How much force is too much force if someone is breaking into your property ?

old golfer · 27th September 2007, 12:31

Do you think this is just another load of hot air from a politician at the Labour Party Conference

There is to be an urgent review of the law protecting those who intervene in criminal situations in England and Wales, the government is to announce. Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has been a "have-a-go hero" four times, said he wanted to clarify "that the law is on the side of the citizen".

He will say self-defence law works "much better than most people think, but not as well as it could or should". Mr Straw wants to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.

Do you think the Law works have you ever been a have a go hero/ Heroine ?........

Janet · 27th September 2007, 12:44

Great topic!

I think that the whole problem is defined by the fact that the law allows for "reasonable" force, because when one is in a threatening situation and needing to use any force at all to defend oneself, it is precisely "reason" that is absent.

No-one has time in such a situation to consider, rationally, is this reasonable, or more importantly, will the police consider that this is reasonable. Worse, the prosecutions, and even imprisonments, of that those who have used what they considered at the time to be reasonable force merely serves to undermine confidence in one's own reactions, and could well have a paralysing effect ... making any sort of defence impossible.

I think the whole basis of the law needs to change so that "reasonableness" is dropped. What the police or a judge will consider reasonable in the cold light of day, and in view of the full facts, will inevitably be different to that of an ordinary person, perhaps woken in the night, and faced with a robber who might be armed with a gun or a knife.

The problem, to me, is demonstrated by the fact that under such circumstances, a "reasonable" approach would be to determine whether an intruder was armed or not before deciding on the best defence. The fact that this is clearly absurd shows that the whole law is flawed.

old golfer · 27th September 2007, 14:17

Would reasonable force be hitting someone who broke into your home with a baseball bat.... I say yes they should not have been there any way and if they suffer because of their own actions be it on their head, no one asked them to break in...........

JAnot · 27th September 2007, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by old golfer

Would reasonable force be hitting someone who broke into your home with a baseball bat.... I say yes they should not have been there any way and if they suffer because of their own actions be it on their head, no one asked them to break in...........

I agree completely - this is reasonable because you have no idea whether he is going to retaliate, say, with a knife or gun. All the talk about his rights is to me total nonsense - he has already violated your rights by breaking and entering, and I think he should automatically forfeit his own at that point.

(I mean of course he or she, not wanting to be sexist here)

imablue · 27th September 2007, 14:31

be it on their head ! yes that,s the exact spot more than once though

Janet · 27th September 2007, 14:55

I agree, and think it should be like uninsured drivers who, if they are in an accident, are considered automatically to be in the wrong simply because they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But this is not how the law as it stands works. JAnot says that force is reasonable because one doesn't know how the intruder will retaliate, but the law doesn't allow for the householder to make the first move AT ALL. It is the householder who has to retaliate ... and then only with reasonable force, which seems legally to mean minimum force actually required. And how the hell does one work that out when under attack??

Idiotic.

imablue · 27th September 2007, 15:07

i take it that we are talking uk law here? does the same apply in tenerife or the rest of spain for that matter? whoops just re-read og sir,s opener on this

Janet · 27th September 2007, 15:08

Nah, in Tenerife, if the Guardia think you haven't used enough force they add a bit for good measure!

hopper · 27th September 2007, 15:17

Without wanting to rehash a topic that seems to have been done to death (no pun intended), the problem as it stands is (IMHO) that as Janet says, what some people deem to be reasonable, others dont.

As a for instence, I am one of the few who think that Tony Martin used UNREASONABLE force when faced with burglars at this farm (He shot the intruder - dead, with I might add an illegally held firearm.)

So what is reasonable? Is it reasonable to use an illegally obtained firearm and shoot and kill someone?

Now the speach as I heard it was that a greater weight would be given to the amount of 'reasonable' force that a person could exhert providing it was deemed not to be excessive BUT we are still left with the same problem.

Say I own a LEGAL firearm and someone enters my property on a night, if I shoot them in the leg, arm or anywhere away from the 'critical' areas, can this be deemed to be reasonable force? I could certainly argue that I thought it was but will a jury or CPS officer?

In my opinion, this new announcement has done nothing to cear up the ambiguity in the law as it stands, its moved the goal posts but not really told anyone where they have been moved to.

Infact, it could possible be argued that the 'old' defenitions could be easier to police because it appeared to be an almost zero tollerance and therefore people knew where they stood.

Daverock · 27th September 2007, 18:50

I'd assume that they weren't there to see if we wanted to play cards. I wouldn't wait to see what happened and would make sure I got in first. Sod the consequences I'm afraid.