View Full Version : Assaulting a Burglar


Pages : [1] 2

cleveland
15-08-2009, 22:54
I've brought a house and had a baby with my partner.

I'm aware that my house may be burgled, my natural instinct would be to
attack the intruder/s to protect my partner and baby.

Where would leave me in the eyes of the law, would I be guilty of assault, or would it be self defence? (The Tony Martin case is playing on my mind)

Max Power
15-08-2009, 23:01
If the intruders are kids and you shoot them in the back as they are leaving your property then you might be in trouble. Otherwise, it's safe to defend yourself, your family and your home with "reasonable force".

MR BENN
15-08-2009, 23:05
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

Plain Talker
15-08-2009, 23:08
I'm not sure a baseball bat is reasonable force. You may find yourself up on a GBH charge.

pattricia
15-08-2009, 23:09
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

Good Luck to you.

andyofborg
15-08-2009, 23:10
reasonable force is allowed and unreasonable force quite rightly isn't

what is and isn't reasonable depends on the circumstances and cases where the reasonableness is in doubt should be placed before a jury.

MR BENN
15-08-2009, 23:12
I'm not sure a baseball bat is reasonable force. You may find yourself up on a GBH charge.

as far as im concerned ,if someone is in my house with the sole intent of commiting a criminal act -they have only themselves to blame .

this is the problem with this country -the criminal is treated better than the victim

AJ sheffield
15-08-2009, 23:13
I'm not sure a baseball bat is reasonable force. You may find yourself up on a GBH charge.

If a burglar gets in then the gloves are off, they already have the edge because they are a criminal involved in a criminal act.
Personally I dont care if a burglar (any age) is killed during a confrontation with a home owner.

MR BENN
15-08-2009, 23:14
If a burglar gets in then the gloves are off, they already have the edge because they are a criminal involved in a criminal act.
Personally I dont care if a burglar (any age) is killed during a confrontation with a home owner.

one less criminal on our streets -totally agree

andyofborg
15-08-2009, 23:16
as far as im concerned ,if someone is in my house with the sole intent of commiting a criminal act -they have only themselves to blame .

this is the problem with this country -the criminal is treated better than the victim

then you should be ok if you use unreasonable force because then you will be the criminal

AJ sheffield
15-08-2009, 23:19
then you should be ok if you use unreasonable force because then you will be the criminal

If I get the topside of any burglar this would be the very last home they entered illegally, end of.
As for prison time, you would be treated well if your up on a burglar killing charge, trust me.

AJ sheffield
15-08-2009, 23:20
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

If you get one then try to just stun him, then come on here and pm me :hihi:

Or just have a forum meet for him and we could hug him to death.

1960boy
15-08-2009, 23:36
I agree with everyone on this thread!

Alien
15-08-2009, 23:49
If I get the topside of any burglar this would be the very last home they entered illegally, end of.
As for prison time, you would be treated well if your up on a burglar killing charge, trust me.


Treated well by predominantly burglars after you've just killed one of their ilk? How does that work? Or do you mean treated well by the system?
Interested in the "trust me"..wot's that about?


In reply to the op. I don't think I'd be pondering the ramifications of my actions when someone is illegally in my house. I may have to after the event though.

SpikeyHead
15-08-2009, 23:50
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

You wouldnt notice if your house was being burgled cos your always on here.

Phildemon2
15-08-2009, 23:57
I've brought a house and had a baby with my partner.

I'm aware that my house may be burgled, my natural instinct would be to
attack the intruder/s to protect my partner and baby.

Where would leave me in the eyes of the law, would I be guilty of assault, or would it be self defence? (The Tony Martin case is playing on my mind)

attack the intruder - save yourself.
laws only seem to change when a criminal act , occurs to a politician sort of SPEEDS it through.
Someting like 430 police got caught speeeding 28 got fines. Phwaaa.
be a potitian - sports star and you can get away with anything.
Sucks.
I'm not sure but if you find an intruder in your house - you can't tackle them on the lower floors or something but if they go upstairs - i dunno

Max Power
16-08-2009, 00:07
reasonable force is allowed and unreasonable force quite rightly isn't

what is and isn't reasonable depends on the circumstances and cases where the reasonableness is in doubt should be placed before a jury.
The level of force should be appropriate to the level of threat.

Lethal threat justifies lethal force in self defence, but you'd better be right about that threat.

Phildemon2
16-08-2009, 00:10
while they are doing your house over check what you can do by visiting www.attack the intruder.com made up site. secure your house in the first place.

Max Power
16-08-2009, 00:11
while they are doing your house over check what you can do by visiting www.attack the intruder.com made up site. secure your house in the first place.
Fail link. :)

Phildemon2
16-08-2009, 00:16
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

I'm not sure but i think if you make aquaintance with the intruder on the higher levels of your house er....get your acorn electron security system to work out the situation - it worked for me in the 70's ----NOT.
NO seriously - close all windows - my mum left windows open TWICE and got burgled 2wice. If it comes to it Protect yourself.

Weazel2006
16-08-2009, 00:21
In my home without invitaton, stealing my property, invading my privacy, breaking and entering, having kebab breath with a hint of white lightning and battery acid.

Id shatter one of his eye sockets so he has a memory of the occasion :)...

Plain Talker
16-08-2009, 00:31
Kick his head in till you both cry - - its a soon ...hapening if you put your mind to it. KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE.

... and in English...?

AJ sheffield
16-08-2009, 02:04
1-Treated well by predominantly burglars after you've just killed one of their ilk? How does that work?
2-Or do you mean treated well by the system?
3-Interested in the "trust me"..wot's that about?


In reply to the op. I don't think I'd be pondering the ramifications of my actions when someone is illegally in my house. I may have to after the event though.

1-Prison doesnt work like that.
2-Yes
3-;)

chem1st
16-08-2009, 02:36
I'm with Mr Benn, in your own home you should be able to defend yourself. If a person enters your dwelling with the intention of robbing you, you should be able to subdue them. If you go a bit too far, to be on the safe side, you should be protected from prosecution if you accidentally kill them...
It would remove the need to burn a corpse and clean all surfaces with two different types of bleach.

Treatment
16-08-2009, 06:21
Get a 686 Beretta, put a normal round in the top, and a solid slug in the bottom.

Twenty mm of damage tends to deter people.

Mr_Squirrel
16-08-2009, 07:40
I'm not sure a baseball bat is reasonable force. You may find yourself up on a GBH charge.

A GBH charge would only apply if you used the bat with unreasonable force, in other words...

If you used the bat once or twice and disabled the scu..burglar, you will have used 'reasonable force'.......if however you used the bat to disable him then keep smashing him up just for the fun of it, that would be 'unreasonable force'.

The moral of this message is this...

If you use a bat to to disable the burglar, use it only once or twice but make sure you hit him very, very, very hard...

If his head comes clean off with the first swipe.....well done - home run.

Cyclone
16-08-2009, 07:46
Lol, all you killers, I wonder if most of you have ever even been in a fight, or a slapping contest.

Mr_Squirrel
16-08-2009, 07:50
Lol, all you killers, I wonder if most of you have ever even been in a fight, or a slapping contest.

I used to teach Martial arts so erm....sort of :D

alexsmith
16-08-2009, 08:10
not 100 percent but i have herd u get done if u attack a robber in your house while hes commiting the crime.but if u get him face down on the floor beat him with wot ever.then u can say to police that u cought him running out the door after he commited the burgulry..

JoeS
16-08-2009, 08:45
not 100 percent but i have herd u get done if u attack a robber in your house while hes commiting the crime.but if u get him face down on the floor beat him with wot ever.then u can say to police that u cought him running out the door after he commited the burgulry..

Having confronted a thief face to face who had broken into the student house where I lived a few years ago in Leeds... I was fully ready to kick seven shades off whoever had broken in as I heard the breaking glass from downstairs. I was in the loft so no lights could be seen from outside.

Having mentally prepared myself for a couple of minutes, knowing full well we'd been broken into I ran downstairs shouting all sorts of obscenities! Seems like I frightened the life out of the poor smackhead and avoided a violent confrontation as he pushed past me on the landing and legged it faster than I have ever ever seen anyone move before and in the process dropping the bag he'd swagged my housemate's laptop into.

(Police were rubbish and did nowt apart from ruin most of the kitchen with that damned fingerprint dust)

On topic though, I fully agree that it should be a householder's right to protect their property and possessions within, however, I think having a weapon and a semi-premeditated attack plan to protect against such a thing is a bit "yank" and not very British... Ask the burglar to uphold the Marquis of Queensbury's rules and put up his dukes (have at you knave etc etc)

pem123
16-08-2009, 09:40
i have always kept a baseball bat at the side of my bed (along with a baseball ;)), and i wouldnt think twice about using it if i caught a burglar in my house . i have a disabled partner ,and i`ll protect my property with all my might.

Imagine if it all happened, you whacked him and upon turning the light on it transpired that he had long hair, a beard and sandals :hihi:

Tipex
16-08-2009, 09:46
If they're in my house, they get battered, simple!

Treatment
16-08-2009, 09:51
Lol, all you killers, I wonder if most of you have ever even been in a fight, or a slapping contest.

Grow up Cyclone, you are better than that.

pem123
16-08-2009, 09:53
As has been said though, 'reasonable force' is the key and despite all the scare-mongering, no-one is going to try to do you for that.

However if you proceeded to stamp on the burglar's head 'till he died.... Well then you've a situation where a member of the public has carried out the death penalty and the authorities are hardly going to turn a blind eye. It's like Tony Martin - Had he shot the pikies if they were coming at him to attack, he'd probably have got away with it

sheffield666
16-08-2009, 09:55
If the intruders are kids and you shoot them in the back as they are leaving your property then you might be in trouble. Otherwise, it's safe to defend yourself, your family and your home with "reasonable force".

Your wrong. A mate of mine arrived home one night after working very late to find a Burglar in his bedroom.The intruder hit him and bruised his eye but defending himself he broke the scumbags jaw in two places.

The burglar did not get a custodial but my mate got six months.

Remember people that our legal system is bull and a lot of the time the law protects the criminals.

pem123
16-08-2009, 10:00
Your wrong. A mate of mine arrived home one night after working very late to find a Burglar in his bedroom.The intruder hit him and bruised his eye but defending himself he broke the scumbags jaw in two places.

The burglar did not get a custodial but my mate got six months.

Remember people that our legal system is bull and a lot of the time the law protects the criminals.

Sorry, but i'd want to know more about it. I can't believe it's as simple as you've made out

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 10:01
I'm with Mr Benn, in your own home you should be able to defend yourself. If a person enters your dwelling with the intention of robbing you, you should be able to subdue them. If you go a bit too far, to be on the safe side, you should be protected from prosecution if you accidentally kill them...
It would remove the need to burn a corpse and clean all surfaces with two different types of bleach.

If you hit someone once, very hard, in order to put them out of action, and you overestimate the ferocity of the hit and shatter his skull, you will likely be charged and tried, but almost certainly found not guilty; if you hit them eleven times, nine after they were already unconscious, then you should, and probably will, get a life sentence for murder. The second the intruder is out of action, you are no longer under threat; everything after that is unjustified violence on your part.

I wouldn't advise keeping a baseball bat by the bed. Unless you're in the habit of playing baseball in your bedroom, that can't be there for any reason other than to batter people, and you're likely to be done for GBH - you've shown intent. As for me - I often get a bit peckish when I wake up at night, so I keep some crackers and cheese in an airtight box under the bed. It saves getting up and going to the kitchen. Of course, I have to keep the cheese knife there as well. A very sharp cheese knife - I like to slice it thin, so I need a long sharp blade.

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 10:02
not 100 percent but i have herd u get done if u attack a robber in your house while hes commiting the crime.but if u get him face down on the floor beat him with wot ever.then u can say to police that u cought him running out the door after he commited the burgulry..

If you catch him running out of the door, it is not self defence. A person leaving your property is no threat to you. That's what did for Tony Martin - shooting a fleeing man in the back is murder, plain and simple. That the man you shot is a scumbag thief, or a child molester, or a multiple murderer himself, is neither here nor there - you get tried for what you did.

Treatment
16-08-2009, 10:04
As has been said though, 'reasonable force' is the key and despite all the scare-mongering, no-one is going to try to do you for that.

However if you proceeded to stamp on the burglar's head 'till he died.... Well then you've a situation where a member of the public has carried out the death penalty and the authorities are hardly going to turn a blind eye. It's like Tony Martin - Had he shot the pikies if they were coming at him to attack, he'd probably have got away with it

Good point Pem.

Martin had already had his Shotgun Licence revoked, then got himself a '' Pump Action '' shotgun, which is about the most lethal weapon available, and, he shot the people on their way out.

Apart from that, you can guess the rest.:roll:

AJ sheffield
16-08-2009, 11:08
Lol, all you killers, I wonder if most of you have ever even been in a fight, or a slapping contest.

Its nothing like your protected restrained jitsu training me owd mucker.

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 11:15
Imagine if it all happened, you whacked him and upon turning the light on it transpired that he had long hair, a beard and sandals :hihi:

that would be an added bonus ;)
id have to defend myself in case he came at me with his rolled up Guardian

AJ sheffield
16-08-2009, 11:22
An old neighbour of mine was burgled back in the early nineties, he was about 32 or 33 at the time and did some boxing and kept fit, he was able to handle himself pretty well and I had seen him do so on a couple of occasions. He was burgled by a fifteen year old scrubber from a scrubber family that was systematically ruining an adjacent road at the time.
He caught this lad in his kitchen at about 3am so he wasnt fully awake and aware of the situation at the time, even when the adrenaline was in full swing.
Anyway this big fit bloke who could have ripped this young lad apart at any other time now had this kids fear of being beat up then locked up to contend with.
The lad was like a wild animal and gave my mate a proper run for his money, made a right mess of him, god knows what the outcome would have been if there had been two of them.

upinwath
16-08-2009, 11:25
as far as im concerned ,if someone is in my house with the sole intent of commiting a criminal act -they have only themselves to blame .

this is the problem with this country -the criminal is treated better than the victim

I have seen the law in the UK and, now, out here. I like this version better.
I saw a mobile phone thief on TV. The local had nabbed him pinching a handset off a lass. They beat the living crap out of him and handed him to the cops.
He must have said something wrong because the cops gave him a kicking as well.
All on TV and not a word from anyone to complain.

If I found someone in my house, same goes. I can give him a pasting and toss him off the balcony without a word being said to me.

I know who has it right.

EVVY
16-08-2009, 12:44
if i heard a burgular in my house id just casually get out of bed and let my staffy and american bulldog downstairs to do the work for me while i fone the police . . job done

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 12:46
I have seen the law in the UK and, now, out here. I like this version better.
I saw a mobile phone thief on TV. The local had nabbed him pinching a handset off a lass. They beat the living crap out of him and handed him to the cops.
He must have said something wrong because the cops gave him a kicking as well.
All on TV and not a word from anyone to complain.

If I found someone in my house, same goes. I can give him a pasting and toss him off the balcony without a word being said to me.

I know who has it right.

i totally agree with that way of sorting out criminals . can i ask where you are living ?

pem123
16-08-2009, 12:47
i totally agree with that way of sorting out criminals . can i ask where you are living ?

Go on do it. Ask him what the incumbent religion is there too :hihi:

Halibut
16-08-2009, 13:00
i totally agree with that way of sorting out criminals . can i ask where you are living ?

Maybe you ought to move there and stop boring everyone to death with your 'PC madness' drivel?

David-
16-08-2009, 13:22
When someone is breaking into your home, ALL force is reasonable... seriously, you never know what they might have could be a knife a gun or anything. The burglar knows what hes getting into when he breaks into someones house, but the person living there didnt ask for any of it.

Halibut
16-08-2009, 13:24
When someone is breaking into your home, ALL force is reasonable... seriously, you never know what they might have could be a knife a gun or anything. The burglar knows what hes getting into when he breaks into someones house, but the person living there didnt ask for any of it.

You might believe that, but the law says differently.

Moonbird
16-08-2009, 13:42
From a womans point of view I am not sure what I would do, I think it would be a case of making as much noise as possible to alert neighbours etc and hopefully he would scarper.

I definitely wouldn't be thinking of provoking an attack where I would probably come off the worse, but if I was personally attacked then I would be in the position of having to stop him, and I would definitely use what ever was to hand that was heavy enough to stop him getting back up in a hurry.

I don't want to hurt anyone or to be hurt myself, its not worth it, I would fight for life but not (very hard) for possessions, I know that some things cannot be replaced but mostly they can....a life cannot.

pem123
16-08-2009, 13:47
When someone is breaking into your home, ALL force is reasonable... seriously, you never know what they might have could be a knife a gun or anything. The burglar knows what hes getting into when he breaks into someones house, but the person living there didnt ask for any of it.

Yeah, all force is reasonable to subdue/overpower the attacker. If you want to thrown in a broken ankle for the crime, then fair enough. Shooting someone as they run away though is taking it a bit too far

Nocterneil
16-08-2009, 13:52
I spoke to the police about this scenario. You are allowed by law to use as much force as is neccessary to protect yourself in the case of house burglary. But your actions must not be premeditated. So in the case of a baseball bat you would need to show why a baseball bat happened to be in your house, otherwise it will be perceived tht you kept it to assault burglars. You would be better off using some much used household item, then the premeditated bit is easier to get over. If such a situation did occur of course, you should ALWAYS claim that the burglar was attacking you and you was defending you are yours.....If you follow these rules you should get away with beating the SCUM senseless, which is of course what he deserves!

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 13:54
I spoke to the police about this scenario. You are allowed by law to use as much force as is neccessary to protect yourself in the case if house burglary. But your actions must not be premeditated. So in the case of a baseball bat you would need to show why a baseball bat happened to be in your house, otherwise it will be perceived tht you kept it to assault burglars. You would be better off using some much used household item, then the premeditated bit is easier to get over. If such a situation did occur of course, you should ALWAYS claim that the burglar was attacking you and you was defending you are yours.....If you follow these rules you should get away with beating the SCUM senseless, which is of course what he deserves!

so , a man who plays golf would have to justify having golf clubs in the house , when he used on to subjue a burglar who he caught in his house ?

pem123
16-08-2009, 13:57
so , a man who plays golf would have to justify having golf clubs in the house , when he used on to subjue a burglar who he caught in his house ?

Well if he plays Golf that should be fairly easy. Club membership etc. Although I doubt you'd have time to go and get one out of your bag if the need arose.

My own weapon of choice is a nice big maglight. I can keep it near my bed in case there's a power cut and no lighting. I believe they were illegal until recently

Nocterneil
16-08-2009, 14:02
so , a man who plays golf would have to justify having golf clubs in the house , when he used on to subjue a burglar who he caught in his house ?

YEP.....thats how it was explained to me. He attacked you and you picked up the first thing available that happened to be a golf club. It was there because you play golf!

Cyclone
16-08-2009, 15:24
I used to teach Martial arts so erm....sort of :D

I guess you're well aware of what reasonable force means then.

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 15:36
If such a situation did occur of course, you should ALWAYS claim that the burglar was attacking you and you was defending you are yours....


Shouldn't you be telling the truth? After all, you're an honest, law-abiding citizen. Or are you?

Max Power
16-08-2009, 16:19
Your wrong. A mate of mine arrived home one night after working very late to find a Burglar in his bedroom.The intruder hit him and bruised his eye but defending himself he broke the scumbags jaw in two places.

The burglar did not get a custodial but my mate got six months.

Remember people that our legal system is bull and a lot of the time the law protects the criminals.
There's always two sides to every story. The jury obviously thought the force was unreasonable.

I was once part of a group of complete strangers who intervened when we witnessed a man trying to force a woman into a car. We grappled with him and restrained him just long enough for the woman to struggle free, then we released him. He became violent and we warned him to stop, calming him down without hitting him. He was later arrested and charged for trying to abduct the woman; his abused wife, who was staying at a nearby women's refuge.

The court said that we had all acted reasonably and responsibly. Although one man had been quite badly injured, none of us lost our rags and kicked the guy's head in.

Aries22
16-08-2009, 16:48
YEP.....thats how it was explained to me. He attacked you and you picked up the first thing available that happened to be a golf club. It was there because you play golf!

What a good job l have a drawer full of kitchen knives, and a wooden mallet for tenderising the meat.

David-
16-08-2009, 18:11
mr benn all you need to do is go out for a few games of baseball with your kids or whatever, something which you may already do anyway and then i cant see any problem with a bat being somewhere in your bedroom. of course putting it right next to where you sleep might be a bit obvious

Crayfish
16-08-2009, 18:21
Well, I'm not sure it's legal to sell the super-concentrated anti-bear pepper spray that I brought back from the midwest in the UK, so I might as well keep that near my bed. Also, having trained martial arts since childhood, it's quite reasonable to own some heavy, solid wood nunchaku.

I have a friend that keeps a charged stun gun under his bed, that one might be harder to justify but I reckon it's fair play. I know the law doesn't say this, but if anyone enters your house illegally they deserve whatever they get - and for all you know you are in mortal danger at that point. The law is wrong.

denomis
16-08-2009, 18:22
i have my house set up like macaulay culkin in home alone :D

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 20:50
mr benn all you need to do is go out for a few games of baseball with your kids or whatever, something which you may already do anyway and then i cant see any problem with a bat being somewhere in your bedroom. of course putting it right next to where you sleep might be a bit obvious

i do keep a baseball with it -just to clarify the situation ;)

RobbyBrown
16-08-2009, 21:03
You should be allowed to give a burglar a good kicking, without any problems from the police.

The fact is, Burglar Bill should not be in your home. If he gets a kicking from an angry home owner then surely thats the fault of the intruder

littlebasher
16-08-2009, 21:17
They was a guy i knew, lived in Salisbury but on this occasion was staying with his elderly dad.

That night, a junkie who expecting to meet a frail old man kicked in the front door with the intention of stealing everything he could lay his hands on - with violence.

So my friend picked up the first thing he could find, in this case a shovel his dad used down the allotments and smacked him round the head with it.

Unfortunately (or not, depending how you see it), it severed the spine of this guy and left him paraplegic. No charges were ever bought against my friend,it was seen as a simple case of self defense.

Didn't help him with the guilt he suffered though, really got to him. He just acted on instinct.

Paul2412
16-08-2009, 21:24
Once again, the law seems to be a grey area with this.

Didn't a burglar in Nottingham get killed recently by the home owner? Was they prosecuted does anyone know?

Common sense would dictate that if someone has broken into your house, they instantly surrender all human rights. However, in this country its pretty difficult to know how much force you can use without becoming a criminal.

I can't remember whether it was here or in America whereby a burglar was attempting to sue a home owner because he got injured breaking in.

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 21:27
Common sense would dictate that if someone has broken into your house, they instantly surrender all human rights.

and thats the way it shoud be

marshlad
16-08-2009, 21:33
I think that the law should changed to say use the necessary force rather than reasonable force and if this means beating someone with a baseball bat or shooting them then so be it. People should be able to defend their families and property however they choose. Once a person has broken into someones house they surrender all their human rights.

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 22:10
Once again, the law seems to be a grey area with this.

Didn't a burglar in Nottingham get killed recently by the home owner? Was they prosecuted does anyone know?

Common sense would dictate that if someone has broken into your house, they instantly surrender all human rights.


Common sense would dictate that he is still a human being, no matter what he does to you. That was the whole point of introducing human rights; they represent the basic treatment we should give to everybody, regardless of what they might have done.

There was a recent case where a householder killed an intruder, unwittingly and without intent. If I recall correctly, he was cleared in the investigation and it never came to trial; or else, he was acquitted on trial. I'm not sure which, though I think the former.
There was another case, not many years ago, where the householder was jailed for murder, after stabbing the intruder some twenty-seven times. The grey area is there on purpose; it's for a jury to decide what is and is not reasonable. No hard-and-fast rule could ever cover all possible scenarios.

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 22:12
I think that the law should changed to say use the necessary force rather than reasonable force and if this means beating someone with a baseball bat or shooting them then so be it.


"Reasonable" force is sometimes much more violent than is necessary; so the householder is better off with the law as it is. Hitting someone with a brick hard enough to shatter their skull is unnecessary - rendering them unconscious would have done the trick. But, since the average householder has very little experience of beating people over the head with a brick, if he wrongly estimates how hard he needs to do it he will almost certainly be cleared. It's only if he hits the intruder repeatedly - which is neither necessary nor reasonable, if the first blow has rendered him insensible - that he is likely to be convicted of anything.

depoix
16-08-2009, 22:27
Common sense would dictate that he is still a human being, no matter what he does to you. That was the whole point of introducing human rights; they represent the basic treatment we should give to everybody, regardless of what they might have done.

There was a recent case where a householder killed an intruder, unwittingly and without intent. If I recall correctly, he was cleared in the investigation and it never came to trial; or else, he was acquitted on trial. I'm not sure which, though I think the former.
There was another case, not many years ago, where the householder was jailed for murder, after stabbing the intruder some twenty-seven times. The grey area is there on purpose; it's for a jury to decide what is and is not reasonable. No hard-and-fast rule could ever cover all possible scenarios.the simple words " i struck out in fear of my life " carry a long way with the law and a jury

HeadingNorth
16-08-2009, 22:30
the simple words " i struck out in fear of my life " carry a long way with the law and a jury

As they should. If you genuinely are in fear of your life, you're entitled to use considerable force to save it.

If you're pretending that you were because you want to justify beating seven shades out of someone who didn't need to be so badly brutalised, then you're a far bigger criminal than he was.

MR BENN
16-08-2009, 22:55
As they should. If you genuinely are in fear of your life, you're entitled to use considerable force to save it.

If you're pretending that you were because you want to justify beating seven shades out of someone who didn't need to be so badly brutalised, then you're a far bigger criminal than he was.

if someone is in my house with the sole intent of robbing me ,then im afraid the gloves are off ,and mr scumbag burglar has forfitted his human rights the moment he illegally entered my property

Nocterneil
16-08-2009, 22:56
Shouldn't you be telling the truth? After all, you're an honest, law-abiding citizen. Or are you?

Yes I am a law abiding citizen. The situation where one finds an intruder in ones house is however something different. If someone broke into my house then I do not know if they are burglers, or would be murderers, so I would assume the worst, that they are out to murder me or mine. In this situation I would not allow them to attack me first and would have no problems with killing them. If I then needed to tell the authorities that they attacked me first in order to avoid prosecution then I would have no problems whatsoever with that. After all they are not proper human beings, merely scum.

HeadingNorth
17-08-2009, 02:06
if someone is in my house with the sole intent of robbing me ,then im afraid the gloves are off ,and mr scumbag burglar has forfitted his human rights the moment he illegally entered my property

But he hasn't. The question of whether he forfeits his rights is not one you're allowed to decide. If you decide it anyway, you will go to jail, just as a burglar who removes your rights by stealing your property, should go to jail.

HeadingNorth
17-08-2009, 02:07
Yes I am a law abiding citizen. The situation where one finds an intruder in ones house is however something different.


You can't choose to be a law-abiding citizen only some of the time. If there is an exception, no matter how justified, no matter how necessary, no matter how specific - if there is an exception of any kind whatsoever, then you are NOT a law-abiding citizen, you're a criminal.

depoix
17-08-2009, 02:11
As they should. If you genuinely are in fear of your life, you're entitled to use considerable force to save it.

If you're pretending that you were because you want to justify beating seven shades out of someone who didn't need to be so badly brutalised, then you're a far bigger criminal than he was.
you make me laugh, you are saying that by telling a lie i am a worse criminal than the burglar ? what a strange world you live in where a man protecting what is his and defending his family can be thought of as worse than a man intent on depriving him of what he has worked for

HeadingNorth
17-08-2009, 02:13
you make me laugh, you are saying that by telling a lie i am a worse criminal than the burglar ?

That would depend on the lie. If you complimented your wife's hideous new dress, no. If you are perverting the course of justice by telling the police your life was under threat when it wasn't, then yes, by a long way.

what a strange world you live in where a man protecting what is his and defending his family can be thought of as worse than a man intent on depriving him of what he has worked for


The defending-what-is-his, I have no problem with; I'm quite prepared to cave in a man's skull if I have to. The deliberate choice to inflict punishment above and beyond what is necessary, is not defence, nor ever will be.

Cyclone
17-08-2009, 07:06
The problem with the 'loss of all human rights' when someone enters your property is several fold.
First, that would mean that you could now torture them, or keep them as a slave, I'm guessing that isn't what you mean though (unless you're a bit psychotic). Secondly, I could invite you over for a cup of tea. Beat you to death and then kick my door in. It's practically a license to murder.

Defending your property and your person with reasonable force (which can be up to and including lethal force) is well, like it says, reasonable.
It goes beyond reasonable when you start getting into taking revenge and making the intruder suffer, which is what most of you "I'd kill 'em" types seem to be intent on. It's nothing to do with defending yourself or your property, it's taking revenge for them breaking in.
Reasonably is either rendering them unconscious, or forcing or scaring them into leaving your property. You could also perform an arrest using reasonable force if you wish, so that would go a bit further than forcing them to leave.
So long as you don't baseball bat them from behind as they try to run away from you, and you don't hit them once then give them a few more on the floor just to make really sure, then you're within the law.
Which seems to indicate to me that the law is fine as it stands.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 07:18
You can't choose to be a law-abiding citizen only some of the time. If there is an exception, no matter how justified, no matter how necessary, no matter how specific - if there is an exception of any kind whatsoever, then you are NOT a law-abiding citizen, you're a criminal.

The law states that one can use reasonable force under the circumstances expressed in the OP. I would consider it reasonable force to kill them and thus am operating within my interpretation of the law. It is also legal to attack someone if you think they are about to attack you as was recently illustrated in the Gerrard assault case, so yes I am a law abiding citizen.

Cyclone
17-08-2009, 07:38
We should probably clarify what reasonable means as well, it doesn't mean "whatever you think is reasonable", it means reasonable as determined by a jury of your peers.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 07:48
We should probably clarify what reasonable means as well, it doesn't mean "whatever you think is reasonable", it means reasonable as determined by a jury of your peers.

That is what makes the present law a farce as was greatly demonstrated in the Gerrard case. Now that was a complete farce!

Paul2412
17-08-2009, 08:25
Another problem now, is that many burglars and petty criminals know that they cannot defend themselves like a proper man so are resorting to carrying knives and machetes, sometimes even guns.

I know I couldn't take that chance of seeing if he poses a real threat, if I heard someone breaking in I'd simply wait behind the door with one of my old golf clubs. As soon as he's come into the room the club would be firmly connected with the back of his head.

I'm trying to find the news story with little success but there was an incident of a burglar claiming compensation after injuring himself as the people who lived there were renovating a room.

This is a recent case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206500/Burglary-suspect-sue-Met-police-dog-tears-ear.html

Crayfish
17-08-2009, 08:29
The problem with the 'loss of all human rights' when someone enters your property is several fold.
First, that would mean that you could now torture them, or keep them as a slave, I'm guessing that isn't what you mean though (unless you're a bit psychotic). Secondly, I could invite you over for a cup of tea. Beat you to death and then kick my door in. It's practically a license to murder.

Defending your property and your person with reasonable force (which can be up to and including lethal force) is well, like it says, reasonable.
It goes beyond reasonable when you start getting into taking revenge and making the intruder suffer, which is what most of you "I'd kill 'em" types seem to be intent on. It's nothing to do with defending yourself or your property, it's taking revenge for them breaking in.
Reasonably is either rendering them unconscious, or forcing or scaring them into leaving your property. You could also perform an arrest using reasonable force if you wish, so that would go a bit further than forcing them to leave.
So long as you don't baseball bat them from behind as they try to run away from you, and you don't hit them once then give them a few more on the floor just to make really sure, then you're within the law.
Which seems to indicate to me that the law is fine as it stands.

This is all very just and fair in principle, but there have been several if not many cases where the law has failed the victim by siding with the criminal. The law should be less open to interpretation, or be slightly more liberal with the definition of reasonable force.

Note that I am not advocating kicking burglars when they're down or stabbing them 27 times as in one case cited on this thread, but I for one would not use anything less than maximum force whilesoever the intruder was still mobile.

liza D
17-08-2009, 08:49
I'm with Mr Benn, in your own home you should be able to defend yourself. If a person enters your dwelling with the intention of robbing you, you should be able to subdue them. If you go a bit too far, to be on the safe side, you should be protected from prosecution if you accidentally kill them...
It would remove the need to burn a corpse and clean all surfaces with two different types of bleach.

:hihi::hihi::hihi:
Glad i didn't have a mouth-full of coffee when i read this.

Sorry but if someone did manage to get into my home i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my property and suffer the consequences after, i think it's just human nature to do so. It's not like one is going to stop and think whilst in the throws of panic full of adrenalin,"will i get done for this?"

I was burgled many years ago whilst i was away, i never had a good nights sleep in that house again and ended up leaving a house i loved. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in a house when some scrote decided to break in, horrific. You read about people being killed or badley assaulted because they disturbed a burgler. I think Tony Martin did what any one would do in the same circumstances.

Paul2412
17-08-2009, 08:57
Tony Martin should receive an award. If burglars thought that the consequences of breaking in was death, they would think twice and the crime rate reduced.

Burglaries are much lower in the US for precisely this reason, its legal for a household to carry a gun.

Halibut
17-08-2009, 09:00
:hihi::hihi::hihi:
Glad i didn't have a mouth-full of coffee when i read this.

Sorry but if someone did manage to get into my home i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my property and suffer the consequences after, i think it's just human nature to do so. It's not like one is going to stop and think whilst in the throws of panic full of adrenalin,"will i get done for this?"

I was burgled many years ago whilst i was away, i never had a good nights sleep in that house again and ended up leaving a house i loved. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in a house when some scrote decided to break in, horrific. You read about people being killed or badley assaulted because they disturbed a burgler. I think Tony Martin did what any one would do in the same circumstances.

I'm fine with people using reasonable force to defend themselves.
Tony Martin shot a guy in the back as he was trying to get away with an illegally held shotgun. I think that's pi**-poor frankly.

Halibut
17-08-2009, 09:03
Tony Martin should receive an award. If burglars thought that the consequences of breaking in was death, they would think twice and the crime rate reduced.

Burglaries are much lower in the US for precisely this reason, its legal for a household to carry a gun.

He shot a man who was trying to run away with an illegally held shotgun - what should it say on the award Paul? 'Cowardly lawbreaker of the year?'

Paul2412
17-08-2009, 09:09
He shot a man who was trying to run away with an illegally held shotgun - what should it say on the award Paul? 'Cowardly lawbreaker of the year?'

No, it should say "successfully stopped this madness of the criminal has more rights than the victim".

Halibut
17-08-2009, 09:17
No, it should say "successfully stopped this madness of the criminal has more rights than the victim".

You've been reading too much Daily Hate. Are you suggesting that the police should have ignored the fact that he had an illegally held shotgun and killed a bloke with it?

Paul2412
17-08-2009, 09:19
You've been reading too much Daily Hate. Are you suggesting that the police should have ignored the fact that he had an illegally held shotgun and killed a bloke with it?

No, but as in another post I made if burglars are now carrying weapons (including knives and guns) why should the guy who hasn't committed an offence be expected to fight unarmed in order to protect his property and family?

Cyclone
17-08-2009, 09:20
Both parties had the right not to be shot in the back with illegally held weapons. How do you think that a burglar has more rights than a home owner?

As for your US reference, yes, they have less burglaries (I haven't checked, I'll assume you're correct). But since a household may have a gun, they have many more people killed in the course of burglaries. If a household might have a gun, and you're going to rob them, you'll shoot them just to be on the safe side if they catch you at it.
I'm not sure how that makes it any better for householders.

L00b
17-08-2009, 10:59
Martin had already had his Shotgun Licence revoked, then got himself a '' Pump Action '' shotgun, which is about the most lethal weapon availableA pump-action shotgun is in 99.9% of cases no different, in bore, than a shotgun. Relative to double-barelled shotguns, an obvious advantage is the additional rounds capacity (and that essentially depends on the make/model), an obvious disadvantage is that you can only shoot one round between reloads, and one pretty much balances the other out when faced with a maximum of two intruders. It is, by far, not the "most lethal weapon available" (especially if loaded with e.g. riot bags), however in terms of firearms and self-defense situations, it's to be preferred to anything with a rifled bore (which are very much more lethal, anything from lowly 22LR upwards).

MR BENN
17-08-2009, 11:00
I'm fine with people using reasonable force to defend themselves.
Tony Martin shot a guy in the back as he was trying to get away with an illegally held shotgun. I think that's pi**-poor frankly.

if the toe rag wasnt in Mr Martins property in the first place he would`nt have been shot .
Martin should have recieved an award for his actions -not a prison sentence .

Halibut
17-08-2009, 11:07
if the toe rag wasnt in Mr Martins property in the first place he would`nt have been shot .
Martin should have recieved an award for his actions -not a prison sentence .

You're pretty dense sometimes BENN. You're suggesting that using illegally held firearms to kill someone should be rewarded. Does that mean we should give a medal to the guy who shot PC Beshenivsky as well?

Crayfish
17-08-2009, 11:27
A pump-action shotgun is in 99.9% of cases no different, in bore, than a shotgun. Relative to double-barelled shotguns, an obvious advantage is the additional rounds capacity (and that essentially depends on the make/model), an obvious disadvantage is that you can only shoot one round between reloads, and one pretty much balances the other out when faced with a maximum of two intruders. It is, by far, not the "most lethal weapon available" (especially if loaded with e.g. riot bags), however in terms of firearms and self-defense situations, it's to be preferred to anything with a rifled bore (which are very much more lethal, anything from lowly 22LR upwards).

They are, however, infinitely more badass than a normal shotgun. Ka-Chik!

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 11:31
I've brought a house and had a baby with my partner.

I'm aware that my house may be burgled, my natural instinct would be to
attack the intruder/s to protect my partner and baby.

Where would leave me in the eyes of the law, would I be guilty of assault, or would it be self defence? (The Tony Martin case is playing on my mind)

If your house was burgled I dont really see how attacking the intruder would protect your partner and baby, it would probably put them at more risk than allowing the intruder to get away with your material possessions.

Tony Martin didn't do what he did out of self defence he did it out of revenge, with firearms of dubious legality, which is why is in prison.

If someone broke into your house and attacked you or your partner or child (god forbid) that would be self defense and you wouldn't have to worry about the consequences. So dont worry :)

Cyclone
17-08-2009, 11:49
It's quite difficult to read the mind of an intruder and work out whether they mean to have off with your plasma TV or to stab you to death in your bed.
In terms of absolute safety it would probably be best to barricade your bedroom door and call the police, but you have every right to defend your property as well as your person.

L00b
17-08-2009, 12:07
They are, however, infinitely more badass than a normal shotgun. Ka-Chik!I'm somehow failing to see how "badass" (or not) matters, in the whole "armed self-defense" debate ;)

(... and the business end of a 12 bore looks badass enough, to my mind even more so when it comes in two (over/under or side-by-side), so your argument fa1lz :D)

At the end of the day, assuming a same set of circumstances (ongoing intrusion, family present incl. vulnerables, unknown intruder(s) mindset/psych/equipment), it's all about self-preservation, and that itself is all about force projection (i.e. don't let him/them get in close).

If armed, then it's all about making sure the perps vacate ASAP to remove the danger to occupants, without loss of life on either side, so challenge first.

That failing (the perps at least appear to have harmful intentions, i.e. don't heed order to vacate or move towards the challenger), then discharge to incapacitate (legs, not head or upper torso). That's eminently doable at close range (i.e. within the property walls).

Of course, the discourse is easy, and Real Life has this nasty habit of constantly throwing curve balls against Plan A ;)

Crayfish
17-08-2009, 12:28
I'm somehow failing to see how "badass" (or not) matters, in the whole "armed self-defense" debate ;)

(... and the business end of a 12 bore looks badass enough, to my mind even more so when it comes in two (over/under or side-by-side), so your argument fa1lz :D)



Well, you've got to live with that gun while you're not being burgled! Ergo, 99.9% of the time, badass (or maybe pink with hello kitty on the headstock for some) is all that matters ;)

Plus I just don't see Bruce Willis blowing away the bad guys with a clay pigeon shotgun...

L00b
17-08-2009, 12:36
Well, you've got to live with that gun while you're not being burgled! Ergo, 99.9% of the time, badass (or maybe pink with hello kitty on the headstock for some) is all that matters ;)That's so just so wrong (http://www.toplessrobot.com/AEG_Custom_416HK_lg.jpg) on so many levels (http://www.gunpundit.com/2008/hello_kitty_xm8.jpg) :D
Plus I just don't see Bruce Willis blowing away the bad guys with a clay pigeon shotgun...He doesn't do low-life burglars, only international thieves and terrorists. So lacks relevance. Fa1ls again, my esteemed crustacean! :hihi:

olorin
17-08-2009, 12:53
I'm not sure a baseball bat is reasonable force. You may find yourself up on a GBH charge.

I smacked a burglar once with a nice big pointy geological hammer. Police were not in the slightest bit interested in pinning anything on me at all since the burglar was armed with a screwdriver and a knife.

olorin
17-08-2009, 13:00
I have a friend that keeps a charged stun gun under his bed, that one might be harder to justify but I reckon it's fair play. I know the law doesn't say this, but if anyone enters your house illegally they deserve whatever they get - and for all you know you are in mortal danger at that point. The law is wrong.

Possession of a unlicenced firearm - and that's what they are classed as will get you 5 years....

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 13:45
Possession of a unlicenced firearm - and that's what they are classed as will get you 5 years....

Unless you are a hardenened criminal that is, in which case you will get 5 social workers, two councillors and a big increase in your social security benefit.

JFKvsNixon
17-08-2009, 13:51
Tony Martin should receive an award. If burglars thought that the consequences of breaking in was death, they would think twice and the crime rate reduced.

Burglaries are much lower in the US for precisely this reason, its legal for a household to carry a gun.

Do you think that people who use illegally held fire arms should go to prison?

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 14:13
OK.....You are awakened in the middle of the night by your partener. She tells you that she has heard noises down stairs. You are half asleep having been awakened prematurely from deep sleep. The wife or gf says "I hope the kids are ok". You have two children sleeping in two bedrooms upstairs. You listen for a while and can hear the noises too. What do you do?........what do you think?....Do you call the police in the hope that they will immediately appear from nowhere?.....or does your gut reaction.....protecting you and your own take over. I know exactly what I would do and sod the consequences . If at some time in the future some jury believes that you overreacted....then SO BE IT! You do not have time to think, you only have time to react, instinct takes over....and you protect! REPEL AT ANY COST!

L00b
17-08-2009, 14:22
Do you think that people who use illegally held fire arms should go to prison?I think it should turn on the facts (as usual, and unsurprisingly).

Someone using an "illegally held firearm" in self-defense (demonstraby) shouldn't get away scot-free, there has to be a price to holding a firearm illegally (else what's the deterrent?). I'd say a hefty fine is in order, at the most.

That's an entirely different kettle fish to someone using an "illegally held firearm" in criminal proceedings (heist, burglary, intimidation, gang warfare...whatever). Don't you think?

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 14:23
What about someone using an illegal firearm to shoot someone in the back as they are running away?

L00b
17-08-2009, 14:25
That is not 'self-defense'.

(He'd have got the end result of exacting 'something', without the lethality and all the media + police + sentence aggro, by getting hold of one's trusty 'finely tuned' airsoft RIF, and put about 300+ 6mm 'bee stings' (point blank at 400+fps) their way in under half a minute, 99.99999% garanteed non-lethal ;))

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 14:28
This si what winds me up about the tony martin case.

I'm all for people defending themselves in their houses - although in Noctorneils example I'm not entirely convinced that running downstairs and attempting hand to hand combat is necesarily the best way to protect yourself or your family - that aside, tony martin is not a martyr for the cause for the simple fact he wasnt protecting anyone, he was exacting revenge. Which I do think should remain illegal.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 14:28
What about someone using an illegal firearm to shoot someone in the back as they are running away?

If we are talking about the case that I think we are , the victim, by that I do not mean the scum who was shot, had been burgled and intimidated by the same lowlifes for some time. He was merely putting a wrong right. Good on him. He would have come back again, the police did not protect him. He reacted perfectly.

Tomataheeed
17-08-2009, 14:28
Aren't people forgetting why the householder has obligations to preserve life even in the event of an intruder?

If burglers were "fair game" for any house owner to shoot, stab, burn etc. we'd just have the situation in the USA where burglars are much more likely to harm the householder before stealing.

The rules help the victims if you actually stop and think for a minute...

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 14:33
Aren't people forgetting why the householder has obligations to preserve life even in the event of an intruder?

If burglers were "fair game" for any house owner to shoot, stab, burn etc. we'd just have the situation in the USA where burglars are much more likely to harm the householder before stealing.

The rules help the victims if you actually stop and think for a minute...

The rules help victims get burgled.

Tomataheeed
17-08-2009, 14:33
The rules help victims get burgled.

The alternative is worse if the burglar believed he had to kill/disable you in order to survive. I'd rather be robbed than murdered.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 14:37
The alternative is worse if the burglar believed he had to kill/disable you in order to survive. I'd rather be robbed than murdered.

That is of course assuming that the burglar would DARE to burgle if the odds were more stacked against him. I contend that many burglers would lose their bottle if the laws were changed. Burglers are not brave people, they do it in the dark when nobody is around. They are cowardly. They take advantage of laws that protect them. They deserve no protection under the law whatsoever. They are SCUM!

MAMALOCHA!
17-08-2009, 14:54
That is of course assuming that the burglar would DARE to burgle if the odds were more stacked against him. I contend that many burglers would lose their bottle if the laws were changed. Burglers are not brave people, they do it in the dark when nobody is around. They are cowardly. They take advantage of laws that protect them. They deserve no protection under the law whatsoever. They are SCUM!

top post :)

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 14:58
That is of course assuming that the burglar would DARE to burgle if the odds were more stacked against him. I contend that many burglers would lose their bottle if the laws were changed. Burglers are not brave people, they do it in the dark when nobody is around. They are cowardly. They take advantage of laws that protect them. They deserve no protection under the law whatsoever. They are SCUM!

I simply dont agree.

Not because I love burglars.

Not because I want to kiss them.

Simply think the overall level of burglaries will stay the same, but the amount of violence involved towards victims would increase. All burglars would make sure they were armed to the teeth. Whereas at the moment, the amount of people harmed in burglary is quite minimal.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 15:07
I simply dont agree.

Not because I love burglars.

Not because I want to kiss them.

Simply think the overall level of burglaries will stay the same, but the amount of violence involved towards victims would increase. All burglars would make sure they were armed to the teeth. Whereas at the moment, the amount of people harmed in burglary is quite minimal.

OK. You think that burglars are brave?

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 15:11
OK. You think that burglars are brave?

Yeah thats exactly what I said :rolleyes:

MAMALOCHA!
17-08-2009, 15:15
I simply dont agree.

Not because I love burglars.

Not because I want to kiss them.

Simply think the overall level of burglaries will stay the same, but the amount of violence involved towards victims would increase. All burglars would make sure they were armed to the teeth. Whereas at the moment, the amount of people harmed in burglary is quite minimal.

burglars would think twice if they knew they would get it and the law is on the homeowners side. ;)

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 15:17
Yeah thats exactly what I said :rolleyes:

My point is that burglars are cowardly people who rely upon easy pickings. They are NOT brave people. They know that the odds are stacked in their favour and prey upon the frailties of our legal system that is more protective towards THE BURGLAR than the victim. If the odds were more stacked against them they would stop burgling, they would not arm themselves in preparation for battle.

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 15:20
Personally I disagree. I think people burgle mainly for cash, for drugs or booze or whatever. I dont think they think of consequences before they do it. I think they would continue burgling, just pick on older more vulnerable people or arm themselves better.

I suppose we just disagree.

L00b
17-08-2009, 15:20
burglars would think twice if they knew they would get it and the law is on the homeowners side. ;)You (and others) seem to be crediting them with a lot of 'information processing power' ;)
FWIW, I'm siding with the cautious brigade: increase the danger they'd face during a burglary = increase the danger victims would face during a burglary.
It's a simple cause-&-effect affair (in addition to being a vicious circle, actually): where and how else are they going to get the revenue? (which they'll still be after, legal changes notwithstanding)

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 15:21
Personally I disagree. I think people burgle mainly for cash, for drugs or booze or whatever. I dont think they think of consequences before they do it. I think they would continue burgling, just pick on older more vulnerable people or arm themselves better.

I suppose we just disagree.

OK....I apologise. I am sorry that your opinion is incorrect.

Paul2412
17-08-2009, 15:21
This is also the problem, if you chase away a burglar shouting "please do not do this, it is against the law" then they are bound to come back. You = soft target

They will keep coming back. If you then try to attack them when they have stolen the 5th TV in as many weeks, they will come back with their mates with the sole intention of beating you up.

Where does it stop? When either the home owner or the burglar are killed? The criminal will beat you up whether they get in trouble or not, that's what a NED does. But why should you be prosecuted for trying to put an end the misery if the police are doing nothing about it?

Kthebean
17-08-2009, 15:22
OK....I apologise. I am sorry that your opinion is incorrect.

Apology accepted. I am also sorry that your opinion is incorrect :D

sccsux
17-08-2009, 16:03
If you use a bat to to disable the burglar, use it only once or twice but make sure you hit him very, very, very hard...

Once around the knee area, then once round the back of the head as he/she/it goes down:D

MR BENN
17-08-2009, 16:49
Once around the knee area, then once round the back of the head as he/she/it goes down:D

one once more just to make sure their out cold

Alien
17-08-2009, 16:53
I could just murder a burger now...slurp!

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 17:00
Join the real world.....TRASH A BURGLAR.......revenge is sweet!.

Halibut
17-08-2009, 19:39
burglars would think twice if they knew they would get it and the law is on the homeowners side. ;)

What you fail to understand is that most burglars prefer to tackle empty properties anyway. The prospect of an armed householder is no dterrent if you believe the property to be empty.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 19:41
What you fail to understand is that most burglars prefer to tackle empty properties anyway. The prospect of an armed householder is no dterrent if you believe the property to be empty.

An increasing number of households are burgled whilst the occupants are asleep in bed.

spindrift
17-08-2009, 19:42
burglars would think twice if they knew they would get it and the law is on the homeowners side

The law is on the householder's side.

You can entirely legally defend yourself in your home.

You can't chase people onto the street and stab them twenty times, or lie in wait like the nazi gun nut in Norfolk, but the law is pretty clear on self defence.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 19:46
burglars would think twice if they knew they would get it and the law is on the homeowners side

The law is on the householder's side.

You can entirely legally defend yourself in your home.

You can't chase people onto the street and stab them twenty times, or lie in wait like the nazi gun nut in Norfolk, but the law is pretty clear on self defence.

The law is open to interpretation by nature of its wishy wash wording. "Reasonable force" means different things to different people.

saxondale
17-08-2009, 19:49
An increasing number of households are burgled whilst the occupants are asleep in bed.




not been burgled, car keys or a plasmas stolen but thats not a burglary - simplest answer to that problem is make sure your alarms set at night.

spindrift
17-08-2009, 19:51
The law is open to interpretation by nature of its wishy wash wording. "Reasonable force" means different things to different people.



What's reasonable is spelled out:

http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-how-far-is-too-far.html

Excessive Force and the Law
An individual is not entitled to inflict violence as an act of revenge, nor should people take the law into their own hands and act as vigilantes. There is a difference between reacting to a threatening situation by using violence and actually going out looking for trouble. Some examples of what may amount to excessive force:

* If an attacker is running away and a householder inflicts injury or death at that stage the force may have been excessive. It will no longer have been necessary for the householder to use force to protect themselves.
* If a householder has managed to knock an intruder unconscious they would be stepping over the line if they then decided to inflict further injuries. At that stage they would clearly no longer be acting in self-defence.
* If a householder sets a trap for an intruder or somehow lures an intruder into his home and then injures him, it is highly unlikely that any force used will be considered to be reasonable. No force was necessary because the homeowner could have avoided the situation and was acting in a pre-meditated, not an instinctive way.
* The Director of Public Prosecutions recently gave an example of one of the few cases in the last 15 years where a householder was found to have used excessive force. In that case several people tied up a burglar, and threw him into a pit before being set him on fire. Clearly it would be hard to argue that either of the latter two actions was necessary once the burglar had been tied up.


The law offers very wide protection to honest citizens who act instinctively to protect themselves, other people or even their property. However, it does not justify violent acts by people who have made a conscious decision to inflict injury. That's why the racist gun nut Tony Martin went to prison

AJ sheffield
17-08-2009, 19:54
Tony Martin should have got life for not killing both those *****.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 19:55
I would never assault a burglar. I refuse to beat myself up about it!

spindrift
17-08-2009, 19:58
Tony Martin should have got life for not killing both those *****.


There is no property I own that I would be so annoyed at losing that I would set a trap and shoot a child in the back with a shotgun, then leave him to die and go for a pint and brag to the appalled bar staff what I'd done.


Which is what Tony Martin did.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 20:01
There is no property I own that I would be so annoyed at losing that I would set a trap and shoot a child in the back with a shotgun, then leave him to die and go for a pint and brag to the appalled bar staff what I'd done.


Which is what Tony Martin did.

:hihi::hihi::hihi:..He has style!

AJ sheffield
17-08-2009, 20:03
There is no property I own that I would be so annoyed at losing that I would set a trap and shoot a child in the back with a shotgun, then leave him to die and go for a pint and brag to the appalled bar staff what I'd done.


Which is what Tony Martin did.

Good riddance.
Actually I would shoot a pikey for my Xbox.

spindrift
17-08-2009, 20:04
It would be funny if a burglar of Tony Martin's depravity entered your house at night and shot you in the face! Now that's stylish!!!!!

spindrift
17-08-2009, 20:06
Good riddance.
Actually I would shoot a pikey for my Xbox.

How much are they?

400?

500?

Let's be clear about this, you would murder a child in cold blood for less than the cost of a good suit?

Crayfish
17-08-2009, 20:40
So if the law isn't going to change, just what hope do we ever have of being able to legally tie a bad guy up, throw them in a pit and set fire to them?

Without this hope, what point is there in carrying on? This basic human right needs to be taken into account.

spindrift
17-08-2009, 20:42
I agree, the only sensible response to a petty interfering law that forbids you from burning to death someone who's nicked your telly is suicide.

You'd be doing the rest of us a favour.

Nocterneil
17-08-2009, 20:47
The only good burglar is a dead burglar.

mancom
17-08-2009, 22:13
I have no sympathy for burglars who get attacked. They deserve all they get. They shouldn't be in your home anyway.

MR BENN
17-08-2009, 22:16
It would be funny if a burglar of Tony Martin's depravity entered your house at night and shot you in the face! Now that's stylish!!!!!

do you believe that as soon as a thieving scumbag enters your property they lose their human rights ?

i certainly do

spindrift
17-08-2009, 22:22
do you believe that as soon as a thieving scumbag enters your property they lose their human rights ?

i certainly do

I know.

That's why I think you're a borderline sociopath.

MR BENN
17-08-2009, 22:27
I know.

That's why I think you're a borderline sociopath.

so you admit you are in favour of protecting criminals human rights ?