Self defense of the home(UK)

[Gibsie]

A law like you want would make it legal to a bullet in the brain of a burglar you've already apprehended. Call me overly concerned with the human rights of criminals, but that's just not going to happen.

[David Floyd]

I think all i'm looking for in the Law in the UK is that if i badly injure or even kill a burglar in my home - i would like some kind of guarantee i wont get prosecuted.

[David Floyd]

A law like you want would make it legal to a bullet in the brain of a burglar you've already apprehended. Call me overly concerned with the human rights of criminals, but that's just not going to happen.

What would one be doing "apprehending" burglars?

"Excuse me sir, but you're under arrest!"

If you do that, the burglar will either a)run away, or b)attack you. You have no guarantee that b) won't happen, so your best bet is not to try to act like a police officer, and instead use force in defense of yourself/your home.

[Gibsie]

God, you're thick, aren't you? Get those neurons firing, and do your best to imagine a situation where a homeowner has stopped a burglar but not killed them. Go on, you can do it.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by child of Thor
My biggest problem with all this is the 'arms race' scenario, between the householder 'victim' and the burgler 'bad guy'.

Listening to the american guys here talking fairly casualy about shooting people(or not) in these cases, i find it uncomfortable. But maybe that is just because i dont really want Britain to become as gun owning as in the USA.
Still when many criminals in britian do apparantly have access to guns - it does make you wonder what to do?

I think all i'm looking for in the Law in the UK is that if i badly injure or even kill a burglar in my home - i would like some kind of guarantee i wont get prosecuted.
Interestingly the cheif of Police has been asking for just that, he is saying that many police would welcome such a change in the law as they believe that it would have a direct result in lowering rates of burglery.

I dont think having such a law would suddenly turn most of the british public into burgler killing psycho's, but it might actually mean we will have less of the tragic deaths of burglery victims we see in the uk.

It appears to be on the political agenda at the momment, so whatever happens from this atleast it will have given people a chance to decide what the best course of action is.

Why wouldn't employing less then lethal force similarly cause a ***-for-tat arms race? In any event, having a protection against prosecution for hurting a criminal is the first step in turning GB into a heavily armed nation so

Next up you will change it so that they can't sue you like the guy that broke his back trying to break into a house that had a faulty latch on a sky view window deally.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by child of Thor
I think all i'm looking for in the Law in the UK is that if i badly injure or even kill a burglar in my home - i would like some kind of guarantee i wont get prosecuted.

Burglaries get carried out by children as young as 8 years old. If someone discovers an 8 year-old child in their house, and beats their brains out with a hammer, do you think they should automatically escape prosecution?

Or would you prefer to have the case examined to see if the actions taken by the householder were reasonable under the circumstances?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Burglaries get carried out by children as young as 8 years old. If someone discovers an 8 year-old child in their house, and beats their brains out with a hammer, do you think they should automatically escape prosecution?

Or would you prefer to have the case examined to see if the actions taken by the householder were reasonable under the circumstances?

Once the Child is subdued further action should be considered murder. I would think that would be implied. Quit coming up with extraneous theories to explain why people shouldn't defend themselves

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There you go. Whoha agrees with the concept of a test of reasonability too. Any other Americans up for it?

[David Floyd]

Gibsie,

God, you're thick, aren't you? Get those neurons firing, and do your best to imagine a situation where a homeowner has stopped a burglar but not killed them. Go on, you can do it.

I certainly can imagine such a scenario, but any conceivable scenario would expose you to more danger. If you just shoot, you handle the problem while minimizing the danger to yourself. I'm not worried about the burglar, because he wouldn't be in such a position (lying on the floor bleeding, that is) if he hadn't broken in to begin with.

Laz,

Burglaries get carried out by children as young as 8 years old. If someone discovers an 8 year-old child in their house, and beats their brains out with a hammer, do you think they should automatically escape prosecution?

I think there is a difference between shooting a burglar and beating someone to death who is already incapacitated. That is, if you hit a burglar in the head with a baseball bat, and knock him out/disarm him, etc., then you have removed any conceivable danger, and repeatedly hitting him in the head while he's unconscious is unnecessary.

Whoha,

Quit coming up with extraneous theories to explain why people shouldn't defend themselves

Might as well ask a fish not to swim - that's all they've been doing for the past 8 pages, coming up with either outlandish scenarios or pointing out obvious exceptions that do nothing to address the main point.

[Whoha]

Before the child(burglar in general) is subdued however, he should be able to use any and all force necessary up to and including lethal force if the situation calls for it,such as if the kid has a nuclear bomb hes about to set off, and only a head shot will prevent it.

[David Floyd]

There you go. Whoha agrees with the concept of test of reasonability too. Any other Americans up for it?

Obviously I already agreed with you - at this point, the debate is about what is reasonable, so let me ask you a yes/no question: If a burglar breaks into my house, should I be able to shoot him, on the basis that reasonable people will agree that someone who breaks into your house poses an immediate threat to you?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That depends on the circumstances. We don't live in a yes/no world.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whoha
Before the child(burglar in general) is subdued however, he should be able to use any and all force necessary up to and including lethal force if the situation calls for it,such as if the kid has a nuclear bomb hes about to set off, and only a head shot will prevent it.

Gold-plate that "if the situation calls for it" and paint it across the sky in letters of fire 500 feet high. It's a test of reasonability, exactly as we see in English Criminal law.

[Gibsie]

A complete legal guarantee against prosecution for any act commited against a burglar in your home is not an acceptable change to the law though, which is what we were replying to after child of thor said. We are in agreement, I don't care what you say

[child of Thor]

well even the 8 year old kids carry guns these days(well some do)

But i get your point - but as i was saying, i dont think freeing up the homeowner from prosecution would result in a rash of burgler killings, i dont think most british people are wired that way - we are not even close to a florida.
When you confront a burgler many things go through your mind. How big is the guy, how armed, how competant/dangerous?
If he was a gun toting 8 year old i would naturaly be more proportionate/carefull than if he was a fully grown adult. hell i dont want to wake up in a cold sweat 15 years later, still suffering nightmares cause i beat a child to death.

So it goes both ways - fighting hard and(accidently)killing someone isn't an easy option. But in the heat of the momment when you and your family are being threatend by a potentaily lethal intruder, i feel the actions you take to protect yourself in your own home should be covered by a law that is on your side.

The case of the burgler sueing for his broken back is a case in point(although i think in that one it was thrown out of court?). Why go to the vast expense in money and time of having these things have a chance of going to court?
Why not just send out a message to the criminals in our society that we will not tolorate their behaviour anymore?
If you choose an illegal profession then prepare to live outside the legal protection that society can offer.
Live by the sword, die by the sword?
A strong message from government on this will have a beneficial effect, especialy in area's where the criminals have been making people lives misery for far too long.

Sadly i dont think a strong enough change in the law will be passed, and we will have this discussion again in a few years, after more innocent people have lost their lives in their own homes