Quizzes & Puzzles1 min 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.
Mine was just after xmas as well. The thing that freaked me out is knowing he was in our rooms as we slept.
He lit a candle so we could see where he was by following the candle wax.
We had a 3 story house at the time and my room was on the top floor. He spent far too much time at the end of my bed. If I'd woken up and had a weapon to hand, I would have used it.
He was caught and was given four and a half years in prison.
He lit a candle so we could see where he was by following the candle wax.
We had a 3 story house at the time and my room was on the top floor. He spent far too much time at the end of my bed. If I'd woken up and had a weapon to hand, I would have used it.
He was caught and was given four and a half years in prison.
When Mr Grayling was announcing this only last October at the Consrvative Party Conference, he seemed so clear. As he soaked up the thunderous applause from the blue rince brigade, who would have known that it was all bullsh1t and he would be weasily backtracking just a few months later?
// Mr Grayling wanted to change the law on tackling intruders as soon as possible, he told the Conservative conference, saying it would be included in a crime bill passing through Parliament this autumn.
"We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be today delivering on the pledge that we made in opposition." //
http://
Another one added to Cameron's long list of u-Turns. They really should know that a policy is doable before they announce it. Otherwise, they are shown up for the amateurish opportunists that they are.
Still, they got a little bounce in the opinion polls that month, so mission accomplished.
// Mr Grayling wanted to change the law on tackling intruders as soon as possible, he told the Conservative conference, saying it would be included in a crime bill passing through Parliament this autumn.
"We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be today delivering on the pledge that we made in opposition." //
http://
Another one added to Cameron's long list of u-Turns. They really should know that a policy is doable before they announce it. Otherwise, they are shown up for the amateurish opportunists that they are.
Still, they got a little bounce in the opinion polls that month, so mission accomplished.
I can't "howl in protest" Naomi because if the same thing happened to me I expect I'd react similarly.
The way the legislation has established a limit at "inside" seems odd to me - what happens if he's robbing your shed and has just come out when you find him? And so on and so forth. I'd like to see the official documentation for myself, though.
The way I see it the borderline should be where your property ends, so that includes the garden and the drive, but not much further than that. I also think that the law as it stands at the moment was working fine; this was only ever a cheap attempt to gain popularity.
The way the legislation has established a limit at "inside" seems odd to me - what happens if he's robbing your shed and has just come out when you find him? And so on and so forth. I'd like to see the official documentation for myself, though.
The way I see it the borderline should be where your property ends, so that includes the garden and the drive, but not much further than that. I also think that the law as it stands at the moment was working fine; this was only ever a cheap attempt to gain popularity.
No howl of protest from me either. I don't care why someone breaks in and steals someone else's stuff, if they do it they should expect to get thumped, knifed , shot or koshed depending on what comes to hand first to completely incapacitate them. I wouldn't be taking the chance that they might decide to do the same to me if I asked them to leave nicely :(
True, but the law is saying that once a burglar leaves your house (and/ or grounds, I think ti should be extended to grounds too) then you can't beat him up or chase him indefinitely. Which seems fair enough. No reason not to defend yourself if he is in the house, though, as any confrontation with a burglar could turn nasty real quick if he's desperate enough.
When the Mail writes of "official guidance " but doesn't say where that's from. That's odd, if it wants to condemn the government directly rather than by innuendo.
The government doesn't explain to professionals what its own laws mean! The only government source would be the Ministry of Justice, the very department that trumpeted the law. More likely is that "official" means in a circular from the DPP or the CPS, advising on how prosecutors are to proceed in assessing whether to prosecute, and this was sent to judges for information, or that it emanates from the Lord Chief Justice, to help judges.
The government doesn't explain to professionals what its own laws mean! The only government source would be the Ministry of Justice, the very department that trumpeted the law. More likely is that "official" means in a circular from the DPP or the CPS, advising on how prosecutors are to proceed in assessing whether to prosecute, and this was sent to judges for information, or that it emanates from the Lord Chief Justice, to help judges.
As far as I can tell, the "official guidance" is still just the law as it stands. I managed to find that, it's section 30 of the Crime and Courts Bill. Actually hasn't come into law yet, no Royal Assent given, so already the DM has gone wrong.
Anyway, what it does is make small changes to law that already existed and was perfectly good. As best I can make out, the law says the following:
1) If you have legitimate reason to believe that your life is in danger, you can defend yourself by any means necessary (common law self-defence).
2) If there is no legitimate reason to believe your life is in danger, but your property is, then you can still defend your property, but "reasonable force" must still be used. Simply put, your property isn't worth his life, so you can try to incapacitate him if you want, but there's no grounds for lethal action.
3) The amendments don't restrict what you can do in your garden either, since the law was already in place -- and merely says that the house is to be treated in the same way as outside.
4) The law also allows a certain amount of leeway for people who "just panicked" and over-reacted, since "a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action" (section 76, subsection 7, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
5) In the end you are allowed to defend yourself, but not to attack when there was no threat (direct, imminent or potential) to your life or property. So, while you can chase a man in the street after he's just mugged you or robbed your house, if you do catch him the time when you can claim that you were "defending yourself" has long since past. Can still perform a citizen's arrest if you are able, but no disproportionate violence.
The law was already perfectly good before Chris Grayling stood up last year and made this announcement. The changes ultimately made are tiny and haven't had any effect, so far as I can tell, on what we already had, which worked perfectly well.
Anyway, what it does is make small changes to law that already existed and was perfectly good. As best I can make out, the law says the following:
1) If you have legitimate reason to believe that your life is in danger, you can defend yourself by any means necessary (common law self-defence).
2) If there is no legitimate reason to believe your life is in danger, but your property is, then you can still defend your property, but "reasonable force" must still be used. Simply put, your property isn't worth his life, so you can try to incapacitate him if you want, but there's no grounds for lethal action.
3) The amendments don't restrict what you can do in your garden either, since the law was already in place -- and merely says that the house is to be treated in the same way as outside.
4) The law also allows a certain amount of leeway for people who "just panicked" and over-reacted, since "a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action" (section 76, subsection 7, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
5) In the end you are allowed to defend yourself, but not to attack when there was no threat (direct, imminent or potential) to your life or property. So, while you can chase a man in the street after he's just mugged you or robbed your house, if you do catch him the time when you can claim that you were "defending yourself" has long since past. Can still perform a citizen's arrest if you are able, but no disproportionate violence.
The law was already perfectly good before Chris Grayling stood up last year and made this announcement. The changes ultimately made are tiny and haven't had any effect, so far as I can tell, on what we already had, which worked perfectly well.
