Self defence within the home petition
- Thread starter agnes
- Start date
Trolling? The whole point is that all these people signing this ridiculous petition simply do not understand the law as it stands. You currently have loads of leeway to main or even kill people in your house, as long as you genuinely believe that they are a threat, and you stop the attack as soon as they are not. The law doesn't even care if they were a real threat, it's happy that a reasonable person would think that they were.
But that doesn't make good headlines for red-tops, so the moron papers scream "man arrested for attacking burglar". What they fail to report is the same man having all charges dropped a week later. Which is why I want people to try to actually engage their brains, and try to find cases where people have been punished for defending property or person. It simply doesn't happen: every case where this appears to be the case actually turns out to be like Tony Martin: a massively disproportionate use of force against someone who was not a threat. Like the man who caught a burglar, tied him up, doused him with petrol and set him on fire. That is not self-defence or defence of property, it is vigilantism.
If you think the petition is valid you should be able to find cases. If you can't, then it supports my position that the petition is a load of testicles dreamt up by an idiot.
M
So if a burglar lunges at me I can crack them in the head with a hammer and even if they end up in a coma I can't be prosecuted?
This is all fine, until someone innocent gets beaten to death. Some old person forgets their address, a sleep walker, drunk, homeless, lost child, mentally ill, or just your neighbour thought you were in trouble/heard a scream/smelt smoke or gas/thought you were having a heart attack.
The bottom line is, the law is already there. You are allow to defend yourself and property, you can strike first as a pro-active defence means.
I don't think the problem is the law. general lack of policing, the usual youth of today issues getting our of hand.
Anyway, I don't think death is an appropriate response to burglary - perhaps cutting the hand off... While if you feel your life or one of your families lives are in danger then killing the intruder may be the most effective means of defence. Luckily, this is allowed within the current law. You just have to have proof that it was the best action to take given the conditions (and psychological conditions).
I mean, if someone walked in shooting off rounds at your family and you take a 12 gauge to their head then that is fine in the eyes of the law. If the attacker sees your shotgun and then runs away and you shoot them in the back as they leg it down the driveway - that is not. The dip **** should be imprisoned for life IMO, but you cant be the judge, jury and executioner!
The bottom line is, the law is already there. You are allow to defend yourself and property, you can strike first as a pro-active defence means.
I don't think the problem is the law. general lack of policing, the usual youth of today issues getting our of hand.
Anyway, I don't think death is an appropriate response to burglary - perhaps cutting the hand off... While if you feel your life or one of your families lives are in danger then killing the intruder may be the most effective means of defence. Luckily, this is allowed within the current law. You just have to have proof that it was the best action to take given the conditions (and psychological conditions).
I mean, if someone walked in shooting off rounds at your family and you take a 12 gauge to their head then that is fine in the eyes of the law. If the attacker sees your shotgun and then runs away and you shoot them in the back as they leg it down the driveway - that is not. The dip **** should be imprisoned for life IMO, but you cant be the judge, jury and executioner!
Last edited:
the brother of my sisters ex ended up in prison because some chav broke into his home , he got punched in the face and fell to the floor dead.
one punch to the face is surely defending yourself if someone comes at you? probably the quickest way to remove the threat. yet in this case he ended up in prison for months before the charges were dropped.
came out to no job , no house and a lot of debt
More or less. Depends.
I doubt many really do. But people want to protect the innocent and stop vigilante type murders.
I've said it earlier in this thread, a single member of the public stoked on adrenaline cannot be a judge, jury and executioner!
If you're right then maybe I should take my name off that petition.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
He's perfectly right (although it's a bit late to remove your name from a petition that has disappeared) in that you are allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself i.e. if you act in self defence then you are fine. Don't mistake this for free reign to attack people or to go beyond the basic point of preventing harm to yourself though - if the intruder/attacker no longer poses a threat to you then you cannot legally assault them so the instant they no longer pose you a risk you must stop.
Pretty much. There might be a bit of give and take depending on just how much a threat he was i.e. was he armed etc and whether you keep a hammer handy specifically for this sort of thing or whether it was just lying around, but other than that you'd probably be on pretty safe ground.
That's what concerns me at the moment. There are too many variables. If someone breaks into my home I need to be entirely focused on protecting my property, my family and myself. I don't want to be worrying about how it might look to the police. I want to know that so long as I don't go too far I can deal with him as I see fit, as the situation might dictate.
('too far' = raping or burning the intruder alive)
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 794
- Location
- Warwick
It's called reasonable force, and that also covers a pre emptive strike if you honestly believe that either your life, or someone else's, is in danger. What you can't do is, for example, carry on hitting them once they're on the floor or trying to run away.
Sounds like you want a place where it's alright for people to intrude other peoples homes with the intent of stealing, harm or both.
Well, that's basically fair enough. If someone is in your house and you feel endangered then you are fine to defend yourself with reasonable force until they are no longer a threat.
Clearly the level of force required will vary depending on who you are and who's coming at you and with what. I doubt anyone would complain about a single female stabbing and killing a big burly chap who was attempting to rape her. On the other hand, that same burly chap would struggle to justify breaking that little female's neck if she popped in to quietly steal something.
Just because you don't think it should be OK to kill stone dead anyone who sets foot in your house without your permission, doesn't mean you think that people should be able to do whatever the hell they like. Talk about a straw man...
Point me to the court proceedings, because I'll bet money that's about 10% of the story.
M