Cyclone Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Foo, no, I just enjoy the clear view. Tony, Don't you get bored with continually misrepresenting the current law as giving a householder no rights to defend themselves or their property. When if what you say is true, you know full well that they can defend themselves their property. Explain to me again what the change in the law would accomplish since we're now all happy that we are allowed to defend things and that we don't have to offer a burglar a cup of tea (and speaking of patronising...) I think I was actually patronising Gaz_B as it came back once again to Gaz_BDo they expect you to sit and wait for everything to be taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony_BLiar Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone Foo, no, I just enjoy the clear view. Tony, Don't you get bored with continually misrepresenting the current law as giving a householder no rights to defend themselves or their property. When if what you say is true, you know full well that they can defend themselves their property. Explain to me again what the change in the law would accomplish since we're now all happy that we are allowed to defend things and that we don't have to offer a burglar a cup of tea (and speaking of patronising...) I think I was actually patronising Gaz_B as it came back once again to Seeing that YOU continue to say that some of us are misrepresenting the law, I would say that you need to look closer at what we are actualy saying. The issue is that we DO NOT have enough flexibility to defend ourselves in our homes. The other day on the BBC website I read about a man who ended up in a 6 month legal wrangle after he knocked out a burglar with one hit. Is that fair? Is that the protection you say the law gives the victim? Do you live in disneyworld or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 can you provide a link to that story, I'm sure it's not as simple as you make out. As the government has been at pains to point out, 11 householders have been prosecuted (not even all convicted) in 15 years. Doesn't sound like there's an issue here to me, I expect those 11 were all prosecuted for a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yodameister Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I heard on the radio yesterday that in the past 12 years there have been 15 prosecutions of people for use of excessive force against intruders. Is it really such a big issue that needs to exercise so much of our politicians time who could be thinking about more important issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo_fighter Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone As the government has been at pains to point out, 11 householders have been prosecuted (not even all convicted) in 15 years. Doesn't sound like there's an issue here to me, I expect those 11 were all prosecuted for a good reason. It's a bit like crime figures, the thing that's so much a problem for so many people isn't *necessarily* the crime, but the fear of crime. This is similar, surely people shouldn't fear burglars in their own home, and neither should they fear what *may* happen in the courts afterwards if they defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Coming in at this stage, these points have probably been made earlier, but I'm not trawling through 8 pages so: First of all, the issue of "reasonable force" is subjective. What is reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another. Also, what seemed reasonable at 3am with a stranger creeping around your house and your adrenalin pumping may not still seem reasonable a few weeks later, especially to a jury who have probably never been in the same position. The burglar puts him/herself at risk by breaking and entering another person's property, so I personally think that almost any amount of force is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yodameister Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by foo_fighter It's a bit like crime figures, the thing that's so much a problem for so many people isn't *necessarily* the crime, but the fear of crime. This is similar, surely people shouldn't fear burglars in their own home, and neither should they fear what *may* happen in the courts afterwards if they defend themselves. yes exactly. Changing the law to give you stronger rights to attack intruders would just add to the fear, because it would lead the public to believe that burglary had suddenly become a lot more common. Also, the change that the Tories want is just to say you may use any 'force that is not grossly disproportionate' whereas at the moment it is 'reasonable force'. That is just semantics, and both wordings are open to different interpretation. a proper change would be to put some definitions on the word 'reasonable' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo_fighter Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Yodameister That is just semantics, and both wordings are open to different interpretation. a proper change would be to put some definitions on the word 'reasonable' The problem with "reasonable", is as it says Originally posted by t020 the issue of "reasonable force" is subjective. What is reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another. Also, what seemed reasonable at 3am with a stranger creeping around your house and your adrenalin pumping may not still seem reasonable a few weeks later, especially to a jury who have probably never been in the same position. and while ever this situation continues, people will fear what the authorities *may* do after the fact. If you break into my house, and potentially threaten my family, you should be the one at risk, not me. There again is the problem, if someone is in my house, uninvited, why are they there, I don't know, and hence, I don't know what force is reasonable until *after* the intruder chooses to let me know. I am the "one on the back foot", not once but twice, once because I am surprised by the break in, and again because I now have to "wait and see" what I can do about it. If the homeowner has the right to defend them-self, at least the initiative returns to the non-criminal upon discovery. The intruder now is on the defensive, as it should be. The problem as I see it is, the homeowner has no choice in this, except how to react (in a confused state, while under threat), the potential intruder has one very big choice *do I want to break into this house in the first place*. Let's help them choose *no* by making the potential consequences a little more vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yodameister Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Yes thats the whole meaning of subjective - it appears different to different people. I'd tend to say that if its a jury trial you will probably get a pretty fair result. Remember the event that kicked all this off, Tony Martin's imprisonment - he was convicted of murder by a jury. Now you would think from your average tabloid that the vast majority of people think that you should be able to do just about anything you like to an intruder but the fact he was convicted of murder by a jury rather gives the lie to this. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not defending your property. It may be argued that you are discouraging the person doing it again (and if you kill them you are certainy stopping it!) but the law only applies to defending your property or yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo_fighter Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Yodameister Shooting someone in the back as they are running away is not defending your property. It may be argued that you are discouraging the person doing it again (and if you kill them you are certainy stopping it!) but the law only applies to defending your property or yourself. ...or maybe you believed that he was going to get a bigger gun from his car, and therefore better "get in first". Lets face it, how many people have guns to hand in the middle of the night, this isn't particularly likely to happen to any of our fellow forum members. Especially with the firearms laws as they are now, the only people with guns now *are* the crim's. Yet another reason to sleep well at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.