fast bloke

most cases of dead scum do not end in prosecution. Tony Martin only got canned cos he used an illegally held weapon to kill the scum. I know at least 5 cases in northern ireland where normal people have killed paramilataries with legally held weapons and have escaped with a caution......


(unfortunately you can't claim self defence in a drive by, - if you could there would not be so much **** going on over here )

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=boomerBut at the moment, the Police would almost certainly arrest you, IN YOUR OWN HOME, should you bash a burglar

mb[/QUOTE]

I thought I just explained that? Twice? It's the police's job to bring charges. It's up to the CPS to decide whether the case will go anywhere. Are you seriously suggesting that the police should simply take your word for why there's a dead body on the living room floor? Of course they'll investigate, and in the meantime they'll charge you.


M

scott8629

3 cell, I have a 6 cell bad boy

Felix.

EH???

There is an offence called 'found on enclosed premises' also 'breach of the peace would fit', 'conspiracy to burgle' etc etc

If there in your house uninvited - they can be removed

There is no need to change the law. As it stands you have the right to self defense and that of your home, property and family. If you feel that your life is endangered, you can take the first strike even if it means a fatal blow - so long as you can justify your actions. If a death does occur then of course the police will need to investigate, but if your actions are seen as justified then you will be ok.

johnskelley

These words are easy to say, until you are put into a real fearful situation. If you hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night there are things which remain unknown to you. You dont know the intruders intensions, You dont know who they are or how many of them there are and if they have a weapon, if so, what.

Its my contention as in the case of Mr Martin that whether he was allowed to possess a gun or not, if you had one, you would use it. The crime would be possessing an illegal firearm, not shooting the guys. Its worth mentioning that this guy was burgled on numerous occasions and was extremely fearful.

These guys were not supposed to be there. If I were in this situation and I dont personally own a firearm , I would still act in a manner to seriously maim or Kill , with whatever weapon was at hand.

GC8

Can open; worms everywhere!

/Chandler Bing

Tiggs

"I would still act in a manner to seriously maim or Kill , with whatever weapon was at hand."

so you get burgled, you confrot him. Its a 14 year old, he pushes past you )ohh, and he's not off his head on drugs with supehuman pain thresholds....to many movies for some of you!) you clout him with your golf club....he falls to the floor and says "sorry...please dont hit me".........you going to "maim or kill" him are you? and should the law let you?

T

johnskelley

Obviously If I could see him properly and I knew he was 14 and he wasn't high on drugs and he wasn't built like a brick sh*thouse but I dont know all these variables. All I know is, if someone uninvited, is in my house for whatever reason, he is unlikely to be someone from the salvation army. Now do I risk allowing him/them to get the upper hand, especially as I also have a family, this would be madness. I would strike with absolute ferocity and judge the situation as it occurs. Of course I wouldn't needlessly pummel somebody if they were incapacitated, because I am a law abiding citizen and I would'nt take pleasure from killing or maiming anyone but I wouldn't hold back initially from trying to deliver a fatal blow.

GC8

Having read through all of this thread it is apparent that the eejits are really coming out of the woodwork today.....

Tidgy

As soon as you commit an act of crime by breaking into someone's home you should forgo your rights of not being assaulted or killed (i think this has to be justified although i'm all for a good beating).

Something i heard (may not be true) was that in certain states in america, if you kill a person who has entred your home by criminal act or to commit a criminal act you will be given an automatic bounty ($5000) and given a commendation by the city.

Tiggs

"As soon as you commit an act of crime by breaking into someone's home you should forgo your rights of not being assaulted or killed"

but thats not senssible.....is this a sensible thread or just a "burglers should all be dead" thread?

if its the later then sorry....good idea, kill them all!

Flatcapdriver

John, you're sending a slightly contradictory message here. On one hand you're saying you wouldn't needlessly pummel an intruder and then you finish by saying you wouldn't hold back from delivering a fatal blow - which is it?

I was unsure as to where I stood with the law many years ago when I interrupted what I thought was a burglar who later turned out to be a nutter on day release who had broken into our house. After recovering from the initial shock, my overriding concern was to avoid tackling him until I'd got my boxers on as I was sleeping in the buff at the time. After encouraging him to leave verbally, I realised he hadn't when I couldn't hear the staircase creaking as it should have done if he was descending the stairs.

To cut a long story short, we ended up in a bundle which despite him biting my leg near my nads resulted in my pinning him to the floor whilst I whacked him. He suddenly went limp and I immediately shat myself as I thought I'd killed him and it wasn't until the Police turned up and booted the bloke that I realised he was faking.

It turned out that this bloke had knifed his child and girlfriend and before the whole sorry saga went to court, he topped himself. What worried me at the time is what is reasonable force and what if I had killed him? I now have a shotgun in the house and I can tell you that there is no way that I'd use it if a burglar did strike again - it's way too risky.

You don't always react as you think you will.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

I put these words in my last reply, then edited them out because they seemed a bit contentious, but it seems I have no choice: did you actually read my post??

AGAIN: the law understands that if you surprise a burglar in the middle of the night then you aren'y going to think rationally. It accepts that under such circumstances you will react instictively - AND YOU WILL GET AWAY WITH ALMOST ANYTHING AS LONG AS YOU BEHAVE INSTINCTIVELY. Where the law gets upset is if there is any indication of premeditation, because that is "malice aforethought" to quote the 17th century definition - of murder. There was a case a good few years ago of a man who was shot dead while trying to rob a gun shop. The WHOLE case revolved around whether the gun used to shoot him was already loaded (premeditated) or was loaded after the raid started by the staff member who pulled the trigger (self-defence). The shooter was found not guilty because the jury accepted that he had loaded the gun after the raid started. Do you understand what I'm getting at yet?

The fact is, using an illegal firearm almost automatically that some degree of premeditation was involved, and the question is simply: how much. But as long as it looks like instictive behaviour - even if this includes beating someone to death - then odds are the CPS won't persue the charges. But make sure you understand the difference between one blow from a baseball bat and twenty. And make sure you understand that keeping the bat under the bed is premeditation. Probably. Whereas lots of people keep a torch by the bed. Like a six-cell Maglite (do they actually exist? Most I've seen is four). And women would be entitled to keep a long pair of scissors by the bed - obviously they might need to do some work on their clothes. Get the picture?


As you suggesting that burglars lose all human rights, are you suggesting (and you are) that the penalty for burglary should be death? Are we back in the seventeenth century, where stealing an object worth more than six shillings meant the rope? Because if you suggest householders should be allowed to kill burglars, it's a very short step for the state to do the same. Oh, and BTW, the reason why the Bloody Code alluded to above was largely abandoned was that the death penalty was not a deterrent.

To point out the obvious (to some, anyway) the last thing a burglar generally wants is a fight - turn the lights on and he will leg it. He's likely to fight if cornered though because he fears for HIS life. Because the general punishment for burglary is about two years after multiple offences (and less for fewer previous convictions), but the penalties for aggravated burglary START at about seven years, and run up to life. If they want a confrontation they generally go in mob-handed armed with crow-bars.


M

johnskelley

needlessly is the word. If some guy is in my house, for some unknown reason, it would hardly be a needless act of violence. If you have read my previous submissions you would have read that, if I had incapacited the guy I wouldn't go on to pummel him into the ground. You or your family could've been this guys next victim save for the courageous way you reacted . You sound as if you are beating yourself up for doing the right thing. It doesn't really matter if the the guy was a nutter or a rapist or a burglar, he shouldn't have been in your home. Is this too hard for people to understand ?

johnskelley

The law is an ***. What it is trying to tell us, is that if you keep a baseball bat under the bed in the unlikely event that you are broken into and you use it, you have shown premeditation. Well at the moment on my bedside table I have a bracelet, a wristwatch, a toilet roll and a bottle of baby lotion I am hardly likely to cause any serious damage with these items.
You keep talking about burglars, short of asking the guy what his intentions are, we just dont know why somebody is intruding in our house. All I know is he shouldn't be there. surely this principle is not too difficult to grasp.

Apparition

Just think, if this becomes law, all those accused invaded people who will be queing up for compensation for being incorrectly treated by the law......... what a queue !
And yes, I'll have my baseball bat ready to swing at the first evil-doer who gets into my property.
Mind you, the one time some twerps tried to rob my shop........ my voice was enough to make them cr4p themselves and run for it ! ha ha and me a sweet liddle ole granny at that !

Flatcapdriver

No, far from it. The difficulty lies in knowing:

a) how you would react in a given situation.
b) what is acceptable in terms of defending yourself.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Then keep a big torch by the bed. Or keep a baseball bad in the spare bedroom - for G*d's I've explained how to get away this this three times already.

I do the grasp the principle - but I also fail to see what that question has to do with the question as hand, since I've never at any point said the person's motives have any bearing on the possible actions of the housholder. Again, I've said the opposite. Is anyone here actually reading my posts, or are people just assuming I'm defending burglars??

M

Bubba po

It is absolutely true that you have a right to defend your property. Don't use an illegal firearm to do it.

Lum

The law does need changing, but not for the reasons stated in this thread so far. The tory guy had the right idea with rewording it from "reasonable force" to "not grossly disproportionate".
Regardless of whether most people get away with it, the general public perception at the moment is that you cannot do anything against the burglar and if you do you will get done, and that does not make for a happy public.
By making the above change, the police should not bring charges against a person unless the force is grossly disproportionate, so the majority of reasonable people defending themselves will not suffer the inconvinience and hassle of being charged, so there will be nothing for the media to report.

gsm1

Lum, what is the difference between "reasonable force" and "not grossly disproportionate"?

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

The lawyers get an extra word to argue about, whilst being paid by the hour.


M

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

PMSL sadly but true

unclebuck

can't new labour just ban burglars?

ajm

Burglars are already banned, all Labour have to do is make sure the ban is enforced...

but that is FAR too difficult... much easier to ban and enforce something like foxhunting. Its easier to drag someone wearing a red coat off a horse and cuff them because, being a decent person, they won't try to hide, they won't lie, they won't put up a fight and most importantly they will pay up the fine!

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

But they still haven't set up league tables for burglars beaten by householders. Or allowed householders the choice of where to do the beating.


M

wwp8

anyone selling a gun

Lum

reasonable force is quite hard to judge in the heat of the moment, so the risk of running into what may later be considered disproportionate (eg. hitting an unarmed 16yr old chav over the head with a maglite as you thought they were armed) and then being charged or prosecuted is quite high.

By allowing disproportionate force, but not grossly disproportionate (eg, stabbing them in a major artery) the balance is tipped in favour of the homeowner and away from the burglar, and you can defend yourself against them with little danger of any action being taken against you, unless you really take the p|ss.