High Court: Homeowners can use 'disproportionate force' against burglars

Twirlywoos said:
When you have a gun/knife/weapon pointed at you I think you can use any force you want. At the end of the day you are fighting and in fear of your and your families life.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Normally it will be dark or hidden, so they can't be seen, so you don't know what weapons or intent they have and you have to put them down first to ensure your family doesn't come to harm.

I wouldn't kill anyone intentionally, and I'm hoping I would be able to defend myself and others if needed, but I wouldn't hesitate to incapacitate and break bones.
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
It's about time!!
Click to expand...
I know this is being presented as news by the media, but the law of self-defence hasn't changed in any meaningful way in a long time.

This judgment is that the current law of self-defence is compatible with the European Convention. The current law, which was introduced a few years ago, allows you to use disproportionate force within a residence provided it is not grossly disproportionate; the previous law only allowed for reasonable force. While this might sound like more protection for residents from prosecution (which was certainly how the government presented it), the reality is that very few or no cases would go beyond reasonable force but fall short of grossly disproportionate force. The tiny number of the cases that have gone to court in the past 25 years involved actions that were clearly not in self-defence - shooting someone in the back, chasing them down the street and smashing a cricket bat over their head, or throwing them into a pit and setting them on fire.

Ignore the Daily Mail and the rest. If you don't take bloody revenge on an intruder, you will not be prosecuted. This is only really an issue for the sadistic and vengeful, who must resent not being able to legally torture someone to death for touching their stuff.
 
I did not need a judge to tell me this. :rolleyes:

No matter what the law, you break into my home and I catch you?:eek:

You can be sure you wont be doing it again. ;)
 
scorza said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rtionate-force-rules-high-court-a6815626.html



Good to see British law trumping European for a change.
Click to expand...


This is not what happened. The judges ruled on UK law, but the European Court option is still open.

I also like the way that the government has been trying to take the credit for this decision based on a set of guidelines that they issued a couple of years ago, which they tried to pretend were something new, but which were actually little more than a minor clarification of the existing law, which did not change. As is usually the case, most the stuff people spout about cases like this is based on nonsense spouted by tabloid newspapers. You have had the right to defend your life and/or property (and other people's) with unreasonable force for a long time now. The law merely prevents you from carrying out revenge attacks, or continuing to attack a person who is clearing running away or clearly surrendering. It has never required you to make judgements over what is "reasonable" in the heat of the moment.

And even if this does go to the European Court, I hereby bet £20 to a charity of your choice that it fails.
 
Has anything really changed?

“The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.”
Click to expand...

People were allowed to use reasonable force before, which may even involve killing the intruder.
 
neoboy said:
Headlock is disproportionate force?
Click to expand...


I believe that the case was brought as the headlock was maintained even after he lost consciousness, however as others have said, in such a situation, how do you know he wasn't faking it or may come about quickly.
 
I can't see why people are getting excited.

The judgement is basically repeating what has been standard since practically forever.

You can use any level of force you feel is reasonable given what you think the circumstances are, even if it turns out to be disproportional in the cold light of day when looking back.

It's basically saying that as long as you believe the force was reasonable under the circumstances you're fine.

Cases involving use of harpoon guns have shown that in the past!

It doesn't say you can tie up an intruder and stab him 50 times, take a blow torch to his feet, or call up your friends and family and play pinata with him, or go out and try and find him once he's left.
 
Amp34 said:
Within reason...

Having a baseball bat or carving knife beside your bed and then continuing to hit/stab the intruder until they are a colander, having stopped being a threat a while ago is not reasonable. I think you'll find most cases where the homeowner has gone to jail have been cases like that (such as Tony Martin).;)
Click to expand...

The case of Tony Martin was quite different to someone getting a rush of adrenaline and battering an intruder since he had an illegal firearm and shot someone in the back long after they attempted to leave his property.
 
MatsyLR said:
This is great news.
You should be able to do anything within reason (not killing the person) if someone breaks into your house. Maybe breaking there legs.
Click to expand...

you can kill someone

it just has to be appropriate/reasonable

like you can't shoot someone in the back as they're running away - that isn't reasonable
 
Longbow said:
Has anything really changed?



People were allowed to use reasonable force before, which may even involve killing the intruder.
Click to expand...

No, nothing changed at all. This is just clarification that the existing rules did not contradict European laws, which they dont.

So things are exactly as they have been. You've always had the right to kill someone enter your house if that was deemed reasonable, and you can go to jail if it isn't reasinable.

The cases where people to jail ia normally becuase they chased the burger down the street with a baseball and beat them to death.
 
shauncr91 said:
The case of Tony Martin was quite different to someone getting a rush of adrenaline and battering an intruder since he had an illegal firearm and shot someone in the back long after they attempted to leave his property.
Click to expand...

Exactly, yet quite a few here believe it was proportionate. As has been said unless there is some premeditation and you have gone way above and beyond you'll probably get arrested by you probably won't go to court.

kindai said:
I believe that the case was brought as the headlock was maintained even after he lost consciousness, however as others have said, in such a situation, how do you know he wasn't faking it or may come about quickly.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's not prticularly disproportionate force and not really a good example to use as an example really. :p
 
scorza said:
Good to see British law trumping European for a change.
Click to expand...

As I, and many others pointed out to you many times, European Convention on Human Rights is not some "European law" or something that evil federal Europe forced on Britain. It was drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, British MP, lawyer and prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.
 
Last edited:
The Collin's family need to look at the root cause of their son being in a coma. That's right it's the fact your son broke into someone's property with the intent to steal. Corrective action, prevent son from doing this again. Unluckily for the chap looks like this is exactly what has happened. He knew the risk of committing a crime so it's tough titties he's now in a coma.

I do detest people that try on things like this. The Collin's family need to open their eyes and accept that their son is a criminal and paid almost the ultimate price for it. A home owner should be able to do whatever they like to protect themselves, their family or their property if someone enters it without permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom