The right to defend yourself in your home
 

Once again this story hits the headlines again.

Granted we will not know the outcome of this case until November any how on the radio phone in today people rung in telling there story's and most of them got a period in prison from one month to a year or more and most were fined. If a person or persons enters your property illegally they have crosses the line from citizen to criminal, what are you to do when you face them? Have tea and biscuits and help yourself to my stuff, of course not. Your thinking about yourself or your wife and children this person could be a house breaker to a killer so you are going to put up a fight and stop them, and yet in this country you face being punished for defending your home and family.


The Government say, we have the right to defend ourselves and yet in law there is no hard facts laid out, it's all a grey area. So when the heck is this grey area going to be resolved? This year? Next year? Ten years from now? or most likely never as there are too many bleeding heart liberals working hand in glove with the EU laws.

The contentious issue is the use of 'excessive' force if defending yourself.

However, if someone tries to have it away with my DVD collection or anything else for that matter (which I've worked hard to pay for) after having smashed in my back door, then I regard no force as excessive enough in stopping them, because they bloody well asked for anything they got. And if I was on a Jury for a case such as this, I'd recommend giving the homeowner a medal, not a fine or custodial sentence.

The law is indeed 'an ass' a lot of the time.

:D Chock

Move to Texas where it is legal to shoot any one trespassing on your property all you need is a "trespassing" sign or a fence. It doesn't mater if it's excessive or not.

God Bless Texas:rock:

They have to be inside the house though. Just on the property isn't enough.

Yeah Steed it's the same over here. Really pathetic when you aren't supposed to protect your own home.

Edit: This is what recently happened in my state; http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/hom....ap/index.html

One less burglar in the world, I don't see a problem.

Give the guy a medal.

If anyone broke in to my home one thing is for sure they are going out in a wooden box.

Great. :down: I am expected to put up the white flag, say take what you want, keep my mouth shut and let some scummy crook terrorize my family in the process. :nope:

Pretty much - but you fogot the part where you tell your would be intruder to 'Stop - give me a minute while I call the cops. Then you can proceed with your breaking and entering and stealing and killing.'

-S

No problem
Beat the cr@p out of the intruder then dump the body a few streets away

Whats he gonna say ?
I was burgling **** and got beat up ?

Worse - he is going to get a lawyer and sue you for everything you're worth. Its cheaper and better for society to just shoot him.

In most US states you are right. In order to use deadly force you have to be in fear of your life or the have someone inside your home. But in Texas the law allows one to use deadly force to protect property. It's origins come from the wild west in regards to horse rustling. Because of Texas' size and remoteness if one was to steal/kill the horse it would present risk of death.

One law that i wish was still on the books was if a husband came home and found his wife cheating he was legally allowed to kill both. Women did not have this right.

Don't forget Wooly the law will back the scumbag to the hilt, your going down as well, so go all the way and rid the world of one more scumbag.

I'm scanning my room, trying to find something that's worth killing over.

.....not really.

There's self-defence, and then there's wooden-box talk.

This has become commonplace in the U.S. now. The law refuses to prosecute the criminal or lets them off with only a slap on the hand while clamping down on the ability of citizens to defend life, limb, and family from violent criminals. We are fast becoming a police state.

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/stor...5EE7C&gsa=true

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...our_lives.html

Police State? Maybe

I'm trying to reconcile defense of property with the idea of burglary resulting in death.

I guess it all depends upon which death is most legitimate, that of the home owner, or that of the burglar.

Here is an example:
(CBS/AP) Two men described by authorities as career criminals were arraigned Tuesday in the home invasion and arson that took the lives of three members of a Cheshire family.

A bail commissioner said Hayes and Komisarjevky each have records that include more than 20 prior burglaries. Both had been out of prison on parole.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3092098.shtml

Right, on this one I have to be a bit skeptical Tchocky - I find the idea that burglary would neccesarily be non-violent a little naive. The burglars themselves probably don't expect you to allow anything to be taken just like that, even if you'd seem cooperative. Chances are, if you're present, there will be a strong desire on their part to get rid of you - at least incapacitate.

I personally knew two people who were attacked in or near their dwellings when I lived in Russia - one was stabbed, the other was hit on the head with a large metal object. Both spent lengthy stays in hospitals, and given the nature of the attacks, those responsible probably weren't much concerned for their victims' survival. (In both cases, by the way, the goods stolen were hardly of any real value).

On the other hand, I should note that this article is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say that one doesn't really need to own a gun to confront an invader and, if things get bad, have him on a one-way trip to the morgue - but I won't pull this little argument further ;)

Burglars eventually become murderers if they think they can get away with it. And there's no guarantee that a burglar may have intentions excluding or including anything more than mere burglary. Therefore I go with Murphys' Law in this case and will kill the burglar first before the burglar has a chance to kill me.

If the former were true, wouldn't the violent crime and property crime levels have some correlation with each other? At the moment it seems like they don't - in 2005 the level of property crimes in the United States was ten times higher than the level of violent crime. If we had a statistic of property/violent crimes vs. property/non-violent crimes that would be better, but the BoJS page is dreadful. However from this I think it's safe to infer that an enormous majority of property crimes do not turn violent, else the property/violent crime levels would be closer.

So while the horribly brutal home invasions that make the six o'clock news are good TV, thankfully they remain unusual. And in the unfortunate state of affairs where some must resort to stealing to keep their families afloat and some just don't know better through mental illness or what have you, I can never condone the intentional use of deadly force against a human being simply for entering your home. If that human being displays an interest in harming a man or his loved ones, then obviously no law should detain him in their defence. Short of that, it's just stuff. You can help out the economy by buying more.

We have the same law policy here, but last yr a break through in the justice system, or maybe the judge just knew it was the right thing to do. Guy enters a gun shop with a machette threatening to kill everyone, the gun shop owner pulls out a revolver and shoots him, police charge him for using a firearm in a public place some bullshat charge. He was defending himself and who knows what the machette guy would of done. Anyway the gunshop owner got let off, case dismissed by the judge. Thats a first time thats happened.