It's OK to Kill Burglars - Police Chief
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MY99UK-MY02STi-MY99Type R-MY06 T20-MY11 340R-MY05 TYPE25
Posts: 11,468
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
It's OK to Kill Burglars - Police Chief
Originally Posted by Copiedfrom AOL
"Sir John says people should be able to use necessary force without risk of prosecution
The country's most senior police officer says householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves against intruders, even if it means killing them.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens said those who injured someone in defending their families and property should face prosecution only in "extreme circumstances" when they could be shown to have used gratuitous violence.
"My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and that they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution," Sir John told The Daily Telegraph.
"There's a definite feeling around when I go out on the beat with officers and talk to members of the public that we need clarity in the law," Sir John said.
He said the legal test of "reasonable force" in common law seemed weighted against victims and caused confusion.
Sir John, who steps down in February, suggested that the law be changed to presume those who used force against intruders in their homes was within the law unless the facts clearly disproved this."
Isn't this what the Public have been saying for the last 20 years. I suspect it will be another 20 years before anything is done though
The CPS find it easier to Prossecute a Victim, who incriminates himself by giving a Factual account of Events in a statement. Where as compared to the Villains Bullsh!t statement also blames the victim. Hay Ho Victim prosecuted and Crook let off! then he sue's the Victim for cutting his hand climbing through a broken window.
Perhaps the poor beat Bobby who gets most of the Brunt of Joe Publics anger, will get the respect they deserve
Tony
#3
Someone who illegally enters your property is outside the law and so should not have any of its protection.Burglars don't just rob people of their possessions they rob them of their feeling of safety and security in the home which is priceless.
Last edited by skiddus_markus; 04 December 2004 at 11:20 AM.
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MY99UK-MY02STi-MY99Type R-MY06 T20-MY11 340R-MY05 TYPE25
Posts: 11,468
Received 22 Likes
on
19 Posts
Originally Posted by skiddus_markus
Someone who illegally enters your property is outside the law and so should not have any of its protection.Burglars don't just rob people of their possessions they rob them of their feeling of safety and security in the home which is priceless.
Originally Posted by Chip
Think I'll wait for a test case before I shoot my next burglar.
chip
chip
#7
Hello
Finally. Not that anyone will actually take notice of course.
If someone enters your property illegally then they deserve whatever they get. I hope I never have to find out, but I would use whatever force is necessary.
Steve.
Finally. Not that anyone will actually take notice of course.
If someone enters your property illegally then they deserve whatever they get. I hope I never have to find out, but I would use whatever force is necessary.
Steve.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
As far as I am concerned, if you enter my house with menace then you leave all your rights at the boundary ............... its how it should be!
Pete
Pete
#10
Originally Posted by pslewis
As far as I am concerned, if you enter my house with menace then you leave all your rights at the boundary ............... its how it should be!
Pete
Pete
Another factor with being burgled, is that they often come back a second or even third time to steal the new goods that were replaced under the new-for-old insurance policy. A good kicking may well deter them from coming back for seconds, thirds etc.
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Wolverhampton
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He said the legal test of "reasonable force" in common law seemed weighted against victims and caused confusion."
My definition of reasonable force:
"I only killed him once"
I was talking to a policeman last weekend and he told me if you shoot someone to make sure you own several guns. His reasoning was that one gun in the home would be classed as being a weapon, several guns would be considered to be a collection. The same would hold true for knives, swords etc.
My definition of reasonable force:
"I only killed him once"
I was talking to a policeman last weekend and he told me if you shoot someone to make sure you own several guns. His reasoning was that one gun in the home would be classed as being a weapon, several guns would be considered to be a collection. The same would hold true for knives, swords etc.
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Much of this "you can't defend yourslef properly" stuff is myth, based on a one completely unrepresentative case (Tony Martin) plus reports of people being charged that are mentioned in the papers. The same papers omit to mention that in nearly every case, the charges are dropped long before the case gets to court. The fact is, the CPS know that it's very unlikely that a jury will convict a person defending life or property unless seriously excessive force is used (like shooting a 14-year old in the back with an illegal shotgun for instance) so they never bother bringing it to court. The police draw up a file for the CPS and charge the person 'cos that's their job. On the very rare occasions that such cases get to court, the defendant is nearly always found not guilty. But somehow we always end up discussing Tony Martin - a man who opened fire with a pump-action at close range; then didn't bother to see the results or to call the police, but instead went around to a neighbours for a cup of tea, leaving the burglars to call for help. If the silly sod had phoned 999 he's probably have got away with it. Then everyone thiks that was a typical case. What do you want? The right to shoot eight-year olds climbing over your fence to retrieve a ball? The right to shoot Japanese tourists armed with a video camera who knock on your door to ask directions? And yes, the latter happened in the USA.
M
M
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Jack City
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with what Meridian has said. How is this any different from the law we already have in place? Stevens' statement is no more than populist gibberish.
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an emotive subject isnt it? You have always been allowed to use justifiable force to defend yourself; how ever if a person loses their life I believe that there has to be a trial, but self-defence is a valid defence.
What some people seem to be lobbying for though, is the right to kill or maim a person who breaks into their home, even when they arent put at risk..... and theyre never going to get that.
Simon
What some people seem to be lobbying for though, is the right to kill or maim a person who breaks into their home, even when they arent put at risk..... and theyre never going to get that.
Simon
#20
#21
Originally Posted by _Meridian_
Much of this "you can't defend yourslef properly" stuff is myth, based on a one completely unrepresentative case (Tony Martin) plus reports of people being charged that are mentioned in the papers. The same papers omit to mention that in nearly every case, the charges are dropped long before the case gets to court. The fact is, the CPS know that it's very unlikely that a jury will convict a person defending life or property unless seriously excessive force is used (like shooting a 14-year old in the back with an illegal shotgun for instance) so they never bother bringing it to court. The police draw up a file for the CPS and charge the person 'cos that's their job. On the very rare occasions that such cases get to court, the defendant is nearly always found not guilty. But somehow we always end up discussing Tony Martin - a man who opened fire with a pump-action at close range; then didn't bother to see the results or to call the police, but instead went around to a neighbours for a cup of tea, leaving the burglars to call for help. If the silly sod had phoned 999 he's probably have got away with it. Then everyone thiks that was a typical case. What do you want? The right to shoot eight-year olds climbing over your fence to retrieve a ball? The right to shoot Japanese tourists armed with a video camera who knock on your door to ask directions? And yes, the latter happened in the USA.
M
M
but they would only do it once!!!
what needs to happen is a statement in law stateing that should you enter a persons property without being invited. never mind going equiped etc,,
you have no protection,, and any injuys sustained are tough sh*t
once a few chavs get a good kicking the message will get through..
so what if tony martin open fire,,,, you missed a key pivotal point.
he had been burgled several times before, and failed by the criminal protection service...
what would you do meridian,, invite them in for a cuppa???
lets be openly honest, the gloves need to come off, and the chavs pikeys etc need to understand if you go burglarizing ,, you could end up dead!!!
M
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by mart360
what would you do meridian,, invite them in for a cuppa???
Tony Martin used an illegal firearm. I'll repeat that as well: he used a section 5 firearm - the possession of which is an offense for which he could do seven years in prison - to shoot without any warning (although I'll accept that there was a question about that). What is not in dispute is that after he shot Fred barras, he walked around to a neighbour and had a cup of tea. He didn't explain what he was doing there until some time later. He didn't call the police or an ambulance. He is also a man who had threatened ramblers with a loaded shotgun (for which he should have had his SC revoked). But even so, I'm fairly sure that if he'd phoned the police as soon as he'd left the house he would escaped punishment.
I'm not saying you can't defend your property, I'm saying the exact opposite: that in 99% of cases the current law will happily let you maim or even kill burglars as long as you use a reasonable weapon. So a Maglite is fine, so is a golfclub or baseball bat - just as long as you don't store it by the bed. Even in the airing cupboard is fine. If you've been burgled recently then a jury will very probably not mind you keeping the club under the bed - especially if you came face-to-face with them. Otherwise the issue is "premeditaion". In the 1% where the law is not happy then you are as stupid/disturbed as Tony Martin.
Remember that what matters here is NOT the law as such, but juries; and they generally are as keen on defending their property/person as you are - which means they almost certainly won't convict. And since the pay-rises of the CPS depend on successful prosecutions then the CPS won't bother taking the case to court unless you went after a 16-year old with a katana.
Again: please try to understand the difference between charges being drawn up, and something actually being done with those charges. Charging a person for killing in defence of their home is something the police simply have to do: it's the job of the CPS to decide what to do with those chages.
M
(who keeps a 3-cell Maglite by the bed. H*ll, it gets dark at night....)
Last edited by _Meridian_; 04 December 2004 at 07:52 PM.
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think a lot of the issues with people burgling (que ..??) (and also travellers illegally camped etc) would go away if they made trespass a criminal offense. That way if someone was on your land/in your house/whatever without permission then the police have every right to remove them asap - not 5 weeks later after applying to the courts.
Plus they need to change the law so that if you do enter someones house without permission (or that permission is withdrawn) then you no longer have the same rights as the homeowner/property owner .....
At the moment you can enter someones house whilst they're out - claim the door was open and you have no right to get back in without going through the courts. Maybe this only happens in a *few* cases BUT why should these loopholes exist?
dave
Plus they need to change the law so that if you do enter someones house without permission (or that permission is withdrawn) then you no longer have the same rights as the homeowner/property owner .....
At the moment you can enter someones house whilst they're out - claim the door was open and you have no right to get back in without going through the courts. Maybe this only happens in a *few* cases BUT why should these loopholes exist?
dave
#27
To use reasonable force you gotta know what the burglar has got in his hand, short of asking him, I dont know how you would tell.
Also we may assume some guy entering our house is a burglar but he may have come to rape our missus or God forbid our kids.
I dont know what reasonable force is and I hope I never have to make that decision, but if I do, I will strike with extreme intent.
Also we may assume some guy entering our house is a burglar but he may have come to rape our missus or God forbid our kids.
I dont know what reasonable force is and I hope I never have to make that decision, but if I do, I will strike with extreme intent.
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by johnskelley
To use reasonable force you gotta know what the burglar has got in his hand, short of asking him, I dont know how you would tell.
M
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
SN is fast becoming The Sun.
(except for the common sense that appeared in the last few posts)
(except for the common sense that appeared in the last few posts)
#30
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by _Meridian_
They only care if you carry on hitting them after they go down and stop moving.
But at the moment, the Police would almost certainly arrest you, IN YOUR OWN HOME, should you bash a burglar
mb