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

That's quite a good summary of self defense.

Must admit I had listened to all the bad advice and was under the impression that you did have to declare your training before defending yourself :D.

Spook187 said:
So what if i set some Viet Cong type booby traps on my property, totally safe until you cross that line.
Click to expand...

Don't think that counts as you're prempting the attack.
 
You see many people feel the need that they should legalise guns because it would make homes safer. I would have absolutely no problem with legalising guns if it was on the condition that the only people not allowed to own them are the 'irl CoD heroes' that seem to be pushing the most for them to be legalised. This would essentially lead to no change :)


Spook187 said:
So what if i set some Viet Cong type booby traps on my property, totally safe until you cross that line.
Click to expand...

I would make them adult height in case any kids loose their football over the fence.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The law isn't that black and white, it's all down to specific circumstances.

This is a good summary of the law though: http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence
Click to expand...

Whilst you and I understand that perfectly I'd imagine most of the population don't.

Yes I appreciate it's all down to the circumstances but that's why I suggest guidelines and not a set of instructions.

One even I'm unclear on for example is if someone has stolen my property and has it in their possession, am I allowed to try and prevent their escape in an attempt to prevent them making off with my goods?
Basically can I chase them down and beat them to get it back?
 
Dis86 said:
One even I'm unclear on for example is if someone has stolen my property and has it in their possession, am I allowed to try and prevent their escape in an attempt to prevent them making off with my goods?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are essentially arresting them for theft (an indictable offence) under s 24a of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and can use reasonable force during the arrest.

Have a read here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A
 
I'm going to redesign my house like "Fun House" back in the day, that seems to keep people in pretty well.

Ball pits, gunge, slippery slides, wobbly bridges and smoke machines. At least the theives will enjoy their last 2mins on earth before I catch them with my mac-10 and queen bee army.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
There have already been rulings that the reasonableness of force does not require exact proportionality (Cross V Kirkby 2000 and Oatridge (1991)). Perhaps this ruling makes that a little more explicit, but it's far from new thinking.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what I said?

You said the law hasn't changed. It has, in at least three places. In statute. I'll dig out the relevant Acts if you wish.

But the "changes" were marketed as clarification, and I'd agree that they did little or nothing to clarify the public's perception of where the line is, and will make little or no change to the outcomes, either in CPS charging decisions, or in all likelihood, jury verdicts.

If, as has happened, the bar has moved from reasonable but not disproportionate, to reasonable and even disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate, then the only way it clarifies the public perception is if the public has a clear understanding of, firstly, that nuanced change, and secondly, exactly where the line is between those three states.

The law, therefore, changed, in a very minor way. The real-world effect will be minimal at most because, already, a householder has to go quite a long way over the top to get charged let alone convicted, for reasons of public policy and national interest, if nothing else. That is to say, juries are comprised largely of householders and generally not criminals, and most of the jury are likely to see themselves in the householders shoes, and are naturally sympathetic to burglary victims. The CPS know this all to well, and given the requirement of a "reasonable prospect of conviction" tend to be bring csses to court unless the violence level used is pretty clearly way excessive.

Perhaps the more subtle and beneficial change isn't the headlined one but the slight change of emphasis in, as I'm sure you're fully aware, PACE, and the inferences for investigating officers as to how, when and even where to conduct initial interviews with householders that may have themselves acted criminally violently in overdoing seld-defence, and the requirement to consider evidence that there weren't overdoing it as well as evidence that they were, before defaulting to just nicking them and sorting it out later in a formal interview, thereby perhaps victimising innocent and potentially traumatised householders all over again. It's bad enough being burgled, and perhaps literally fighting for your life, without being banged up in police cells for two nights for not losing the fight.


But on the initial point, yes the law did change. Minimally. I doubt it helped public perception much, and even less helped actually understanding, and I doubt it made much if any difference to outcomes.

It's like getting a high jumper to jump over a three foot bar. If he clears five feet, you can change the bar, raising it to three foot six, but it won't change his outcome. The change in law raised the bar a bit, but the CPS were already clearing it anyway.
 
A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some countries, any legally occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.

This basically says that anyone walking into my home without permission can be shot by me. Same with car, if someone tries to open your door at a red light you can shoot them.

God bless America
 
glen8 said:
ok so I've been watching Luther

but say the only thing I could get my hands on was a hammer, and smashed his head open killing him. How would that stand up?
Click to expand...
I haven't been watching it so have no idea of the relevance of Luther, but in general, the use of weapons nudges towards excessive force, but it all still depends on the circumstances. It also depends what you do with it. In some circumstances, multiple hits with a hammer might be grossly disproportionate, while in others, both barrels of a 12-guage would not be. It all depends on individual circumstances.
 
acemastr said:
This basically says that anyone walking into my home without permission can be shot by me. Same with car, if someone tries to open your door at a red light you can shoot them.

God bless America
Click to expand...

How do the police determine whether someone had permission? What if permission was granted and then revoked? How long does the person have to leave? Can the homeowner shoot them immediately?

It could well be the homeowner's word versus that of someone who is dead.
 
And if they are dead, they have no word ;)

Generally it's fairly obvious if someone was welcome or not, an intruder is likely to have a weapon or wearing a balaclava etc. Next door neighbor selling cookies is also fairly obvious.

Of course you'd need to think damn hard before pulling the trigger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom