|
Post by chips on Oct 8, 2012 23:16:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 12:52:25 GMT
The law as it stands today is set out clearly in the BBC news item on the same topic:
In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.
Continue reading the main story LAW ON TACKLING BURGLARS In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others Householders can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong Juries must distinguish between "reasonable force" and grievous harm"
It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious.
That is how I understand the present law which seems fair enough to me. But the article goes on to say: "Mr Grayling wants to change the law on tackling intruders as soon as possible, aides say, and it could be included in a crime bill passing through Parliament this autumn. It will mean someone who is confronted by a burglar and has reason to fear for their safety, or the safety of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances but in the cold light of day seems disproportionate, they will not be guilty of an offence. " The article already makes it clear that a householder can use disproportionate force if it seemed reasonable at the time. So why do we need a change in the law?
|
|
|
Post by toby on Oct 9, 2012 15:32:53 GMT
Skylark posted.:-The article already makes it clear that a householder can use disproportionate force if it seemed reasonable at the time. So why do we need a change in the law?
Toby comments.:- Because the onus lies on the Householder when using reasonable force, suppose the Burglar slips, hits his/her head and dies. Plod say the force used was excessive so a prosecution results. We need the same Law as the USA, anybody on your property can be dealt with any way you want and if deadly force is used then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 16:07:09 GMT
Can you give me a link to an example where that has happened? The only cases I can think of where a householder has been prosecuted is when he has gone after an intruder who is already fleeing, or where he attacked and killed an already unconscious burglar.
Judges have always said that no-one is expected to weigh up "necessary" force in self-defence; one is allowed to err on the side of one's own safety!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 11:02:10 GMT
The law as it stands today is set out clearly in the BBC news item on the same topic:
In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.
Continue reading the main story LAW ON TACKLING BURGLARS In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others Householders can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong Juries must distinguish between "reasonable force" and grievous harm"
It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious.
That is how I understand the present law which seems fair enough to me. But the article goes on to say: "Mr Grayling wants to change the law on tackling intruders as soon as possible, aides say, and it could be included in a crime bill passing through Parliament this autumn. It will mean someone who is confronted by a burglar and has reason to fear for their safety, or the safety of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances but in the cold light of day seems disproportionate, they will not be guilty of an offence. " The article already makes it clear that a householder can use disproportionate force if it seemed reasonable at the time. So why do we need a change in the law? THAT is why the law needs to be changed. there should NEVER be a jury. unless there is an obvious sign that the homeowner is lying, there is no reason to pursue it any further. put the carcass in a body bag and leave
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 11:06:20 GMT
Skylark posted.:-The article already makes it clear that a householder can use disproportionate force if it seemed reasonable at the time. So why do we need a change in the law? Toby comments.:- Because the onus lies on the Householder when using reasonable force, suppose the Burglar slips, hits his/her head and dies. Plod say the force used was excessive so a prosecution results. We need the same Law as the USA, anybody on your property can be dealt with any way you want and if deadly force is used then so be it. actually, texas is the only place where you can shoot them outside of your house. everywhere else, you have to wait until they are trying to break in. texas is also the only state that allows you to kill them when they're running away, provided that they have an item that belongs to you in their possession, when they die but, you are right. it should be that way throughout the world
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 11:07:54 GMT
Can you give me a link to an example where that has happened? The only cases I can think of where a householder has been prosecuted is when he has gone after an intruder who is already fleeing, or where he attacked and killed an already unconscious burglar. Judges have always said that no-one is expected to weigh up "necessary" force in self-defence; one is allowed to err on the side of one's own safety! it happens all the time there. just awhile back,they arrested the father who stabbed a burglar.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 12:29:30 GMT
Wouldn't you expect both sides to be arrested, so that the police can investigate properly?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 13, 2013 14:59:38 GMT
Wouldn't you expect both sides to be arrested, so that the police can investigate properly? no. the object is for there to only be the homeowner alive. with a burglar lying dead in the living room, it is quite obvious that it broke into the chap's house. whatever the homeowner tells the police is gospel. there is nothing to investigate
|
|