British Law?

The right to protect ones self, loved ones, and ones property is a bit of a grey area in England, I preclude Scotland from this as they have a different judicial system.

We are allowed to use reasonable force to subdue an intruder, what reasonable force constitutes exactly is anyone's guess.

I was once told unofficially by a police officer that if someone broke into my home, and if I thought my life or the life of my family was in peril, the best course of action if the intruder was not about to give up by persuasion (which is what the powers that be would like us to attempt), would be to kill the intruder, thus removing any possibility of him / her recovering and bringing charges of assault against me, which would most likely result in me going to prison and facing a hefty claim for compensation.

As far as I am concerned an Englishman's home is his Castle, enter my home uninvited, with evil intent, and I will do my damnedest to ensure you are taken out in a body bag. Your human rights expired at the threshold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

The right to protect ones self, loved ones, and ones property is a bit of a grey area in England, I preclude Scotland from this as they have a different judicial system.

We are allowed to use reasonable force to subdue an intruder, what reasonable force constitutes exactly is anyone's guess.

I was once told unofficially by a police officer that if someone broke into my home, and if I thought my life or the life of my family was in peril, the best course of action if the intruder was not about to give up by persuasion (which is what the powers that be would like us to attempt), would be to kill the intruder, thus removing any possibility of him / her recovering and bringing charges of assault against me, which would most likely result in me going to prison and facing a hefty claim for compensation.

As far as I am concerned an Englishman's home is his Castle, enter my home uninvited, with evil intent, and I will do my damnedest to ensure you are taken out in a body bag. Your human rights expired at the threshold.

---

And that is precisely why, in many states here in the US, the right to defend one's home is known and written into law as the "Castle Doctrine". In practical terms that means that if someone has forced their way into my home, I may automatically assume that he is doing so with ill intent to me and mine, and may therefore employ deadly force to eliminate the threat without fear of prosecution.

Even in a state like California, which does not have the Castle Doctrine in law, cases of deadly force against an intruder are very rarely prosecuted - only 2% of these incidents were prosecuted in 2008, and those always involved a connection to criminal activity other than the home intrusion - e.g. drug dealing.

I would be the first to agree that Europe is generally a bit more civilized than the US, but in the case of a person's right to defend themselves against physical violence, I believe that European laws are lagging far behind the reality of our times. The well-known UK case of Tony Martin illustrates this point.

Osdset this government seems keener to say that you can do what you need to, to defend yourselves and property. There was the case of Munir Hussain who as I understand it persued his attackers away from their house, with a small posse, and beat them to a pulp with a cricket bat when they caught them, that was seen as excessive and although he initially received a sentence he was later freed on appeal.

The classic case of Tony Martin was also rather different than the press present it, as he laid in wait to shoot the kids who regularly broke into his farm. I would say that was a policing failure myself, but certainly I don't think he felt that his life was at threat and it was pre-meditated.

I think the law is fine, its the reporting of the incidents which tends to present situations as something they are not.

Jeltz, with reference to the Tony Martin case there were three people involved in the attempted burglary, only Fred Barras ,16, was a minor, the other two were Brendan Fearon, 29, and Darren Bark, 33.

Fred Barras was fatally wounded, Brendan Fearon received gunshot wounds to the legs.

Tony Martin was a farmer who lived in an isolated farmhouse and had been the victim of repeated burglaries to his property, as you stated, in your opinion it was a policing failure, yes, they failed to prevent the burglaries, in his shoes I would have done the same, the fact that a 16 year old boy died as a result of Mr Martin's actions is tragic, but the boy and his accomplices had no reason to be there.

If Mr Martin had been allowed by law to post notices stating that entry to his property would be met with armed response, perhaps they would have been deterred, and for me, deterrent is the key word , there is none, prison holds no terrors for most criminals, that's if they even get a custodial sentence, a good percentage get off with a fine or community service. Staring down the barrel of a Winchester pump-action shotgun, which is what Tony Martin was armed with, might well make them think twice.

As for Tony martin's state of mind, who knows? Perhaps he was in fear of his life, the man was definitely at the end of his tether, and felt the need to open fire. If you torment a dog enough it will bite you, do we blame the dog?


John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

Wales can be free tomorrow, the same goes for anyone else, the only proviso is that a thirty foot wall is erected on the border and they keep their side of it, I can happily live without Daffodils and leeks:p

---

Until you discover that all the good malt whisky is also on the other side of that wall :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osdset

As far as I am concerned an Englishman's home is his Castle, enter my home uninvited, with evil intent, and I will do my damnedest to ensure you are taken out in a body bag. Your human rights expired at the threshold.

---

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but stating it like this will make it hard for you to argue -in the unlikely event that this situation should present itself- that you did what you did out of self defense, rather than out of principle.

In Belgium I really should talk this over with a lawyer sometime, considering that I also study martial arts.
The way I understood it is we would be allowed to use deadly force for self defense, but not to stop a burglary. The exception is a poetic phrase in the law, specifying that you are allowed to feel threatened if someone is sneaking up to you in the dark, in your own house. So for example, if I confront a burglar in my living room, that would not apply. If said burglar is sneaking up the stairs to the sleeping area, I could club him over the head and be ok.

There have been exceptions though. One of the most famous examples was a Jeweler who shot a fleeing robber in the back in the middle of the street. He was acquitted by the jury on the grounds of being temporarily insane due to the fact that that was the nth robbery in a couple of months. Self defense cases often do well in front of a jury trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

There have been exceptions though. One of the most famous examples was a Jeweler who shot a fleeing robber in the back in the middle of the street. He was acquitted by the jury on the grounds of being temporarily insane due to the fact that that was the nth robbery in a couple of months. Self defense cases often do well in front of a jury trial.

---

It wouldn't happen here, the jeweler would be convicted of attempted murder at the very least, possession of an illegal firearm, having a loaded firearm in a public place, discharging a firearm in a public place, endangering life and no doubt a half dozen more charges.
The robber however, if he survived his wounds, would be invited to sue the Jeweler, would receive a handsome payout from the criminal injuries board and would receive counseling whilst serving a three month sentence in an open prison (reduced to six weeks for good behaviour).

That sounds about the same as would happen here too.


Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MickR

Thanks Gugi, but I believe that making laws against the object is next to useless. Making the laws against the misuse of the object would be far better. Many countries have laws against the manufacture and use of drugs, but drugs are still manufactured and used.Mick

---

couldent agree more mick it does no good to restrict the use of an object because ive never once heard of a gang banger or someone that wants to kill another say o that objects not leagle so i wont touch it. laws only control the honest. Ive had my knife save my butt once. i had a groundhog come at me when i walked into the barn one day and thankfully i had my 4 inch boot knife on me and i was lucky enough to hit him in the back and that gave me time enough to run up and kick him. turnes out he was rabit i called the game commission and they tested him. thanks our laws of being able to have a knife i avoided a hospital trip for rabies shots.

I don't have any real problem with the way the law is in the UK this is the official line.

Basically if I feel I need to I am OK to use whatever means I see fit to protect myself and my family. I do not have to make fine judgements so long as I act proportionately, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove I acted disproportionately and a jury would normally prefer the home owner.

For example: If confronted by an intruder, I would have no hesitation in taking a pair of nunchucks (which I legitimately own for martial arts training) and fracturing their skull; I am certain that no jury would convict on that basis. However if I then tied them up and waited for them to come round so they were fully aware as I severed their femoral artery with a 7/8 wedge and watched them bleed to death then I would be a murderer and deserve the full force of the law.

Perusing attackers/robbers and serving revenge on them would equally land you in hot water as you are no longer defending yourself you are taking the law into your own hands but as we have seen the courts will take into account your state of mind at the time.

In a civilised society that is how it works and I'm quite comfortable with it. Most of the controversy is down to the tabloid media making up bullshit to sell newspapers IMHO.

To be honest, if any of my friends dragged a junky back into their house and executed them because they'd tried to steal a laptop or something I would expect them to go down for murder and I would have very little respect for them, IMO any human life is worth than a few possessions.