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

[Mr T.]

Personally, I believe that a criminal, in the furtherance of crime (in this case, burglary), should lose the right to any ability to sue those who may have 'delivered unto him justice of the cricket bat' or any right/access to compensation - handing a burglar a wad of cash, post-facto, if injured during his crime, is hardly an disincentive to crime, is it?

And I find it just incredible that there is no current, agreed and set down legal definition of 'Reasonable Force'.

And before the liberati begin bleating - I'm not advocating a 'vigilants' charter' here; but if I kill a burglar, who's attacking me or my wife in my own home, then c'est la vie: better judged by twelve than carried by six...



Let public fight back against the burglars
By Karyn Miller, Patrick Hennessy and Peter Zimonjic
(Filed: 24/10/2004)

The Conservative Party last night threw its weight behind calls to reform the law that restricts homeowners from protecting themselves against intruders.

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the law should be "rebalanced" to do more to protect householders from violent criminals following the fatal stabbing of Robert Symons, a London schoolteacher, during a burglary at his home.

Mr Davis's call came in response to the launch of a campaign to allow people to protect their homes and their families from violent intruders without fear of prosecution or claims for compensation from burglars injured while breaking the law.

As pressure mounted on the Government to act, Mr Davis said: "The law needs considerably more clarification and should be rebalanced in favour of householders and against criminals."

His comments represent a hardening of the Tory line following recent high-profile cases. At the start of the year, the party refused to back an earlier call for the law to be reformed.

Amyra Symons, the mother of Mr Symons, who bled to death after confronting an armed raider in West London last Wednesday, lent her support to the campaign yesterday.

Speaking from her Windsor home, Mrs Symons said: "I agree with your campaign totally. The law must be changed." Other victims, MPs and victims' charities also supported the crusade.

Mr Symons, 45, disturbed a burglar in his home at 4.30am, while his wife Linda and their two daughters, aged five and two, were asleep upstairs. The intruder delivered a fatal stab wound before fleeing. Mr Symons died in the arms of his wife, who discovered him lying in a pool of blood.

The killer has not been caught, but a kitchen knife was found near the Symons's home and detectives are examining CCTV footage from the area.

The law permits the use of "reasonable force" in self-defence against intruders. What "reasonable force" is, however, has proved more difficult to define. Victims of burglaries have been called before the courts to answer accusations of assault. Others have been sued for compensation.

Kenneth Faulkner, 72, a farmer from Ockbrook, in Derbyshire, was arrested this year after a suspected burglar received shotgun wounds. Charges against Mr Faulkner were dropped last month because of a lack of evidence, but the incident highlights the risks homeowners can face in trying to protect themselves.

David Burnside, the Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim who has taken up the case of three elderly constituents who were attacked in their home, said: "People are afraid to defend themselves in their own homes. They think the law won't protect them, or that they will be sued if they harm the intruder. This is insane. The law needs to be changed.

"Once a burglar enters someone's home with the intent of robbing them, raping them or hurting them they should lose their rights to protection from the law."

Even the Home Office is uncertain about householders' rights. A journalist from this newspaper contacted its public inquiries office, posing as a member of the public, to ask what was "reasonable force".

After being placed on hold while the inquiry was passed from one stumped official to another, the reporter was offered the following: "There is no definition of what 'reasonable force' is. The law doesn't go into that level of detail. It is for the police to look into individual cases."

A spokesman for Liberty, the human rights organisation, said: "This needs to be clarified. No one has a clue what reasonable force means."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

The State's first duty
(Filed: 24/10/2004)

There is no more fundamental right than that of individuals to protect themselves, their families and their homes from criminals who break in and attempt to steal their property. It is the most basic one which government exists to protect - and when it fails to protect it, government neglects its most elementary duty.

Successive governments have conspicuously failed to discharge that duty: more people than ever are being assaulted in their own homes, and having their property burgled. Worse, the laws that governments have passed have punished citizens when they have tried to make up for that failure by asserting that right for themselves.

A citizen who discovers that his house has been broken into can face prosecution and a life sentence if he tries to protect himself, his family and his property by tackling the burglar.

Early last Wednesday morning, Robert Symonds, a 45-year-old teacher with two young children, was woken by the sound of a burglar breaking through his front door. Mr Symonds went to investigate. He confronted the burglar. In the ensuing struggle, the intruder stabbed Mr Symonds in the chest. He died a few moments later. The murderer fled, and is still at large.

There is little doubt that had Mr Symonds taken a knife, and plunged it into his assailant's chest, it is he who would now be facing prosecution for murder. The law indeed states that a home-owner can use "reasonable force" to protect himself and his property from an intruder. But no one knows what "reasonable force" is.

When this newspaper asked the Home Office to define the term it replied: "There is no definition of what 'reasonable force' is. The law doesn't go into that detail." If the Home Office does not know, how can the poor householder decide what is reasonable?

The effect is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is deciding - retrospectively - whether a home-owner's reaction was reasonable and legal or unreasonable and illegal. And the CPS can take a very restrictive view of the definition of reasonable force. In September last year Brett Osborn, for instance, was charged by the CPS with murder after he stabbed a blood-stained intruder who had forced his way into the house where Mr Osborn was chatting with two girls.

The intruder attempted to assault one of those girls. It was in an effort to protect her that Mr Osborn got involved in what proved to be a fatal struggle with the intruder. Faced with the prospect of prison for life, Mr Osborn, on advice from his legal team, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He is now serving a five-year sentence.

Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot two intruders, killing one and wounding the other, actually received a life sentence for trying to protect his home. He was only released after the Court of Appeal replaced his conviction with manslaughter on the grounds of diminished reponsibility.

The law as it stands puts the home-owner defending his property and the burglar violating it on exactly the same footing: anyone who, in the course of defending his home, kills or injures the criminal invading it, is treated in the same way as the criminal.

The intruder can even sue the home-owner for damages if he injures himself climbing over the home-owner's fence, or if a punch from the home-owner leads to an injury. But if a home-owner kills a burglar the onus is on him to prove that his use of force was reasonable.

This is presposterous. Those who break the law - as John Locke, one of the earliest proponents of natural rights, pointed out - do not have the same rights as those who keep it.

A burglar who invades another's property, said the great 17th-century philosopher of liberty, loses his automatic right to the same legal protection that is due to the honest citizen: his decision to violate the rights of another means that he has put himself outside the standards and norms that entitle an individual to assume that any violence against him will be viewed by the authorities as a criminal offence.

British law needs to be changed to recognise that obvious truth. A law that assumed that a home-owner was entitled to take whatever measures he felt necessary to repel an intruder would not only be fair and just. It would also dramatically cut the rate at which homes were burgled.

The United States has a far lower rate of domestic burglary than the United Kingdom. The reason is simple: home-owners are entitled to take whatever measures they believe to be necessary to protect their homes. Burglars know that if they break into a house, they risk being killed by the home-owner. That is a very effective deterrent to burglary.

In many parts of the United States, police response times are as long as they are in Britain - yet home-owners are content to leave their doors and windows unlocked, because the likelihood of burglary is so low.

At the begining of the year, we invited the Conservative Party to join our campaign for a reform of the law. Then, they declined. Now, in the person of the Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, they have taken up our challenge. What about it, Mr Blair?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

'People must be given the right to defend themselves in their own homes'
(Filed: 24/10/2004)

The Sunday Telegraph today launches a campaign for the law to be changed to give householders the right to use whatever force is necessary against intruders.

Our initiative follows last week's fatal stabbing of Robert Symons, a schoolteacher, who disturbed a burglar at his family home in Chiswick, west London.

It is backed by Mr Symons' mother, Amyra, who said yesterday: "I agree with your campaign totally. The law must be changed." Victims of crime, MPs and victims' charities are also supporting the campaign.

The law permits the use of "reasonable force" as a method of self-defence against intruders. What "reasonable force" constitutes, however, is difficult to define, leaving vulnerable people unsure of what force they can use to protect themselves and their homes. The Home Office, admitted to this newspaper last week: "There is no definition of what is 'reasonable force'."

The Sunday Telegraph believes that the law must be changed so that once intruders enter someone's home with the intent of stealing, or raping or assaulting them, they lose their rights to protection from the law.

Here are some of the harrowing stories of people attacked and robbed in their homes, and who support the move to change the law.

Sam and Eleanor Orr, of County Antrim

Mr and Mrs Orr were at home in November 2003, with Eleanor's 86-year-old mother Elizabeth at their farm in Co Antrim when three masked men burst into their house. The men pistol-whipped Sam and pushed Eleanor and her mother to the floor.

The thugs were particularly rough with Elizabeth as they tried violently to wrestle the gold rings from her arthritic and swollen fingers. She has since died.

Sam, 60, recalled last week: "They stood over us and kept hitting me on the head, there was blood washing down my face so I couldn't see out of one eye.

"It feels like there is no law at all to protect us. If the boys were caught, which they weren't, they would have been given a few months and then been let back out again. You should be able to shoot them if they come into your home.

"Eleanor's mother never recovered from the stress of the attack and we are convinced that is what killed her.

"The law just isn't strong enough. The robbers aren't frightened of the law, they act as if they can do whatever they want to do. You should not be prosecuted for injuring an intruder."

John Bolt OBE, a retired Royal Marine, of Northumberland

Mr Bolt, 81, who served in the Second World War, was stabbed twice by an intruder at his Northumberland home in February 2001. Mr Bolt was upstairs with his wife when they heard a noise.

He went to investigate and was confronted by a burglar armed with a knife. The two struggled and the thief stabbed Mr Bolt twice before fleeing through a window.

"The chap had a knife and so I was entitled to have a go at him. I think, in law, if he's got a knife, I think I'm entitled to kill him, but I don't know what the law is in detail.

"It is a funny thing to try and manage with the law because your reaction in those situations is immediate - you don't stop and think: 'Gosh, what does it say in the book about this?'.

"I'm an ex-Royal Marine so my reaction was quite active and wholly motivated by self preservation. I would certainly have tried to finish him off if I had something in my hand at the time, but that is a reaction, an instinct. Whether it is legal or not I don't know."

Major Roderick Petley and his wife Victoria, 62, of East Sussex

The Petleys, who live near Heathfield, East Sussex, were woken by burglars who broke into their home in the middle of the night earlier this year.

Major Petley, 71, an officer in the Rifle Brigade (now the Royal Green Jackets) from 1952 to 1964, said: "When we were burgled, I went downstairs with a loaded rifle, but they had fled.

"What happened to us has toughened me up a bit. What happened to that man in Chiswick is absolutely awful."

The burglars smashed a plate glass window with a battering ram, smashing coffee cups and saucers worth £1,000. They escaped with Major Petley's £3,500 bracket clock in the back of their van.

The Petleys have been forced to spend more than £32,000 on home security improvements, while their annual home insurance premium has risen to £8,000.

Mrs Petley, 62, said: "It's a nightmare. The police know who did it, but can't catch them.

"No longer is an Englishman's home his castle. We are denied the right to defend ourselves and our family, and the law must be changed."

Anonymous couple, of East Sussex

The elderly couple, who live near Heathfield have been burgled twice this year, in June and August. They are now trying to sell their house and move to a "more secure" area.

The man, an 83-year-old former insurance broker, and his wife, 69, were in their house during both burglaries, although they escaped harm by staying in their bedroom. They used to enjoy having their 10 grandchildren to stay, but are now too frightened to have them there.

"The present law stands justice on its head," the man said. "If you can't defend your home, what can you do? Both times I have woken and heard burglars in the house, I have felt angry and afraid but have had to leave them to it.

"One does worry about what one would do if they came into the bedroom. I don't know what I could do. I wouldn't have much hope.

"I would like burglars to expect the worst. It would make a difference. Something to drop on his head or give him a electric shock should be sufficient. These aren't things you can do, as the law is now.

"The definition of 'reasonable force' should be broader. The burglar should expect anything. A change in the law would, undoubtedly, have an effect on our decision to go or stay."

Crispin Reed, a website developer, of East London

Mr Reed, 27, was confronted by two burglars at his warehouse flat in Hackney in February last year.

A kitchen knife was held to his throat and his stomach was slashed before the intruders fled with a bicycle, mobile telephone and camera equipment.

"There was a knocking early one morning. I was half-asleep and I thought it was the postman. When I opened it, two men in their early twenties were standing there. They mumbled something about wanting to buy crack and barged in.

"There were four of us in the flat and I shouted for everyone to get up - I thought that together we could fight them off. But the man holding the knife to my throat told me to be quiet or he would cut me.

"The other one swiped his knife against my stomach. Fortunately I had moved back and the cut wasn't deep, but it was a 5in long cut and it bled a lot.

"At the time this happened my sister Hanna was staying with me and she was terrified - she hasn't been back here to stay since.

"What made me really angry was that one of them said, in a mocking voice, 'You are allowed to defend yourself, you know'. But I was panicked and confused.

"I didn't know what to do or what I should do. To be honest, I'm still not sure where the law stands. Now I keep a rounders bat and a crowbar by the front door. If something like this happens again I will use them, regardless of the consequences. Because of this, I support your campaign."

William Rutter, a council worker from Newcastle upon Tyne

On Christmas Day in 2002, Mr Rutter, 54, was subjected to a horrific attack in his home.

He was watching television when masked burglars broke in. They pinned him against a wall, punched him repeatedly, slashed at his chest and hands with Stanley knives and said that if he did not hand over his life savings, they would kill him.

Mr Rutter was stabbed in the heart and left for dead while the men rifled through his wallet, which contained £40, before heading upstairs to search through his possessions.

Luckily for Mr Rutter the intruders were disturbed by policemen, who had heard sounds coming from the house from their unmarked patrol car. The men were caught as they tried to escape over Mr Rutter's garden fence.

When Mr Rutter was discharged from hospital, with a foot-long scar on his back and a smaller scar on his chest, it was months before he felt able to return to his home.

Yesterday, he greeted the news of the campaign enthusiastically. "This is good," he said. "What goes on now is a disgrace.

"My brother and sister and my friends all look out for me. I have a panic button, too.

"Nobody is going to do to me what those people did, ever again."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++



So, the question before this house being - Should burglars lose their access to compensation and any ability to sue a home-owner who has caused them bodily harm whilst defending their/family's own safety and protecting their home? And, should the home-owner remain free from any and all prosecution from rendering said damage to the burglar?

MULTIPLE VOTES ALLOWED!

[HelenM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Those who break the law - as John Locke, one of the earliest proponents of natural rights, pointed out - do not have the same rights as those who keep it.

A burglar who invades another's property, said the great 17th-century philosopher of liberty, loses his automatic right to the same legal protection that is due to the honest citizen: his decision to violate the rights of another means that he has put himself outside the standards and norms that entitle an individual to assume that any violence against him will be viewed by the authorities as a criminal offence.

British law needs to be changed to recognise that obvious truth. A law that assumed that a home-owner was entitled to take whatever measures he felt necessary to repel an intruder would not only be fair and just.

Absolutely agree. I do believe I should have the right to defend myself and my property against someone who has entered my home against my wishes. And no, they should have zero rights to compensation - they have forfeited that right in my view.

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

It would also dramatically cut the rate at which homes were burgled.

Not so sure about that bit though. My reservations are for the following reasons:

1) Would this legislation diminish the number of burglars / intruders - perhaps, perhaps not. Would it make those who did offend more likely to carry weapons when doing so? I think it probably would. I suspect that although the Americans are cited as having lower rates of breaking and entering, those which do occur are probably more likely to be exceptionally violent for this reason. This is certainly the case in South Africa. A friend of mine had her home broken into there whilst she and her fiance were asleep. She woke up to find a man stealing things in their bedroom.... paralysed by shock and fear, she found herself unable to move or scream. The policeman who visited them afterwards said that this probably saved their lives - had the burglar known that they were awake they would probably have been murdered.

2) Is a strong bloke breaking into my property going to be able to wrestle a weapon off me and potentially use it on me? Probably.

3) Is it not more likely that - rather than do an honest day of work - the scum who do this will change their plan of attack, and come up with ways to target empty homes or even more vulnerable people?

So I suspect that the articles above rather over-simplify the problem. These people are the dregs of humanity, they should have no rights, but unfortunately they have no moral scruples either. My above reservations aside, I have to come down on the side which says I have a right to defend myself and my property - with all force required. And if the intruder doesn't like that - well they shouldn't come in in the first place then.

[narked at 90]

let them burn in hell.....
i've been burgeld twice,both when i lived with my parants, the first i caute in the house so he pulled a carving knife from his coat and so we had a stand off for a miniut before he backed out the door and left.....nothing was done by the police..
a number of years later i was a gun holder in a club and kept the guns at home.
im a very lite sleeper and was woken in the early hours by some thing making a noise in the house....so i quitly checked that it wasn't me old mum...she was also listerning so she got out of bed by this time i had my shot gun and was ready to give the fuckers both barrels and if it wasnt for my mum trying to get the bastards first i would have blown his ass off as he rounded the door frane on his way out.
if you are in my house and have not been invited be very awere i am prepard to go to prison to defend my self and my family.
there is to many do gooders out there helping the wankers of this world..may be we should put the do gooders in the stokes first!

john

[Paul Evans]

Bren, You sure don't mind a contorversal subject

Burn the F****rs

That is, after you've shot them.

Quote
"There are to many do gooders out there helping the wankers of this world..may be we should put the do gooders in the stocks first!"

To bloody true

[Garf]

Been discussing with exnavyboy whether or not to post this, as it was a bit stupid, and I am not normally an aggressive person. Honest. Hey ho, let's see what happens.

I've been there too. We've had an attempt, and the person got a kicking, no questions asked. I let him come in and waited quietly. The moment he stepped over my threshold and endangered my family he was fair game in my book. As soon as he reached the closest point of approach, I put his lights out from behind. After he had got his senses back, we had a little chat, during which he recieved a couple of "attention-getters", and then I sent him on his merry way.

Some of my friends have suggested I should have shouted out, or made a lot of noise, to see if he would have called it quits and ran off. However, my call was he gave up any rights to fair play when he broke in.
The police that attended the incident gave me a pretty good talking to actually, about how it was a bit stupid as he could come back and target my family etc, which was a bit scary I'll grant you. Also, about how if they found him, I might well end up being prosecuted. They also confiscated my cricket bat

It's easy to be calm and rational with hidsight. I guess the most sensible thing is to stay in one room and let them get on with it. Aint so easy at three in the morning when some bastard is creeping around your house and your loved ones are scared shitless.

[John N]

I think people should still be liable to prosecution for unreasonable force.

Assuming that any force is reasonable in any circumstances could create major injustices.

That's not to say that I think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves and their property with all required force.
There have been too many cases where the innocent victims have been victimised again by the law.

Reasonable force is a good determinant because it's flexible and can be used to cover any circumstance.
A fixed 'whatever force you want' law could result in a kid shot dead for scrumping apples.

The problem is in the interpretation of reasonable force. The courts should make clear that they will tend to side with the victims over the criminals.
Reasonable force should be interpreted a lot more liberally, particularly given the less than perfect judgement a victim will be using when confronted by a criminal.
I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to Tony Martin and the others mentioned but I still think reasonable force is right, it just needs a different attitude from the courts.

[johntemp]

Right behind you on this one Bren

I myself have been threatened of charges being pressed against me, after I thumped one of those asylum seekers/ illegal immaigrants.
I was at the traffic lights close to where I live, when this guy sticks his head in the window asking for money. I tell him no, gesturing with my hands for him to go away. He reacts by reaching right into the car, so close that I could feel and smell his breath on my face. This guy was a fairly big guy, about 5'11 and of stocky build, I on the other hand am 5'6 and small build.I raised my hand and hit him in the face, the lights changed and I managed to push his head out of the car, and drive off. As soon as I got home I phoned the police and explained everything including the fact that I had hit him, and was told that they would go and talk to the guy, but that I was to be aware that if the guy made a complaint then I would be arrested.
Luckily, when the guy saw the police he fled, obviously assuming they were there to arrest him. The whole justice system is a joke.

[turbanator]

I think all rights should be lost the minute they cross the threshold.

I'd extend that to the borders of the property, but would hate to see a kid tw@tted with a cricket bat if he was just retriving a football.

Having said that, kids today seem to be entering gardens to retrieve the owner's lawnmowers and anything else they find according to leaflets that our boys in blue sent us, so maybe they should be fair game.

r
Paul

[wreckweasel]

Been there myself..... I suspect your average serving plod is as frustrated with our overly liberal legal system/process as we are.

Maybe one day a politician will treat this seriously, rather than just as their latest gambit in the popularity campaign that is UK politics. Then again hmmmm, we're all sheep... what do we expect!