Right to self-defence

[Paco]

Don't know how, but the topic of 'reasonable force' came up in our history class, a typical example being this case from 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just wanted to gauge opinions on this, and whether or not people side with the farmer or burglar in this case, and in general?

Personally I feel reasonable force means that killing is nearly always out of the question unless your own life is in danger. In this case the burgled shot the burglar (who happened to only be burgling) as he was fleeing. Now this is wrong, as it clearly isn't self defence. Your views?

[Seagull]

If it becomes apparent that you are in serious danger - this doesn't just mean if you're being robbed - then you should use the minimum force necessary to enable you to get the burglar to leave, to capture them or to flee yourself.

In the case you have given it sounds like the man had issues already - sleeping with boots and clothes on with a gun primed and ready by his bedside shows he wasn't just looking to defend himself and his family.

It's not very easy for me to comment on this though considering I don't have a family or livelihood to protect, and in a situation when you don't know the burglar's motives then it could feel like it's you or them.

Each case is different, but in this one you've linked I definitely would feel the farmer is in the wrong and should be charged with murder.

[Paco]

If it becomes apparent that you are in serious danger - this doesn't just mean if you're being robbed - then you should use the minimum force necessary to enable you to get the burglar to leave, to capture them or to flee yourself.

In the case you have given it sounds like the man had issues already - sleeping with boots and clothes on with a gun primed and ready by his bedside shows he wasn't just looking to defend himself and his family.

It's not very easy for me to comment on this though considering I don't have a family or livelihood to protect, and in a situation when you don't know the burglar's motives then it could feel like it's you or them.

Each case is different, but in this one you've linked I definitely would feel the farmer is in the wrong and should be charged with murder.

Yeah, I agree.

There were some people in my class who argued that if you take the risk of robbing a house, the owner is in their rights to do what they deem necessary to stop them, including harm.

I posed the question of if a petty criminal was robbing your house and you came down with a gun and pointed it at them and said you were going to call the police, and the criminal then ran away what is the right course of action?

One of them said that shooting them was correct, despite it not even being self defence

[Pardew's Legendary Specs]

agree with the common sense above.

if its to preserve your life or your family etc because you thik you are in danger then it gets into the vague area, but if they are escaping, it's just revenge and is murder

[Ramone]

Aim for the legs.

[skalpel]

It's tough, but surely waking up in the middle of the night to find some lunatic in your house where your children and wife are sleeping can be considered an immediate threat to your family's safety. I don't think that shooting a guy in the back with a 12 gauge as he makes for the front door empty handed is right, but nor do I think that you should have to wait for the guy to pounce on you before you are allowed to use physical force to remove him from your house. What if you're stood there saying 'get out' and he just refuses and continues to sweep all of your belongings into his bag? His defiant presence is even more of a danger to your family, surely?

[Paco]

It's tough, but surely waking up in the middle of the night to find some lunatic in your house where your children and wife are sleeping can be considered an immediate threat to your family's safety. I don't think that shooting a guy in the back with a 12 gauge as he makes for the front door empty handed is right, but nor do I think that you should have to wait for the guy to pounce on you before you are allowed to use physical force to remove him from your house. What if you're stood there saying 'get out' and he just refuses and continues to sweep all of your belongings into his bag? His defiant presence is even more of a danger to your family, surely?

Personally, the first thing you should do is call the police, it means that the criminal has a limited time. Then reasonable force comes into play, stopping him without seriously injuring him (or her). And that has to be the limit, we don't have the right to decide the punishment, we don't have the right to apply justice, it has to be the minimum possible to either stop the criminal, or force him to run away. I don't believe defiantness entitles you to much apart from maybe a tackle to keep him down until the police get there. In any case, most people will not have the possessions worthy of a proper criminal attack, and it is likely to be petty criminals who live on the street, who will more often than not run away.

Sorry if this paragraph is disjointed but I hope you get the gist

[skalpel]

It's tough, but surely waking up in the middle of the night to find some lunatic in your house where your children and wife are sleeping can be considered an immediate threat to your family's safety. I don't think that shooting a guy in the back with a 12 gauge as he makes for the front door empty handed is right, but nor do I think that you should have to wait for the guy to pounce on you before you are allowed to use physical force to remove him from your house. What if you're stood there saying 'get out' and he just refuses and continues to sweep all of your belongings into his bag? His defiant presence is even more of a danger to your family, surely?

Personally, the first thing you should do is call the police, it means that the criminal has a limited time. Then reasonable force comes into play, stopping him without seriously injuring him (or her). And that has to be the limit, we don't have the right to decide the punishment, we don't have the right to apply justice, it has to be the minimum possible to either stop the criminal, or force him to run away. I don't believe defiantness entitles you to much apart from maybe a tackle to keep him down until the police get there. In any case, most people will not have the possessions worthy of a proper criminal attack, and it is likely to be petty criminals who live on the street, who will more often than not run away.

Sorry if this paragraph is disjointed but I hope you get the gist

And if you don't have a phone handy? Or if the burglar hears you starting to call the police and demands you put the phone down - perhaps even by showing a weapon?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not the sort of person who thinks its okay to just creep up behind some random burglar in your house and start caving his face in with a bat until he needs plastic surgery. But let's take a scenario. What if some really big guy has been wandering around your house where you, your wife and kids are asleep and you just woke up to see him creeping in the direction of your 7 year old daughter's bedroom. You're telling me that your first act would be to run off to find your telephone and call the police? No thanks, I'd grab the nearest heavy object and try knock him out or disable his movement in the best way I could.
You're saying "we don't have the right to decide the punishment", well this a**hole doesn't have the right to break into my house and put my children in danger. I'm not going to dick around with a telephone and shout out a couple of pointless warnings that could, for all I know, get me stabbed or something in a situation like that.

[overseasTOON]

Don't know how, but the topic of 'reasonable force' came up in our history class, a typical example being this case from 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3009769.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just wanted to gauge opinions on this, and whether or not people side with the farmer or burglar in this case, and in general?

Personally I feel reasonable force means that killing is nearly always out of the question unless your own life is in danger. In this case the burgled shot the burglar (who happened to only be burgling) as he was fleeing. Now this is wrong, as it clearly isn't self defence. Your views?

If someone breaks into my house, I will break their legs, rearrange their face and if the law would allow, I'd happily brand the **** on the forehead.

Scum.

[Blue & Maroon]

Civilians shouldn't have guns for a start but I suppose thats not the question. It's impossible to answer really and needs to be taken on a case by case basis, for example is he armed, how old or young is he, where is he in your house etc etc thats what makes it s difficult for the courts to decide. I'm pretty sure the law says you can use the first thing that comes to hand to defend yourself but you can't premeditate it. For example if you're stood their chopping carrots and someone jumps through your window you're within your right to stab him as it was a split second action to defend yourself however if you're in bed and you hear someone go downstairs and get the knife and stab him then you're in the s*** as you've decided you're going to hurt him. It's more complicated than that but that's the basics, the court should take other factors (like I've mentioned) into account as well.

[Paco]

I understand what you're saying, especially TDB's point about cas-by-case basis, but allowing that type of thing would set a dangerous precedent. So you're allowed to knock them out, then a case will come up and you'll be allowed to break their legs, then another case comes up and so on.

Also the point about, he doesn't have the right to break into my house doesn't suddenly give you the right to do what you please with them,

[overseasTOON]

I understand what you're saying, especially TDB's point about cas-by-case basis, but allowing that type of thing would set a dangerous precedent. So you're allowed to knock them out, then a case will come up and you'll be allowed to break their legs, then another case comes up and so on.

Also the point about, he doesn't have the right to break into my house doesn't suddenly give you the right to do what you please with them,

Having been the victim of burglary three times I can state from my point of view that the police rarely treat it as a crime and put minimal effort into tracking down the culprit/s. I've never had my goods found or been informed that anyone was arrested or charged in all cases.

If they are caught they get negligible sentencing and to the victim it seems that the law has said "bad luck getting caught".

I caught a few burglars red handed in the past. They were in my back garden trying to steal a push bike that had been chained to a tree.

I made my presence known by shouting.
The first went to break left and hop a fence but I scythed him down with a leg sweep and he ended up in a rose bush.
The second went to run past me but I slammed him to the ground and kicked him in the head.
The third hopped a fence and I saw him run down the alley into the street. I gave chase and saw him pounding on a door two houses up shouting 'MUM'.

When I get back into the garden, the one I slammed is gone but 'rose boy' is still trying to get out the bushes so I grab him.

I have my neighbours as witnesses who saw everything and they have already said they'll tell the police everything.

I phone the police and they arrive. I hand over rose boy and then point out the house the other robber ran into. I know he lives there, He was shouting out Mum and banging on the door.

What happens?

They are 17 years old and this is their first offence so they have to apologise to me. Nothing else. Attempted robbery and they have to say sorry?

That's not a punishment. That's not a deterrent.

That's a f***ing insult.

Until justice changes I'll punish them as much as I can within the limits of the law whilst they are on MY PROPERTY.

[TJR]

If someone broke into my house I'd consider them a threat to me and my family weather they were trying to steal from us or trying to physically assault us. You shouldn't be allowed to kill someone (unless they break into your house and kill or attempt to kill a member of your family, then it would be more than acceptable to kill the bastard). If someone breaks into my house I'd immediately consider them to be a threat and use as much force as necessary to trap them until the police arrive (e'g knock them out). This should be the law, if anyone breaks into your house you should have the right to do anything except kill them. You shouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone unless you are trained to shoot someone without killing them, which would be a reasonable thing to do. If some scum bag tries to break into my house then they deserve everything they will get.

[skalpel]

I understand what you're saying, especially TDB's point about cas-by-case basis, but allowing that type of thing would set a dangerous precedent. So you're allowed to knock them out, then a case will come up and you'll be allowed to break their legs, then another case comes up and so on.

And allowing a criminal, whose intent I am uncertain of, to just wander into my 7 year old daughter's bedroom in the middle of the night is totally acceptable stuff from a level headed father I suppose? I'm not gonna wait to see if he's just looking around in there before calling the police, are you? I'm going to presume that since he has already broken into my property to begin with, he probably has illegality at the front of his mind.
Really, what would you do in that situation? You'd let him just wander in there and wait for the police to arrive? If you shout at him to get his attention (imagine that this guy is way bigger than you are) then for all you know you are going to get stabbed or even just completely destroyed in a fight, leaving him alone with your family.

It's absolutely a case-by-case issue, so how does that set a dangerous precedent? Case-by-case issues by definition do not do such a thing.

Also the point about, he doesn't have the right to break into my house doesn't suddenly give you the right to do what you please with them,

You're arguing with a straw man on this one, I haven't once said that I think this - and I'm pretty sure nobody else in the thread has either.

[Paco]

Thank you oT for the information about how the police deal with this type of thing, I have to say that I'm not that well-informed regarding the Police. If that is the case then something higher up the system has to change, but it isn't going to change if we attack people.

I don't particularly wish to be involved in an argument with skalps or oT as I'm guaranteed to lose, but I completely respect your opinions and I will have to reconsider my own

[skalpel]

Thank you oT for the information about how the police deal with this type of thing, I have to say that I'm not that well-informed regarding the Police. If that is the case then something higher up the system has to change, but it isn't going to change if we attack people.

I don't particularly wish to be involved in an argument with skalps or oT as I'm guaranteed to lose, but I completely respect your opinions and I will have to reconsider my own

Oh come on, this is debate and discussion . Dive back into this, it's a good topic.

[overseasTOON]

Thank you oT for the information about how the police deal with this type of thing, I have to say that I'm not that well-informed regarding the Police. If that is the case then something higher up the system has to change, but it isn't going to change if we attack people.

I don't particularly wish to be involved in an argument with skalps or oT as I'm guaranteed to lose, but I completely respect your opinions and I will have to reconsider my own

It's not about winning or losing. It's the taking part that is important.

[cbrad NUFC]

Thank you oT for the information about how the police deal with this type of thing, I have to say that I'm not that well-informed regarding the Police. If that is the case then something higher up the system has to change, but it isn't going to change if we attack people.

I don't particularly wish to be involved in an argument with skalps or oT as I'm guaranteed to lose, but I completely respect your opinions and I will have to reconsider my own

Think Cameron is looking at changing the laws on this, think there have been cases in the past where by it has been proven that there isn't enough rights to self defence.

[Paco]

And allowing a criminal, whose intent I am uncertain of, to just wander into my 7 year old daughter's bedroom in the middle of the night is totally acceptable stuff from a level headed father I suppose? I'm not gonna wait to see if he's just looking around in there before calling the police, are you? I'm going to presume that since he has already broken into my property to begin with, he probably has illegality at the front of his mind.
Really, what would you do in that situation? You'd let him just wander in there and wait for the police to arrive? If you shout at him to get his attention (imagine that this guy is way bigger than you are) then for all you know you are going to get stabbed or even just completely destroyed in a fight, leaving him alone with your family.

It's absolutely a case-by-case issue, so how does that set a dangerous precedent? Case-by-case issues by definition do not do such a thing.

No, you're not going to wait, the first thing to do is call the police, then use as minimal force as possible to deal with the intruder.

Precedents can still be set by landmark cases, I'm struggling to think of how to explain this better and will consult my sources for a better argument in this respect.

[skalpel]

And allowing a criminal, whose intent I am uncertain of, to just wander into my 7 year old daughter's bedroom in the middle of the night is totally acceptable stuff from a level headed father I suppose? I'm not gonna wait to see if he's just looking around in there before calling the police, are you? I'm going to presume that since he has already broken into my property to begin with, he probably has illegality at the front of his mind.
Really, what would you do in that situation? You'd let him just wander in there and wait for the police to arrive? If you shout at him to get his attention (imagine that this guy is way bigger than you are) then for all you know you are going to get stabbed or even just completely destroyed in a fight, leaving him alone with your family.

It's absolutely a case-by-case issue, so how does that set a dangerous precedent? Case-by-case issues by definition do not do such a thing.

No, you're not going to wait, the first thing to do is call the police, then use as minimal force as possible to deal with the intruder.

Precedents can still be set by landmark cases, I'm struggling to think of how to explain this better and will consult my sources for a better argument in this respect.

I must say, I wouldn't go fishing around for my telephone (I dunno about you, but I don't usually wake up in the night and immediately pick my phone up before leaving the bedroom) and then wait a few minutes to explain the situation to emergency services while some criminal is in my little girl's bedroom, and then follow him in after having decided upon my own definition of 'minimal force'. My concern for her safety far outweighs my concern for his, he is getting knocked out or disabled through whatever means it takes.