affray, your basic drunken fights at closing time, that sort of thing), but property crimes like domestic burglaries are down significantly. They arrive at their figures by surveying a (large) cross-section as to their actual experience of crime whether they reported it or not. They also survey peoples attitudes to crime, and compare perception of risk with actual risk, that sort of thing - LINKAGE.

As to most translating "don't take the law into your own hands" as "thump a burglar and go to jail", that is not now and never has been what the government OR the courts have said. They've ALWAYS stated that you can use reasonable force in defence of yourself, or your property or another person, and as I've noted before, "reasonable" is given one hell of a broad interpretation by the courts. Bear in mind that certainly if there's a serious criminal charge, the issue isn't being decided by judges or politicians but by a jury of ordinary people. If anything, actually, the people available for jury service tend toward conservatism, which helps the homeowner/burglary victim. Also bear in mind THIS case from October this year:

A burglar who was shot by a farmer was jailed for seven years after the judge said he was "an absolute menace".

Derby Crown Court heard how John Rae, 22, targeted farmer Kenneth Faulkner's isolated home three times before the pensioner hit back.

Mr Faulkner, 73, will not be prosecuted despite firing a shotgun at Rae, leaving him with a leg wound.

A judge who sentenced Rae for break-ins said Mr Faulkner "could not be criticised" and was defending his home.

You CAN use a LOT of force defending yourself and your property; you WILL be heard sympathetically. You can't pursue people to dispense summary "justice", though. Look, it suits the tabloids' agenda to make things appear worse for homeowners than they are; panic sells papers, after all. You're right in the sense that it's the loudest voice that gets heard, but that voice has an agenda of its own.

It's not a question of my knowing about the law; the courts don't expect the man in the street to. It's more to do with tabloid hysteria persuading people that they can't defend themselves, or that they have to judge the force used to a nicety. Neither is true.

[nichomach]

If you actually want to make a difference you should be campaigning aginst the press who spread the misinformation, and campaigning for the police to apply the law more fairly and more effectively. These calls for the law to be changed are a dangerous red herring because they distract attention away from the real problem.

Absolutely; I certainly don't believe that policing is perfect, and the reporting of this sort of issue by the tabloid press is frankly disgusting. They're frightening people without good reason, and as I've said before elsewhere, that has the potential to deter someone from using perfectly lawful means to defend themselves. The tabloids know this, and they don't care. As long as they sell papers, what does it matter to them if they've managed to deter someone from defending their home and that person suffers loss or injury as a consequence? They'll just make another headline up about how it's a disgrace, change the law, blah blah blah...

I regard it as similar to the hoax torture pictures story that quite rightly cost Piers Morgan his job; they didn't care about the facts then, they don't care about the facts regarding this issue, they just want to sell papers at any cost, no matter whom it hurts.

[RVF500]

The point is rave, that many people DON'T think that they can defend themselves adequately under the law. The case of the farmer posted above didn't get widespread coverage. Possibly because the authorities fear some kind of vigilantiism (is that a word?). The point I'm trying to make by rattling on is that the issue isn't loud and clear to all and sundry. If it was then this thread wouldn't be as long and hard debated as it is. Wouldn't you agree?

The outgoing chief of the Met proposed a change (it appeared more a change in wording on the face of it) that called for homeowners/victims of crime to defend as they saw fit stopping short of unneccesary violence i.e. chasing the miscreant down the drive and shooting him as he/she tries to escape. Which seems very much in line with current legislation as explained by nicho above.

Whether or not the courts and govts line has been "thump a crim and go to jail" that is the perception a lot of people have. Regardless of where it came from. Do you not agree with that? Irresponsible journalism is another subject all on it's own.

Therefore, to return to my point, an unambiguous message needs to be broadcast. One that says to normal law abiding people that they can defend themselves. Even if it takes a rewording of the law to get that message across without actually rewriting large tracts of the law.

In the meantime you know my stance. An individual who chooses to violate the rights and homes of others. Chooses to forfiet own rights and I don't care whether they live or die in the pursuit of thier objective. Which is to enrich themselves in any way great or small regardless of the physical, emotional or mental, not to mention material, cost of their victims.

[r1zeek]

Another point though,

If a burglar knows you're going to be armed (if the law changes) then surely they are going to come even more tooled up.

If they know you are going to stab them/attack them, they'll just bring a gun or other such like.

[RVF500]

The 2 that pitched up at John Monckton's door expected him to be unarmed. Didn't stop them stabbing him to death and attacking his wife. They may have had second thoughts if they knew they risked being carted off in a bin bag. Thugs already go armed to a hot burglary to get that edge over the homeowner (who they know will be at home) so that argument falls down anyway. They are already armed. most are cowards who rely on the fear factor which is enhanced by the fact that they are armed to make themselves braver. The prospect of meeting anything from a 6 cell maglite to a charge of buckshot coming the other way will remove any backbone most of them have. Those that will tool up to meet the 'threat' are the type that will already be tooled up anyway. And already have the will to use them.

The argument that America has so many armed burglars doesn't hold water either in my view. America is a gun culture, we are not. So I disagree with your escalation argument r1zeek, on those grounds.

[paradidle]

The 2 that pitched up at John Monckton's door expected him to be unarmed. Didn't stop them stabbing him to death and attacking his wife. They may have had second thoughts if they knew they risked being carted off in a bin bag. Thugs already go armed to a hot burglary to get that edge over the homeowner (who they know will be at home) so that argument falls down anyway. They are already armed. most are cowards who rely on the fear factor which is enhanced by the fact that they are armed to make themselves braver. The prospect of meeting anything from a 6 cell maglite to a charge of buckshot coming the other way will remove any backbone most of them have. Those that will tool up to meet the 'threat' are the type that will already be tooled up anyway. And already have the will to use them.

The argument that America has so many armed burglars doesn't hold water either in my view. America is a gun culture, we are not. So I disagree with
your escalation argument r1zeek, on those grounds.

HERE HERE!!!

The answer to this argument is simple. There are ALWAYS gonna be crackheads and fiends and rapists and cannibals and murderers, this is what RAVE needs to understand. Burglars are looking for easy targets, homes with minimum securtiy. Easy access etc....they are planned. If you make your home a Fort, and you dont need money to do so, you should be safe. Your front garden needs to be clearly visible, ur back garden (if any) as difficult as possble to enter. Deadbolts on doors etc...

In RAVE'S world, we wouldnt need to do this, but we live in the real world. My house has never been burguled (<--spelling) in the 25 years that my family have lived here. We live in a burough of Salford which has one of the highest crime records for the whole of the UK. <---Wildmonkey can back me on that!

We are always going to live with burglars. The point Im trying to make is that make ur home a fort, and it will deter the burglar. it would be too much hassel to try and break in. He/she wants easy access, a quick job.

If, a burglar EVER got into our house ( I dread the day) I would use ANY force to get him/her out. Even if that meant hitting them with closest blunt object I could find. Why would I do this? Because IM HUMAN. In the event of finding a complete stranger in your house willing to use force on you, the 1st thing Im gonna think is self defense and the safety of my family. I DO NOT HAVE TIME THINK ABOUT HOW POOR THE INTRUDER IS OR HOW BAD HIS/HER LIFE IS, STEALING TO FEED THEIR CRACK HABIT. I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO TRY AND "UNDERSTAND" THAT THEY HAVE "TROUBLED" LIVES AND THAT WE SHOULD FEEL SORRY THEM. RAVE. Because when it came to court, I would explain that we have clearly made our home as hard as possible for anyone to enter. Meaning, the burglar had a clear intention of what he/she wanted to do.

I agree that the media has some explaining to do. They have a powerful influence on the way many people think and view things. This can lead to a lot of fear amongst people.

I see that alot of people who have posted on here, comment on using "reasonable force". Someone Explain to me what the hell that means!?

If a burglar is shoving a loaded shotgun in your face, what(if we ever got the chance) force are we allowed to use?
If a burglar runs at u with a kitchen knife, are we allowed to use samurai swords to defend ourselves? (I know people who have such swords)

Clearly, the vast majority of people in the UK have no idea what reasonable force is, they have lost faith in our Police force(possible media influence) and with such hype in media over intruders sueing homeowners when they get injured for trying to steal...one word - fear.

My advise is make ur home a fort. Literrally, with barracks n everything.

[Rave]

I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO TRY AND "UNDERSTAND" THAT THEY HAVE "TROUBLED" LIVES AND THAT WE SHOULD FEEL SORRY THEM. RAVE.

Find exactly where in this thread I said that you shouldn't hurt burglars because it's not their fault?

kthxbye.

Rich :!¬)

[nichomach]

If a burglar is shoving a loaded shotgun in your face, what(if we ever got the chance) force are we allowed to use?

Any. Simple as.

If a burglar runs at u with a kitchen knife, are we allowed to use samurai swords to defend ourselves? (I know people who have such swords)

Hell yes. They're threatening you, they're armed, you could quite happily take such a weapon to them. Indeed, if you had a firearm, you could shoot them. If, on the other hand, they said "Oh ****, he's got a [gun/sword/recoilless anti-tank weapon, delete as appropriate]!" and fled, you could not then pursue them and strike them down with said implement. If you fancied trying a citizen's arrest, you could, but whereas in defending yourself/home/property/family etc you're allowed a broad degree of latitude in the degree of force applied, if you're making a citizen's arrest, you're only allowed to use the force necessary to detain the scrote until the police arrive. Personally, I'd leave the arresting bit to the bizzies.

Clearly, the vast majority of people in the UK have no idea what reasonable force is, they have lost faith in our Police force(possible media influence) and with such hype in media over intruders sueing homeowners when they get injured for trying to steal...one word - fear.

The key word there is "hype". The tabloids WANT people to panic; the intruders suing homeowners thing is a joke - their chances of success are about on a par with Amelia Earhardt suddenly showing up asking what all the fuss was about. You don't NEED a nailed down definition of reasonable force, because if you're defending yourself from intruders then the degree of latitude is HUGE, despite what the tabloids would have you believe.

I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO TRY AND "UNDERSTAND" THAT THEY HAVE "TROUBLED" LIVES AND THAT WE SHOULD FEEL SORRY THEM. RAVE.

No-one here's asked you to. The law doesn't ask you to. A judge and jury won't ask you to. The only people who would try to persuade you otherwise are the tabloids who are whipping up yet another baseless moral panic to shift copies.

[Butuz]

I would define reasonable force as simply, any neccasary force required to adequatly defend yourself.

So, in the case of a 13 year old skinny wimp of a kid that came at you in hour hallway, chinning him would be reasonable force.

In the case of a 16 stone thug who is coming at you, twonking him on the head with something long and heavy would be reasonable force, you do happen to keep a maglite in your hallway incase you need to go out to the garage dont you?

In the case of a 16 stone thug who is coming at you with some kind of blade, reasonable force would mean defending yourself against someone who is clearly intending to do you and maybe your family harm, this would mean picking up a bigger knife from the kitchen, fetching a baseball bat, or even running to the living room and picking up grandads katana that he got in world war 2, and then if the guy doesnt run away, you have the right to stop him from advancing on you.

If someone came in ponting a gun at your kids head, i would say reasonable force would in this situation would probably mean killing the aggressor if at all possible before he kills you or your family.

Now, shooting someone in the back as their running away down your garden path, is not reasonable force, thats murder. Grabbing grandads katana and slicing the 13 yer old unarmed wimpy kid to bits is not reasonable force, thats murder. Reasonable force all depends on the situation.

Thats my oppinion on reasonable force, whether it fall's in line with the law's oppinion or not i don't know as i aint a lawyer.

All i know is, I would use reasonable force to defend me and my family.

Butuz

[Rave]

That's pretty much what the law says too Butuz- in fact you'd be very likely to get away with less proportionate force; in your second example you would be justified in aiming a weapon at the 16 stone thug even if he did not appear to be armed. Whether or not that's advisable is another matter, I personally wouldn't pull a knife on someone because I wouldn't be confident that I could a) use it effectively or b) stop them from getting it off me and stabbing me with it. If someone breaks into your house though, and you want to use your samurai sword to frighten them off, then you're legally entitled to do so. If they attack you regardless, you would be entitled to use it on them. In reality though, no burglar in his right mind would go up against someone holding a samurai sword, it's just not going to happen.

Rich :¬)

[Butuz]

If someone breaks into your house though, and you want to use your samurai sword to frighten them off, then you're legally entitled to do so. If they attack you regardless, you would be entitled to use it on them. In reality though, no burglar in his right mind would go up against someone holding a samurai sword, it's just not going to happen.

Rich :¬)

Interesting. I hope to never have to prove you right or wrong!

And i hate the term samurai sword, brings up images of sensationalist newspaper articles about 15 year old boys robing sweet shops with "samurai sword", even though it was a kitchen knive. Guess kitchen knives are hard to ban, and dont sell newspapers do they?

Butuz

[Rave]

True....if I am wrong, it'd take you a long time to get the carpets clean again.

Rich :¬)

[Butuz]

S'ok got red carpets

(joke!!!)

Butuz

[Butuz]

Out of interest would putting up a sign saying something along the lines of:

"Attention Intruder: this home owner is entitled to use any reasonable force neccesary to defend his/her property or his/her self against attack. Only step past this sign if you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions"

(or something worded in a more accurate legal babble speak) help you in a bugler suing home owner for breaking fingernail type scenario?

Butuz