This is just so wrong
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
The point is that the poor chap who is the victim here is facing an extremely stressful, anxious wait to find out if he will face charges. An explicit provision in law allowing for an absolute right to use lethal force to protect your home (with no caveats regarding proportionality or reasonableness) would prevent such a situation arising. An intruder in someone’s home should be assumed to have forfeited any and all human rights.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 54
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
The point is that the poor chap who is the victim here is facing an extremely stressful, anxious wait to find out if he will face charges. An explicit provision in law allowing for an absolute right to use lethal force to protect your home (with no caveats regarding proportionality or reasonableness) would prevent such a situation arising. An intruder in someone’s home should be assumed to have forfeited any and all human rights.
A) accept homeowner’s word that it was a burglar, get the body removed and give homeowner the number of a good cleaning company
B) investigate properly to find out what actually happened?
You might say A, but what if B found that the ‘burglar’ was actually someone who got Mr Homeowner’s 16 year old daughter pregnant on a one night stand. Homeowner got him round on the pretext of discussing the situation, but once he was inside buried the carving knife in him?
Must be frustrating that real life is rarely black and white!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
The point is that the poor chap who is the victim here is facing an extremely stressful, anxious wait to find out if he will face charges.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 698
The usual two types of poster in this thread;
"Shoot and kill the bastards they all deserve it and with them dead the community will be that much better off"
and...
"Let the laws of a civilised society take care of the matter"
It's a bit like the Brexit discussion, none will listen to the other.
The first are the 'tough guys' of society, "can take care of myself and my family thank you very much, don't pay much attention to your mamby pamby laws" - personally, I don't very much like this sort of person.
"Shoot and kill the bastards they all deserve it and with them dead the community will be that much better off"
and...
"Let the laws of a civilised society take care of the matter"
It's a bit like the Brexit discussion, none will listen to the other.
The first are the 'tough guys' of society, "can take care of myself and my family thank you very much, don't pay much attention to your mamby pamby laws" - personally, I don't very much like this sort of person.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,433
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
The point is that the poor chap who is the victim here is facing an extremely stressful, anxious wait to find out if he will face charges. An explicit provision in law allowing for an absolute right to use lethal force to protect your home (with no caveats regarding proportionality or reasonableness) would prevent such a situation arising. An intruder in someone’s home should be assumed to have forfeited any and all human rights.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 31
funfly wrote: The first are the 'tough guys' of society, "can take care of myself and my family thank you very much, don't pay much attention to your mamby pamby laws" - personally, I don't very much like this sort of person.
Should we assume that you prefer the CAN'T take care of myself OR my family type?
Colour me bemused......
Should we assume that you prefer the CAN'T take care of myself OR my family type?
Colour me bemused......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,433
Originally Posted by cargosales
BBC reporting that this gentleman will face 'No Further Action' = police have done their duty and investigated, as they are obliged to do, but see no reason to take things further.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat
Yeah right. A gatecrasher at a party? Who is tolerated for the first few hours, until they become drunk and (non-violently) noisy, and is then dis-not-invited so becomes an "intruder"?
Essentially, yes. When he is asked politely to leave and refuses to do so, the law should (and does, here) permit you to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to remove him from your property.
This is not the same as finding someone in your home uninvited, holding what you perceive as a weapon with intent that you can quite sensibly assume is contrary to your continued good health. "It was dark, he had a weapon and I feared for my life"
Some states in the US have "castle" or "no duty to retreat" laws that grant folks the right to defend their lives and property. I have to say, I think they are on the right track and I wish sometimes we had similar legislation here in Canada because I think, and most reasonable people would agree that it better reflects the spirit of common law. Consider that for a second, but be careful to separate these rights from the American 2nd amendment argument.
It is always about intent. I intend to live my life in peace and safety in my home, working to provide the means to do so and giving what I can to help other achieve the same. There are criminals who intend to violate this scene and take what I have achieved rather than work for it themselves.
Our problem is that we are not building a society that unequivocally nurtures the first and mercilessly hammers the second.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,433
Originally Posted by Viper 7
Essentially, yes. When he is asked politely to leave and refuses to do so, the law should (and does, here) permit you to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to remove him from your property.
Once Upon A Time there was this drunk gatecrasher asleep in our bath. We could have picked him up and chucked him out of the house, but it was bloody freezing and he'd have been found dead in the morning. So we called the cops, just to ask for advice.
Cops turned up, took one look at him, "we're not having that in our car", called a van (we were all of half a mile from the cop shop so this didn't take very long). Policemen picked him up, carried him out of the house, put him down on the pavement, and walked away a few yards.
Then they turned round, and said "oh look what we've found someone drunk and incapable in a public place, better arrest him". Took him to the police station, kept him overnight (in the warm, and regularly checked for his safety), gave him breakfast, charged him, fined £30 when he appeared in court a couple of days later (this was a long time ago, think several hundred now). And the guy came round to see us to apologise for having been a pain.
That's the way to do it. Right to kill intruders, no questions asked? FFS.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,173
Thank god that since the Tories toughened up the law in favour of householders, most of these cases end in no further action. I am especially happy that it has happened in this case.
My issue is that this poor chap was incarcerated for 24 hours having just been the victim of a violent attack in his own home in the middle of the night by two criminals a lot younger than him.
Anyone who thinks this is acceptable in a civilised society has a screw loose.
I am not for a minute saying that either grossly disproportionate force is acceptable (such as for example a beating in the gatecrasher example given) nor am I saying that Police shouldn't conduct a full investigation.
But it should not be beyond the wit of investigators to establish within say 1-2 hours of arriving what happened and if there is anything which doesn't quite add up.
My issue is that this poor chap was incarcerated for 24 hours having just been the victim of a violent attack in his own home in the middle of the night by two criminals a lot younger than him.
Anyone who thinks this is acceptable in a civilised society has a screw loose.
I am not for a minute saying that either grossly disproportionate force is acceptable (such as for example a beating in the gatecrasher example given) nor am I saying that Police shouldn't conduct a full investigation.
But it should not be beyond the wit of investigators to establish within say 1-2 hours of arriving what happened and if there is anything which doesn't quite add up.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,863
I guess that one reason for arresting the householder and removing them from the premises is to obviate the possibility of adjusting the crime scene before it has been thoroughly examined by SOCO.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,846
Sorry Doors to Automatic I'm going to have to admit to a screw loose in that case. Given how slowly the law usually works, I reckon less than 24 hours is pretty good. I note your use of the emotive word "incarcerated" which while technically correct implies something a lot less pleasant than what I suspect happened. I'm guessing this involved ultra polite treatment, as comfy a bed as they could manage as well as meals and as many cups of tea as he wanted
Doubt if they stretched to a Guinness though!
Doubt if they stretched to a Guinness though!
