Tories to propose "Batter a Burglar" law

I was going to write a long rant, but as usual Family Guy sums it up better than I could...

 
mmj_uk said:
He's just trying to boost his popularity, he's also suggested that we will be given a referendum on the EU but only if he is re-elected of course..... 3yrs isn't enough time to organise one apparently.
Click to expand...

Don't worry even if re-elected there will suddenly be a reason why the referendum can't go ahead anyway :p
 
semi-pro waster said:
Too many cases being a total of 11 cases taken to prosecution over a 15 year period according to the article or alternatively less than one case per year?
Click to expand...

I think avoiding 11 injustices in the next 15 years is worth doing don't you? I bet you wouldn't be so flippant if it were you or your relatives who had been the accused in one of those cases.

semi-pro waster said:
Why are you so against a case being investigated properly and instead want it to be no more than a cursory glance for the police to judge that there is no case to answer? Arresting someone who is involved in a violent altercation provides them with rights, rights it must be pointed out they wouldn't have were they not placed under arrest. It's unfortunate that sometimes people will be arrested when they are the victim of a crime but if it means the case is investigated properly and justice done then that's a price well worth paying.

The law is not unclear with regard to reasonable force - what appears to be the problem is that a number of people want an unfettered right to indulge in any form of punishment they choose for burglars. It's a horrible crime and one that anyone would hate to be subjected to but equally it shouldn't mean that you can kill just because it would make you feel a bit better.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: at the usual clichéd, nonsensical arguments. Since when do you have to arrest witnesses to a crime to investigate the crime properly? Given a choice, I'm sure those 11 home owners would select to be arrested and detained for 30 hours every time - it's in their interests right?

People who use grossly disproportionate force will still have committed murder, therefore I can't see how this proposed policy is giving people an unfettered right to indulge in any sort of punishment they choose. It's just more FUD from an establishment apologist.
 
blueseidboy said:
I totally agree with the law but expect it to lead to more violent burglaries as the burglars will go tooled up and a burglar is likely to have less qualms about stabbing someone then a law abiding citizen is.
Click to expand...

I would argue a burglar going 'tooled' up isn't anything new, a violent person willing to break in and rob a house will probably always carry a weapon of some sort. I guess what they are trying to achieve is to frighten away the more opportunist burglar. If he/she is thinking of breaking in and now hears that anyone inside can affectively bash their heads in to protect the home, maybe will think twice.
 
I think the point for me is the guidance makes it much clearer that a householder is allowed to defend themselves and their family without having to ponder what level of response, violent or not may be deemed "reasonable" by a copper or judge in the cold light of day.

The best example I've heard today was that knocking out a burglar with a handy stick/bat/whatever would almost certainly be considered OK under the new proposal no matter if it turned out the burglar was armed or not. Following that up by then stabbing him whilst unconscious would be grossly disproportionate and not acceptable, leaving you open to prosecution.

Under current guidelines even the first act my be deemed not using "reasonable" force if the Judge decided that you could have chosen to just leave the house, or perhaps the intruder wasn't himself armed. The thing is for your average person finding someone in their house they are just not equipped in the heat of the moment to work out what may, or may not be interpreted as "reasonable".

It's not a mandate to batter a burglar, it does however give a much easier to understand and gauge guideline around how you may chose to fight back, or even strike first against an intruder.

Frankly for me if there's an intruder in my house heading anywhere near my family and I decide to tackle them I'd rather err on the side of going in swinging and put them down as fast as possible without having to worry about should I have picked up the cricket bat, maybe I should try just wrestling him to the ground first, perhaps he's not armed at all and I should just ask him to leave.

Clearly going in with a carving knife to someone already leaving or restrained / unconscious would be grossly disproportionate. Actually for me going in with a craving knife under most circumstances would seem over the top for me although I accept that it could be the first thing someone grabs. I tend to feel the aim is to disable or scare off the intruder, not to wound or kill.

I tend to think it's a sensible realigning of the guidelines so householders can take responsibility to protect what's theirs and their family with a much clearer view that within reason the law is on their side. These guidelines should make it easier allow you legitimate defence, without promoting using violence to then "punish" an intruder although I accept it may be difficult to decide after the event if an element of the violence was "punishment".
 
Last edited:
Proportional retaliation is so hard to quantify, as adrenaline and fear and other aspects kick in. Beating someone within an inch of their life is possibly unjustified, however, accidentally killing someone by them falling down the stairs or having their own weapon used against them or a fight ends up with a scrabble for a knife or something - then the home owner should be totally cleared of any wrong doing. However, how do you prove it?

I think most people would be happy for the thief to be scared away and not come back. As long as your family is safe that's all that people tend to be concerned about.

I just want to be sure that the human rights arguments of the thief gets ditched - as far as I'm concerned they've given up their human rights by breaking into the home.
 
Athanor said:
The best example I've heard today was that knocking out a burglar with a handy stick/bat/whatever would almost certainly be considered OK under the new proposal no matter if it turned out the burglar was armed or not. Following that up by then stabbing him whilst unconscious would be grossly disproportionate and not acceptable, leaving you open to prosecution.
Click to expand...

So the same as it is already then yeah?

Strife212 said:
So? Now you can actually attack them first :D
Click to expand...

Again, same as it is already? You have the common law power to defend yourself with a pre-emptive strike.
 
Muel said:
Whether people decide to tackle a burglar or not is up to them, but the law should allow for someone to defend their own property.

Personally, I don't think I would take one on, unless it was very clear that I was going to come out on top, but it annoys me that I can be prosecuted for doing so at the moment.
Click to expand...



Tackling a burglar and then knocking him out and calling the police etc is completely legal it's the hitting him again and again when he is unconscious that is illegal and in the heat of the moment you don't rationalise every move.
 
PiKe said:
There's no circumstance that would allow you to continue to defend yourself when they're no longer a threat :confused:
Click to expand...

Its a long story but the laws that protect you if you kill in self defense are quite complicated, they also protect you if you attack first out of a genuine fear of death and even offer limited protection if you strike first and it turns out you were wrong and your life was never in danger.

If you attack an assailant and subdue them but then continue the offence to the point of killing them you are still somewhat protected as it can be seen simply as a case of you being unable to risk them getting back up.
 
Total non-issue hyped up for some vote grabbing.

Watched a few interviews from the Tory conference and its all just crap. Even the judges that have advised them have basically told them what we have now is pretty much exactly what they are calling for. Each case needs to be examined individually regardless.

You people calling for the right to murder someone cos they are in your house are seriously messed up in the head. I feel sorry for you. But i will respect you for trying to look hard on an internet forum....:rolleyes::)
 
Last edited:
If someone broke in to my home just to steal a few items I probably wouldn't intervene, they'd have to want them quite allot or they wouldn't be doing it. And I consider my physical well being, and that of the burglar, more important than a few material goods.

But if that burglar decides they also want to become a threat, then I welcome with open arms anything that assists me in hurting them. I believe that sort of burglar should essentially, in that moment, be stripped of all rights.
 
Efour2 said:
Total non-issue hyped up for some vote grabbing.

Watched a few interviews from the Tory conference and its all just crap. Even the judges that have advised them have basically told them what we have now is pretty much exactly what they are calling for. Each case needs to be examined individually regardless.

You people calling for the right to murder someone cos they are in your house are seriously messed up in the head. I feel sorry for you. But i will respect you for trying to look hard on an internet forum....:rolleyes::)
Click to expand...

its not just that.

most burglars are just smack heads out for a fix and easily scared off. but some are psychos. like the ones who rape and kill people.

the problem is, how do you know which one it is that you are fighting off? the easily spooked smack head or the guy that might come back in a month tooled up?

same as in a fight. you get attacked. do you hit them once and hope they run away or just stove their heads in so they cant get back up and try to hurt you? how do you know they wouldnt get back up and produce a knife?

this isnt a black & white situation. and the people you engage with arent men of honour.

as my dad says, when he was young if someone went down in a fight that was it. both sides walked away and the knocked down guy admitted defeat. these days they will come back at you with a broken bottle. or track you down and who knows what? burn the house down etc? people are more cowardly these days. ive known many people attacked months after a scrap with the attacker after revenge. ive seen people shot at all all kinds.

IMO best put them down and make sure they stay down. admittedly i wouldnt want to finish them off due to the repercussions but how do i know they arent coming back for my family at a later date?

i guess when you have a family and kids you are more protective.
 
Wucked said:
If someone broke in to my home just to steal a few items I probably wouldn't intervene, they'd have to want them quite allot or they wouldn't be doing it. And I consider my physical well being, and that of the burglar, more important than a few material goods.

But if that burglar decides they also want to become a threat, then I welcome with open arms anything that assists me in hurting them. I believe that sort of burglar should essentially, in that moment, be stripped of all rights.
Click to expand...

you realise that it will cost you a fair whack of cash to be burgled? vastly increased insurance etc. cant replace some items as they are of personal value etc.
 
andi said:
So the same as it is already then yeah?
Click to expand...
Kind of, except I guess now the decision you have to make when deciding to fight back isn't so much "how much force can I use and have it still qualify as reasonable" rather "what would be GROSSLY unreasonable".

It's a subtle but tangible difference, especially if you're making snap decisions in a situation with the adrenalin flowing and family, you and property at risk.

For example, there's an intruder in the house, I scoop up a cricket bat and knock him out with it. With the current "reasonable" force benchmark it could be argued I used more than reasonable force under the circumstances. With the new guidance it would be for the legal system to prove I used GROSSLY unreasonable force under the circumstances. I'm sure there's better examples but I think it serves to illustrate my point ok.

I'm sure the change could lead to some abuse and burglars getting more of a hiding than previously from homeowners out to "punish" rather than just protect themselves. I'm a little ashamed to say it but I'm of the mind that tough luck, you should have thought about that when you broke into my house and caused significant distress to my family. I'm pretty sure the burglar isn't having a moral debate over "fairness" as he lifts our stuff and leaves a family scared to sleep at night in case intruders come back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom