Intruders ............

[littlefeathers]

With reference to the 'Tony Martin' incident, the farmer who shot a burglar, Mr feathers and I were discussing the following.

When you park your car in a car park that displays a sign saying the owner accepts no liability for theft or damage to your car - is the owner excempt from prosecution should a car be damaged. :confused: If yes, we were wondering if this principle could be applied to your home. i.e. A sign on your property saying 'Intruders, BEWARE,owner accepts no responsibility for any damages occured whilst on this property' How would the law stand

:confused:

 

Mandy

 

[ 15. July 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: littlefeathers ]

[tim d]

good idea but some smart ass lawyer would find there way round it

[corydoras]

littlefeathers:

 

When you park your car in a car park that displays a sign saying the owner accepts no liability for theft or damage to your car - is the owner excempt from prosecution should a car be damaged.     :confused:    If yes, we were wondering if this principle could be applied to your home. i.e. A sign on your property saying 'Intruders, BEWARE,owner accepts no responsibility for any damages occured whilst on this property' How would the law stand

   :confused:    

 

Mandy      

These notices are legally called 'disclaimer notices'.

 

The important thing to remember about a disclaimer is that one cannot protect oneself from a charge of negligence by putting up a disclaimer notice. So in the car park situation one could not sue the owner of the car park if your car was damaged by say another car reversing into you, but you may be able to sue if you could show that some damage had ben caused by the negligence of the owner or of one of his employees or agents.

 

As to the Tony Martin case you have to remember why his claim of self-defense failed. For a plead of self-defence to be successful you have to show 'reasonable force'. Mr Martin shot a burgler in the back, while the man was running away, and so Martin could not rely on self-defense because reasonable force was not used.

[chesters1]

quote:

---

and so Martin could not rely on self-defense because reasonable force was not used.

---

i supect that more than half of the population would say the force was VERY reasonable

if the house was in darkness how did mr martin know he was running away

have a look at your prescription medicines the get out clauses are getting longer ,from a slight reaction to the drug to death and all possible things inbetween ,is it a case of "we warned you" if you take a spoonfull of cough mixture and your head falls off or a case of covering all the possibilities of a unforseen reaction to the drug ensuring the firm cannot be sued for issuing a new drug without full testing

 

[ 15. July 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[ayjay]

You're assuming that these hypothetical intruders are literate; this may not be the case.

[Dan]

chesters1:

if the house was in darkness how did mr martin know he was running away

Ok so if it was so dark how did he manage to shoot him or know how many intruders there were?! perhaps he aimed where he heard the words "please dont shoot" !! As for all the other gripes if we stopped suing each other then perhaps the disclaimers wouldnt be needed!

 

Dan

[chesters1]

maybe he should have based his defence on the fact it was dark and he was using the muzzel flash to find his way to the bathroom unfortunatly the boys got in the way of negotiating a loose board could he be convicted of using an unusual form of lighting??

[billy5000]

Hi all

 

chesters id be inclined to go with your muzzle flash theory

 

 

billy

[littlefeathers]

So it would seem then from your advice, should any intruder be 'ACCIDENTLY' injured whilst on your property you'll need to make sure that :-

 

1) he is facing you whilst you either shot him or hit him with the baseball bat.

2) Your on medication with severe side effects, loss of memory, confusion, mood swings, blindness etc etc

And remember to take the light bulb out, so at least you can say it was dark and you didnt see him, or you thought you were aiming in the air to scare him.

Also on a similar subject, are you allowed to use barb wire on top of fences these days or has the law changed :confused:

[Jim Roper]

A couple of bags of coal in an oil drum that has some holes in the bottom, will get rid of most evidence, but you will have to smash the teeth between a couple of hammers. So I'm told!!!