• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Defence of the home

#2
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.
 
#3
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.
 
#4
firthy said:
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.
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.
 
#5
johnboyzzz said:
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.
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.
 
#6
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.
 
#7
"I was in fear for my life Officer." Just remember that line when questioned by the police after a chav bashing experience.
 
#8
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.
 
#9
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'
 
#10
Ord_Sgt said:
johnboyzzz said:
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.
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.
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!
 
#11
Ord_Sgt said:
johnboyzzz said:
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.
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.
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.
 
#12
Aunty Stella said:
Ord_Sgt said:
johnboyzzz said:
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.
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.
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.
+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.
 
#13
firthy said:
"I was in fear for my life Officer." Just remember that line when questioned by the police after a chav bashing experience.
Absolutely, never waiver, just repeat that line. Never mention property or possesions.

VH
 
#15
armr617 said:
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'
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.
 
#16
The law already recognises that people react in a certain way in the heat of the moment and therefore the householder should have nothing to fear if they have used proportionate force in the defence of their home and families.
Burglars, knowing that they could be killed, might be more likely to carry weapons and use extreme violence to the householder and family.
What is more worrying is that with the introducution of juryless trials, the householder and their families will be not be judged by their peers. And going by some the decisions by some of the judges recently..........
 
#17
firthy said:
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.
Dunno really. In some places in America trespassers can be killed without warning.

I always remember a story about a Brit on holiday who got lost late one night while pi$$ed and walking back to his hotel. Walked up somebody's garden path and knocked on the door to ask if he could phone a cab. The householder shot him dead through the door. Didn't even open it. No case to answer.

Britain goes to the other extreme. Householder disturbs a burglar climbing through his fourth floor window. Burglar falls to his death. Householder arrested for murder.

Man discovers knife wielding junkie in his kitchen. Man smacks junkie with snooker cue. Police arrive and arrest man for assault after a complaint from junkie.

The existing law doesn't need to be changed. There just needs to be a clearer definition of what 'reasonable force' is. There also needs to be a greater willingness to lock up persistent burglars. Believe it or not, there's less chance of somebody burgling your house if they are locked up in a prison cell than if they're picking up litter on 'community punishment' after their 100th conviction.

In the meantime, follow the advice of Inspector Gadget, an anonymous police inspector who blogs on the net. Apparently, round his way, there's been a shocking rise in the number of well known burglars discovered lying, unconscious, in the street in the middle of the night. The burglars never claim to have been assaulted - well they'd have to admit burglary, wouldn't they?

If you're going to tw@t a burglar, drag him onto the street afterwards and don't call the police!
 
#18
When I was a civvy living in Manchester back in the eighties a mucker of mine caught someone trying to rob his house. He invited a few of his friends around. The prick was basically tortured for 2 days and was even bummed though not by me as I wasn't there of course. TBH he was lucky to get away with his life.
 
#19
Ancient_Mariner said:
firthy said:
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.
Dunno really. In some places in America trespassers can be killed without warning.

I always remember a story about a Brit on holiday who got lost late one night while pi$$ed and walking back to his hotel. Walked up somebody's garden path and knocked on the door to ask if he could phone a cab. The householder shot him dead through the door. Didn't even open it. No case to answer.

Britain goes to the other extreme. Householder disturbs a burglar climbing through his fourth floor window. Burglar falls to his death. Householder arrested for murder.

Man discovers knife wielding junkie in his kitchen. Man smacks junkie with snooker cue. Police arrive and arrest man for assault after a complaint from junkie.

The existing law doesn't need to be changed. There just needs to be a clearer definition of what 'reasonable force' is. There also needs to be a greater willingness to lock up persistent burglars. Believe it or not, there's less chance of somebody burgling your house if they are locked up in a prison cell than if they're picking up litter on 'community punishment' after their 100th conviction.

In the meantime, follow the advice of Inspector Gadget, an anonymous police inspector who blogs on the net. Apparently, round his way, there's been a shocking rise in the number of well known burglars discovered lying, unconscious, in the street in the middle of the night. The burglars never claim to have been assaulted - well they'd have to admit burglary, wouldn't they?

If you're going to tw@t a burglar, drag him onto the street afterwards and don't call the police!
You talk sense as usual. However what this proposed change will say to the burgler is, while the justice system might give you a light sentence if you get caught, know that you are gambaling with your life against the homeowner if he decides to take you on. It will make some petty thieves think twice, that alone is a good enough reason for it.
 

Latest Threads