home defence

^TANK^ · 12 Apr 2011 at 23:27

UncleRuckus said:
I wonder if you would think differently if the invader took to raping your wife?

Stupot_ · 12 Apr 2011 at 23:40

UncleRuckus said:
I wonder if you would think differently if the invader took to raping your wife?

^TANK^ said:

Of course I would. I'd want them dead, with my axe in their head!

But that's dealing with it at a personal level. I think that as a collective we are better off letting the police deal with it.

KatanaDV20 · 12 Apr 2011 at 23:45

^TANK^ said:

Lol lol

UncleRuckus · 12 Apr 2011 at 23:52

Stupot_ said:
Of course I would. I'd want them dead, with my axe in their head!

Glad to hear that dear chap.

I feel the way the system is at the moment it's a very good time to be a career criminal with little or no consequence, these scumbags can get away with lots.

I would feel no shame of going to prison from protecting my family.

Nitefly · 12 Apr 2011 at 23:57

KatanaDV20 said:
Its such a disgrace that we have to think about "resonable force" when an intruder enters our homes. Burglar scum.

Not really. You don't even have to think about it - just avoid causing totally unnecessary injury.

OP if you must keep something under your bed, go for something blunt.

Stupot_ · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:01

UncleRuckus said:
Glad to hear that dear chap.

I feel the way the system is at the moment it's a very good time to be a career criminal with little or no consequence, these scumbags can get away with lots.

I would feel no shame of going to prison from protecting my family.

Basically, if something like that happened to me personally then I'm not sure I could control myself. However, I wouldn't want that to be written in to law. I'd be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions if they were felt to be above and beyond what was necessary to protect myself. (i.e. that guy who chased a robber down the street, beat him with a cricket bat and left him brain damaged). I can sympathise with his actions but as an outsider, agree that he went too far.

If people taking pot shots at trespassers on their lawn were legitimised then I think things could get very messy indeed...

Energize · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:02

Attacking someone merely stealing something is not reasonable force, it's not protecting your wife and children to hit someone with an axe for running off with a dvd player.

KatanaDV20 · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:05

What a different world across the pond!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080526190748AAwarrT

^TANK^ · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:05

Deja vu?

What would you do if you found a thief in your house?

Marvin · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:08

I'd just grab the M14 sitting across my room, or the M93R. They look real enough in that kind of situation, and there's no massive danger of anything. Even if the burglar was to get hold of it somehow, it's only an airsoft gun...

Failing the 'I've got a gun, so let's wait until the police arrive' trick, the butt is metal...

On a more serious note, if said burglar is not armed, and is simply trying to do a crash and grab/hit and run style thing, I'm not sure that much of anything physical could be seen as reasonable force. If you confront them and violence from the burglar ensues, then fair enough, but if they've tried to prevent confrontation, then reasonable force would equate to very little. Better than being able to shoot on sight...

Podmonkey · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:21

You need a mahoosive maglite. Such a good weapon. 'I needed it to see in the darkness and he came at me so I just swung to defend myself'. Or invent aids in a spray can.

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:42

Marvin said:
[..]
On a more serious note, if said burglar is not armed, and is simply trying to do a crash and grab/hit and run style thing, I'm not sure that much of anything physical could be seen as reasonable force. If you confront them and violence from the burglar ensues, then fair enough, but if they've tried to prevent confrontation, then reasonable force would equate to very little. Better than being able to shoot on sight...

UK law explicitly states that the presence of an intruder is deemed an immediate threat regardless of what they do or do not do. So you can go straight in at them, no warning, nothing - you are responding to an immediate threat.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

But not with an axe. You'd have a really hard time getting that ruled reasonable force, although in some cases it would be.

Defence laws in the UK are far stronger than many people like to think they are. In extreme cases you can kill in defence in the UK and have it ruled reasonable force.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the stated law is conservative. If if did go as far as a trial, a jury would probably be much more lax regarding what constitutes reasonable force.

Nitefly · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:51

Angilion said:
UK law explicitly states that the presence of an intruder is deemed an immediate threat regardless of what they do or do not do. So you can go straight in at them, no warning, nothing - you are responding to an immediate threat.

Really?

tom91x91 · 13 Apr 2011 at 00:53

just rape them

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 01:02

Nitefly said:
Really?

Yes, really. According to the CPS, the home office and the police. It makes sense:

Predicate: You are allowed to use reasonable force to counter an immediate threat.

Predicate: An instruder in your house is an immediate threat.

Conclusion: You are allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder in your house on sight. Since their presence is a threat, it isn't necessary for them to make any additional threats - they have already made a threat by their intrusion.

VFM Addict · 13 Apr 2011 at 01:17

I have never been able to get my head around this one.

It is all but impossible to break into a house without a "weapon", that is to say in order to force entry you need something like a screwdriver, a hammer or a crowbar (assuming one's home has more than a Yale lock). This being so it seems a reasonable assumption that any intruder is not merely an intruder but is an armed intruder and hence unless he runs instantly on seeing me then I perceive a threat to my life and I will respond on that basis.

There in rests the case for the defence, my Lord....

Nitefly · 13 Apr 2011 at 01:28

Angilion said:
Yes, really. According to the CPS, the home office and the police. It makes sense:

Predicate: You are allowed to use reasonable force to counter an immediate threat.

Predicate: An instruder in your house is an immediate threat.

Conclusion: You are allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder in your house on sight. Since their presence is a threat, it isn't necessary for them to make any additional threats - they have already made a threat by their intrusion.

Where are you getting the parts in bold from? I can't find the relevant parts in halsburys.

VFM Addict · 13 Apr 2011 at 02:26

Nitefly said:
Where are you getting the parts in bold from? I can't find the relevant parts in halsburys.

I would doubt very much that Angilion's proposition exists in statute. At best I would suspect that if it has any authority that he's cobbling together case/common law with must be at CA or HL to give it any weight whatsoever.

Energize · 13 Apr 2011 at 03:44

VFM Addict said:
I have never been able to get my head around this one.

It is all but impossible to break into a house without a "weapon", that is to say in order to force entry you need something like a screwdriver, a hammer or a crowbar (assuming one's home has more than a Yale lock). This being so it seems a reasonable assumption that any intruder is not merely an intruder but is an armed intruder and hence unless he runs instantly on seeing me then I perceive a threat to my life and I will respond on that basis.

There in rests the case for the defence, my Lord....

That simply isn't true, all too often doors are just kicked in or locks forced.

Vonhelmet · 13 Apr 2011 at 08:05

UncleRuckus said:
I wonder if you would think differently if the invader took to raping your wife?

In that case reasonable force becomes a lot more broadly defined. It's still unlikely to permit premeditated axe wielding, though.