Kill intruders?

im not sure if this has been brought up before(Couldnt find it) but i just wanted to know how everyone feels about the law that was passed that make people who Injure or Kill and intruder/burglar unlikly to get prosocuted.

You can read up on the article from BBC:

Burglar defence guidelines issued

Householders who injure or even kill intruders are unlikely to be prosecuted - providing they were acting "honestly and instinctively", new guidelines say.

The law also protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon.

Ive spoken to a few people about this subject and getting mixed reactions. Some have been saying that no one should be immune from punishment from killing someone. My personal opinion of it is that the law was a good idea. We got broke into many years ago and it was my dad who confronted him... Wielding a Machette theres nothing any of us could do. But im sure he would have been a dead man without that machette.

Its a brutal world we live in my friend. I wish we could all sit around sniffing daisys, but the sad fact is it is the violent species that dominate this planet. You have to meet force with force or be swept under the rug.

Based on these principals that we know to be true, if I caught anyone in my place I wouldnt think twice in using deadly force. When the safety of me and mine is threatened nothing else matters. Morality, Sin, Law...all is put aside in favor of the killer instinct that has us #1 on the food chain.

Every so often this comes up in the media to predictable claims from the right-wing here.

The simple fact is almost no-one is ever brought to stand before a jury and the courts on this kind of charge unless the circumstances are exceptional.
(Like Tony Martin murdering a 16yr old boy running away from him and out of his house with an illegally held sawn-off shot gun........and whatever anyone thinks of that one can anyone even think of a case before TM, hmmm?)

Use of force (which may turn out to be deadly in the heat of the moment) is one thing - but the truth is one would have always been pretty much guaranteed never to come before a jury in court in those circumstances anyway.

It is also worth considering whether this backdrop of continually talking about 'upping the ante' like this makes violent assault more likely as intruders come to expect in turn a far more violent response if confronted?
Cos for all the talk most breaking and entering/burgulary is not the near death violent exprience for the victims as our papers would have people believe.

But irrespective of that the rest of us as a society are perfectly entitled to put away the loopy psycho element that imagine catching someone in their home entitles them to make them their sicko 'medieval torture hour' plaything and they can do whatever they like.
They can't, and that isn't changing either, quite rightly.

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Its a brutal world we live in my friend. I wish we could all sit around sniffing daisys, but the sad fact is it is the violent species that dominate this planet. You have to meet force with force or be swept under the rug.

While I do not necessarily disagree with these guidelines in the UK, I don't feel the US (for example) provides a helpful or appropriate model for this type of issue.

www.shootfirstlaw.org...

MIAMI — When 16-year-old Mark Drewes knocked on a neighbor's door in Boca Raton, Fla., and then ran away as a prank, he was shot dead by homeowner Jay Levin. Mr. Levin, who said afterward that he mistook the boy for a robber out to attack him, was sentenced to 52 weekends in jail for manslaughter.

So meeting force with force is one thing. Shooting first and asking questions later is quite another.

Tony Martin's shot gun was NOT sawn-off!!!

Anyone using deadly force in the UK is goverened (and protected) by the fact they can only do it in self-defence. This applies to the Police, Army and householders.

This can only be to protect yourself (or someone else) from harm and must only be used where no other option is available. It's based on your perception of the threat at the time.

Taking the machete example earlier - if a burglar's in your house and has (or you believe he has) a machete and you have a gun you can kill him assuming you can't back away - if he's leaving the property you can't.

It's quite simple and the law on self-defence has not been changed

Defending myself against an illegal act in my home is legal. I can not do it out in my yard, or if I have an escape route, only in my home and if I am in imeadiate peril of bodily harm. If the guy has grabbed by TV and is headed out the door, I have no legal or moral justification for shooting him. Wouldn't anyway, it is after all, only a TV. Now if said thief breaks down my door, and says something to the effect that he's going to cut my whatever off if I don't give him my money, or jewels, and has the knife to do it with. Well then, all bets are off, and he'd best have his funeral expenses covered. Percieved threat, and actual threat, I think that is where the dividing line is, and it's a thin one at best.

The rules in Great Britain don't seem too much different, or am I wrong?

[edit on 27-4-2006 by seagull]

I think that if it can be shown that someone has BROKEN into a house they should be fair game. Everyone seems to forget that the intruder has broken the law and is committing a crime by just being in your house. The original self-defence laws allowed for the protection of lives and property. I am not going to retreat in my own home. Last year the US Supreme Court stated in Gonzales vs Castle Rock that the police are under no obligation to protect an individual. If you don't want shot, just don't break into my house. If you do break in I am going to shoot first and worry about it later.

Originally posted by seagull
Defending myself against an illegal act in my home is legal. I can not do it out in my yard, or if I have an escape route, only in my home and if I am in imeadiate peril of bodily harm. If the guy has grabbed by TV and is headed out the door, I have no legal or moral justification for shooting him. Wouldn't anyway, it is after all, only a TV. Now if said thief breaks down my door, and says something to the effect that he's going to cut my whatever off if I don't give him my money, or jewels, and has the knife to do it with. Well then, all bets are off, and he'd best have his funeral expenses covered. Percieved threat, and actual threat, I think that is where the dividing line is, and it's a thin one at best.

The rules in Great Britain don't seem too much different, or am I wrong?

[edit on 27-4-2006 by seagull]

No mate they're pretty much the same - the only difference here is that if you have a gun it must be stored in a locked gun cabinet, unloaded, at all time's unless you're shooting it, cleaning it or transporting it. Hence very few burglars get shot

No licence of other weapons though

That kind of defeats the purpose of having a handgun for home defense, doesn't it. I have always found it strange that gun control advocates insist that laws like this work. Oh well, a topic for another thread I suppose.

Originally posted by Strangerous
Tony Martin's shot gun was NOT sawn-off!!!

- Ah, yes, you are right my apologies, the gun Tony Martin shot the fleeing 16yr old boy with was not a sawn off shotgun.

However -

Jurors were not told that Tony Martin had a history of misbehaviour with guns dating back more than 20 years.

Neither did they know that police found a sawn-off shotgun hidden in Martin's garage.

Martin pleaded not guilty to possessing the shortened gun and ammunition at a crown court hearing earlier this year.

In 1976, Martin shot a pigeon with a First World War revolver after a row at his house.

In 1987, Martin used a shotgun to smash windows at his brother's house.

His brother subsequently moved abroad.

Jurors were told how Martin had fired a shot at a car six years ago - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

news.bbc.co.uk...


=============================================================

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I think that if it can be shown that someone has BROKEN into a house they should be fair game.

- 'Fair game'!? For what?

Any psycho behaviour possible?
Those really the kind of neighbours you want living around you or your kids, cos I don't?

Cheers Sminkey (BTW Scorchio!!)

On the recent BBC special the firearms copper made out he used a gun for which there was 'no legitimate use' whereas it was just a standard 3-shot semi auto but he had no licence and he did execute that guy - as you say a bad example.

Originally posted by seagull
That kind of defeats the purpose of having a handgun for home defense, doesn't it. I have always found it strange that gun control advocates insist that laws like this work. Oh well, a topic for another thread I suppose.

As you say another thread but in UK home defence is not legitimate reason to posess and we can't have handguns (apart from 8" barrel cannons or black powder). In reality firearms are unlikely to be any use if you confront a burglar unless he lets you know he's coming.

Originally posted by Strangerous


Cheers Sminkey (BTW Scorchio!!)

On the recent BBC special the firearms copper made out he used a gun for which there was 'no legitimate use' whereas it was just a standard 3-shot semi auto but he had no licence and he did execute that guy - as you say a bad example.

- Your welcome; I knew I'd heard about a sawn-off in connection with this, I'm just glad I was able to find a link so long after the event.

As for TM?
The more I read about him the more he strikes me as an unfortunate but unstable character (some of which, in his defence, was deliberately provoked by the actions of little teenage sods living nearby - IIRC adolescent kids winding up the local nutter was a factor in all of this.....but still, it's no excuse to start shooting at people).

But as for these new guidelines?
I suppose things will just be spelt out a bit, but I'm yet to be convinced they'll get much use or there is much need.
I honestly can't think of a case other than TM's (which was pretty extreme) ever getting anywhere near to a jury and a court, the cops and CPS (Crown Prosecution Service), for all their faults, seem to exercise a little more common sense than that.

Originally posted by Strangerous
In reality firearms are unlikely to be any use if you confront a burglar unless he lets you know he's coming.

What about deterrence? If the burglar knows that the homeowner is armed and that it is legal to kill him if he breaks into the house, I think that you would see a drop in burglaries. Why is it that our society feels the need to protect criminals? I can understand if there is a doubt that the accused comitted the crime, but in this case the mere presence of the burglar establishes guilt. I support the current self-defence laws if the incident takes place outside of my home. The reason that your statement makes some sense is because of the stupidity of the current gun laws. I have read some of the laws on how you must keep a weapon in your house. They must have been written by the Burglar Protection Association. In some places you have to store the weapon seperately from the ammunition. Both storage places must be locked. You must have a trigger lock on the weapon and you can't keep the bullets in the clip. So let's see, I hear a noise, get up, go to the gun cabinet, unlock it, remove my pistol, unlock the trigger lock, go to the ammo cabinet, unlock it, load my clip and only then do I investigate the noise. Yes that would make a firearm pretty ineffective. Thank God my state doesn't have those laws. I have a padlocked drawer on my night stand. I use a five button combination lock that I can open in the dark in less than 10 seconds. (I practice this) My 9MM has a trigger lock, a three button combo lock, that I can open in 5 seconds. I keep four loaded clips and a three cell Maglight in the drawer as well. Untill last year my procedure if I heard someone down stairs was to ready my weapon and then call 911 and wait. After the US Supreme Court decision in Gonzales vs Castle Rock I changed that to call 911 then head down stairs. The Supreme Court's decision that the Police are under no obligation to provide protection to anyone, in my opinion means that I can't count on the Police and am on my own. I have installed good locks on my doors and windows and check them before going to bed or leaving my house, I practice regularly with my 9mm and have gone as far as buying frangable ammunition so that I don't have to worry about a round going through my walls and injuring someone outside my house. Some people may think that I'm parinoid, I prefer to think that I am prepared. In the 40 years that I have been alive, my house has been broken into 4 times (twice I turned the burglar over to the Police after confronting him), I have been robbed once at gunpoint and have had 3 other attempts and was fired from Domino's Pizza after a robbery attempt where I drew my weapon. (I was offered my job back after someone killed a manager and three drivers at another store) Still think I'm paranoid? Funny thing is that after the last burglary attempt at my house, when the neighborhood found out that I am armed and not afraid to defend my home, things have been different. Every car on my street has been spray painted and had the tires flattened, except mine. There have been numerous cases of rocks thrown through windows, except mine. Things stolen off of porches and from yards, but not at my house. Even the local Police have commented on this when investigating these incidents.

I don't suppose it matters much in this debate to point out that the UK has a tiny amount of gun crime and homicide compared to the USA and that our serious crime stats are lower too (rapes, violent assault and even burgulary)?

So much for law 'supporting' the criminal, huh?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I don't suppose it matters much in this debate to point out that the UK has a tiny amount of gun crime and homicide compared to the USA and that our serious crime stats are lower too (rapes, violent assault and even burgulary)?

So much for law 'supporting' the criminal, huh?

Check your numbers again. Multiply for the population.

This comes up regularly and it has been discussed on these forums here politics.abovetopsecret.com... and here politics.abovetopsecret.com... and here politics.abovetopsecret.com... with plenty of sourced figures.

For example -

The murder rate in the UK may be the highest in 100 years but it's still 1/4 the rate of the US. There were 853 murders, manslaughters and infanticides in England and Wales in the 2003/2004 period. That's out of a population of 52 million.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

- I have been asking for some time, how does that England & Wales murder rate compare to the top 10 largest US cities total(s).
My guess is that every one of them exceeds it, nevermind percentage-ising it.

Ive spoken to a few people about this subject and getting mixed reactions. Some have been saying that no one should be immune from punishment from killing someone. My personal opinion of it is that the law was a good idea. We got broke into many years ago and it was my dad who confronted him... Wielding a Machette theres nothing any of us could do. But im sure he would have been a dead man without that machette.

I don't know all the circumstances but i think owning a machete is wrong, well unless you regularly have trips to a large forest/jungle.

As for intruders well it's a difficult one. On the one hand if someone broke into my house i would use every bit of force necessary to protect myself and my family, even if that involved killing someone. What i wouldn't do is kill someone after i had subdued them and i wouldn't support anyone who did. For example if i had someone in an arm lock on the floor i wouldn't then stamp on their head until they died, doing so would be wrong and would show a rather sick mind.

If i hit an intruder and they fell and smacked their head so hard they died then i wouldn't expect prosecution and i shouldn't get it. If i hit them so hard that they died from a simple punch then i shouidn't be arrested.

If i use a weapon then it really does get difficult. I really have problems with this because on the one hand i love martial arts and have several weapons i could pick up. Now i could pick up a sword but this shows i was maybe willing to kill someone as it is hardly something i could use in a defensive manner. But if i used something else and they had a machete then where do i stand? Afterall a sword would be a good defense agans that. Would having weapons even though i study martial arts be deemed wrong? Would the prosecution think i was a violent person because i owned them even though i study martial arts?

The law is truly complicated on all this sort of thing and it does prevent someone from protecting their family or themselves.

Avatar problem

Ok this isoff topic but is anyone else having problems with avatars? Mine used to have a black background but it's gone missing and i can't see other peoples either. Like you sminkeypinkey i can't see the usual orange background you have. Is it just me?

[edit on 30-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

If someone were to break into my home, I would not hesitate to respond with whatever force I deemed necessary to maintain control.

"A man's home is his castle" is one of the oldest concepts in law, albeit one that has been seriously distorted and amended over time. Nevertheless, if someone were to break into my home, I would do whatever I felt was necessary to protect my family and property from such an unauthorized intrusion into "my space".

I would not relish to kill or injure anyone over a television or stereo or some other piece of personal property. I value life too much to kill or injure over a material possession but if I felt that my family was in peril, I would respond with whatever force that I deemed to be a reasonable response. If this meant that I would be forced to kill, then so be it.

I agree with BT, albeit in a more militant fashion. I wouldn't shoot a man jacking my television, but then again I wouldn't object to showing him the bussiness end of a gun and telling him to get on the ground.

The way this breaks down to me is if you're in my home, and you're broken in, you're fair game for intimidation, serious injury or death if you don't get your hands behind your head in a timely fashion. If you run, and it's not for an exit I can see, then I'm inclined to believe that you're headed to the kitchen for a knife or for the nearest piece of whatever to club me with. You have my TV in hand, odds are I won't hurt you. Just politely ask you to put your hands behind your head.

However, like I said, you get a verbal warning. I've never been broken in to, or whatnot, but I've heard enough horror stories to realize that criminals realize that most Canadians aren't armed, expecting criminals, etc. That's why we've had some pretty messed up home invasions lately. Some guy got hacked to death by a machete-wielding home invader in Hamilton, I believe. So, be prepared. Jim has it down, except for the 9mm. Buy a .45 or something, omae.

DE

Well i'm in the UK, the only gun i have is an air rifle and i wouldn't want to use that simply because i get one small shot and it isn't much of an intimidation.

As a martial artist i have two swords, various knifes both throwing and normal, escrima sticks and various other stuff hanging on my wall. The problem i have is using any of it for the fear of being persecuted by the government. The law is so unclear and any prosecution team would be able to build a decent case on me being a 'nutter' even though i have good cause for owning them.

The problem is what should i pick up? I mean if i pick up the sword then iin the eyes of the law it can only be used for one thing. A stick although just as lethal in the right hands can be used in a different manner, for example to enforce an arm lock.

So what should a person do? UK law seriously needs a good overhaul on this issue to make it more clear. As stated i would use all force nessecary, even if that involved killing someone. If someone has a knife though and i kill them UK law is still very murky, even though the only reason for them to carry a knife into my house is surely to kill or maim me.