Digsy Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Well, what a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 That article is a load of crap. It makes it sound as if you aren't currently allowed to defend yourself and your home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynb Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 That article is a load of crap. It makes it sound as if you aren't currently allowed to defend yourself and your home. Too often though the emphasis is placed on the householder to justify the degree of force used Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Wahey - Time to go robbing then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Another load of vague government crap that they can shape whichever way they see fit. "Grossly disproportionate force"? Does this mean we have to wait until the burglar stabs us before we can fight back? Until they hurt you, how can you judge what "grossly disproportionate" is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I dont care what they say, if i see someone in my flat in the middle of the night ,dont think for one minute im gonna ask him nicely to leave and return my stuff. i'll leave the lights off make it look like an accident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i'll leave the lights off make it look like an accident Errrr. They'd certainly be sorry then! Don't forget the KY Jelly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 rogue ur sick but maybe i should hit them with your spats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens747 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Come in my house uninvited and ur asking for trouble. I'm sorry but if ur out on the nick then u lose your right there and then full stop without question ..........rights for criminals .... wot the f*ck is wrong with this country ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 If a burglar enters your house you don't have the right to kill or cripple him. That's not your job, it's the legal system's job. Every time this subject comes up most/everyone says that they'll do whatever to anyone who comes into their house uninvited. The way I see it you already have the legal right to do whatever necessary to protect yourself and to stop the intruder escaping until the police arrive. What more do you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 What more do you want? The right to rip out their toenails one by one.... slowly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 If a burglar enters your house you don't have the right to kill or cripple him. That's not your job, it's the legal system's job. Every time this subject comes up most/everyone says that they'll do whatever to anyone who comes into their house uninvited. The way I see it you already have the legal right to do whatever necessary to protect yourself and to stop the intruder escaping until the police arrive. What more do you want? agree with you here Jake. if someone come's into my house and i'm in, i'm not just gonna go chargin in at them with weapons etc. most i'd do is grab them and restrain them and call the police. if they start tryin to attack me or anyone, or they attack me, then that's a different story and i'd definately attack back. Just because they are in your house doesn't mean you can seriously injure them. personally, if some git broke into my place and shit one when he saw someone was in, i couldn't live with myself if i beat the shit out of him causing permanent damage. i'd give him a smack in order to restrain him if necessary until the fuzz turned up but otherwise he would have to start on me, then the swords come out one thing i dont agree with is that the criminal can sue you for attacking them - they shouldnt be there in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 If a burglar enters your house you don't have the right to kill or cripple him. That's not your job, it's the legal system's job. Every time this subject comes up most/everyone says that they'll do whatever to anyone who comes into their house uninvited. The way I see it you already have the legal right to do whatever necessary to protect yourself and to stop the intruder escaping until the police arrive. What more do you want? Couldn't agree more, they're not going to give you permission to kill! The number of people prosecuted for defending themselves is very very small anyhow, so why change the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawby Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 From what I could make out the change in the law was for the following reason. As said, you can defend yourself already with reasonable force. The problem is if someone is approaching you in your home in the dark and you consider there attentions are to attack you, and you pre-empt the attack and hit first knocking the crock to the ground and therefore defending yourself, then as I see it the current law says you are in the right. You used reasonable force to defend yourself. BUT, the problem comes in that the crock can challenge you in court and say that all they were going to do was run past you or something, and therefore you had used more than reasonable force. The court process alone can be bad enough for some people, but then when you're made to pay compensation because the crock was out of work for a week it just takes the piss! The proposed law would have meant that the crock would only have a legal standing if you used too much force. So if you hit them thinking they were attacking you and they fell over a broke a finger nail, then tuff. They shouldn't have been there and the case gets dropped before it started. Oh, and someone suggested the crook might 'have an accident'. I wouldn't go that route. Accidents in your home are your responsibility even if the person is uninvited. I remember reviewing the original trial test cases when I was at uni. Some judge originally said that people entering your property should expect to 'take it as they find it' and therefore if they tripped on your kids toy down the stairs then tuff. However, this lead to people setting traps so the law was changed so that the property owner is fully responsible for any injuries to anyone on their property, regardless of whether they are invited or not, or in fact committing an offence or not. Of course, the government are stating they need to 'educate' people on this law, so there's a chance I've got it all wrong. But I sure if I read through a few newspapers I could find examples where innocent victims of the current wording of the law are being sent to court for defending themselves even with reasonable force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynb Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Trouble is in the middle of the night how do you assess what the threat is? It might not be obvious they have a weapon initially but once you are tussling it is a bit too late to disengage and search for an appropriate response once you have more accurately assessed the level of threat. IMHO that is what needs to be addressed and why the current legislation could do with a tweak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So what do you suggest, Martyn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynb Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 So what do you suggest, Martyn? Well - I would be gutted to be shot by a burglar I didn't think had a gun when I had a perfectly good shotgun upstairs for instance. The present system seems to have an emphasis on the householder evaluating the situation maybe half asleep and paying the penalty if his assessment of the threat is incorrect by either being injured himself if he uses too weak a defence or being arrested if he uses too much. I know we cannot sensibly advocate blowing all burglars away but I think the emphasis should be strengthened in favour of an entitlement to defend yourself with whatever means are to hand bearing in mind that your opponent will in all likelihood be brandishing some kind of implement at you while you consider your options. There isnt a perfect answer I suppose but I would like to see the scales tipped a little in the favour of the householder rather than the person who simply should not be there at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.