Let 'the public' fight back? (Read the Initial Post Before Voting)

[StuBubbles]

Must still face prosecution but allowances should be made by the CPS and the Jury (if any) should the homeowner be able to prove that they were acting in defence of their loved ones or property.

Otherwise homeowners could go beyond defence and kick 7 shades of S*** out of a burgler - put them in a wheelchair or even kill them with impunity and there must be balance. The legal system needs a test of this and 'reasonable force' seems a sound one.

[chrisch]

John Nortcliff's post is the same position as my own. You cannot take away someone's rights even if they are a worthless shit. This must be the first principle of a civilised society.

The legal system is not overly liberal, simply injust in its sentancing policy. In the US Tony Martin would have committed no crime. Whether the pikey bloke's family would have then been round to "tool up" Tony I don't know. But this is why the US, a gun-obsessed country, has so many killings...

I friend of mine did time for beating up a burglar, while the burglar got to tidy up old ladies gardens for a week. Had the punishments been reversed I think justice would have been done.....

Chris

[Mdemon]

Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out....

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by StuBubbles

Must still face prosecution but allowances should be made by the CPS and the Jury (if any) should the homeowner be able to prove that they were acting in defence of their loved ones or property.

The very act of breaking into someone's house puts the homeowner in a defensive situation they did not ask for.

Originally Posted by StuBubbles

Otherwise homeowners could go beyond defence and kick 7 shades of S*** out of a burgler - put them in a wheelchair or even kill them with impunity and there must be balance. The legal system needs a test of this and 'reasonable force' seems a sound one.

I agree that the legal system needs a 'test case', and you're right, this is a good example - but on the grounds that a burglar breaks into a house and, in the furtherance of that crime, might become violent (for whatever reason - fear, 'bad-by-nature' etc.) should afford the home-owner the ability to remain free from prosecution should the home-owner then visit upon said scrote a form of 'defence' which the burglar might not like.

No one asked him to break into a house, no one invited him to do so, and any spurious voodoo arguments about the poor cherub 'needing to' so he can feed his drug habit (or whatever the reason might be) are palpable bollocks.

[John N]

I can see it now:

'knock knock'

Yes?

I want to talk to you about God

Why of course, come in, cup of tea?

.
.
.
Yes officer, I found this Jehovah bloke trying to rob me so I beat him to death with my Necromonicon.
Can't be prosecuted? I should hope not, little scrote...

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

I agree that the legal system needs a 'test case', and you're right, this is a good example - but on the grounds that a burglar breaks into a house and, in the furtherance of that crime, might become violent (for whatever reason - fear, 'bad-by-nature' etc.) should afford the home-owner the ability to reamin free from prosecution should the home-owner then visit upon said scrote a form of 'defence' which the burglar might not like.

But that is exactly what the reasonable force defence allows. The whole point about not having a codified system is that it allows judges and juries to determine what is reasonable in the actually circumstances. Any test case would only form a precident for other cases that were substantially the same which in practise would be none.

Every case will always have to be judged on its own merits as no two cases are likely to share many charicteristics. The whole point about "reasonable" which apprears a lot in English law is that it allows that judgement to be made of the exact case in question not the case that the draftsman was thinking of when constructing the statute.

That is one of the major strength s (if not the major) of the English legal system that has meant it has been copied everywhere.

[turbanator]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

I can see it now:

'knock knock'

Yes?

I want to talk to you about God

Why of course, come in, cup of tea?

.
.
.
Yes officer, I found this Jehovah bloke trying to rob me so I beat him to death with my Necromonicon.
Can't be prosecuted? I should hope not, little scrote...

John, don't be so bloody ridiculous!!


Now, if it was the bloke that interrupted my Sunday afternoon by trying to sell me double-glazing that I so obviously have.......

r
Paul

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

No one asked him to break into a house, no invited him to do so, and any spurious voodoo arguments about the poor cherub 'needing to' so he can feed his drug habit (or whatever the reason might be) are palpbale bollocks.

I don't think this has ever been put forward as a defence. Assuming that you agree that the main thrust of the law following conviction should be to prevent re-offending is it not a better use of our money to try to cure a drug habit rather than giving Group 4 millions of pounds to fuck up and let people burn down expensive facilities (built with our money also)?

Violence is wrong. There can be no other view.

Violence in defence of your home, life and loved ones is understandable, forgivable even, but still wrong.

Violence in the pursuit of someone else's property is neither understandable or forgivable.

The sentances should reflect this. They do not. That this is wrong, I think we all agree.

Chris

The law should be made more balanced in that any counter action by a thief or assailant that claims reasonable force was not used is balanced against the assailant, ie the case has to be made beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances taken into account.
The Tony Martin case is the extreme example of going too far, putting a loaded shotgun behind a door and deliberately trying to kill someone is not acceptable and he should have stayed banged up, on the other hand the police should have also done more to catch the folk making his life a misery.
Personally if someone broke into my house I would kick the living daylights out of them with anything I had to hand and serve them right. I would worry about the law later. I would put them down hard as fast as possible if I could, doesn't mean once down that I keep kicking them in the head!
Reasonable force to protect property and life is acceptable with the burden of proof to the contrary having to be made by the burglar if a counter claim ensues.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by PeteM

But that is exactly what the reasonable force defence allows. The whole point about not having a codified system is that it allows judges and juries to determine what is reasonable in the actually circumstances. Any test case would only form a precident for other cases that were substantially the same which in practise would be none.

Every case will always have to be judged on its own merits as no two cases are likely to share many charicteristics. The whole point about "reasonable" which apprears a lot in English law is that it allows that judgement to be made of the exact case in question not the case that the draftsman was thinking of when constructing the statute.

That is one of the major strength s (if not the major) of the English legal system that has meant it has been copied everywhere.

Peter,

EVERY law we have is based or predicated upon one precident or another - that's how we arrived at them and why they are written down as such. Kane killing Abel set a precident.

The point is, at the moment, we currently do not have a commonly accepted (as you say, it is always left to a judge and jury to 'interpret') or universally administered definition of 'reasonable force'. That needs to change, for clarity and even-handedness if for no other reason.

'Copied everywhere'? Where? We, in the UK, use the Adversarial Code and 99% of Europe use the Napoleonic Code - and NEVER the twain shall meet!