Householders arrested after 'burglar' is killed

[oldironside]

"Three people were arrested yesterday in connection with the stabbing to death a suspected burglar. The intruder was said to be among four masked men who tried to smash their way into the property in the early hours of yesterday.

The death comes days after David Cameron said families should "feel safe in their homes", as he promised that homeowners would not be punished for using "reasonable force" to protect themselves."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/householders-arrested-after-burglar-is-killed-2302081.html

An emotive topic. How far does "an Englishman's home is his castle" go these days? It's difficult to find anyone with sympathy for the dead man. I personally tend to side with the homeowners.

[mackerel]

1. Dunno I would usually tend to side with the homeowners.

They say the accomplices were actually trying to drag the body with them when police came.

[non sociopath skin]

2. I don't think there can ever be a "solution" to this.

Some people, faced with criminal intrusion, will be adrenaline-fired enough to attack the intruders. It's a gut reaction.

But, on the other hand, a legal system which states that it's OK to maim or to kill in certain non-military situations is going to open up a legislative nightmare.

It can probably only be dealt with case-by-case.

The Skin

[oldironside]

3. I would tend to agree with that.

It's a very basic instinct to protect your own territory. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered being burgled, but friends of mine who have say the sense of violation is worse than having things taken.

Still, someone's dead and an apparently law abiding citizen is getting the third degree from the rozzers. Bad business all round.

[LeftishBrit]

4. It's a complicated issue

On the one hand, I tend to sympathize with anyone who finds their house suddenly invaded by four masked men, tries to defend themselves, and in such a crisis, perhaps uses stronger force than intended. It's hardly a premeditated murder. And people who choose to burgle people's houses are doing so at their own risk, and must realize that their nasty 'trade' is not covered by the health and safety acts!

On the other hand, I fear that a blanket weakening of the laws might give some people license to kill out of revenge rather than self-defence.

I don't think you can have simple rules for all cases; as others have said, it probably needs to be decided case by case.

[Nihil]

5. Far more complicated than it needs to be.

> I don't think you can have simple rules for all cases

I disagree.

IF
the "application of forceful defence" happens on the property (whose boundaries
are already clearly defined by law)
AND
the applicant is a resident of the invaded property
AND
there was no explicit invitation to encourage the burglar onto the property
THEN
full responsibility for resulting injuries is completely & totally on the burglar.


Why try to introduce complications when there is no need for them?

There is no justification whatsoever for a burglar to invade the property.
Once they decide to cross that line, it is totally their fault.

The location of the "application of forceful defence" clause puts the "pursuit for
violent revenge" case back under the existing laws. Off the property, the usual
"reasonable force" qualifier for a citizen's arrest comes into play.

The "resident" clause provides the distinction between a householder and a
professionally hired security guard.

The "no explicit invitation" prevents entrapment. (And no, a slightly open
window on the first floor is in no way an explicit invitation.)

Why complicate the situation above & beyond the existing laws that the burglar
has voluntarily decided to break?
:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Your 'simple' rules would permit the household to detain and torture the burglar

for as long as they like, and to do anything with them. Obviously, you are being far too simplistic. At the very least, you need to provide your definition of 'forceful defence' (since that does not appear to be a standard legal term).

[Nihil]

8. I wasn't under the impression that this was *instead* of calling the police?

As a result, the maximum time available for the "detention & torture"
option would be determined by the response of the police to the 999 call
and, as stated, there are already legal definitions for the amount of
reasonable force allowed during a citizen's arrest once the initial
attack has been controlled.
:shrug:


"forceful defence" = "application of force in the process of defending
ones home & family"

(Sorry - I didn't intend that my suggestion be taken literally as a draft proposal
and so kept it conversational rather than legislative.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. If 'reasonable force' still applies on the property, that could be OK

I had taken this paragraph from you to mean that it would only apply off the property, and that the resident had a free(-er?) hand on the property:

The location of the "application of forceful defence" clause puts the "pursuit for violent revenge" case back under the existing laws. Off the property, the usual "reasonable force" qualifier for a citizen's arrest comes into play.

I think there is always a need for force to be 'reasonable' - wherever or by whomever it's applied.

[Nihil]

12. The value of "reasonable" varies depending upon the circumstances.

My view is that any force is reasonable to either repel or subdue the attacker(s).

Once that initial ("hot-blooded") goal has been achieved - either by driving the
attacker off the premises or by disarming them & rendering them captive whilst
awaiting the arrival of the police - then the normal (= existing) rules apply
with regard to the interpretation of "reasonable".


> I think there is always a need for force to be 'reasonable' - wherever or
> by whomever it's applied.

I agree and so the concept of indefinite capture & torture is no more "reasonable"
than the use of flame-throwers or poison darts. In an emergency situation however,
when your home & everyone in it is under attack from persons unknown, then it is
unreasonable to expect the victim to consider the feelings of the perpetrator whilst
in the middle of their defence.

[non sociopath skin]

7. And, in your opinion, this would hold true in the case of the death of the intruder?

The Skin

[Nihil]

9. Yes.

Assuming the same caveat as in my answer to Muriel: this is not intended as
an alternative to alerting the police nor to justify vengeful actions after
the initial attack has been brought under control.

If the "hot blooded defence" whilst under attack results in the offender's
death, so be it.

:shrug:

[non sociopath skin]

11. Hmm ...

:shrug:indeed ...

The Skin