ChatterBank8 mins ago
Bash A Burglar?
50 Answers
http://
The government has managed to water down the promise that it would allow householders to use extra force against burglars.
Is anyone surprised? What happens is that governments make great promises about self-defence, generally in response to tabloid stories playing on the ignorance of their readership about the law, and then, belatedly, realise that the common law long established over centuries, summarised by the Privy Council in 1971 and put into statute as recently as 2008, makes perfect sense and tinkering with it in the way this government proposed makes it incomprehensible and unworkable
The government has managed to water down the promise that it would allow householders to use extra force against burglars.
Is anyone surprised? What happens is that governments make great promises about self-defence, generally in response to tabloid stories playing on the ignorance of their readership about the law, and then, belatedly, realise that the common law long established over centuries, summarised by the Privy Council in 1971 and put into statute as recently as 2008, makes perfect sense and tinkering with it in the way this government proposed makes it incomprehensible and unworkable
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim360,
You know that, and I know that, but the nodding donkeys at the Conservative Conference didn't know that. Graylings speech was just what they wanted to hear, which is why he said it.
It resulted in positive video for newsnight, good headlines, and a blip of approval in the opinion polls.
But a few months later, we are told the law is perfectly adequate as it is, the speech was cynical politicking, nonsense, and cheap.
I take back what I said before about it being a U-Turn. Two years into the job Grayling must have known that what he was promising was undeliverable. It was just lies and manipulation.
You know that, and I know that, but the nodding donkeys at the Conservative Conference didn't know that. Graylings speech was just what they wanted to hear, which is why he said it.
It resulted in positive video for newsnight, good headlines, and a blip of approval in the opinion polls.
But a few months later, we are told the law is perfectly adequate as it is, the speech was cynical politicking, nonsense, and cheap.
I take back what I said before about it being a U-Turn. Two years into the job Grayling must have known that what he was promising was undeliverable. It was just lies and manipulation.
have to say - what's happened to 'an Englishman's home is his castle' - as a (now) single woman (lady?) I will have no hesitation in robustly defending my person and property if I feel it threatened - I have lived in a country renowned for it's violence and therefore took a self defence course designed to immobilise unauthorised persons on my property.
Jim, have you a link? I've been through the bill, online, from the House of Lords, explained to be ready for the Royal Assent, and the government's fact sheet about it and I can't find any reference to self-defence in s30 or anywhere else in it!
But from what you say, the proposals do not make minor amendments to existing law. They make no change to the law at all . Anyone who knows the law; at category which does not include Mr Grayling; can see that. Even the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Act, s76, in its reference to to someone having done what they honestly and instinctively thought was right, is quoting verbatim from a judgment, the speech of Lord Morris, in Palmer v R a 1971 Privy Council case, a statement approved several times by the Court of Appeal, and which has been taken ever since as binding on the Courts. It is but a concise statement of the common law.
But from what you say, the proposals do not make minor amendments to existing law. They make no change to the law at all . Anyone who knows the law; at category which does not include Mr Grayling; can see that. Even the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Act, s76, in its reference to to someone having done what they honestly and instinctively thought was right, is quoting verbatim from a judgment, the speech of Lord Morris, in Palmer v R a 1971 Privy Council case, a statement approved several times by the Court of Appeal, and which has been taken ever since as binding on the Courts. It is but a concise statement of the common law.
http://
This isn't the latest version, but I do not believe that there have been any changes to Section 30 since.
And the law which it is amending can be found here.
http://
You're right - the changes to the law are minimal if any, and if anything have probably served to muddy the waters rather than to clear them.
This isn't the latest version, but I do not believe that there have been any changes to Section 30 since.
And the law which it is amending can be found here.
http://
You're right - the changes to the law are minimal if any, and if anything have probably served to muddy the waters rather than to clear them.
But you only have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger and .....oh can't find who said it, and can't look back on an iPad but there is also the bit about making fine judgement in the circumstances. In all honesty I would not want to kill a burglar in my house bit I would want to drive them out by whatever means and that would include violent attack
The situation is not ludicrous because as it stands precisely what you are describing is deemed, in most cases, to be fine and legal. Sure, the police may investigate, and they should do so since potentially a death is involved. But thus far every prosecuted case has, once you dig into it, good reasons for doing so. Shooting a burglar dead when they were running away; beating up someone who robbed your house something like 30 minutes after the fact; if anyone can find another example I'd point out similar problems.
By contrast, if someone broke into your house and you came across them, then anything that you do on the spur of the moment short of shooting or stabbing them while they aren't even aware of you is likely to be considered "reasonable force". The confrontation with a burglar begins the moment you are both aware of each other's presence, and once that starts and is in any way likely to turn nasty you will already have self-defence common law on your side. The only point is this: if the burglar runs away screaming immediately and never threatens you then you are not in danger and have no case for self-defence. If he is retreating then your chasing after him similarly is not self-defence, but aggression. If he is unaware of your presence then your life is in no danger.
But if he charges at you, or stands his ground, then do whatever you feel you have to to stop him. You don't have to wait to establish fully his motive; you don't have to assess the situation rationally and calmly. In those circumstances the law will be on your side -- and 'twas ever thus.
By contrast, if someone broke into your house and you came across them, then anything that you do on the spur of the moment short of shooting or stabbing them while they aren't even aware of you is likely to be considered "reasonable force". The confrontation with a burglar begins the moment you are both aware of each other's presence, and once that starts and is in any way likely to turn nasty you will already have self-defence common law on your side. The only point is this: if the burglar runs away screaming immediately and never threatens you then you are not in danger and have no case for self-defence. If he is retreating then your chasing after him similarly is not self-defence, but aggression. If he is unaware of your presence then your life is in no danger.
But if he charges at you, or stands his ground, then do whatever you feel you have to to stop him. You don't have to wait to establish fully his motive; you don't have to assess the situation rationally and calmly. In those circumstances the law will be on your side -- and 'twas ever thus.
''If he is unaware of your presence then your life is in no danger.''
I would disagree strongly with that, because as soon as he DOES become aware of you then your life is in danger. I'm a girl and if I can sneak up behind some jerk whose burgling my house and might potentially rape or kill me and smack him over the head until he's at least unconscious then that's what I will do because once a 6ft guy charges at me and I realise my life is in danger for sure it's too late. He did have the option not to be there in the first place.
I would disagree strongly with that, because as soon as he DOES become aware of you then your life is in danger. I'm a girl and if I can sneak up behind some jerk whose burgling my house and might potentially rape or kill me and smack him over the head until he's at least unconscious then that's what I will do because once a 6ft guy charges at me and I realise my life is in danger for sure it's too late. He did have the option not to be there in the first place.
To be honest I'd genuinely try very hard to exert just the right amount of violence to incapacitate them but I would be erring on the side of caution and if they did happen to die accidentally then I wouldn't be losing sleep over it. As I said before they had the option not to break in, not to terrorise people in their own homes and not to potentially place themselves in danger in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the public to second guess their final motive or their capabilities or to know how hard you can hit someone before you kill them.
-- answer removed --
Well, in my sad experience, it takes a seriously huge blow to kill someone -- even the head can take a huge knock without lasting physical damage. Smashing them once or twice over the head with a frying pan will probably knock them out cold, no more. And, if not, then there was no intent to kill and you'd be seriously unlucky to be prosecuted.
My guess is that, for all that, you would lose sleep over it. I know I would. It fundamentally would never matter that they were the ones who started off by breaking the law -- as soon as you have any reason, rational or otherwise, to believe that you could have done something different, oh that will eat at you so much. And killing someone, taking a life, that will be the biggest cause of doubt of all. If you didn't lose sleep over it I'd be amazed. And perhaps even jealous.
The basic point is that the law as it stood covered this pretty well already. Once someone breaks into your house you can get away with a great deal, and rightly so. The cases where people have been prosecuted, the defendants went too far.
My guess is that, for all that, you would lose sleep over it. I know I would. It fundamentally would never matter that they were the ones who started off by breaking the law -- as soon as you have any reason, rational or otherwise, to believe that you could have done something different, oh that will eat at you so much. And killing someone, taking a life, that will be the biggest cause of doubt of all. If you didn't lose sleep over it I'd be amazed. And perhaps even jealous.
The basic point is that the law as it stood covered this pretty well already. Once someone breaks into your house you can get away with a great deal, and rightly so. The cases where people have been prosecuted, the defendants went too far.
Latest Posts
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News16 mins ago
ChatterBank29 mins ago
Damn Savage Why Is This Only Common...
Law50 mins ago
Home & Garden61 mins ago
69M Uninformed Horrible People....and...
News62 mins ago
