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

[Gillies]

It looks like if the law had its way ... if you were unlucky enough to be broken into by an intruder you should stand there and help him take your possesions :confused:

 

Duncan Ferguson the Everton footballer was also a good example, where he caught the intruder and beat him to a pulp to stop him, putting him in hospital ... and then their was an attempt to bring charges at Ferguson. Its crazy!

 

A sign post with "Intruders Beware" like Little Feathers suggested is a good idea, with an image of a maimed intruder on it for the illiterate but then Im sure some smart lawyer would claim their client is partialy visually impaired or something.

 

If someone illegally gains entry to your house for the purpose of criminal activity, it should be your right to restrain/hinder them in any way possible in order to refrain them, and if they get hurt during the process, no matter how badly then its their own fault. Breaking into someones house is a risk they are taking! I guess it could be likened to crossing a busy high street away from the pedestrain crossing, its a risk you are taking, and if you get hurt during the process then you only have yourself to blame.

 

Gillies

[Eddie]

Gillies:

It looks like if the law had its way ... if you were unlucky enough to be broken into by an intruder you should stand there and help him take your possesions :confused:

 

 

Gillies

But then if you did give him your possessions and later he was to hurt himself with them would you not then also be liable for his injuries because you supplied him with dangerous goods with the premeditated intent to cause him injuries?

 

[ 16. July 2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Eddie ]

[Gillies]

Its a evil legal circile that seems no matter what way you look at it, the law can still favour the intruder :confused:

 

Gillies

[corydoras]

Gillies:

If someone illegally gains entry to your house for the purpose of criminal activity, it should be your right to restrain/hinder them in any way possible in order to refrain them, and if they get hurt during the process, no matter how badly then its their own fault. Breaking into someones house is a risk they are taking! I guess it could be likened to crossing a busy high street away from the pedestrain crossing, its a risk you are taking, and if you get hurt during the process then you only have yourself to blame.

 

Gillies

This is youir opinion, to which you are entitled but it is not what current UK Law permits.

 

Criminal Law Act, 1967, which states:

 

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

 

What you seem to be asking for is that the law should allow you to murder someone who breaks into your house.

[Gillies]

No, I'm not saying murder at all.

 

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime"

 

What is deemed reasonable?

 

In self-defence of your belongs to an intruder and you use force how to you deem what is reasonable force? Until the intruder has either ran away or you have used enough force to deter or detain the intruder. What happens if the intruder uses force to ensure that he/she deters you from stopping them robbing you and your life in at danger?

 

This kind of thing has so many if's, and but's, it could be argued for ever. For every arguement, there seems to be a counter arguement.

 

Again, I am not saying murder. I am saying use reasonable force to deter the intruder depending on the "circumstances". But circumstances can vary drastically, and again how do you deem what is reasonable force?

 

A man breaks into your house, you push him away, punch him, and he falls to the ground banging his head fatally. Now, you have used what you deemed reasonable force to deter him, but the circumstances have caused his death. Are criminal charges brought in against you for manslaughter, or are you acting in self defence? I would say thats self-defence, but it could be argued my a smart lawyer in defence of the intruders family etc. that you murdered him by using excessive force.

 

This is a legal mine field !!!!!

 

Gillies

[corydoras]

Gillies:

No, I'm not saying murder at all.

 

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime"

 

What is deemed reasonable?

 

This is a legal mine field !!!!!

 

Gillies

First of all although you may not like the word the word under UK law is murder. If you kill someone through your actions this is murder. Manslaughter is just a special kind of murder.

 

This is the classic definition of murder under English law

 

"Coke (3 Inst 47):

 

"Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within year and a day after the same".

 

These are the classic 'defenses' againt murder

 

A murder can be reduced to manslaughter if a defendant claims either provocation or diminished responsibility. A homicide can be deemed lawful if it is committed in self-defence. Self-defence cannot therefore truly be called a defence - a prerequisite for murder is that it is an unlawful killing. If the defendant kills the victim in self-defence it is seen as being lawful, and so the defendant would be acquitted as part of the actus reus would be missing. A defence on the other hand would exist if part of the mens rea were missing (Allen, 1996) - for example, if there is inadequate intent and premeditation is missing, provocation might be claimed. When self-defence is maintained, it is the burden of the prosecution to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt, as stated in Beckford v R [1988] AC 130.

 

Having said all that, you are correct it is a very complicated area of the law and the chances are that if you kill someone you are going to end up doing time yourself.

 

Another point that went against the Martin case was the fact that he shot him. If you have a Gun License or a FAC then it states quite clearly that a shotgun or rifle must be kept in a locked steel cabinet. The fact that Mr Martin had a shotgun close to hand would have allowed the prosecution to argue that Mr Martin showed aforethought, in otherwords he 'planned' to use the gun if he were burgled.

[kwakakid]

What crime have the senior managers of Network Rail Committed :confused:

 

They are facing Manslaughter charges.

 

Report in Mondays paper from a Government chief

 

Young criminals should be paid £20,000.00 a year to keep out of jail" :mad: :mad:

It'd be cheaper than keeping them in Jail because it costs the Tax payer £24,000.00 a year to keep each young offender locked up

 

British justice and the Government, far out of touch with reality.

 

 

Wheres me swag bag

[Apache]

I will get back to you, as my mother is one of those "smart ass fancy lawyers"!

[Dan]

corydoras:

Originally posted by Gillies:

[qb] The fact that Mr Martin had a shotgun close to hand would have allowed the prosecution to argue that Mr Martin showed aforethought, in otherwords he 'planned' to use the gun if he were burgled.

So the moral is use an air rifle!

[salmonman]

i reckon the laws always had it wrong,i used to own a garage in my local town, some lads broken into my garage stealing a load of tools,i reported it to the local police,anyway a few days later crims having the brains of a nat, called into my garage to try to sell my own tools back to me,i called the police to tell them about it they told me to check the no,s on each tool,told them i couldnt be bothered, and i was going to buy the tools back off them because it was cheaper than buying new ones,the police told me i couldnt because they were stolen goods the law just amazes me