Defence of the home

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rickshaw-major, Jan 25, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just what we need another new law.

    The current law is enough. All it needs is the accused to judged by 12 (15 in Scotland) of his/her peers and if they find him/her not guilty they are free to go.
  2. I think that the british should go to a more US style ie if you are on my land and I ask you to leave and you don`t = tough you get whats coming. This should include death if the burglar is armed. If hes not armed make sure he is before the police arrive. Going on current police behaviour unless you happen to be a police chief this will take several hours by which time the chav is armed and you have got your story straight.
  3. Well said. The police are just a reaction force. They really can't prevent something from happening, unless there are enough of them and they patrol to such an extent that you have a police state. They may catch the bad guys later on, but the damage has been done. Where I live, you have the right to respond with equal force. Of course, that doesn't mean you can shoot someone just for breaking in. But you can hold them at gun-point until the police arrive. If they run away, there's nothing you can do.
  4. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The current law is bollocks. There should be no need to be tried by 12 of your peers if you are defending your family or property. You should be innocent of any crime by default, not have to defend your actions when the criminal has stepped outside the law by being there in the first place.

    The current system whereby burglers are suing householders for injuries suffered in the course of them committing a crime is ludicrous. The message would be clear with this proposal, if you don't want to suffer death or serious injury, don't enter someones house, if you do then everything that follows is your fault.
  5. I thought the law was pretty clear on all this.
    You're safe as long as you use reasonable force compared to the threat as you perceive at the time of the incident, and feel your in genuine danger.

    Although I could be wrong, and I suspect some of our more legal/Police minded types will be along shortly to set me straight.

    Edited to add:
    Of course Ord_Sgt is bang on the money.
  6. "I was in fear for my life Officer." Just remember that line when questioned by the police after a chav bashing experience.
  7. I should imagine that, for most people, the biggest motivating factor in self-defence is fear. Fear of the consequences of not defending yourself. Obviously if you are going to use violence to defend yourself you want to make sure that you render the intruder unable to cause you harm, you don't want to just hurt him and piss him off so he really goes to town on you. If you hit someone hard enough to render him incapable of inflicting injury then you are likely to inflict enough damage to kill him if you hit him around the head or neck in particular.
    Obviously the ideal would be to smash his knee. This is quite easy to do if you happen to be carrying a pickaxe helve but somewhat more difficult if all you're carrying is a torch. Most people realise that you have to deliver a blow to the head with considerable force to render someone unconscious and, since you don't want to make him angry, you give him your full effort. Is it then your fault that your full effort was actually enough to cause brain damage or even kill him? You were consumed with fear, adrenalin had kicked in giving you strength you didn't know you possessed, in the heat of the moment how can you possibly assess whether this new-found strength is sufficient to deliver a killer blow? Indeed, how would you know you possessed this new found strength until you actually delivered the blow?
    I don't think we need new laws we just need the present laws tested before a jury. I've never heard of them convicting where there is clearly a case of self-defence although, to me, the latest case is more likely diminished responsibility because of what had occurred to he and his family affecting his judgement, he may even have felt the intruder may come back to further torture the family so was acting in self-defence of a perceived future threat.
  8. let justice be done by the law, in court.- bit presumptuous there arent we pal?

    hm, with police response times sometimes measured in days and weeks, exactly how are the scum going to wind up in court?

    I like the American 'castle doctrine' because as they say over there,
    'when seconds count, the police are only minutes away'
  9. This will come as a shock to you mate - I agree with you! :twisted: :twisted: Why should someone have to go through the legal system including having DNA samples taken because some fecker breaks into his or her home!
  10. Absolutely bang on the money.

    Break in to someone house and you should lose all protection under the law, up to and including being killed by the home owner.

    100% of the burglars killed by Tony Martin have not since re offended.
  11. +1.

    I really am fed up with being the only person having no 'rights' being white, hetero, of UK birth and a tax(1) payer.

    (1) Don't get me started on this one.
  12. Absolutely, never waiver, just repeat that line. Never mention property or possesions.

  13. "Tough on crime,tough on the causes of crime."
  14. In my experience most cases don't even get to court. It is only those ones where the intruder has tried to run away and has been clobbered as he ran away.
    I don't think it presumptuous to expect justice in court, the police aren't going to falsify evidence against you and a jury isn't going to convict you if they don't think you're guilty. The law allows you to protect yourself that is now, and always has been, the case.
    VH has it right, you must be protecting yourself and your family.