Home Defence..or 'Go ahead, punk; make my day!'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OldAdam, Dec 4, 2004.

?
  1. Do nothing and allow yourself to be burgled/killed/raped, etc

    1.1%
  2. Try to 'negotiate', appealing to the burglar's better nature?

    2.1%
  3. Kill the b*stard, call the police and throw yourself on the mercy of the legal system?

    28.4%
  4. Kill the b*stard, say nothing and feed the remains to the pigs/deep six it?

    68.4%

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. Time to let people kill burglars in their homes, says Met chief
    By John Steele, Home Affairs Correspondent
    (Filed: 04/12/2004)

    Householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary to defend their homes against criminals, even if it involves killing the intruder, the country's most senior police officer said yesterday.

    Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said those who defended their families and property should only face prosecution over injuries to intruders in "extreme circumstances", where they could be shown to have used gratuitous violence.


    Sir John: 'People should be allowed to use what force is necessary'
    Speaking exclusively to the Telegraph, days after John Monckton, a financier, was stabbed to death in an attempted robbery at his home in Chelsea, Sir John said: "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and that they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.

    "There's a definite feeling around when I go out on the beat with officers and talk to members of the public that we need clarity in the law."

    He said the current legal test of "reasonable force", which has evolved in common law, seemed to be weighted against householders and left the public confused about their rights.

    Sir John suggested replacing it with legislation that put a statutory duty on police, prosecutors and the courts to presume that the force someone used in their home against a violent intruder was within the law, unless the facts clearly disproved this.

    Other police chiefs shared his view - the strongest assertion of a home owner's right to self-defence issued by a senior officer in recent times - that there was too much doubt about what people could do, he said. The issue should be resolved by Parliament as "a matter of urgency."

    Sir John, who will step down in January after five years as commissioner, said: "There is a real difficulty in people understanding what force they can use to defend themselves, their loved ones, their families and their homes. In years gone by I think there was a broad understanding of what it meant.

    "The test at the moment is that you use reasonable force in the circumstances. You do not use excessiveness. I think the test of reasonableness needs to be looked at and clarified within statute.

    "The thing is too imprecise at the moment for people when they are in extremis. You should be absolutely clear about what your legal rights are to defend yourself."

    He suggested that the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a 16-year-old burglar, Fred Barras, in August 1999, was exceptional one which had distorted the issue of self-defence.

    Martin, he pointed out, "did shoot the burglar as he was running away. He did use a gun that was illegal. The Martin case skewed everything and it was the wrong case to concentrate on".

    Speaking at Scotland Yard, Sir John said: "Now is the time, specifically with these two cases we have had recently - in Chiswick and Chelsea - for the law to be clarified." The Chiswick case involved a teacher stabbed to death in his home in west London. A man has been charged with his murder.

    "It's all very well for the lawyers to say the law is clear, but I'm afraid people on the street don't feel that, and on occasions neither do the police," said Sir John.

    "Of course you don't want to have gratuitous or excessive violence… but you have to be given the power to use what is necessary.

    "I'm not talking about guns but people being allowed to defend themselves and use whatever is necessary to defend themselves against someone who may well be armed with a knife."

    There should be a presumption in law "that the person using the force to defend themselves is acting within the law, rather than the other way round".

    Even if a struggle led to the death of an intruder, Sir John added, the law would presume that the person in that house had acted lawfully "and let the law change that presumption because of fact in evidence".

    He said: "The message it sends to the would-be attacker is, `Do not think you can come into people's homes and people will not defend themselves with the right type of force that's necessary.' At the moment it seems it's the other way round."

    ...............................................................

    At last! Someone in authority talking common sense, instead of PC crap...
    Pity he took so long to say it, just as he's about to retire :roll:
     
  2. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Will he be running for Parliament ? It's a mega vote winner !
    (With the exception of the chav demographic)

    Is it a coincidence thet he's chosen this opportunity to speak out ?

    Was he concerned he'd get an interview without coffee so he'd toe the line like Jesus Jim received on the eve of his being made CC ?
    Instructions from Blind Pugh - or perhaps a 'little walk in the country' á la Dr Kelly......?
     
  3. Cutaway asked
    Senior Service Officers (and the Police are no different) are usually 'on message' until they retire. Thereafter they have robust and opposing views to those of their previous political masters and never miss an opportunity to express their views in a broadsheet. Sir John may be jumping the gun a little, still being Met Commissioner and it wouldn’t surprise me if fanny magnet Blunktw@t slaps him down. But Sir John is right.

    Bring back Sir James Anderton. He didn’t faff about. He wasn’t popular with the fluffy brigade. Was he bothered? Was he fack.

    http://www.uk-emergencyservices.com/new/police/history_story.asp?id=9&section=p

    He made Judge Dredd look like a leading light in Amnesty International.
     
  4. It always amazes me that if you defend yourself in your own house, you more than likely will go to prison. :roll:

    Are you supposed to just stand there and let them do what they want? You break into someones home, you deserve whatever you get.
     
  5. Corporal asked

    That's the idea. Under no circumstances obstruct the intruder while he blags your stuff, rapes your wife and children and kills you. To do so is mean spirited and if the intruder is from an ethnic minority, racist. :roll:
     
  6. The whole "resonable force" is a farce, me it's 15 inch bowie, or 13 inch machete.
     
  7. This is where the short & handy Mosin-Nagant M44 Carbine comes in:

    If he's armed with a blunt object, you butt-strike him.
    Pointy or bladey thing - quickly unfold the spike bayonet & perforate him from a safe distance.
    Bangy projectiley thing - A high velocity lead injection is called for...

    :twisted:

    Inevitable boring disclaimer: the above is satire. Honest.
     
  8. We should have the same rights as most of the US - if you feel threatened, then you can cap the b'stard.
     
  9. This topic is a recurring issue that winds us all up.

    In my mind when the thieving scum sucking b*stard enters your property, uninvited he/she relinquish their rights and immediately expose themselves to a serious arrse wooping from an assortment of weapons, none of which are their choice. Death is preferable as it immediately relieves the homeowner and his family from further fear and it saves the tax payer from having to deal with the legal issues. A law should be passed where the homeowner can sue the family of the home invader for compensation for the pain, fear and disruption experienced.

    In other words the rights of the victim should be absolutely paramount. The rights of the lawbreaker should be suspended the moment they commence their crime.
     
  10. In my book lethal force is an appropriate response to anyone who invades your home, no matter what the intention. You have no idea what is coming through the door/window and the only possible response, in defence of your family and your property, is the maximum that you are capable of delivering. Give him a warning, by all means, but let him know that the next thing he gets from you will be physical, violent and detrimental to his health.
    There seems to be a popular misconception (amongst those of the liberal persuasion) that your property is somehow not as important as the life of the goblin who is trying to abstract it. I look at it this way; I spent a significant amount of my life working to obtain that property, time that can never be replaced. Therefore he has stolen part of my life, plus the same amount of time that I would have to spend replacing that property.
    'So, that's what insurance is for!' goes the cry... But I pay for insurance, and so does everybody else, so he steals more than just part of my life, he steals part of yours, too!
    Apart from that, it's the principle of the thing.
    Why should some submoronic, junked up goblin invade my home, terrorise my family and steal my property?
    Whomsoever crosses my threshold with evil intent, pays for it the hard way!
    Just think of it as evolution in action!
     
  11. In a Nutshell, best answer In ages.

    Now its time that the Pollies, extracted their digits and go with the flow ASAP
     
  12. I'd add if the dead miscreant turns out to be unarmed make sure that the knife you bought and never touched and that was kept in a sealed bag now finds it's way into the dead miscreants hand after making sure his DNA is all over it.

    And don't forget if you banjo the b*stard outside your house drag him back inside.

    Please note that the above is illegal so you must not do it you naughty boys..................unless no one is watching :wink:
     
  13. "Bring back Sir James Anderton. He didn’t faff about. He wasn’t popular with the fluffy brigade. Was he bothered? Was he fack."

    Eeh I'd forgotten him, Chief Constable for Manchester, what a player.
    john
     
  14. Soldier_Why

    Soldier_Why LE Moderator

    Happened upon a radio phone in on this subject today and nearly put my boot through the radio when some liberal tosser came on with this gem

    'It's a really bad idea to have a weapon in your house because then the intruder will only come armed as well'

    So by that reckoning then, should I just leave my door unlocked and all my valuables in plain view? I mean I wouldn't want to antagonise the poor burglar would I? If I lock my door he'll only come with a means of getting in won't he? What have I been thinking? All these years I've been securing my house when I go to bed at night and all I've been really doing is inviting some tw*t to come and help themselves!

    Pad mines liberally sprinkled around the front lawn is the way to go I feel.
     
  15. So if you're a liberal/bleeding heart veggie, the criminals WONT bring a weapon :?:
    I look forward to hearing of this t0sser's experiences when he finds some junkie turd in his home(if he survives the encounter).
    Arrsehole(not you - him)