Sir John Stevens, chief of the Metropolitan Police, suggests the following :

"My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.

"There is 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.

Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

OK...what do people feel?

I'd like to see such a change in the law.

Joe

Personally, if some git was in my house and I snook downstairs and cought them I'd crack them with the heaviest thing I could find and ask questions later...

I dont see why we should have to just wait for the bugger to make an attempt to harm you before you can smash the bugger up a bit... afterall, they obviously had bad intentions from the start or they wouldnt be in your house trying to steal your DVD player now would they? :P

I believe there is a level of violence that should be a limit though, I dont think it would be right for someone to pull out a knife or a gun and kill or seriously injure a robber unprovoked... but a few kicks/punches or hits round the head/body with something is definitly ok in my books... I'm sure they'd do the same if it was you in their house :P

the poll should say "Yes, the existing law is fine", since you can use force to defend yourself or your property.

What the inspector seems to be saying is that he'd like to see the check of "reasonable" removed from the wording of the law.

I think you should use force, but only to an extent like Xavier said.

No guns or knives but where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by IanMitchell
I think you should use force, but only to an extent like Xavier said.

No guns or knives but where do you draw the line?

if the guy is running at you with a knife, or about to shoot you, its fine to throw a chair at the git and risk doing some serious damage :P if you manage to grab the knife off him and he's definitly going to kill or mame you if he gets it back, its ok to slash the backs of his knees so he cant walk...

there are lines, but unless the person REALLY intends to mame or kill you then you should only use the amount of force it would take to make sure he doesn't leave, or that he leaves with a stonking headache and enough time for you to get a good picture of him in your head!

Getting shot is an occupational hazard if you’re a burglar.

I was burgled a couple of weeks ago, and I can honestly say if Id caught the scrote at it, Id have beat the crap out of him first, and thought about the consequences later. IMO, they give up any rights they may have had the second they enter my house without my invitation.

Remember this?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19792&highlight=burglars

Originally posted by markham
Remember this?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19792&highlight=burglars

Yes but this is a thread about a quote from the Chief of Police.

Different, but not much different :P

Originally posted by markham
Remember this?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19792&highlight=burglars

Hi markham,

Yup, I did actually think about re-activating an old thread but felt that as this item from the head of the Met. was bound to feature on the news today I thought it appropriate for a new thread.

Perhaps we should just go to re-activating any old threads that have ANY bearing at all on isuses we may wish to discuss. That way we can avoid having to do the job of starting new threads at all and you won't have to remind us of previous threads.

Joe

Originally posted by slh73
I was burgled a couple of weeks ago, and I can honestly say if Id caught the scrote at it, Id have beat the crap out of him first, and thought about the consequences later. IMO, they give up any rights they may have had the second they enter my house without my invitation.

I agree, as soon as anyone enters my property illegally they should forfeit all rights.Unless they are illegal immigrants then they should be given free tools to do the job properly.Daily Express today- free driving lessons for illegals.

Sorry Ian, sorry Joe, wasn't trying to pick up on an old thread.

Just reminding those of us who think we should give the burglar a good pasting (me included)- when we can - what was said on a 'similar' thread, and some of the responses stating that we are just more or less 'macho' hard men/women who were all talk.

I appreciate that this is a different thread altogether.

:thumbsup:

What is reasonable force?

I'm a five foot tall size 8-10 female. Restraint is not an option. And how would I gauge the right amount of force to just put a burglar off? I'd have to strike first and do a lot of damage, if I wasn't to wind up coming off worst.

And I wouldn't fancy leaving my own house in a body bag.

Tony martin is an arrogant prig, but he stood no chance hand to hand with two fit young men. Has anybody lived anywhere rural? The average response time of the police is approximately two days!!!!!!! What else could he do?

He'd been burgled before. Who amongst us wouldn't take measures to ensure we didn't suffer next time??

Spot on, Strix.

That's why I drew attention to the similar thread:thumbsup:

anyone who enters my house without my permission leaves all their rights outside.

Originally posted by Strix
What is reasonable force?

I'm a five foot tall size 8-10 female. Restraint is not an option. And how would I gauge the right amount of force to just put a burglar off? I'd have to strike first and do a lot of damage, if I wasn't to wind up coming off worst.

And I wouldn't fancy leaving my own house in a body bag.

Tony martin is an arrogant prig, but he stood no chance hand to hand with two fit young men. Has anybody lived anywhere rural? The average response time of the police is approximately two days!!!!!!! What else could he do?

He'd been burgled before. Who amongst us wouldn't take measures to ensure we didn't suffer next time??

not much danger of hand to hand happening when he shoots them in the back whilst running from his property is there?
That's why Tony Martin was convicted. Doing anything to someon running away (unless you are trying to restrain them for a citizens arrest) is not reasonable force as you are not in danger.

The question of what is reasonable, is the the exact problem with our self-defence laws. It is not set down on paper what you can do to defend yourself, and to be honest the onus being on the defender to moderate their force is in my opinion the wrong way round. Unfortuantely that's the way it is at the moment.
So if you believe that a burglar leaves all rights behind when entering your property (and you act on that one day) you could well find yourself behind bars.

Originally posted by markham
Remember this?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19792&highlight=burglars

I thought I'd done something similar not so long ago. Thanks markham.

Originally posted by Cyclone
not much danger of hand to hand happening when he shoots them in the back whilst running from his property is there?
That's why Tony Martin was convicted. Doing anything to someon running away (unless you are trying to restrain them for a citizens arrest) is not reasonable force as you are not in danger.
Easy for you to say whilst sitting in that comfy chair. I'd like to see you act that rationally in the exact same circumstances.Blind panic tends to take over somewhat.

An incident like this happening in a city like Sheffield would see the culprits leave and do something else. They were in the middle of nowhere. They're likely to have come back for round two, and Tony Martin was completely alone...

Just stand at the top of his stairs in his boots for a couple of seconds...................

Chilling, isn't it?

Originally posted by Strix
Easy for you to say whilst sitting in that comfy chair. I'd like to see you act that rationally in the exact same circumstances.Blind panic tends to take over somewhat.

An incident like this happening in a city like Sheffield would see the culprits leave and do something else. They were in the middle of nowhere. They're likely to have come back for round two, and Tony Martin was completely alone...

Just stand at the top of his stairs in his boots for a couple of seconds...................

Chilling, isn't it?

But showing them the gun obviously had the desired effect... they were running away. I think you should be able to defend yourself and your property, but when it comes to the point of someone running away from you and you thinking 'oh **** it, i'll shoot him anyway' then you need to be locked away for everybodies safety.

99.9% of burglars would run away if you simply turn on a light or bang a door... I'm not sure where the idea comes from that they are dangerous... how many people actually ever get attacked by a burglar?

If someone enters your home you have no idea what weapons they have concealed, so I believe you can use any force at your means to protect your family, home or yourself. Once they enter your property with out permission they have no rights if you enter a military installation they shoot first ask questions 2nd.

Originally posted by Strix
Easy for you to say whilst sitting in that comfy chair. I'd like to see you act that rationally in the exact same circumstances.Blind panic tends to take over somewhat.

An incident like this happening in a city like Sheffield would see the culprits leave and do something else. They were in the middle of nowhere. They're likely to have come back for round two, and Tony Martin was completely alone...

Just stand at the top of his stairs in his boots for a couple of seconds...................

Chilling, isn't it?

The person he killed was over 50 metres away. At that point i'm pretty sure that i'd be over the inital fright. I'd certainly be of sound enough mind to know that killing him was murder.

I might decide to chase him down and restrain him, maybe. But then i'm not elderly, i'm fit and i'm of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that i can hold my own.
The law states that shooting someone who is running away (or throwing a brick or a fire poker) or whatever is not self defence.

It's not ambigous, and Tony Martin clearly broke the law.

Homes are not military establishments and any defence based on such flawed reasoning will land you in jail.

No what your rights are and no how to present them in court, otherwise you are asking to loose.

"I honestly believed that he had a weapon your honour and that he would use it to kill me". Job done.

Please forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Cyclone
The person he killed was over 50 metres away. At that point i'm pretty sure that i'd be over the inital fright. I'd certainly be of sound enough mind to know that killing him was murder.

50 metres away? I'm not sure about that. They were in his house. The first shot was fired when a torch beam was shined on him the other 2 shots were fired in total darkness.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I might decide to chase him down and restrain him, maybe. But then i'm not elderly, i'm fit and i'm of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that i can hold my own.

They were mob handed, possibly tooled up as they had already got past his dogs. Would you still attempt to chase them and restrain them?

Originally posted by Cyclone
"I honestly believed that he had a weapon your honour and that he would use it to kill me". Job done.

At least Martin was fortunate to escape with his life still in tact.
Unlike his near neighbour, farmer Mr Auger of Outwell who many years before was beaten senseless, bound and gagged and left to die a slow painful death in an orchard.

Thank you for clarifying that, Lickszz.

We can all be holier-than-thou and matter of fact if we haven't actually experienced somebody else's situation, but presenting untrue 'facts' is not helpful to the debate, Cyclone.

Why bring up tony martin at all? There are other householders who have shot people and been fully exonerated of any crime in court - what about them - or do they not fit with the "self-righteous brothers" mindset?

The difference is that they used reasonable force.

having checked the tony martin story it appears that 50 metres is an exaggeration. Obviously so thinking about it as at 50 metres a shotgun is practically useless.

Fred Barras was 12ft away from Tony Martin when he was shot in the back and killed (with an illegally held firearm). Apparently he opened fire as they attempted to escape through a window.

I can't find a distance quoted anywhere for the shot that injured Fearon.

Either way ot was deemed not to be self defence by a court.

As Phan said, there are other more recent case(s?) where a burglar has been shot and killed and no prosecution was brought.

He is the only copper that has spoken any sense on the subject. ithink you should be able to use as much force as you want should anyone break into your house or destroy any of your belongings.

i think your dog shold be able to attack anyone tht breaks in.

eye for an eye nad tooth for a tooth.

would they like it if you did it to them - NO! they would get very mardy.I thik Tony Martin desrves amedal when he shot that W****r that broke into his house he put up with it for a long time before he snapped. Well done!

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Sir John Stevens, chief of the Metropolitan Police, suggests the following :

"My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.

"There is 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.

Full story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

OK...what do people feel?

I'd like to see such a change in the law.

Joe

I take it from your comments that you are either a Special Constable or a regular officer. I am an an ex special and ex regular i resigned last year form South Yorkshire.

Originally posted by Wattsy
He is the only copper that has spoken any sense on the subject. ithink you should be able to use as much force as you want should anyone break into your house or destroy any of your belongings.

i think your dog shold be able to attack anyone tht breaks in.

eye for an eye nad tooth for a tooth.

would they like it if you did it to them - NO! they would get very mardy.I thik Tony Martin desrves amedal when he shot that W****r that broke into his house he put up with it for a long time before he snapped. Well done!

What if the intruder is just a kid coming into your garden to get his ball back? Pump them full of lead first, be immune from prosecution later? Surely this isn't a road we want to go down - we don't live in the Wild West.

Besides, a change in the law would just mean burglars would be far more likely to enter properties tooled up, knowing that they may be in for a fight. Which can't be good news for anyone.

"Reasonable" force may not sound very fair, but ultimately it protects the homeowner.

it's not breaking and entering to climb into your back yard, it's trespassing.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's not breaking and entering to climb into your back yard, it's trespassing.

It's the broader principle that I'm talking about - the implication that it's fair to kill anyone who interferes with your property.

Originally posted by Greenback
It's the broader principle that I'm talking about - the implication that it's fair to kill anyone who interferes with your property.

that may be what you`re talking about but it`s completely different to what everyone else is talking about.
We are talking about people ENTERING your property as in house! not fetching a ball from in the garden which happens to most of us on a daily basis.

If you wouldn`t mind someone entering your property at night when you`re in bed and stealing things that you have worked hard for or harming yourself or your family then fair enough but i`m afraid you are probably the only one.

Originally posted by xafier
Personally, if some git was in my house and I snook downstairs and cought them I'd crack them with the heaviest thing I could find and ask questions later...

I dont see why we should have to just wait for the bugger to make an attempt to harm you before you can smash the bugger up a bit... afterall, they obviously had bad intentions from the start or they wouldnt be in your house trying to steal your DVD player now would they? :P



You don't have to wait for them to attack you, the defence of self-defence covers pre-emptive self-defence. So as long as you can prove that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way as you did, ur fine!

Originally posted by Leigh
You don't have to wait for them to attack you, the defence of self-defence covers pre-emptive self-defence. So as long as you can prove that a reasonable person would have acted in the same way as you did, ur fine!

Isn't pre-emptive self-defence also called "attacking" ?

Originally posted by Greenback

"Reasonable" force may not sound very fair, but ultimately it protects the homeowner.


Reasonable force is OK for those able to excersise it; but what of the old and infirm who would probably come off worst if they tackled a burglar ?

CS, pepper sprays and cattle prods are illegal as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, but there are some things that can be effective in deterring and incapacitating someone coming at you with intent. A CO2 extinguisher might work and can do little permanent damage other than frostbite. A can of acetone paint spray perhaps ? I imagine catching that full in the face would stop most people in their tracks.

Any other ideas ?

i like the co2 extinguisher idea, never thought about that!
what i good thing to use where can i buy one just in case i set me toast on fire over christmas??

Originally posted by nick2
Isn't pre-emptive self-defence also called "attacking" ?

Reminds me of the definition of diplomacy :

"Saying here doggy, nice doggy, there's a good dog....whilst looking around for a large rock."

:)

I suppose it's quite easy to say what we would do, bit different when the time comes, i just hope if it ever happens to me i get up the nerve to use my loaded gun i keep in the house, i'm not against killing anyone, just aiming right would worry me.

Originally posted by poppins
i'm not against killing anyone, just aiming right would worry me.

Not much you can say really.

Ok, lets give the names and addresses of all the do gooders to the local violent burglars who would rob their granny for their next hit, then video the response they would get from the perpetrator when they try to "talk and understand" the burglar!

If the clinks are too full, the rozzers too overworked and the legal system is useless to protect us then our natural instinct is to protect ourselves. In this day and age people could be in your house for any sort of reason, we are not in an era where the burglar is just a petty thief after a few quid...look at what happened to that banker in London last week...Luckily I have not had to confront an intruder yet but I can guarantee you that I would mess him up...i know people say that you dont know what you would do until the event, but if you are scared for your life then you go into overdrive...as per tony martin....and anyone who says he did wrong by shooting a pikey with 50 odd previous offences whilst in his teens must wear dungarees and work for the social services....its a pity he didnt take fearon out as well

you should be able to protect your own propety if someone is trying to steal it.....

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
Ok, lets give the names and addresses of all the do gooders to the local violent burglars who would rob their granny for their next hit, then video the response they would get from the perpetrator when they try to "talk and understand" the burglar!

If the clinks are too full, the rozzers too overworked and the legal system is useless to protect us then our natural instinct is to protect ourselves. In this day and age people could be in your house for any sort of reason, we are not in an era where the burglar is just a petty thief after a few quid...look at what happened to that banker in London last week...Luckily I have not had to confront an intruder yet but I can guarantee you that I would mess him up...i know people say that you dont know what you would do until the event, but if you are scared for your life then you go into overdrive...as per tony martin....and anyone who says he did wrong by shooting a pikey with 50 odd previous offences whilst in his teens must wear dungarees and work for the social services....its a pity he didnt take fearon out as well

People can still have respect for human life without thinking that breaking the law is ok. One thing has nothing to do with another. Just because someone is a criminal does not mean they should die.

The sad thing is, with your name, and the things you say... you're starting to make me think maybe Tony Blair isn't that bad after all.

Originally posted by dial
that may be what you`re talking about but it`s completely different to what everyone else is talking about.
We are talking about people ENTERING your property as in house! not fetching a ball from in the garden which happens to most of us on a daily basis.

If it's dark and you're not sure if it's a kid or a potential burglar? Get the shotgun out and have a blast anyway?

Sir John is suggesting that we go down a very dicey road indeed.

Originally posted by Snook
People can still have respect for human life without thinking that breaking the law is ok. One thing has nothing to do with another. Just because someone is a criminal does not mean they should die.

The sad thing is, with your name, and the things you say... you're starting to make me think maybe Tony Blair isn't that bad after all.

Did I say all crims should die? I think that its justified to use any means possible to stop a scumbag from doing anything he wants with either you or your property...do you leave mince pies out for would be burglars?

Also its a shame there are no people with any balls in the govt today..maybe we would lock up these scummers for the appropriate length of time if we had people with uncompromising views in power..I am a Yorskhireman, I will do anything I like to look after myself, I will say what I like and no one will ever change my point of view...I am also a caring father who is worried that liberal attitudes like your will lead to less and less respect for the victims rights...any self respecting Yorkie, and I mean a true yorkshireman whose roots are purely Blue Collar, would hand out a sustained beating to anyone who showed you disrespect by breaking in to your home...to take the words from your post.."the sad thing is...that its people with PC views like you that let nonces back into the community to strike again.

Originally posted by dial
that may be what you`re talking about but it`s completely different to what everyone else is talking about.
We are talking about people ENTERING your property as in house! not fetching a ball from in the garden which happens to most of us on a daily basis.

If you wouldn`t mind someone entering your property at night when you`re in bed and stealing things that you have worked hard for or harming yourself or your family then fair enough but i`m afraid you are probably the only one.
What if the ball went through the window?

Tony Martin was not protecting his property, the damage had already been done. He shot the burglar in revenge.

Originally posted by nick2
Isn't pre-emptive self-defence also called "attacking" ?

call it what you like, it's self defence when you go to court (you have to convince the jury that it's self defence anyway).

Tony_Bliar - not entirely sure what the colour of your collar has to do with whether you are from yorkshire or not. Some prejudice showing through?

Greybeard - nothing says that they have to do something, so how would a change in the law make any different to my gran, she's not going to try to stop a burglar either way.

poppins - if you do actually keep a loaded gun in the house you are seriously breaking the law, if it's legally owned you could loose your license, and if it's not you should be going to jail with the burglars.

I support peoples right to defend their property, but you can't argue that's any sort of self defence when you shoot someone in the back. If he'd shot him in the front then i doubt he'd have gone to jail. Or at least it would have been for weapons offences rather than manslaughter.

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
I am a Yorskhireman, I will do anything I like to look after myself, I will say what I like and no one will ever change my point of view...

...any self respecting Yorkie, and I mean a true yorkshireman whose roots are purely Blue Collar, would hand out a sustained beating to anyone who showed you disrespect by breaking in to your home...

You sound just like my dad.

I haven't spoken to him for nearly 15 years after he threatened to beat me up for dissagreeing with him.

Originally posted by Cyclone

Greybeard - nothing says that they have to do something, so how would a change in the law make any different to my gran, she's not going to try to stop a burglar either way.



I wasn't suggesting any change in the law, and of course it would be unwise to tackle a burglar unless he gave you no option. However, we have to be concerned for our own and others' safety and a burglar who is stupid enough to enter a house while someone is at home is pretty desperate, so I assume he'll be ruthless in dealing with whoever is at home, - lots of 'grans' have been beaten without mercy in this kind of scenario.

In our case any burglar would have no doubt that someone was at home and if he nevertheless persisted in trying to gain entry, and if he managed to overcome the dog, then his determination would indicate that our personal safety is at serious risk. In this circumstance I would have to attack him, - not to protect our property [we really have nothing worth stealing], but to protect my wife and myself.

But perhaps you could suggest an alternative strategy ?

Originally posted by nick2
Isn't pre-emptive self-defence also called "attacking" ?

essentially yes. it will succeed as a defence providing that, when assessed objectively, you attacked if you thought you were/about to be under attack yourself.

Originally posted by Greybeard
I wasn't suggesting any change in the law, and of course it would be unwise to tackle a burglar unless he gave you no option. However, we have to be concerned for our own and others' safety and a burglar who is stupid enough to enter a house while someone is at home is pretty desperate, so I assume he'll be ruthless in dealing with whoever is at home, - lots of 'grans' have been beaten without mercy in this kind of scenario.

In our case any burglar would have no doubt that someone was at home and if he nevertheless persisted in trying to gain entry, and if he managed to overcome the dog, then his determination would indicate that our personal safety is at serious risk. In this circumstance I would have to attack him, - not to protect our property [we really have nothing worth stealing], but to protect my wife and myself.

But perhaps you could suggest an alternative strategy ?

maybe leaving the house through an alternative exit?

you are within your rights to preemptively attack an intruder if you believe that you will be attacked, just don't shoot them in the back with an illegally held firearm whilst they are trying to get away from you.

Originally posted by Greenback
If it's dark and you're not sure if it's a kid or a potential burglar? Get the shotgun out and have a blast anyway?


What would a normal decent kid be doing running around the inside of a house in the early hours of the mornig uninvited?

Originally posted by Sidla
What if the ball went through the window?

now would that be a ball at teatime?? or maybe a ball at two in the morning?? Get real and at two in the morning it`s more likely to be a brick.unless of course you`re in the habit of leaving all your windows open 24 hours a day.

To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point:

!!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!!

I'm sorry, but that alone would enrage me. They had no right to do that and I believe they should lose their rights the moment they set foot in your property.

999 times out of a thousand, i'm not a violent person. But when this lowlife is threatening the very foundations of your livelihood, either with or without a weapon, I would, as a matter of instinct do whatever it took to keep me, my family and my possessions safe.

When they break in, that's provocation enough to spark a response from me. I'm sick of all this "oh but they were running away" lark. Tuff tits. They've already stepped over the line and deserve whats coming to them. They are scum.

An Englishman's home is his castle and I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law.

They aren't normal people like you or I, they are the bottom-of-the-barrel people who were trying not only to rob you, but also trying to do you over in court for protecting your family and property. Devious, scheming sods like this make me sick an the courts system doesn't do enough for the REAL victims.

Originally posted by dinp
To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point:

!!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!!

I'm sorry, but that alone would enrage me. They had no right to do that and I believe they should lose their rights the moment they set foot in your property.

999 times out of a thousand, i'm not a violent person. But when this lowlife is threatening the very foundations of your livelihood, either with or without a weapon, I would, as a matter of instinct do whatever it took to keep me, my family and my possessions safe.

When they break in, that's provocation enough to spark a response from me. I'm sick of all this "oh but they were running away" lark. Tuff tits. They've already stepped over the line and deserve whats coming to them. They are scum.

An Englishman's home is his castle and I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law.

They aren't normal people like you or I, they are the bottom-of-the-barrel people who were trying not only to rob you, but also trying to do you over in court for protecting your family and property. Devious, scheming sods like this make me sick an the courts system doesn't do enough for the REAL victims.

I couldn`t agree more !!!!!

if id got kids then yes id bash em, but i havent so id try and get a good luck at em, let em go and call bobbies. not worth getting injuried for sake of material things

Originally posted by dinp
To all those saying 'don't pre-empt violence on them' seem to be overlooking the main point:

!!THE SLIMY BARSTEWARD(S) HAS BROKEN IN TO YOUR PROPERTY!!!

I agree with you dinp, that's why I voted Yes, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence

I disagree with anyone who believes that burglars have ANY rights once they've broken that law.


Agreed but they don't deserve to be murdered when the burglar could be some young kid, addicted to drugs, who is trying to pay off his debts and is in deep trouble. They need help.

the law at the moment allows you to use reasonable force.

the people arguing for a change here (if you can call it making an argument) are saying that they should be free to murder the burglar as the burglar will have forfeited all rights.

Maybe as the step after that they'd like to see the word reasonable removed from all self-defence law, so if someone decides to attack you it's perfectly legal to pick up a knife or a 2*4 and beat them to death with it.

Originally posted by IanMitchell
I agree with you dinp, that's why I voted Yes, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence

Agreed but they don't deserve to be murdered when the burglar could be some young kid, addicted to drugs, who is trying to pay off his debts and is in deep trouble. They need help.

I voted yes, get them before they get you. That doesn't mean I condone unncessary violence, but I would do what is necessary to protect whats important to me.

I don't give a rats ass WHY someone is breaking into my house, they simply shouldnt do it. Their problems should not be my problems. I don't steal from others and I dont expect to be stolen from.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the law at the moment allows you to use reasonable force.

the people arguing for a change here (if you can call it making an argument) are saying that they should be free to murder the burglar as the burglar will have forfeited all rights.

Maybe as the step after that they'd like to see the word reasonable removed from all self-defence law, so if someone decides to attack you it's perfectly legal to pick up a knife or a 2*4 and beat them to death with it.

I certainly wouldn't plan to murder anyone, but if a fight broke out and they were giving as much as you and they ended up dying as a result, I dont see why I should be punished for that.

I was doing my duty and protecting my family and property, whereas the lowlife was out to strip me of safety and possession.

Originally posted by dinp
I voted yes, get them before they get you. That doesn't mean I condone unncessary violence, but I would do what is necessary to protect whats important to me.

Definately. The poll should be changed to get them before they get you, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence.

Their problems should not be my problems. I don't steal from others and I dont expect to be stolen from.

Agreed. It should not be your problem, I'm not disputing that if someone breaks into somewhere that is not their property they are wrong- regardless of the reasoning.

What I'm saying is if they're desparate they need help.

Originally posted by IanMitchell
Definately. The poll should be changed to get them before they get you, but no unnecessarily gratuitous violence.


The 'get them before they get you' option should still be there though, as some person somewhere would just want an excuse to kill someone and get away with it!

Originally posted by dinp
The 'get them before they get you' option should still be there though, as some person somewhere would just want an excuse to kill someone and get away with it!

I'm saying all this but I'm sure my Dad wouldn't be able to stop himself hurting someone if they broke into our house.

Originally posted by dinp
I certainly wouldn't plan to murder anyone, but if a fight broke out and they were giving as much as you and they ended up dying as a result, I dont see why I should be punished for that.

I was doing my duty and protecting my family and property, whereas the lowlife was out to strip me of safety and possession.

so you are in agreement with the current law as that is currently perfectly legal.

What is not legal is using excessive force (depends on a jury as to what that is) nor any form of 'revenge' which would include continuing to attack them if they attempted to leave.
Although to balance that last bit you would be within your rights to perform a citizens arrest and then use reasonable force to restrain them, which would basically be a continuation of the ongoing violence.

Originally posted by dial
What would a normal decent kid be doing running around the inside of a house in the early hours of the mornig uninvited?

Shoot to kill, then?

OK then while we are on the subject of Criminals, i think we should send the B*****d that shot the Police Officer in West Yorkshire back to The Good Ole U S of A and put him on death row, why the hell should we keep him. Hes wanted by the FBI anyway, plus hes no good to society.

Originally posted by Wattsy
OK then while we are on the subject of Criminals, i think we should send the B*****d that shot the Police Officer in West Yorkshire back to The Good Ole U S of A and put him on death row, why the hell should we keep him. Hes wanted by the FBI anyway, plus hes no good to society.

AFAIK he will be extradicted after he's finished his sentence over here.

Originally posted by dial
What would a normal decent kid be doing running around the inside of a house in the early hours of the mornig uninvited?


I know and seen plenty of kids out at 2 & 3 in the morning they need a good clout.

Originally posted by Cyclone
just don't shoot them in the back with an illegally held firearm whilst they are trying to get away from you.

......not just a little parting shot into the backside ? :heyhey:

Hows about both barrels in the back of the knees?

Won't (shouldn't) die, won't run far, hurts like buggery, crippled for life with luck, and he won't get away with any of your small stuff, or evade capture.

Only drawback is the ruined carpet as far as I can see! :clap:

Originally posted by markham
Hows about both barrels in the back of the knees?

Won't (shouldn't) die, won't run far, hurts like buggery, crippled for life with luck, and he won't get away with any of your small stuff, or evade capture.

Only drawback is the ruined carpet as far as I can see! :clap:

it's not about killing them, it's about continuing to attack them when they are no longer a danger to you.

I heard a bit more on the radio about the proposals being tabled in the private members bill.
The wording of 'reasonable force' would be changed to 'not grossly disproportionate'.

Shooting someone running away would still be the latter.
It's barely a change at all, just enough to make juries more lenient when judging someone.

If they were going to change anything though I think it should be this change for all self defence law.

There is a lot of big talk in this thread.

The truth is that 99.9% of people would do nothing (for any one of a number of reasons) in the event of actually discovering a burglar, and the remaining 0.1% would probably already be in the nick for ABH already.

I think these threads are only started so people can live-out their private S&M/torture/violence/power fantasies.

If some of you guys realy would do some of this stuff to another person then you need help.

i don't think your percentages are born out by the evidence Tony. There are quite a few instances of householders being injured after attempting to 'deal' with a burglar. So these people were obviously willing but not capable. And for everyone of those that makes the news i expect there are a lot more that take place.

What do you think most people would do, hear a noise late a night, hide in the bedroom rather than going to investigate?

Originally posted by Cyclone
i don't think your percentages are born out by the evidence Tony. There are quite a few instances of householders being injured after attempting to 'deal' with a burglar. So these people were obviously willing but not capable. And for everyone of those that makes the news i expect there are a lot more that take place.



I would say only if I had a chance to overcome a burglar then I would attack.

If I was face to face with him I wouldn't, he could be armed or anything and I value my life more than a few possesions.

Wouldn't you agree Cyclone?

if you come face to face though isn't the burglar likely to attack you, so you'd be better of using the element of surprise (and the baseball bat you carried downstairs) than hesitating, no?

Originally posted by Cyclone
if you come face to face though isn't the burglar likely to attack you, so you'd be better of using the element of surprise (and the baseball bat you carried downstairs) than hesitating, no?

lol

I'd cross that bridge when I come to it. :lol:

Sadly I wouldn't have a baseball bat cause I don't own one.

cricket bat? bokken? fire poker? Decorative overmantle sword? Twas just an example.

Cricket Bat would be outside in the shed.

Nearest thing inside would be a couple of guitars, one of them I guess I'd be willing to crack over the head of a burglar!

Originally posted by Wattsy
I know and seen plenty of kids out at 2 & 3 in the morning they need a good clout.

yes it seems to be a craze lately, wait til mum and dad are in bed then sneak back out.
This happened somewhere nearby recently and a neighbour who was in bed was woken at two in the morning , the kids had set the bin on fire and pushed it up to the house and the front porch was all black and smouldering, she has kids and was in bed if she hadn`t heard them the house and her family would be no more.

Originally posted by nick2
I think these threads are only started so people can live-out their private S&M/torture/violence/power fantasies.

If some of you guys realy would do some of this stuff to another person then you need help.

Maybe we should go to the same psychiatrist that the ones who say 'we should let them go unharmed' are attending, eh?

Protecting your family, property, peace of mind etc. has nothing to do with 'torture' or 'power fantasies', it's about dealing with a vermin who is out of control and is preying on YOU!

I agree that a lot of people who say they will give them a good beating if they catch them might hide when really confronted, but isn't this about what we think OUGHT to happen to these scum? What most of us hope WILL happen to these scum?..... and most of us will congratulate someone who actually does something to these scum?

It's a bit presumptious to think that we will consider these thieving scum to be 'people'. The old lady, in hospital fighting for her life, is a PERSON, so how can the dirtbag who put her there also be considered a person? That's an insult to the old lady!

when I catch Burglars I make them eat their testicles before I bury them on my allotment. I't not as if they fill in timesheets and tell their boss where they're working. And If you saw the tomatoes this year It'd bring a smile to your face. :thumbsup:

So sh*t does make things grow better!:thumbsup:

Yeah but it has to be eunach s*1t

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe leaving the house through an alternative exit

How about leaving your own home to go hire a van, then giving the villans a hand to load up!!! :roll: :wink:

To all those who do not agree with the "get in first and give it good n hard" side.

How many of you have actually been turned over by one or more of these low life scroats?
How many of you would like to see (as we do so all too often in the press/TV news etc) your grandparent beaten to a pulp for the remainder of their pension?
How many have partners or parents you would put in danger?

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE KIDS???

The safety of my Daughter and her Mother will always be paramount.

IT'S MY FAMILY, MY HOME, MY PROPERTY.

SCUMBAGS YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!:rant:

I have a high powered air rifle that takes pointed .22 pellets for such an occasion.

Once he's been shot and police called, the air rifle will make a visit next door so I can claim all innocence!

Originally posted by dial
now would that be a ball at teatime?? or maybe a ball at two in the morning?? Get real and at two in the morning it`s more likely to be a brick.unless of course you`re in the habit of leaving all your windows open 24 hours a day.
It could happen.

how about you avoid quoting me out of context.

Someone asked for an alternative strategy to confronting a burglar, I offered one. I didn't suggest that it would be one I would prefer, use or recommend.

Originally posted by claycraft
How about leaving your own home to go hire a van, then giving the villans a hand to load up!!!

To all those who do not agree with the "get in first and give it good n hard" side.

How many of you have actually been turned over by one or more of these low life scroats?
How many of you would like to see (as we do so all too often in the press/TV news etc) your grandparent beaten to a pulp for the remainder of their pension?
How many have partners or parents you would put in danger?

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE KIDS???

The safety of my Daughter and her Mother will always be paramount.

IT'S MY FAMILY, MY HOME, MY PROPERTY.

SCUMBAGS YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!:rant:

What I'd like to do if we ever got a burglar, is simply nut him and let the police deal with it.

What always happens when I think I have a burglar, is I pick up my machete and run downstairs with red in my eyes :)

Originally posted by markham
Protecting your family, property, peace of mind etc. has nothing to do with 'torture' or 'power fantasies', it's about dealing with a vermin who is out of control and is preying on YOU!


So all the "I would pull their fingernails out", "I would tie them up with barbed-wire" and "I would shoot them in the knee caps, then tie them up in barbed wire and then pullout their fingernails" sounds ok to you ?

Protecting your family and yourself with violence is one thing, but doing it with glee and thinking-up weird and wonderfull methods of execution is at best a bit kinky and at worse perverted and dangerous.

In my opinion.

And of course most of the torture brigade would actually either simply sleep through it or require a new pair of pyjama bottoms. :hihi:

This is an emotve subject and it's difficult to be rational when you have been directly affected.

I disturbed 3 lads climbing in through my bathroom window at 5 am about 10 years ago. They knocked at the door very quietly at which point I woke up, saw them through the window and at this point tried to wake my boyfriend up (he is a very heavy sleeper). I then got the oven cleaner spray with all intention of using it but panicked when I realised they were already inside. Luckily our bathroom door had a sturdy bolt on the OUTSIDE so I bolted them in the bathroom and yelled 'they're already inside'. They scarpered leaving their crowbar behind and I was too scared to go to the phonebox to call the police for hours.

I'm just glad I am a light sleeper, I could have blinded someone that night- but when you're woken up suddenly and scared I don't think you can be held responsible for your actions.

I have been burgled several times, each time in broad daylight, it's bad enough when they take electrial equipment but when it's more personal (they took hundreds of rare irreplaceable 12" records once) the effects can be devestating. I suffered terribly from panic attacks and depression as a direct result and, at that time, somehow sought comfort in the thought of making these scum suffer. I really do think that at the point that they decide to illegally enter your property they leave all their rights behind.

Originally posted by Cyclone
how about you avoid quoting me out of context.

Someone asked for an alternative strategy to confronting a burglar, I offered one. I didn't suggest that it would be one I would prefer, use or recommend.

Apologies Cyclone didnt mean to quote out of context:blush:
I missed off some ironic smilies thats all. Sorted it now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4167865.stm

Just an update to this.

87% don't appear to agree with them. Also 87% is quite a figure for a politician to ignore and would appear to be something that other political groups could take advantage of, yet the BBC don't think the Tories will.

Another problem I see is that most people don't really have a clue what "appropriate force" is, there are certainly no training schemes available - so my definition may be different to the next persons, which in turn may be different to the next persons etc.

It's hardly a nice firm foundation to mount a legal case from. It is in my mind quite simple, the law should not be in favour of the criminal EVER.

Originally posted by Lickszz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4167865.stm

Just an update to this.

87% don't appear to agree with them. Also 87% is quite a figure for a politician to ignore and would appear to be something that other political groups could take advantage of, yet the BBC don't think the Tories will.

Another problem I see is that most people don't really have a clue what "appropriate force" is, there are certainly no training schemes available - so my definition may be different to the next persons, which in turn may be different to the next persons etc.

Well, whichever way you put it, it comes down to the definition of the force you permitted to use. The other suggestion was to replace the directive of reasonable force, and replace it with "not disproportionate" which is hardly any better in the clarity stakes.

It's hardly a nice firm foundation to mount a legal case from. It is in my mind quite simple, the law should not be in favour of the criminal EVER.

Nor does it. Try finding one single case where a householder has been tried and found guilty of using unreasonable force in defending their property. (its not imposible, only difficult).Only one that I can think of, Tony Martin, and his conviction for murder was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Now try finding one single case where an intruder has been tried and found guilty of burglary. Easy. Lots of them. How is this law weighted in favour of the criminal?

It seems that in all but one cases of householders defending their property, not one householder has been convocted of anything related to the incident.

This tells me that the law does not need changing, as it seems to be working well enough. The government, for once, agrees with me and will not be changing the law :)

What is so confusing about reasonable force?
- from the article above
Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald said case law made it clear that people could use what force they instinctively felt necessary at the time for self defence.

A trawl of cases over the last 15 years had produced only 11 examples where householders or occupiers of business premises had been prosecuted, he said.

And those had included a warehouse manager who waited for a burglar, caught him, beat him, tied him up and then set fire to him.

Mr Mercer said he was extremely disappointed but would continue with his campaign, especially as a recent survey suggested 87% of people thought the current law was weighted in favour of criminals.

"This is public opinion, this is democracy, I'm amazed the home secretary is choosing to ignore this," said Mr Mercer.

It seems to be a problem withe the perception of the law, not the law itself.

I think being able to hit said intruder over the head with something large and heavy enough to knock him out would be perfect - however, being only 5'3", I kind of think most of the intruders would tower above me.

I think the law in America is the most clear-cut. If you meet an intruder in your home, you have the right to shoot him. It isn't just a matter of protecting your valuables, it's a matter of also protecting your family from this person's intentions - and you don't know what kind of sicko s/he might be.

Mistakes are made, sure enough, but why should anyone have to stand back and allow someone to take their possessions and fork out extra money in insurance premiums.

[i]



It seems that in all but one cases of householders defending their property, not one householder has been convocted of anything related to the incident.


[/B]


Yes but how many householders have had to go through the ridicule of being questioned and charged, but then the cases are dropped, or even had to go to court but were found not guilty? Do they need that kind of treatment when they were just defending whats theres? The simple way to resolve this is to bring in a law that states if someone has broken into your home you have the right to use any force necessary. Atleast then a potential burglar may think twice as to doing the crime. That is a deterrent and thats what this country needs.

Sorry folks, this is not politically correct, just my opinion.
When they take the decision to enter MY house uninvited they leave ALL of their human rights outside.
I would be looking to remove that threat with as much violence as I deemed appropriate, that would be my decision and if that meant killing them then so be it. :rant:

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
Yes but how many householders have had to go through the ridicule of being questioned and charged, but then the cases are dropped, or even had to go to court but were found not guilty? Do they need that kind of treatment when they were just defending whats theres? The simple way to resolve this is to bring in a law that states if someone has broken into your home you have the right to use any force necessary. Atleast then a potential burglar may think twice as to doing the crime. That is a deterrent and thats what this country needs.

Burglars who enter private property are usually hardened criminals and therefore don't care about deterrents.

Originally posted by MovingOn
I think being able to hit said intruder over the head with something large and heavy enough to knock him out would be perfect - however, being only 5'3", I kind of think most of the intruders would tower above me.

I think the law in America is the most clear-cut. If you meet an intruder in your home, you have the right to shoot him. It isn't just a matter of protecting your valuables, it's a matter of also protecting your family from this person's intentions - and you don't know what kind of sicko s/he might be.

Mistakes are made, sure enough, but why should anyone have to stand back and allow someone to take their possessions and fork out extra money in insurance premiums.

they don't, your just adding weight to the issue here being one of perception as Phan said.

Originally posted by owdlad
Sorry folks, this is not politically correct, just my opinion.
When they take the decision to enter MY house uninvited they leave ALL of their human rights outside.
I would be looking to remove that threat with as much violence as I deemed appropriate, that would be my decision and if that meant killing them then so be it. :rant:

and how is that 'not reasonable force'?

Originally posted by owdlad
Sorry folks, this is not politically correct, just my opinion.
When they take the decision to enter MY house uninvited they leave ALL of their human rights outside.
I would be looking to remove that threat with as much violence as I deemed appropriate, that would be my decision and if that meant killing them then so be it. :rant:

Top lad....maybe the PC brigade would like to make the burglar a cup of tea and discuss how he can reform himself, I'm sure that they would put down the VCR and talk in great depth about their deviancy and social wrongdoings! Fools the lot of 'em.

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
Yes but how many householders have had to go through the ridicule of being questioned and charged, but then the cases are dropped, or even had to go to court but were found not guilty? Do they need that kind of treatment when they were just defending whats theres? The simple way to resolve this is to bring in a law that states if someone has broken into your home you have the right to use any force necessary. Atleast then a potential burglar may think twice as to doing the crime. That is a deterrent and thats what this country needs.

Burglars who enter private property are usually hardened criminals and therefore don't care about deterrents.

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
Top lad....maybe the PC brigade would like to make the burglar a cup of tea and discuss how he can reform himself, I'm sure that they would put down the VCR and talk in great depth about their deviancy and social wrongdoings! Fools the lot of 'em.

whereas the hang them all (with no evidence most likely) brigade somehow feel that reasonable force means asking them nicely.

You ARE ALLOWED TO USE FORCE, it just has to be reasonable. Which means not filling them full of lead whilst they are halfway through a window.

Originally posted by owdlad
Sorry folks, this is not politically correct, just my opinion.
When they take the decision to enter MY house uninvited they leave ALL of their human rights outside.
I would be looking to remove that threat with as much violence as I deemed appropriate, that would be my decision and if that meant killing them then so be it. :rant:

Thats how I feel about it, now unless they are brandishing a gun, they will have to contend with being on the end of the large wooden bat that I sleep about 4 ft away from and 2 seriously vicious.......... erm..... kittens :thumbsup:

Originally posted by owdlad
Sorry folks, this is not politically correct, just my opinion.
When they take the decision to enter MY house uninvited they leave ALL of their human rights outside.
I would be looking to remove that threat with as much violence as I deemed appropriate, that would be my decision and if that meant killing them then so be it. :rant:
I'm with you on this one, the law needs changing to clarify the rights of the homeowner to defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

Originally posted by Cyclone
whereas the hang them all (with no evidence most likely) brigade somehow feel that reasonable force means asking them nicely.

You ARE ALLOWED TO USE FORCE, it just has to be reasonable. Which means not filling them full of lead whilst they are halfway through a window.

I dont believe that sticking up for your rights and expecting justice can signify a "hang them all" attitude. I just want people to be able safe in their homes and be comfortable to know that if some scumbag breaks into their home they can tool him, you cant ask a burglar whether or not they are going to hit the householder, rape them, stab, murder them can you? Its not like this: householder to burglar: "are you going to hurt me?"...burglar to householder: "no, I dont pose a threat to your safety"....Householder" ok, but please leave my premises forthwith"...burglar"since you ask so nicely I will do so".!!!!!
We need to get real.....

However I like your comment about not filling someone with lead when they are hanging outta your window...I see your point and in that circumstance I would just trap him in the window till he begs to be able to breathe!

"What we would not want to do is extend that so you actually feel it's your responsibility to go down the stairs and actually attack the burglar," said Mr Oaten.

Do they expect you to sit and wait for everything to be taken?

I can see this getting to the point where a burglar breaks into your house, you go down to him and he says to you:

"Sorry but you're not allowed to touch me unless I touch you first. If you have a problem with me stealing all your hard earned valuables, the correct procedure would be to call the police and wait 30 + minutes for a squad car to come out. Now, if you don't mind, I have a bag to fill up so I can go and buy some crack with my takings. All the best."

:loopy:

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
The simple way to resolve this is to bring in a law that states if someone has broken into your home you have the right to use any force necessary.

Any force necessary to do what? Kill him or protect yourself or your property?

If you are protecting yourself, family and property, you may use the amount of force necessary to do so. That is what the law currently says. Your state of mind, in being woken perhaps in the middle of the night, frightened and angry, would also be accounted for.

If you want the right to kill burglars in your own home without being investigated at all, then you will be disappointed. Thankfully.

Originally posted by GazB
Do they expect you to sit and wait for everything to be taken?

I can see this getting to the point where a burglar breaks into your house, you go down to him and he says to you:

"Sorry but you're not allowed to touch me unless I touch you first. If you have a problem with me stealing all your hard earned valuables, the correct procedure would be to call the police and wait 30 + minutes for a squad car to come out. Now, if you don't mind, I have a bag to fill up so I can go and buy some crack with my takings. All the best."

:loopy:
No one is saying that you have to sit and wait whilst they take your stuff. Where did you get this impression from? If you find a burglar in your house you are entitled to use such force as you believe is required to protect yourself your family and your property. If that means shooting them in the face with a licenced 12 bore then so be it, although it would be extreme circumstances indeed that made that the only reasonable course of action.

This debate would actually be worth having if you lot went and learnt what exactly the current law allows you to do.

You can already use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself, someone else and/or your property.

Taking a samurai sword and running through a burglar is probably excessive. Unless you see that he's carrying a lump hammer in which case you'd probably get away with it.

Shooting a burglar or stabbing them would only be reasonable if (and this is key, stay awake) you believed that your life was in danger.
If you are a big bloke and stab to death a 15 year old unarmed burglar then you might have more of a problem explaining it, but that's fair enough, you know that you didn't really need to kill them, you did it because you chose too.

So, a change in the law would actually achieve nothing, all that is required is a change in peoples understanding.
Based on the comments here it appears unlikely that this will occur as your sources of information seem to be on a level with The Sun.

Originally posted by Cyclone
This debate would actually be worth having if you lot went and learnt what exactly the current law allows you to do...

...Based on the comments here it appears unlikely that this will occur as your sources of information seem to be on a level with The Sun.
My my, do you get dizzy sitting on such a very high horse ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
If you are a big bloke and stab to death a 15 year old unarmed burglar then you might have more of a problem explaining it, but that's fair enough, you know that you didn't really need to kill them, you did it because you chose too.


Dude
So if your a big bloke you cant get stabbed up by a skinny 15 year old then, just because you are bigger than them?



So, a change in the law would actually achieve nothing, all that is required is a change in peoples understanding.
Based on the comments here it appears unlikely that this will occur as your sources of information seem to be on a level with The Sun.

Mate

Dont be patronising. I am a graduate in Sociology from a top red brick uni so I know all about the laws, ethics etc surrounding this issue...yes I read the Sun but I also read all the other publications as well. Dont you think that your being snobby by assuming that Sun readers do not have a mind for themselves?
You obviously havnt been touched by crime yet so when you are your attitude may change hopefully....but given your bigoted stance about us sun reading thicko's, I reckon your staff protect you from burglars.

Foo,
no, I just enjoy the clear view.

Tony,
Don't you get bored with continually misrepresenting the current law as giving a householder no rights to defend themselves or their property. When if what you say is true, you know full well that they can defend themselves their property.

Explain to me again what the change in the law would accomplish since we're now all happy that we are allowed to defend things and that we don't have to offer a burglar a cup of tea (and speaking of patronising...)
I think I was actually patronising Gaz_B as it came back once again to

Gaz_BDo they expect you to sit and wait for everything to be taken?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Foo,
no, I just enjoy the clear view.

Tony,
Don't you get bored with continually misrepresenting the current law as giving a householder no rights to defend themselves or their property. When if what you say is true, you know full well that they can defend themselves their property.

Explain to me again what the change in the law would accomplish since we're now all happy that we are allowed to defend things and that we don't have to offer a burglar a cup of tea (and speaking of patronising...)
I think I was actually patronising Gaz_B as it came back once again to

Seeing that YOU continue to say that some of us are misrepresenting the law, I would say that you need to look closer at what we are actualy saying. The issue is that we DO NOT have enough flexibility to defend ourselves in our homes. The other day on the BBC website I read about a man who ended up in a 6 month legal wrangle after he knocked out a burglar with one hit. Is that fair? Is that the protection you say the law gives the victim? Do you live in disneyworld or something?

can you provide a link to that story, I'm sure it's not as simple as you make out.

As the government has been at pains to point out, 11 householders have been prosecuted (not even all convicted) in 15 years.

Doesn't sound like there's an issue here to me, I expect those 11 were all prosecuted for a good reason.

I heard on the radio yesterday that in the past 12 years there have been 15 prosecutions of people for use of excessive force against intruders.

Is it really such a big issue that needs to exercise so much of our politicians time who could be thinking about more important issues?

Originally posted by Cyclone
As the government has been at pains to point out, 11 householders have been prosecuted (not even all convicted) in 15 years.

Doesn't sound like there's an issue here to me, I expect those 11 were all prosecuted for a good reason.
It's a bit like crime figures, the thing that's so much a problem for so many people isn't *necessarily* the crime, but the fear of crime.

This is similar, surely people shouldn't fear burglars in their own home, and neither should they fear what *may* happen in the courts afterwards if they defend themselves.

Coming in at this stage, these points have probably been made earlier, but I'm not trawling through 8 pages so:

First of all, the issue of "reasonable force" is subjective. What is reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another. Also, what seemed reasonable at 3am with a stranger creeping around your house and your adrenalin pumping may not still seem reasonable a few weeks later, especially to a jury who have probably never been in the same position.

The burglar puts him/herself at risk by breaking and entering another person's property, so I personally think that almost any amount of force is reasonable.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
It's a bit like crime figures, the thing that's so much a problem for so many people isn't *necessarily* the crime, but the fear of crime.

This is similar, surely people shouldn't fear burglars in their own home, and neither should they fear what *may* happen in the courts afterwards if they defend themselves.

yes exactly.

Changing the law to give you stronger rights to attack intruders would just add to the fear, because it would lead the public to believe that burglary had suddenly become a lot more common.

Also, the change that the Tories want is just to say you may use any 'force that is not grossly disproportionate' whereas at the moment it is 'reasonable force'.

That is just semantics, and both wordings are open to different interpretation. a proper change would be to put some definitions on the word 'reasonable'

Originally posted by Yodameister
That is just semantics, and both wordings are open to different interpretation. a proper change would be to put some definitions on the word 'reasonable'
The problem with "reasonable", is as it says

Originally posted by t020
the issue of "reasonable force" is subjective. What is reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another. Also, what seemed reasonable at 3am with a stranger creeping around your house and your adrenalin pumping may not still seem reasonable a few weeks later, especially to a jury who have probably never been in the same position.
and while ever this situation continues, people will fear what the authorities *may* do after the fact.

If you break into my house, and potentially threaten my family, you should be the one at risk, not me.

There again is the problem, if someone is in my house, uninvited, why are they there, I don't know, and hence, I don't know what force is reasonable until *after* the intruder chooses to let me know. I am the "one on the back foot", not once but twice, once because I am surprised by the break in, and again because I now have to "wait and see" what I can do about it.

If the homeowner has the right to defend them-self, at least the initiative returns to the non-criminal upon discovery. The intruder now is on the defensive, as it should be.

The problem as I see it is, the homeowner has no choice in this, except how to react (in a confused state, while under threat), the potential intruder has one very big choice *do I want to break into this house in the first place*.

Let's help them choose *no* by making the potential consequences a little more vague.

Yes thats the whole meaning of subjective - it appears different to different people.

I'd tend to say that if its a jury trial you will probably get a pretty fair result.

Remember the event that kicked all this off, Tony Martin's imprisonment - he was convicted of murder by a jury.

Now you would think from your average tabloid that the vast majority of people think that you should be able to do just about anything you like to an intruder but the fact he was convicted of murder by a jury rather gives the lie to this.

Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not defending your property. It may be argued that you are discouraging the person doing it again (and if you kill them you are certainy stopping it!) but the law only applies to defending your property or yourself.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not defending your property. It may be argued that you are discouraging the person doing it again (and if you kill them you are certainy stopping it!) but the law only applies to defending your property or yourself.
...or maybe you believed that he was going to get a bigger gun from his car, and therefore better "get in first".

Lets face it, how many people have guns to hand in the middle of the night, this isn't particularly likely to happen to any of our fellow forum members.

Especially with the firearms laws as they are now, the only people with guns now *are* the crim's.

Yet another reason to sleep well at night.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I heard on the radio yesterday that in the past 12 years there have been 15 prosecutions of people for use of excessive force against intruders.


The defenders of the status quo trotted this line out quite frequently.
Unfortunately, few of the interviewers have be on the ball enough to realise that this figure does not represent the reality.
Far greater numbers of housholders have been taken in for questioning, arrested, and/or charged for allegations of assaulting an intruder.
Many of them spend up to a year waiting to hear whether they will be prosecuted or not.
Unfortunately, I don't know the actual numbers involved but I have personally had to insist on an officer changing words in my statement such as "when I hit him", "after I pushed him", "threw him out" etc. to describe a situation that I solely described as helping/escorting the man out of my house and garden.

It has been this over-eagerness by the police to try and prosecute us that has created the demand for change.

I believe that the problem is (like with many other problems) not in the law but in the use and interpretation of the law by those who should help to protect us.

Originally posted by cgksheff

Far greater numbers of housholders have been taken in for questioning, arrested, and/or charged for allegations of assaulting an intruder.


How do you establish if a crime has been comitted without interviewing and questioning?

Do you want an anything goes rule whereby you can do anything you like to an intruder? How many cases will there be of people enticing people into their house to kill them?

you may scoff, but there are such things as contract killings.

The point I'm making is that if you only questioned people you knew were guilty we would live in a very different world.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
...or maybe you believed that he was going to get a bigger gun from his car, and therefore better "get in first".

Lets face it, how many people have guns to hand in the middle of the night, this isn't particularly likely to happen to any of our fellow forum members.

Especially with the firearms laws as they are now, the only people with guns now *are* the crim's.

Yet another reason to sleep well at night.

under current law that would actually be a valid defence if you honestly believed that (and probably had a reason to believe it other than paranoia).

Originally posted by cgksheff

Many of them spend up to a year waiting to hear whether they will be prosecuted or not.


Yoda,

This is the important part.
Why should the wronged party go through months of hell only for the case to be thrown out at the end.

The relevant statistic in this case is that of the number of individuals charged under these circumstance relative to the number reaching prosecution.

Originally posted by cgksheff
Yoda,

This is the important part.
Why should the wronged party go through months of hell only for the case to be thrown out at the end.

The relevant statistic in this case is that of the number of individuals charged under these circumstance relative to the number reaching prosecution.

changing the law would not alter this. The proposed change did not give the home owner cart blanche to get medieval on a burglars ass, so the police would still investigate, prosecute if they have enough evidence and pass it to the cps to decide whether to take it to court.

Originally posted by Cyclone
The proposed change did not give the home owner cart blanche to get medieval on a burglars ass.
More's the pity.

If it did, I'd have voted for it.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
More's the pity.

If it did, I'd have voted for it.

and none of the problems with such a law occur to you at all.

Please come and visit, preferably late at night and in dark clothing and i'll explain it all to you over a nice cup of tea (Joke).

Originally posted by xafier
Personally, if some git was in my house and I snook downstairs and cought them I'd crack them with the heaviest thing I could find and ask questions later.. :P
Someone once told me that if you do go downstairs to confront a burglar and then wallop him, you should tell the police that you went down to let the cat out, as you going down with the intent of seeing off a burglar would make you the agressor and therefore liable for prosecution!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well, whichever way you put it, it comes down to the definition of the force you permitted to use. The other suggestion was to replace the directive of reasonable force, and replace it with "not disproportionate" which is hardly any better in the clarity stakes.


Nor does it. Try finding one single case where a householder has been tried and found guilty of using unreasonable force in defending their property. (its not imposible, only difficult).Only one that I can think of, Tony Martin, and his conviction for murder was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Now try finding one single case where an intruder has been tried and found guilty of burglary. Easy. Lots of them. How is this law weighted in favour of the criminal?

It seems that in all but one cases of householders defending their property, not one householder has been convicted of anything related to the incident.

This tells me that the law does not need changing, as it seems to be working well enough. The government, for once, agrees with me and will not be changing the law :)

What is so confusing about reasonable force?


It seems to be a problem withe the perception of the law, not the law itself.

In Short.

The adequacy of a law must be suspect if it has variable interpretation. If a subject fails to interpret it correctly it will do. If a substantial number of subjects do then the suspicion requires consideration with a view to change. If a senior civil servant or his department can continuously fail to interpret it correctly then either he or the law but probably both are in need of change.

There was a poll on Channel 5 on Wednesday and by 17:30 hours 1% thought the law didn't require change and 99% thought it needed changing. It would seem that Clarke is on his own.

There is also another poll by Virgin money insurance where 99% of people thought the law favoured the criminal with 92% stating that they would use any physical means necessary to defend their homes.

If they are going to re-word the law, perhaps the burglar might be a 'guest' (spelt protected species) in this country? :)

Originally posted by Cyclone
Please come and visit, preferably late at night and in dark clothing and i'll explain it all to you over a nice cup of tea (Joke).
Yes exactly, that's the point isn't it.

I *wouldn't* be skulking round your house late at night.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Yes exactly, that's the point isn't it.

I *wouldn't* be skulking round your house late at night.

my point was that if i wanted to bump you off I could invite you round for a visit. Whack you on the head with a convenient pire poker break my own window or kick a door in and then claim that you were a burglar. Under the system you'd like the police wouldn't even investigate as i'd have been completely within my rights.

Maybe what needs changing about the whole area of self defence is to have a clear and concise definition of what reasonable force is. At the moment you have to get into quite a lot of depth of case law and dig through a lot of myths regarding it.

scross - whoever told you that was plain wrong, you have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, others and your property.

so what happens when a little old lady confronts an intruder?

Reasonable force for her would be to shoot intruder dead because anything less would get her beaten to a pulp if not death... :confused:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
so what happens when a little old lady confronts an intruder?

Reasonable force for her would be to shoot intruder dead because anything less would get her beaten to a pulp if not death... :confused:

as you say, it would be reasonable. The test is what an normal person would find reasonable in those circumstances and with those assumptions made.

Of course she might need to explain the presence of a firearm and even if it's legally owned why it wasn't locked away and kept seperately from her ammunition.

'Cos she's a baad octagenarian m/f??? ;)

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
'Cos she's a baad octagenarian m/f??? ;)
LOL

Hey, actually, I think that might be my nieghbour !

This seems like interesting news.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

Thoughts?

I think you should use force, but only to an extent like Xavier said.

No guns or knives but where do you draw the line?

I don't see why you shouldnt use a knife or a gun if you hold it legally. A knife would be the only thing I could think of to use in my house. I don't have a poker or a baseball bat. A kitchen knife is probably the best thing!

I wouldn't think twice about defending my home, i'd fight tooth and nail for it. My husband and I work damn hard for everything we have and i'll be damned if some smack rat scrote thinks they're going to help themselves to our belongings. Not on my watch!

At this stage (as reported) it sounds like political posturing.

When (and if) the law is 'clarified' we might be able to see what Mr Clarke really means.

From the article: "...the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law."

What is that supposed to mean? Is Mr Clarke suggesting that statute law is in some way superior to the common law?

I wonder whether he intends to introduce statutory legislation which would make murder an offence?

Do we need a statute which makes murder an offence?

I would rather be tried buy a jury of 12 than carried in a box by 6. Down the stairs on his neck. Don't kill em just stop them from walkin again. They will then sit as a lesson to all wouldbe thiefs and scumbags

When i see stories in the paper, of the homeowner might face jail time. Its ludicrous, I mean if a guy has my ps3 in his hand im hardly gonna offer him the missing controller am i?

The whole concept that you cant use excessive force on someone is crazy, lets just hope they bring this into effect..

When i see stories in the paper, of the homeowner might face jail time. Its ludicrous, I mean if a guy has my ps3 in his hand im hardly gonna offer him the missing controller am i?

The whole concept that you cant use excessive force on someone is crazy, lets just hope they bring this into effect..

You're allowed to clunk him on the head and take it back. You're not allowed to tie him up and stab him thirty times with a meat cleaver.


Are you saying that you should be so allowed?

You're allowed to clunk him on the head and take it back. You're not allowed to tie him up and stab him thirty times with a meat cleaver.


Are you saying that you should be so allowed?


what a spoilsport......known burgalar robs house....next minute his house gets completely emptied of all its belongings.....is that justice....

I don't see why you shouldnt use a knife or a gun if you hold it legally. A knife would be the only thing I could think of to use in my house. I don't have a poker or a baseball bat. A kitchen knife is probably the best thing!

If you happen to be in the kitchen at the time, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a handily available knife and use it to threaten any burglars into leaving. If they don't leave, they become a threat to your person and it's reasonable to stab them with it. If you happen to nick an artery and they bleed to death, too bad. There will inevitably be a police investigation but you won't have committed a crime.

What wouldn't be reasonable is to keep stabbing them over and over with a clear intent to kill. The idea is to prevent them from injuring you, not to exact bloodthirsty retaliation.

You're allowed to clunk him on the head and take it back. You're not allowed to tie him up and stab him thirty times with a meat cleaver.


Are you saying that you should be so allowed?

Yeah, Just with a bit of sarcasm..

To tie him up etc, seems like to much hard work, just a knife or heavy dumbell would do.

Not read the whole thread, but look at this announced today :
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/clarke_no_charge_if_homeowner_stabs_intruder

Get those knives sharpened :thumbsup:

Not read the whole thread, but look at this announced today :
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/clarke_no_charge_if_homeowner_stabs_intruder

Get those knives sharpened :thumbsup:

He's trying to get a headline out of proposing something that already exists. Reasonable force has always been allowed.

He's trying to get a headline out of proposing something that already exists. Reasonable force has always been allowed.

if you catch one...can you keep him the boot of a car for three days...

if you catch one...can you keep him the boot of a car for three days...

Not under existing law. You can only keep him there as long as it takes to turn him over to the police.

Not under existing law. You can only keep him there as long as it takes to turn him over to the police.


the lads in london then...were naughty boys.....

The whole concept that you cant use excessive force on someone is crazy, lets just hope they bring this into effect..

Not really. If it's excessive then by definition, well, it's excessive.

Just use reasonable force and nobody has a complaint do they.

If you happen to be in the kitchen at the time, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a handily available knife and use it to threaten any burglars into leaving. If they don't leave, they become a threat to your person and it's reasonable to stab them with it. If you happen to nick an artery and they bleed to death, too bad. There will inevitably be a police investigation but you won't have committed a crime.

What wouldn't be reasonable is to keep stabbing them over and over with a clear intent to kill. The idea is to prevent them from injuring you, not to exact bloodthirsty retaliation.

if they are in my house I would happily stab to kill, I dont know why they are there or who is with them. As someone said above, I would rather face jail time than death or rape etc but why should I face jail time if I kill someone who has forced their way into my house, they shouldnt be there!

... but why should I face jail time if I kill someone who has forced their way into my house, they shouldnt be there!

Because you don't need to kill them in order to make them leave.

Because you don't need to kill them in order to make them leave.

how do you know that? do you personally know lots of people who break into houses? Do you think burglars wear warning stickers "I may burgle/rape/attempt to murder you but if you stab to injure not kill I promise I will leave your property". If I was close enough to stab someone I would be close enough for them to stab me. The only way to ensure my safety if it got that far would be to make sure they cannot get up.

Of course I am sure most will run away as soon as they hear you moving about but if they don't then they don't intend to leave do they!

I would panic if someone was in my house. If I lived alone then not so much but as I have kids and my other half I would us anything to incapacitate someone who had broken in to my home. My other half and my kids would be on my mind and I would do anything to protect them. I am sure I may regret my actions later when the moment has passed but I doubt I would do anything else except attack the burgular/s in the first instance.

Because you don't need to kill them in order to make them leave.

but prolific burgulars commit 80% of the break ins....so topping them would reduce crime....

but prolific burgulars commit 80% of the break ins....so topping them would reduce crime....

It would create a spike in the murder statistics though.

I don't own anything worth killing someone for.

It would create a spike in the murder statistics though.

not murder under the new laws (clarification) so it would be ok

how do you know that? do you personally know lots of people who break into houses? Do you think burglars wear warning stickers "I may burgle/rape/attempt to murder you but if you stab to injure not kill I promise I will leave your property". If I was close enough to stab someone I would be close enough for them to stab me. The only way to ensure my safety if it got that far would be to make sure they cannot get up.

Of course I am sure most will run away as soon as they hear you moving about but if they don't then they don't intend to leave do they!

That's a judgement call you have to make, if you honestly fear for your life, then lethal force is no excessive (by the definition of the law).
Excessive is defined as being considered to be excessive by an average person who is placed in that situation.

if they are in my house I would happily stab to kill, I dont know why they are there or who is with them. As someone said above, I would rather face jail time than death or rape etc but why should I face jail time if I kill someone who has forced their way into my house, they shouldnt be there!

That depends on the situation doesn't it.

If you've just killed a small child or a confused alzheimers patient then you're probably looking at porridge. If you chase them from the living room and just manage to stab them as they are exiting through your window, again, it's the big house for you.

It would create a spike in the murder statistics though.

wouldn't be classed as murder though....he would be charged with stealing the knife....if i was the judge...

I don't own anything worth killing someone for.

how about your own body, your family etc.

That depends on the situation doesn't it.

If you've just killed a small child or a confused alzheimers patient then you're probably looking at porridge. If you chase them from the living room and just manage to stab them as they are exiting through your window, again, it's the big house for you.

but I wouldn't stab them if they were exiting. The problem is if they come at you there is still the threat of prosecution.

It would be an execution style back of the head job. They would have to kneel on the tiled part of the floor though as a round from a .44 could make a real mess on the carpets

It would be an execution style back of the head job. They would have to kneel on the tiled part of the floor though as a round from a .44 could make a real mess on the carpets

kep some sawdust in the kitchen just in case.

but prolific burgulars commit 80% of the break ins....so topping them would reduce crime....

seriously I think this is true, you are doing a public service. As long as you don't enjoy it because that would be worrying-thanks!

Boom! Headshot! See ya on the otherside thief.

how do you know that?

It's a logical tautology, it cannot possibly be false.

You're allowed to use as much force as is necessary to neutralise the threat to your property. If that can't be done short of killing someone, then you won't be charged with murder. If it could have been done, then you will.

but I wouldn't stab them if they were exiting. The problem is if they come at you there is still the threat of prosecution.

The threat of prosecution is right, but the expected outcome of acquittal is also correct.

but I wouldn't stab them if they were exiting. The problem is if they come at you there is still the threat of prosecution.

There has to be that threat, otherwise people will feel free to use ridiculously excessive force.

There has to be that threat, otherwise people will feel free to use ridiculously excessive force.

I think that is preferable to someone being attacked and then threatened with prosecution. I would prefer more protections for the victim and less for the perpetrator. Why have a law based on the premise that someone staying in their own house might suddenly become an axe wielding homicidal maniac??? rather than a scared victim whose only aim is not getting killed themselves. The criminal has made a choice when he/she enters someone elses home, they should deal with consequences of their actions.

I think that is preferable to someone being attacked and then threatened with prosecution. I would prefer more protections for the victim and less for the perpetrator. Why have a law based on the premise that someone staying in their own house might suddenly become an axe wielding homicidal maniac???

We don't have such a law. We have never had such a law. It has always been perfectly legal to use reasonable force. The threat of prosecution only exists for as long as it takes to decide you were not using unreasonably excessive force.

I think that is preferable to someone being attacked and then threatened with prosecution.
The threat of prosecution is only a threat though.
License to use excessive force wouldn't just be a threat, it would be a reality of people killed when it wasn't necessary. I would prefer more protections for the victim and less for the perpetrator.
What protection do you feel you need? You can already use reasonable force. Why have a law based on the premise that someone staying in their own house might suddenly become an axe wielding homicidal maniac???
There is no such premise. The premise is that you are entitled to use reasonable but not excessive force to defend yourself, which seems... well, reasonable. rather than a scared victim whose only aim is not getting killed themselves. The criminal has made a choice when he/she enters someone elses home, they should deal with consequences of their actions.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't. But the consequences do not and should not involve summary execution.

how about your own body, your family etc.

I thoguht we were talking about burglars not kidnappers/body snatchers

TBH I think A lot of people like the idea of killing somone and getting away with it, which is a bit disturbing.

TBH I think A lot of people like the idea of killing somone and getting away with it, which is a bit disturbing.

Animal instinct, back in the jungle again.

I don't see why you shouldnt use a knife or a gun if you hold it legally. A knife would be the only thing I could think of to use in my house. I don't have a poker or a baseball bat. A kitchen knife is probably the best thing!

I wonder. I've got a number of very sharp kitchen knives. I've got a few other knives, too (knives which I might have difficulty explaining away if I was caught with them in a public place in the UK.)

I'm not a total klutz - Though I have cut myself with kitchen knives. I certainly don't fancy myself as a knife-fighter and I may not be quite as adept as a practised burglar. I'd be a bot loth to start a knife fight with somebody (particularly If I believed he had a kniife, too.)

I was taught that the best weapon to use against an attacker armed with a knife is your legs. - Take large steps away from the man with the knife. (Even if you've got a knoife, too.)

In cases where the person who was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant stays about 10 ft away, I doubt that many of the potential victims get too badly hurt.

If you happen to be in the kitchen at the time, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a handily available knife and use it to threaten any burglars into leaving. If they don't leave, they become a threat to your person and it's reasonable to stab them with it. If you happen to nick an artery and they bleed to death, too bad. There will inevitably be a police investigation but you won't have committed a crime.

What wouldn't be reasonable is to keep stabbing them over and over with a clear intent to kill. The idea is to prevent them from injuring you, not to exact bloodthirsty retaliation.

Another questrion might be: "Is it reasonable to stash knives all around the house so that in the event you should discover a burglar, you don't have to go to the kitchen to get one?"

He's trying to get a headline out of proposing something that already exists. Reasonable force has always been allowed.

That's a judgement call you have to make, if you honestly fear for your life, then lethal force is no excessive (by the definition of the law).
Excessive is defined as being considered to be excessive by an average person who is placed in that situation.

And that's why Ken Clarke's comments sound like political posturing.

but I wouldn't stab them if they were exiting. The problem is if they come at you there is still the threat of prosecution.

I hope you wouldn't shoot them in the back as they were running away, either - vide Tony Martin.

Florida has a 'stand your ground' law (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm):

...The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense....


Prior to the introduction of the law, if you were attacked in your home in Florida you could use lethal force, but if you were attacked outside and you could flee, you were required to do that.

In instances where a person does injure or kill another, the case is brought before a court and the court decides whether the 'stand your ground' law applies so in all cases the person who did the killing must prove that it was a lawful killing.

(Here's an article on the Florida Law from the University of Miami Law review (http://www.law.miami.edu/studentorg/miami_law_review/issue_archive/pdf/vol63no1/MIA102.pdf).)

Since the introduction of the law, the number of 'Justifiable homicides' has gone up, the number of instances of burglars/muggers managing to sue their victims has gone down. The law was cited 93 times in the first 5 years and upheld on 57 of those occasions.

In instances where a person does injure or kill another, the case is brought before a court and the court decides whether the 'stand your ground' law applies so in all cases the person who did the killing must prove that it was a lawful killing.

Is that criminal proof - beyond reasonable doubt - or merely a balance of probalities?

You sound just like my dad.

I haven't spoken to him for nearly 15 years after he threatened to beat me up for dissagreeing with him.

It worked though didn't it?!

It would be an execution style back of the head job. They would have to kneel on the tiled part of the floor though as a round from a .44 could make a real mess on the carpets

Boom! Headshot! See ya on the otherside thief.

I thought the sadist Rambo/He-man fantasy scene was passe, but then again....

If I ever caught a burglar In my home, I'd put a 12 inch blade straight in him. No questions asked. Family comes first

If I ever caught a burglar In my home, I'd put a 12 inch blade straight in him. No questions asked. Family comes first

Oooh you're well hard!

Oooh you're well hard!

Like I Said family comes first :)

Like I Said family comes first :)

If your lad was a burglar would you stab him up or give him some chat though?

if a burgler gets in my house, and with my two children upstairs asleep, not knowing what intentions this burgler has I would be inclined to take his life before I find out

I would rather have life in prision then risk the life/lives of my family

If your lad was a burglar would you stab him up or give him some chat though?

My child ain't gonna be brought up to be a thug, but if he ever does god forbid then he'l have to bear the consequences

My child ain't gonna be brought up to be a thug, but if he ever does god forbid then he'l have to bear the consequences

..especially if he breaks into my house.

if a burgler gets in my house, and with my two children upstairs asleep, not knowing what intentions this burgler has I would be inclined to take his life before I find out

I would rather have life in prision then risk the life/lives of my family

Couldn't you just tell him to go away? What's with all this macho posturing nonsense? Are they selling testosterone at Netto or something?

Couldn't you just tell him to go away? What's with all this macho posturing nonsense? Are they selling testosterone at Netto or something?

"please do not burgle me"

"ok im sorry il try somewhere else"


.....

Couldn't you just tell him to go away? What's with all this macho posturing nonsense? Are they selling testosterone at Netto or something?

Hey mr burglar can you go away please, my kids are asleep.

Yes that would work, freak!

Hey mr burglar can you go away please, my kids are asleep.

Yes that would work, freak!

Who are you calling freak, cretin?

Couldn't you just tell him to go away? What's with all this macho posturing nonsense? Are they selling testosterone at Netto or something?

Is that what you say to your body when you have the sniffles? "Go away"

Or does your body do something about it and fight and kill the intruder?

I'd give him a big hug and a cup of lentil soup and then we could sit down and discuss the reasons why his life has turned out like this, who knows he may have a friendly step dad with a penchant for Werthers Original :roll:

Couldn't you just tell him to go away?

No you would have to say PLEASE go away, that would work then :roll:

Oooh you're well hard!

The "oooh you are acting hard" crap is another one of the nanby pamby apologist real ale drinking left wingers responses to someone who is prepared to do the right thing to protect his family, it is right in the list of stock response that include "if you dont like gays then you must be a closet gay" :hihi:

The "oooh you are acting hard" crap is another one of the nanby pamby apologist real ale drinking left wingers responses to someone who is prepared to do the right thing to protect his family, it is right in the list of stock response that include "if you dont like gays then you must be a closet gay" :hihi:

Are you a closet gay? Or do you like gays?

Are you a closet gay? Or do you like gays?

You aint, in fact I can even remember you outing yourself at one point.

Who are you calling freak, cretin?

please dont hurt me, PLEASE!!

You aint, in fact I can even remember you outing yourself at one point.

How frightfully interesting, perhaps if you were desperate for thrills you could find the post.

please dont hurt me, PLEASE!!

Are you stupid?

How frightfully interesting, perhaps if you were desperate for thrills you could find the post.

There was a link to it on another forum.

Great to hear that we can now use reasonable force against people who break into your home.

As I understand it, you can stamp or jump on the burgulars head, as long as you do this after 9pm

Are you stupid?

Are you on the ale?

Are you on the ale?

That would be real ale of course.

There was a link to it on another forum.

Amazing isn't it that there are people sad enough to be bothered? Are they queer freaks or what? What a bunch of tossers.

Amazing isn't it that there are people sad enough to be bothered? Are they queer freaks or what? What a bunch of tossers.

Nah, they are all on this forum ;)

I have a simple view on this issue.
If someone is in your house you have no chance to have a cup of tea and ask their intentions so I would assume they have no problem killing me then raping my wife and daughter.

Assume the worst and beat the living crap out of the swine just in case I'm right.
That's how things work out here. If you get hold and you're able to damage the bugger, the cops leave you alone regardless of the damage inflicted.

If you don't get him but wake the neighbours, they finish the job off. Assuming he's still breathing, he says anything to the cops and they give him some more.
It's common to see it on TV here. No enquiry when a cop kicks the **** out of a pre kicked git on live TV here. I've seen a few get slapped on crime shows.

Which presumably makes it likely that if someone is in your house, they'll hit you in the face with the baseball bat they brought, rather than risk you catching them...

Or are the burglars too stupid to come prepared?

There's an awful lot of testosterone on this thread, probably the majority of which would evaporate very quickly in the face of a real confrontation. You're the one who just got out of bed naked at 0400 to see what the noise was, the burglar is the one who came equipped and knowing what he was going to do, I know who I'd put money on with all your stabbing and killing talk.

Amazing isn't it that there are people sad enough to be bothered? Are they queer freaks or what? What a bunch of tossers.

You are without question the most vile little creature ive ever had the misfortune to enconter on a forum. Most o your posts are made of a nasty bile and cruel inuendo. The language you use has no place on a family forum.
I hope you get banned.

Is it surprising that Halibut has risen to the bait a little when someone is lying about him having 'outed' himself... Maybe the entire group who engaged in that little bit of homophobia should be banned.

Which presumably makes it likely that if someone is in your house, they'll hit you in the face with the baseball bat they brought, rather than risk you catching them...

Or are the burglars too stupid to come prepared?

There's an awful lot of testosterone on this thread, probably the majority of which would evaporate very quickly in the face of a real confrontation. You're the one who just got out of bed naked at 0400 to see what the noise was, the burglar is the one who came equipped and knowing what he was going to do, I know who I'd put money on with all your stabbing and killing talk.

This is the very reason i own large dogs.
Anyone wants to get to my family then they have to get past a combined weight of 15 stone in the shape of 2 huge GSD's.

Is that criminal proof - beyond reasonable doubt - or merely a balance of probalities?

The person who did the killing/injuring is required to prove that when (s)he did so:

(a) (S)he was 'going about his/her lawful occasion' - Was not a trespasser, was not committing an offence.

(b) (s)he 'reasonably believed it was necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.'

(a) is probably easy to show, (b) seems to have been interpreted rather loosely. The onus of proof doesn't appear to be very high and the actual intent of the intruder appears to be irrelevant. (See the UM review in the link)

Under the law prior to 2005, if an intruder came into your home, you could use force (including deadly force) to stop him. If the intruder was standing in your garden threatening you then - although you might have believed that he intended to break in and attack you - you were not entitled to go outside and beat the crap out of him. - Call the police. Your home was your castle, but the land outside the moat was not.

If you were not on your own property (out walking in a public place, for instance) and you were attacked, you were expected to flee - if you could do so. The current law removes that obligation (hence 'stand your ground'.) The only really good thing about the new law (as far as I can see) is that previously, if you shot a burglar, it was in your advantage to kill him. - If you didn't, he would probably sue you and bankrupt you. The law stopped victims from being sued by their assailants.

The reason I brought up the issue of the Florida law was in an attempt to counter any argument that once (and if) Ken Clarke's statement is enshrined in statutory law, 'anything goes.' THat is (IMO) very unlikely to be the case.

Up to October last year, 'Stand your ground' had been invoked in 93 cases involving 65 deaths and had been upheld in 57 of those cases ... it was NOT upheld in more than 33% of them.

(Here's another link (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece) to an article discussing the Florida law; an article which highlights the major flaws quite clearly.)

Is it surprising that Halibut has risen to the bait a little when someone is lying about him having 'outed' himself... Maybe the entire group who engaged in that little bit of homophobia should be banned.

I cant really comment on that as i dont know the details.
What i do know is that only one of the group has thus far sent me offensive homophobic pm's so if it were up to me (and i know it isnt) i know whod id like to see banned!!
Anyway, Using force against burglars.
We may as well get back on topic before we get told off...lol

What is reasonable force?

I'm a five foot tall size 8-10 female. Restraint is not an option. And how would I gauge the right amount of force to just put a burglar off? I'd have to strike first and do a lot of damage, if I wasn't to wind up coming off worst.

And I wouldn't fancy leaving my own house in a body bag.

Tony martin is an arrogant prig, but he stood no chance hand to hand with two fit young men. Has anybody lived anywhere rural? The average response time of the police is approximately two days!!!!!!! What else could he do?

He'd been burgled before. Who amongst us wouldn't take measures to ensure we didn't suffer next time??

Why is he? the two low lifes had been there before trying to rob him and part of the reason that Fred Barras died was that Brendan Fearon left him knowing he was injured to save his own skin and didn't report it to anyone. If he had got help maybe Fred wouldn't have died and Tony Martin did not know until the next day that he had hit anyone

You can see the details, it takes up the last 20 posts of the thread.

Halibut has sent you an offensive PM? That wouldn't be like him at all, but you can always forward it to a mod and they'll deal with it.

Why is he? the two low lifes had been there before trying to rob him and part of the reason that Fred Barras died was that Brendan Fearon left him knowing he was injured to save his own skin and didn't report it to anyone. If he had got help maybe Fred wouldn't have died and Tony Martin did not know until the next day that he had hit anyone

He shot at them as they were running away, there's no way to characterise that as self defence, he was in no danger at that point.

If he'd shot them coming towards him then he'd have had a much better chance of avoiding a conviction, although using an illegally held weapon wasn't going to help his case either!

He shot at them as they were running away, there's no way to characterise that as self defence, he was in no danger at that point.

If he'd shot them coming towards him then he'd have had a much better chance of avoiding a conviction, although using an illegally held weapon wasn't going to help his case either!

Actually he shot into the darkness, it was pitch black. He had no way of knowing which way they were running, away or towards him. Why did Brendan Fearon leave Fred Barras behind, he had a car he could have dropped Fred at a hospital where he could have been found, thick as thieves didn't apply here or did it?

Which presumably makes it likely that if someone is in your house, they'll hit you in the face with the baseball bat they brought, rather than risk you catching them...

Or are the burglars too stupid to come prepared?

There's an awful lot of testosterone on this thread, probably the majority of which would evaporate very quickly in the face of a real confrontation. You're the one who just got out of bed naked at 0400 to see what the noise was, the burglar is the one who came equipped and knowing what he was going to do, I know who I'd put money on with all your stabbing and killing talk.

Do you mean like that last lot in Manchester where the house holder killed the little sod? They were prepared, well, they thought they were.

As for me, no worries. I may be less fit than I was but 15 years of full contact martial arts remains with me. I took on three in Malaysia and another three in Wath without the slightest difficulty.
That last b'stard in Chapletown thought his size would allow him to hit me - He was well wrong as he found out after I launched the **** with one strike.

Fighting is something I dislike but it's handy to know how for when some git does the dirty. As far as my wife and kid goes, I don't give a rats what happens to whoever puts them in danger so they would get the lot.
Out here, that's allowed. The UK is well out of order with that messing around with criminal's rights. They don't have any.

I cant really comment on that as i dont know the details.
What i do know is that only one of the group has thus far sent me offensive homophobic pm's so if it were up to me (and i know it isnt) i know whod id like to see banned!!

You get homophobic PMs?

Publish. See if they're man enough to defend their attitude in public.

What if the burglars turns out to be a hard nut? You could end up getting beaten up and burgled.

if a burgler gets in my house, and with my two children upstairs asleep, not knowing what intentions this burgler has I would be inclined to take his life before I find out


I imagine his intentions were to steal stuff ?

You get homophobic PMs?

Publish. See if they're man enough to defend their attitude in public.

Absolutely - if he isn't just making it up, mind...

You are without question the most vile little creature ive ever had the misfortune to enconter on a forum. Most o your posts are made of a nasty bile and cruel inuendo. The language you use has no place on a family forum.
I hope you get banned.

You need to get out more.

What if the burglars turns out to be a hard nut? You could end up getting beaten up and burgled.

If he's that hard core he'd probably do it anyway. As I said, out here if you wake the neighbours with the noise, the whole lot will came out an join in.
Estates here have security guards; they carry large "Rambo" knives and a night sick. They're allowed to do pretty much anything if someone is daft enough to attack a house.

Besides that - Who actually gives a <REMOVED> what happens to the bad guys?
They're only worthless scumbags anyway.

Is it surprising that Halibut has risen to the bait a little when someone is lying about him having 'outed' himself... Maybe the entire group who engaged in that little bit of homophobia should be banned.

Me homophobic, dont think so mucker. I dont have any such phobia my friend, unlike the tocophobia by proxy that you suffer from that has been shown on many threads before, or is that just your fear of any of your taxes being paid to the women in question.

What if the burglars turns out to be a hard nut? You could end up getting beaten up and burgled.

All the burglars I have known in my life would take the fight on if they had to, they already have the edge in that they have took on a house which is still occupied and are prepared for a confrontation.

Is that comment supposed to make any sense at all? Tocophobia, go on then, show me where I've demonstrated

tocophobia by proxy that you suffer

Are you trying to get the thread closed by insulting other posters and lying about them?

You are without question the most vile little creature ive ever had the misfortune to enconter on a forum. Most o your posts are made of a nasty bile and cruel inuendo. The language you use has no place on a family forum.
I hope you get banned.

He was at it on another thread too, cannot be bothered to find it but you dont really have to look too hard for one. I'm pretty sure many of his posts are typed out of sheer frustration, frustration with what I do not know.

Are you trying to get the thread closed by insulting other posters and lying about them?

Roll up the Walkley massive.
I'll leave the insults for others thank you, mine are just harmless fun that should be took that way ;)

Right. It's just harmless fun when you do it. Of course.

I thought the sadist Rambo/He-man fantasy scene was passe, but then again....

My comment was tongue in cheek. I wouldnt get away with dealing with a burglar by doing what I described. In California the onus is on the homeowner to prove that the burglar intended to do phyisical violence.
The police have a way of finding out if there was physical violence involved or not and I wouldn't assume I'd be smart enough to try and fool them.

I like the Arizona laws on burgalry better

I can't see how anyone can object to what is basically a clarification of the law to ensure the householder can use whatever force is necessary (including armed lethal force) to prevent the burglar posing a threat.

Seems totally common sense to me.

if a burgler gets in my house, and with my two children upstairs asleep, not knowing what intentions this burgler has I would be inclined to take his life before I find out

I would rather have life in prision then risk the life/lives of my family

'I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6' - Maybe. Let me tell you a couple of true stories (both events occurred in Houston.)

Middle-aged man and his wife drove into their driveway and noticed that the front door of the house was ajar. Man leapt out of the car, grabbing the handgun he kept in the glove box. As he got to the door, it closed. He wasn't going to let the bugger get away, so he fired through the door.

Both he and his wife outlived their son. - Who had come home to visit them, found that they weren't in and let himself in with the key they had given him.

A man and his wife were asleep in their bedroom. The man heard a noise. A prowler! He grabbed the gun he kept in the nightstand went quietly into the hallway (without turning on the lights - he didn't want to alert the burglar) saw somebody moving in the dark, so he aimed and fired.

That'd teach his 7-year old daughter not to get up and go to the loo in the middle of the night, wouldn't it? She didn't need the lesson. He killed her.

Great to hear that we can now use reasonable force against people who break into your home.

As I understand it, you can stamp or jump on the burgulars head, as long as you do this after 9pm

You've always been able to use reasonable force against a burglar.

I can't see how anyone can object to what is basically a clarification of the law to ensure the householder can use whatever force is necessary (including armed lethal force) to prevent the burglar posing a threat.

Seems totally common sense to me.

The clarification hasn't been published -as yet. At the moment, it's just a comment by Ken Clarke (who seems to make a habit of making [possibly] poorly thought our 'sound bite' comments.)

The householder has always been able to use 'whatever force is necessary.' The 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' could hardly argue that necessary force was unreasonable.

If the proposed law details the level of force, it will (if it is to be complete) be a very long and comprehensive act. - If it isn't, it may provide a significant source of income for lawyers.

'Armed lethal force'. Armed with what? Owning a 'short gun' (pistol or revolver - particularly a weapon bigger than a .22) and keeping it in your house is very difficult [I thought it was impossible] in the UK. Long guns (shotguns and rifles) are controlled - though it is possible to own them - and they aren't very easy to use in a confined space and at very short range.

I'm quite proficient (albeit out of practice) with both long and short guns. I've kept firearms in my house for many years (not at the moment - because I don't use them.) I didn't have a problem with having guns in the house (they were stored in a very secure place) but I had a (personal) rule which said: "You may never bring ammunition into the house." I've seen too many people killed and seriously injured by 'unloaded' firearms.

Armed with a knife? Up to you. - I wouldn't class myself as 'proficient' with a knife and it could be that the burglar is better with one than I am. I would only consider trying to use a knife against somebody if there was no other alternative whatsoever.

Baseball bat? - Possible (If you've got room to swing it.) Hammer? (same thing - you have to get a bit nearer your assailant - and you'd better hit him hard first time ... if he takes it off you, it could hurt.

Taser? Pepper Spray? - Why not? Non-lethal and incapacitating. But under the [stupid, IMO] UK laws they are classed as firearms. If you get caught with one, you go to jail.

If a householder had a pepper spray (currently classed as an illegal firearm) and he used it against a burglar and that burglar fell over and broke his neck, would there not be grounds for a charge of 'wrongful act' manslaugher? (Cue a reply from my learned friends.)

Possession and use of a pepper spray is - be definition - a 'wrongful act' in the UK.


In France, if the police stop your car and find a pepper spray in it - no problem. If they find a radar detector, you're in very deep s***.

In the UK, radar detector? - Why not?
Pepper spray? - Go to jail!

People in the UK are already allowed to use 'reasonable force'. Rather than passing an Act of Parliament which 'clarifies' a law which [IMO] is quite clear anyway and which, given the demonstrated incompetence of lawmakers is likely to be full of holes, why doesn't Parliament make available non-lethal defence weapons to householders?

Surely there is no reason why it could be a serious offence to have a pepper spray or a taser in a public place but quite lawful to have the same items in your own home.

If Ken Clarke and his boss want to do something to allow householders a bit more of an 'edge' when they confront burglars, wouldn't it be worth reconsidering the availability (or, at present, non availability) of non-lethal (yet incapacitating) defensive weapons?

I can't see how anyone can object to what is basically a clarification of the law to ensure the householder can use whatever force is necessary (including armed lethal force) to prevent the burglar posing a threat.

Seems totally common sense to me.

It is common sense, it's also the current law, so no clarification is required. It's just a politician scoring an easy point with the rabble.

As you have no idea how many intruders are in your house or what weapons they may have I really wonder why there is this pussy footing around. I'm not going to go down stairs and check how folk are "tooled up" before picking a weapon with which to defend myself. If I have a shotgun in the house I should be allowed to have with me. It is then up to the intruder(s) how they want to take it from there.

As you have no idea how many intruders are in your house or what weapons they may have I really wonder why there is this pussy footing around.

There is no pussy footing around. You're allowed to use whatever force is necessary to disable him. That has been the law for centuries.

The only caveat is that you're only allowed to do what is necessary to disable him. You're not allowed to beat him to a bloody pulp in revenge for him attacking you.

As you have no idea how many intruders are in your house or what weapons they may have I really wonder why there is this pussy footing around. I'm not going to go down stairs and check how folk are "tooled up" before picking a weapon with which to defend myself. If I have a shotgun in the house I should be allowed to have with me. It is then up to the intruder(s) how they want to take it from there.

The gun laws in the UK make it an offence to not have any firearms secured (and secured separately from the ammunition) when they aren't being used or transported to and from the place where you use them.
You'd find it difficult to explain why you had it handy and loaded in the middle of the night.

Is it legal to boil their head in self defence?

I think that is preferable to someone being attacked and then threatened with prosecution. I would prefer more protections for the victim and less for the perpetrator. Why have a law based on the premise that someone staying in their own house might suddenly become an axe wielding homicidal maniac??? rather than a scared victim whose only aim is not getting killed themselves. The criminal has made a choice when he/she enters someone elses home, they should deal with consequences of their actions.

OK, but what happens when someone makes a mistake. Is that acceptable then to stab them?

I used to live in a set of terraces with ginnels every fourth house, like so many of them in Sheffield. One day I was cooking a late dinner, carving knife in hand when someone walked in through the back door without so much as a bye your leave and looked at me funny.

Now if everyone had known they can seriously hurt burglars how many would have just immediately whaled him one with a frying pan or stuck the carving knife in him. Quite a few I bet. I know I was a little panicked and felt like it with someone barging in just inches away like he owned the place and giving me funny looks.

After a few seconds though he realised that his kitchen decor wasnt the same as when he left it... and he'd turned off one ginnel early and got the house four doors down. The perils of visiting your brother in a strange town.

Food for thought. In more ways than one.

There is no pussy footing around. You're allowed to use whatever force is necessary to disable him. That has been the law for centuries.

The only caveat is that you're only allowed to do what is necessary to disable him. You're not allowed to beat him to a bloody pulp in revenge for him attacking you.

But what if you are looking to disable him and you suddenly realise he has 4 mates with him?

The gun laws in the UK make it an offence to not have any firearms secured (and secured separately from the ammunition) when they aren't being used or transported to and from the place where you use them.
You'd find it difficult to explain why you had it handy and loaded in the middle of the night.

There is no such law in the UK. As long as your shotgun is secured, and that can mean on a wall rack with a triger guard bolt, and shotgun cartridges can be kept in your wardrobe at the side of your bed, you can have a loaded gun in your hand quicker than you can pop in your false teeth.

Why shouldn't we defend our homes, after all they contain our loved ones.

There is no such law in the UK. As long as your shotgun is secured, and that can mean on a wall rack with a triger guard bolt, and shotgun cartridges can be kept in your wardrobe at the side of your bed, you can have a loaded gun in your hand quicker than you can pop in your false teeth.

Maybe it's different for shotguns, I've no experience with them. A pistol with a rack and a trigger guard wouldn't get you granted a firearms license though, and it could potentially get you arrested.

But what if you are looking to disable him and you suddenly realise he has 4 mates with him?

You'd still have to disable him before tackling his four mates. Nothing would change.

I don't see why you shouldnt use a knife or a gun if you hold it legally. A knife would be the only thing I could think of to use in my house. I don't have a poker or a baseball bat. A kitchen knife is probably the best thing!

Thankfully it's highly unlikely anyone here has been faced with challenging a burglar in their house and even less likely that they've used fatal force against them.

In the cold light of day it's relatively easy to conjure up macho fantasies of our hostile response to them, but what about the reality?

Aside from the possible legal issues that might be considered after the event, what about the emotional consequences of taking the life of another human being in your own front room?

If it's a choice between saving my own life then I'd fight on, but if it's about punishing the disrespectful invasion of my home then the burglar can walk with my car keys, I can always get another one of those without having his demise on my conscience or his blood on my laminate floor.

Shoot first and ask questions later IMO. If they're in your home without permission they must be up to no good.

Thankfully it's highly unlikely anyone here has been faced with challenging a burglar in their house and even less likely that they've used fatal force against them.

Didn't have one in the house but I had one in the cricket club I used to volunteer at. He got belted with a hammer right in the guts and crawled off moaning never to be seen again.

Police expressed polite disinterest in it all being as there wasn't a body to process but did put out a message to the hospitals for a burglar with a square shaped bruise to the abdomen. They said if he came back I was to smack him again if I felt like it since he was clearly going to be our for revenge.

Didn't have one in the house but I had one in the cricket club I used to volunteer at. He got belted with a hammer right in the guts and crawled off moaning never to be seen again.

Police expressed polite disinterest in it all being as there wasn't a body to process but did put out a message to the hospitals for a burglar with a square shaped bruise to the abdomen. They said if he came back I was to smack him again if I felt like it since he was clearly going to be our for revenge.

I'm sure a hammer to the guts was the appropriate response Obelix, I have my good friend Billy Baseball Bat for such eventualities and a blow to the nether regions would be just as effective as a blow to the head without the possibility of the sensational possibilities associated with the latter ;)

Shoot first and ask questions later IMO. If they're in your home without permission they must be up to no good.

They most probably are up to no good, but shooting people because they might be trying to steal your Barry Manilow CD collection is a bit over the top in my opinion.