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

[cheesyboy]

He said murder rate, not firearm

*edit* Clearly not reading properly today

So, now you have read it, does it change your outlook on the safety of a gun-toting populous?

You'll recall I was challenging your hypothesis of:

If someone wants to cause harm with a gun, they'll find a gun, in any country. Or use a knife... I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight.

 

[acemastr]

There was a case recently, and I mean more recently than Tony Martin, where a shotgun was used. Another case, in Manchester, resulted in a machete-wielding burglar being stabbed to death, and the householder than killed him was not even prosecuted, and quite rightly.

Far from my comment being pointless, it is absolutely the entire point. The law says NOTHING about cutting in half, nothing about which weapons can or cannot be used, merely that force in self defence must not be grossly disproportionate, in the circumstances.

It doesn't much matter to a deceased burglar, or indeed to prosecuting authorities, whether the deceased is cut in half by a sword or a shotgun, or indeed if they are cut in half or not. That is all pointless forum drivel. What matters is the force used, the degree of proportionality or otherwise, and the genuinely held belief of the householder as to the threat they faced.

In the case of that Manchester burglar, the householder faced a machete-wielding intruder, and is quite justified in fearing for his, or others, lives. He is not expected to exercise the level of judgement required to know, for instance, that stabbing the machete nut in one place will disable him, but in another will kill him. He's just genuinely in fear for his life and entitled to use force, whether knife, katana or shotgun to defend himself, up to and including deadly force, providing it's not disproportionate. Where that line is depends on circumstances. How many intruders? How many shotgun shells did he have? Where were the intruders? Was a warning shot feasible? Did he have time?

It's that entire accumulation of circumstances, given the panicked state of a householder, that determines what's grossly disproportionate and what isn't. If the only weapon available is some fancy sword, and a panicked householder swings it wildly, he is extremely unlikely to be expected to judge whether that swing will kill but not utterly bisect, or whether it leaves the intruder in bits.

If deadly force is reasonable, then it's reasonable and if a wild swing is reasonable, then it is.

On the other hand, if you lurk in a dark corner and let an unarmed intruder sneak past you, then cut him in half from behind, it's much less likely to be reasonable, because you effectively laid in wait. As for him being unarmed, what matters is what you genuinely believed, not what was actually the case. For instance, if he was "armed" with a non-firing replica, the threat posed was minimal but you weren't to know that.

There is no way to be certain in advance what actions, or weapons, are acceptable or not because rules on that don't exist. Guidelines do, but they illustrate the actual rule, which is the one I gave. All this rubbish about cutting in half is exactly that.

^ He said it better than I can.

 

[acemastr]

In that situation i will let them take the stuff. I would especially not try to play hero.

If anything playing hero in that situation would heavily increase the chances of harm coming to you or a loved one. If that happened to me, i would give the bobbys a quick call, telling them i think someone broke in. Then i would proceed to move my wife and myself to the kids room while they bhelp themselves to the cutlery and my TV.

They are there to steal, not kill

I would then ring up the house insurance the next day, get the stuff replaced and pay a small bump in the premiums the next time round thanking the spaghetti monster that my family is still safe.

How do you KNOW they are there to steal stuff and not tie you up and rape your wife and children? Don't be so naive, you have ZERO clue what their intentions are. Your assumption could easily get you and your family killed in the worst possible way. This person has entered YOUR house without your permission and intends to harm you, be it physically or by stealing your possessions.

 

[Haggisman]

If someone wants to cause harm with a gun, they'll find a gun, in any country. Or use a knife... I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight.

You're confusing "want to cause harm with a gun" and "want to rob you".

If someone specifically wants to cause harm with a gun, then of course they're going to try to find a gun.

If someone just wants to rob you (the far more likely scenario unless you've really ****ed someone off), then they're more like to not want to get caught at all, and it's entirely plausible for them not to be armed at all (other than whatever tools they use to break in with).

Of course if they know/think that the person in the house they're breaking into is likely to have a gun, they're more likely to bring a gun themselves.

Lets put it this way, who would you rather confront in the middle of the night:

Someone who wants to steal your car keys and thinks you'll probably just capitulate if they threaten you.
Someone who wants to steal your car keys and thinks you sleep with a gun under your pillow and will shoot them given half the chance.

I'd rather be woken up with a knife to my throat and told to cooperate than shot in my sleep to make sure I couldn't shoot them first!

So what do you all think is the right force to apply to someone breaking into your house when you, your wife, and your 4 children are all upstairs, awoken by glass shattering downstairs and heavy footsteps?

The "right" reaction in that scenario would be to barricade yourselves in a room and phone the police.

The "OcUK" reaction in that scenario would be to pull out your dual-wield mac-10s and run at the intruder screaming "MUSTARD!!!"

 

[Scania]

It's really not rare at all, in fact it's the norm, despite what the media would have you believe.

Aye, your right there, certainly the perception portrayed by the media alas.

 

[Haggisman]

How do you KNOW they are there to steal stuff and not tie you up and rape your wife and children? Don't be so naive, you have ZERO clue what their intentions are. Your assumption could easily get you and your family killed in the worst possible way. This person has entered YOUR house without your permission and intends to harm you, be it physically or by stealing your possessions.

How do you KNOW they are there to tie you up and rape your wife and children? Don't be so naive, you have ZERO clue what their intentions are. Your actions could easily get you and your family killed in the worst possible way.

If you can safely barricade yourself and family in a room for 10 minutes while waiting for the police, then that's far safer than confronting an unknown number of intruders, armed with unknown weapons.

How long do you think they're going to stay there trying to break the door down when they know the police are on their way?

Your goal in this scenario is to prevent harm as best as possible. Not to prove how macho you are.

 

[acemastr]

I'd rather plan for the worst case scenario, nothing about being macho.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

^ exactly haggisman

Acemastr, your the naive one if you think playing hero is the safe choice just in case.

Given likely hood of someone breaking in to rape and someone committing a burglary then it is safer to treat it as such as playing hero will likely cause harm to you or your family as burglars are far FAR FAR more common than people breaking into a home to commit the act of rape.

Just because the worst case scenario is really bad doesn't mean assuming the worst case scenario is safer. In this case, it is most definitely not. You and your action film mentality is far more naive than accepting that the safer choice in most situations would be to not force the intruder into a corner.

I believe this sort of shoot first mentality is the mentality which is fuelled by the gun culture over there. Give everyone an easy way to get a gun and all of a sudden everyone who is in a house with a gun protecting their family or breaking in with a gun is a threat. Therefore the safer choice in such a backward society would be to shoot first or to at least take some initiative, because everyone lives in fear of the next guy over. In our society when the burglar doesn't feel the need to find fire-power and so generally doesn't because the home-owner most often doesn't, then the safest course of action would just to not drive anyone into a desperate situation.

Acemstr, when did you move to America, i genuinely interested as there is clearly a cultural divide here.

 

[Haggisman]

I'd rather plan for the worst case scenario, nothing about being macho.

It's that exact attitude that makes you more likely to encounter the worst case scenario in the first place.

What do you think is going to happen to the "witnesses" (your family) when you decide to attack the intruder and get killed for your trouble?

 

[scorza]

How do you KNOW they are there to tie you up and rape your wife and children? Don't be so naive, you have ZERO clue what their intentions are. Your actions could easily get you and your family killed in the worst possible way.

If you can safely barricade yourself and family in a room for 10 minutes while waiting for the police, then that's far safer than confronting an unknown number of intruders, armed with unknown weapons.

How long do you think they're going to stay there trying to break the door down when they know the police are on their way?

Your goal in this scenario is to prevent harm as best as possible. Not to prove how macho you are.

There have been numerous examples of home invasion burglaries where householders have been tortured and their wife/kids sexually assaulted and raped over the course of a number of days. These weren't reactions to anything the householder did - they were planned that way. Assuming that an intruder is going to do that is the exact opposite of naive, being naive would be saying "they might be here just to nick my TV, so don't want to hurt them".

P.S. Mac 10s are awful weapons for home defence.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

There have been numerous examples of home invasion burglaries where householders have been tortured and their wife/kids sexually assaulted and raped over the course of a number of days.

Compare that to the overall statistic of regular burglaries?

Then understand that playing hero causes more risk to you and your family in those regular burglaries.

Then weigh it up as sensible decision.

Yup assuming the worst case scenario is naive. Assuming someone has broken in to torture your family for days is a stones throw from paranoia.

Your worse case scenario assumption is literately the same as saying stabbing someone in a club brawl just in case you get stabbed. Stabbings in clubs happen but rarely and club brawls that are significantly less dangerous than a shanking, are far more likely.

 

[acemastr]

2014.

I don't want to shoot anyone, I'd hope the sound of a shotgun pump or the pull of the charging handle on my AR would send anyone running, but what if they were crazed and kept coming at you? what if they had a machete? There was a case of a guy high on bath salts who ate a guys face off, you don't know what they are on at the time. Yes it's extraordinary circumstances on that one but the fact is you don't know their intentions

 

[Haggisman]

There have been numerous examples of home invasion burglaries where householders have been tortured and their wife/kids sexually assaulted and raped over the course of a number of days. These weren't reactions to anything the householder did - they were planned that way. Assuming that an intruder is going to do that is the exact opposite of naive, being naive would be saying "they might be here just to nick my TV, so don't want to hurt them".

P.S. Mac 10s are awful weapons for home defence.

In how many of those situations would the householder have had an opportunity to use a weapon they had in the house before being captured?

Unless you sleep with a gun loaded and cocked under your pillow (which unsurprisingly comes with it's own risks) then you're not going to be able to do much when you're woken up in the middle of the night with a knife in your face...

 

[acemastr]

Compare that to the overall statistic of regular burglaries?

Then understand that playing hero causes more risk to you and your family in those regular burglaries.

Then weigh it up as sensible decision.

Your worse case scenario assumption is literately the same as saying stabbing someone in a club brawl just in case you get stabbed. Stabbings in clubs happen but rarely and club brawls that are significantly less dangerous than a shanking, are far more likely.

You are basing this all on statistics, what about when you or your family are one of these statistics that it goes horribly wrong?

 

[acemastr]

In how many of those situations would the householder have had an opportunity to use a weapon they had in the house before being captured?

Unless you sleep with a gun loaded and cocked under your pillow (which unsurprisingly comes with it's own risks) then you're not going to be able to do much when you're woken up in the middle of the night with a knife in your face...

Bed side table.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Yes it's extraordinary circumstances on that one but the fact is you don't know their intentions

Which is precisely why you cant force a violent confrontation at every opportunity. Statistically it is MUCH safer to assume they are regular burglars and to let them be on their way while the police arrive.

 

[Haggisman]

Bed side table.

Shame, you've just had your throat slit.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

You are basing this all on statistics, what about when you or your family are one of these statistics that it goes horribly wrong?

Lol what you cant understand is when it goes wrong ona regular robbery, your family is at needless risk. By acting out all the time your family is under greater risk. Duh

inb4

'not if i shoot em first'

 

[acemastr]

Shame, you've just had your throat slit.

In which case I'd sooner go down reaching for my gun than sitting there pleading with him to just steal my TV.

 

[scorza]

Compare that to the overall statistic of regular burglaries?

Then understand that playing hero causes more risk to you and your family in those regular burglaries.

Then weigh it up as sensible decision.

Yup assuming the worst case scenario is naive. Assuming someone has broken in to torture your family for days is a stones throw from paranoia.

Your worse case scenario assumption is literately the same as saying stabbing someone in a club brawl just in case you get stabbed. Stabbings in clubs happen but rarely and club brawls that are significantly less dangerous than a shanking, are far more likely.

Actually, I think you'll find that the overall burglary rate is lower in the USA than it is in England and Wales (Source).