Tories to propose "Batter a Burglar" law

[Wucked]

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.

That's true, but you also don't know what your stepping into. Is the guy a runner? Or at the other extreme, does he have a mate with him that's going to stab you to death for the outrage of being caught?

1st thing for me is to stay quiet and call the cops... After that, if he starts creeping up stairs, I might make a bit of noise so he know's I'm awake. Banging a few draws or something, like I'm getting dressed. But I won't immediately stomp out there. At that point he's either going to run, or him and his mate will come looking for the source of the noise. Then its fight for survival time, and insurance becomes irrelevant.

 

[scrlk]

This is going to happen.

 

[RoboCod]

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.

erm they already are how do you expect them to break into your house without atleast a screwdriver?

Exactly^

Do you really think burglars at the moment walk around unarmed and not at all violent? LOLS

 

[kitch9]

What, in the name of hells satanic bells, constitutes grossly disproportionate, in the heat of the moment?

The law is fine as it is.

Shooting someone in the leg, then double tapping them in the head when down or trying to get away would be seen as over the top.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Shooting someone in the leg, then double tapping them in the head when down or trying to get away would be seen as over the top.

But thats, and there is no othe way to say it, DUh....They wouldn't get away it as the law stands now, they could get away with the first action if the situation calls for it.

smoke and mirrors

 

[Meridian]

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.

No judge would ever make that decision. Again: case law is completely clear: that you can defend yourself or your property with whatever force comes to hand. It doesn't even have to be reasonable in the cold light of day, as long as your reaction at the time was instinctive. You only run into issues if you use force when there is clearly no longer a threat. If you hit them as they are running away - trouble. Hit them as they lie on the floor - trouble. Hit them as they stagger towards you stunned by the last blow on the head - fine. This is how it is already. Again, again: there is no change taking place here except to hint to the police not to arrest the suspect. That's it. The law is entirely clear.

 

[2bit]

No judge would ever make that decision. Again: case law is completely clear: that you can defend yourself or your property with whatever force comes to hand. It doesn't even have to be reasonable in the cold light of day, as long as your reaction at the time was instinctive. You only run into issues if you use force when there is clearly no longer a threat. If you hit them as they are running away - trouble. Hit them as they lie on the floor - trouble. Hit them as they stagger towards you stunned by the last blow on the head - fine. This is how it is already. Again, again: there is no change taking place here except to hint to the police not to arrest the suspect. That's it. The law is entirely clear.

This short missive should be printed upon all weighty items sold within the UK. It could be printed on peel off transparent stickers that are removed at the owners discretion.

 

[Angilion]

I've a question for people who think the degree of force allowed in defence should be greatly increased from what it is now.

Is there any line you would draw?

For example, would you allow torturing a burglar to try to get them to reveal names of other burglars, fences, etc?

It's a serious question. The two most commonly cited examples of "defence" that advocates say should be completely legal are pre-meditated murder by shooting people in the back as they're running away (Tony Martin) and trying to beat someone to death in a frenzied attack with multiple club-wielding attakers purely as revenge and without any question of defence from anything (Munir Hussain). Advocates of changes in the law think those actions should be legal and usually argue that any claim of defence should be automatically believed (as long as the person making the claim is the right sort of person, of course). I don't see any evidence of people who advocate that sort of thing drawing any limits, so my question is a serious one.

If you're in favour of shooting people in the back and hunting people down for brutal vengeance and you think that the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop a crime is nowhere near enough, there's no reason to assume that you draw the line at anything.

 

[Fenris]

The law as it is now is fine. Any change will just lead to more cases of violence.

 

[Slam62]

If you see a burglar in your house, offer them a cake and a cup of tea

 

[troops]

Dont need any weapon tbh my dog already had one smackhead, i doubt anymore will try after the puncture wounds he got

 

[2bit]

If you see a burglar in your house, offer them a cake and a cup of tea

Ha that's it! Hit the cake burglars where it hurts... pre-empt their cake stealing efforts. And doubly crush them by offering tea too!

 

[Sunbed]

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.

OK, take what I imagine is a fairly typical burglary scenario:

A fifteen year old kid has come to snatch a laptop or phone, probably as part of some gang initiation thing. Judging by what you said, you'd put him down and made sure he stayed down i.e. kill him?

Personally I'd just tell him to "put down; **** off" Full Monty style (without the nakedness ).

Repercussions for you:
His family and mates try to take revenge because you killed/badly injured someone who might not have deserved it. You go to hospital/morgue. Family left unprotected etc.

Repercussions for me:
Might have to buy another laptop.

 

[TJM]

How will the good folks of middle England know whether the force they are using is disproportionate or grossly disproportionate? This doesn't clarify (or change) a thing. The police will still investigate after a person has been shot or badly beaten because that is the only sensible thing to do.

 

[Andy90]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19879314

Basically change the current unclear self-defence laws...

The laws are very clear. Reasonable force is ok - that is just enough to stop them from hurting you. If you overstep that mark, you're looking at an Assault charge or worse.

Here is an example. A man approaches you and punches you. You punch him back in self defence. He falls over unconcious. That would be ok.

If you continue to punch him after he is unconcious then it become 'unreasonable' and an assault.

It isn't difficult to understand, unless of course you are a Conservative party member.....

 

[Wucked]

I've a question for people who think the degree of force allowed in defence should be greatly increased from what it is now.

Is there any line you would draw?

For example, would you allow torturing a burglar to try to get them to reveal names of other burglars, fences, etc?

It's a serious question. The two most commonly cited examples of "defence" that advocates say should be completely legal are pre-meditated murder by shooting people in the back as they're running away (Tony Martin) and trying to beat someone to death in a frenzied attack with multiple club-wielding attakers purely as revenge and without any question of defence from anything (Munir Hussain). Advocates of changes in the law think those actions should be legal and usually argue that any claim of defence should be automatically believed (as long as the person making the claim is the right sort of person, of course). I don't see any evidence of people who advocate that sort of thing drawing any limits, so my question is a serious one.

If you're in favour of shooting people in the back and hunting people down for brutal vengeance and you think that the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop a crime is nowhere near enough, there's no reason to assume that you draw the line at anything.

That's absurd, if you're at the stage of torturing someone then its no longer defense. But I read a news article a month or so ago; an American guy's daughter went missing... But he found her after a few minutes of looking, some guy had dragged her off into a bush and was pulling her skirt up trying to sexually abuse her (she was a 4 yr old child)... The Dad promptly beat him to death, and the U.S. justice system let the dad off. I have no problem with that.

 

[TJM]

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.

Highlight the injustice please:

An “informal trawl” by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had used force against intruders into houses, commercial premises or private land. Only seven of those appeared to have resulted from domestic burglaries. Ken Macdonald, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, listed a number of cases where those who used force had and had not been prosecuted:

Householder/other victim not prosecuted

• Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The CPS did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years (Greater Manchester);

• A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence (Derbyshire);

• Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted (Hertfordshire);

• Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted (Lincolnshire);

• A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute (Lancashire).

Examples of Prosecutions

• A man laid in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him (Cheshire);

• A number of people trespassed on private land to go night-time fishing. They were approached by a man with a shotgun who threatened to shoot them. They ran away but one of the men was shot in the back with a mass of 40 shotgun pellets (South Wales);

• A householder lay in wait for a burglar who tried to burgle his shed. The householder shot him in the back (South Yorkshire).

Parliamentary report (PDF)

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Woah there, you are bringing evidence in to this that is not in line with the conservative / daily mail party line. How dare you.

 

[AndyT]

Petty headline grabbing policy to detract from the other more damaging BS the Tories are planning.

As above burglars will now have to arm themselves for fear of getting tackled by some utter moron have ago hero. Whereas before joe blogs probably wouldn't stab them for fear of getting nicked himself

Oh the poor burglars! Jesus wept, I despair at this response.

 

[Tefal]

The law was fair as it was. It just seems a desperate attempt to please those that don't understand they aren't going to get the full facts a case from short piece of journalism.

As it's entirely dependant on the facts of the case, it'll be interesting to see how something like this would apply in practice.

If it makes you lot feel safer though.....*shrug*?!

from ,what i can tell nothing is actually going to change at all.