Josh Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587 Good news! I like how America handle it. You come into my house, I kill you, I get praised. It's ridiculous how we're unable to defend ourselves properly in fear of getting arrested for it. I know if I were to go home and find someone had broken into my house and they were still there, I wouldn't hold back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronttuk Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 About time I wouldn't hesitate if I caught a burglar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Absolutely spot on. For my money, if you decide to burgle someone else's hard earned items, you forfeit all your "rights" as soon as you cross the threshold of their property. Also, I would think it is much more of a deterrent to would-be law breakers if they are acutely aware of the potential consequences and hazard to their own well being and health; a case of a judge basically giving a verdict of "well, you knew the risks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 It's a very unclear area though. Self defense is different to a frenzied attack on someone with a knife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammytruck Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Aree with you 100%.............But Ithink Mr Clarke on very dodgy ground saying " its ok for an old lady to stick a knife in an 18yo burglar"...... doesn't sound politi/correct somehow...............never heard a politician come out with that before....maybe things looking up, because these lovely burglars make a lot of peoples live a misery.....as in the crimewatch piece about an 83 yo man smashed to bits by a burglar..............must stop, I could really rant on this one...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammytruck Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Charlotte, the piece doesn't mention " frenzied attack".................just an observation........dont wish to be picky...x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Charlotte, the piece doesn't mention " frenzied attack".................just an observation........dont wish to be picky...x I know it doesn't - I'm just saying it's open to a lot of interpretation, which is why 'self defence' is such a grey area. Even in the article he says this:- It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said then:- Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or getting their friends together to beat them up. But that's basically what the law states already:- Under the terms of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, homeowners who use "reasonable force" to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted, providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary. Who decides what is necessary force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How about that farmer who shot the intruders, so if someone has a shotgun license with firearms in the house, could you use that as many people do have such licenses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 How about that farmer who shot the intruders, so if someone has a shotgun license with firearms in the house, could you use that as many people do have such licenses Or airguns... If you break into a house to rob and get caught, you deserve to get roughed up and if you happen to die as a result of it then take it as a lesson... Well you can't as you're dead, but y'know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 What would be classed as the threshold, your front door or plot perimeter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I've heard it said that the only way to truly get away with murder is to kill a burglar in your own home, as apart from any forensic evidence there is nothing to suggest or prove he was even there in the first place, and no one would know his movements on the night in question to link him to you, an ordinary householder. Its an intriguing thought as I, like most people, would like to experience the raw power and the erotic fervour of destroying another human life with my own bare hands. I imagine afterwards I would feel like a naked god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleyh_15 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How about that farmer who shot the intruders, so if someone has a shotgun license with firearms in the house, could you use that as many people do have such licenses If you have such a licence then you know such weapons should be locked away in a different cabinet from the ammunition, thus making a nice quick attack on an intruder very unlikely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Who decides what is necessary force? The courts. UK law has the concept of a "reasonable person", according to some of my friends who studied law. As you said, people can use "reasonable force" to defend themselves, but can't take it into punishment beating territory. You can't easily write down in a Statute Book what constitutes reasonable force: every situation is different, with thousands of variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 If you have such a licence then you know such weapons should be locked away in a different cabinet from the ammunition, thus making a nice quick attack on an intruder very unlikely Indeed, but if you hear something strange then unlocking a cab and locating the ammunition wouldn't take very long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The courts. UK law has the concept of a "reasonable person", according to some of my friends who studied law. The man on the Clapham Omnibus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I think one major issue is pre-arming or instant arming, whereby pre-arming suggest intention to cause serious harm and instant arming is self defence. You need a reason for your weapons to have been downstairs in the location where you 'were attacked' by the burglar and 'felt threatened' etc. so you 'instantly armed' yourself and defended yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammytruck Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I've heard it said that the only way to truly get away with murder is to kill a burglar in your own home, as apart from any forensic evidence there is nothing to suggest or prove he was even there in the first place, and no one would know his movements on the night in question to link him to you, an ordinary householder. Its an intriguing thought as I, like most people, would like to experience the raw power and the erotic fervour of destroying another human life with my own bare hands. I imagine afterwards I would feel like a naked god...............................erotic fervour....................lol.........your'e not well......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 What would be classed as the threshold, your front door or plot perimeter? Front door I would think. Someone in your front garden would just be trespassing which AFAIK isn't even a criminal offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 ..............................erotic fervour....................lol.........your'e not well......... I know. I keep seeing dots before my eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammytruck Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 lmao here.......thanks Rob........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The courts. UK law has the concept of a "reasonable person", according to some of my friends who studied law. As you said, people can use "reasonable force" to defend themselves, but can't take it into punishment beating territory. You can't easily write down in a Statue Book what constitutes reasonable force: every situation is different, with thousands of variables. A reasonable person like...Ken Clarke for example? Exactly, that's the bit that gets me - thousands of variables. This isn't some carte blanche to kill someone in your home, but it's already been read that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 It's a very unclear area though. Self defense is different to a frenzied attack on someone with a knife. I also agree with this: the lines between what is "acceptable" and what isn't are massively blurred. However, let's take an instance covered by the OP on discovering a burglar in your own home: I think the point being made is that plans are afoot to attempt to make the distinction clearer and, in the eyes of the law, favour the homeowner rather than the burglar. In such times of doom and gloom (economic crisis, everyone's feeling the pinch, general consensus that the nation is too soft on crime), Clarke's announcement is a little bit of good news, and possibly a step in the right direction. Whether or not anything comes to fruition remains to be seen, but it's a positive statement to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chazuk Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How about that farmer who shot the intruders, so if someone has a shotgun license with firearms in the house, could you use that as many people do have such licenses I remember that I still cant belive he got life poor bloke had be done over so many times and the typical police did nothing about it you just get a crime number , both of them were travellers and the one that survied being shot is still commiting crime to this day Fearon was again jailed for 18 months on 6 February 2003 for dealing in heroin.[9] Controversy was again provoked, in July 2003 when Fearon left Ranby prison after serving less than a third of his 18-month sentence - just days before Martin's release. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett requested an explanation from the head of the prison service.[10] On 2 September 2003 Fearon was arrested for taking a Toyota Land Cruiser on 24 August without the owner's consent.[11] On 9 November 2003, he was found guilty of driving the vehicle without insurance and recalled to prison to serve the remainder of the preceding sentence.[12] In August 2005 Fearon was arrested with Dean Thompson, accused of drawing out £11,000 from a bank machine using stolen cash cards. Fearon was bailed to appear before magistrates in October.[13] In February 2006, Fearon was banned from two public houses in Newark. The Crown Court Judge called Fearon "a menace" and issued him with an 18 month community order for his part in causing a large disorder occurring at the said locations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Tony Martins problem was that he didn't kill the both of them. As I posted above, had he done that, disposed of the bodies somewhere on his farm, then no one would be the wiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 I remember that I still cant belive he got life poor bloke had be done over so many times and the typical police did nothing about it you just get a crime number , both of them were travellers and the one that survied being shot is still commiting crime to this day Fearon was again jailed for 18 months on 6 February 2003 for dealing in heroin.[9] Controversy was again provoked, in July 2003 when Fearon left Ranby prison after serving less than a third of his 18-month sentence - just days before Martin's release. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett requested an explanation from the head of the prison service.[10] On 2 September 2003 Fearon was arrested for taking a Toyota Land Cruiser on 24 August without the owner's consent.[11] On 9 November 2003, he was found guilty of driving the vehicle without insurance and recalled to prison to serve the remainder of the preceding sentence.[12] In August 2005 Fearon was arrested with Dean Thompson, accused of drawing out £11,000 from a bank machine using stolen cash cards. Fearon was bailed to appear before magistrates in October.[13] In February 2006, Fearon was banned from two public houses in Newark. The Crown Court Judge called Fearon "a menace" and issued him with an 18 month community order for his part in causing a large disorder occurring at the said locations Hope this doesn't cause offence but he should have died along with his scumbag mate. 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.