Knifing burglars to be legal

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

Now - this should not be Daily Mailed and Telegraphed. It's important to note that it is already legal to use "reasonable force" in defending one's home - but obviously that has proven to lack clarity in some high profile cases since the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. The right to defend one's property with force is a part of ancient English Common Law.

However, both the Prime Minister and the somewhat embattled Justice Secretary clearly intend to make the point that stabbing, and presumably by inadvertent consequence killing, a burglar, should be legal.

With regards to that issue I agree entirely. I can't imagine the horror faced by a man who has an invader in his home and needs to defend his property, and more importantly, and worse, his family. I think in that scenario no man can be expected not to use force regardless of the consequences and to criminalise a man who is ultimately the victim is clearly not appropriate. If nothing else, it is also a helpful method of bringing down the prison population.

However, I would also question the timing and heavy focus on this policy. The Government is facing discontent from Tory backbenchers and the right-wing press on their recent policies on crime being too lenient - the most important example being the proposal that serious criminals could get their sentences reduced by half if they pleaded guilty early and also a greater focus on rehabilitation. So I could believe this was designed to silence this side of the party that Cameron does need to keep happy - Cameron is no natural leader of the right-wing of the Conservatives.

I particularly like Clarke's visceral description. He makes it sound like Asterix:

Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

[SPECTREtm]

Wow +1 for the UK if that really carries through. Certainly something my country should take note of as criminalization of the victim is simly one of the most retarded things in western civilization.

[Rolling Thunder]

The conservative right wing hasn't had a leader since Winston Churchill's corpse lost the 1955 election.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Should be able to flay someone alive if they break into your house.

[Elianus]

Should be able to flay someone alive if they break into your house.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The conservative right wing hasn't had a leader since Winston Churchill's corpse lost the 1955 election.

What a charmingly absurd statement. I don't even need to go back to Thatcher - what about Michael Howard?

Wow +1 for the UK if that really carries through. Certainly something my country should take note of as criminalization of the victim is simly one of the most retarded things in western civilization.

Bit upset to see this after I made such a point of saying its already a part of English Common Law - a huge contributor to western civilisation.

[Rolling Thunder]

What a charmingly absurd statement. I don't even need to go back to Thatcher - what about Michael Howard?

Charming in hindsight, but utterly inaccurate - Thatcher's right wing initially regarded her liberalisation reforms and shift towards free-ish markets as being suspiciously liberal and left-wing. Sure, she became popular later, but anyone who punches out Johnny Foreigner is going to be popular with the right of their party regardless of what they do.

Funny. Winston Churchill was still alive and kicking in 1955

Only in the most technical of senses, as he was effectively being propped up on a stick and used as a banner rather than actually leading.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Charming in hindsight, but utterly inaccurate - Thatcher's right wing initially regarded her liberalisation reforms and shift towards free-ish markets as being suspiciously liberal and left-wing. Sure, she became popular later, but anyone who punches out Johnny Foreigner is going to be popular with the right of their party regardless of what they do.

I don't agree and you ignored my more recent example.

[Rolling Thunder]

I don't agree and you ignored my more recent example.

Michael Howard didn't get elected. He was no more an effective leader than any number of obscure nonentities the Conservative Party produces

[Grouchio]

The conservative right wing hasn't had a leader since Winston Churchill's corpse lost the 1955 election.

Funny. Winston Churchill was still alive and kicking in 1955, and I think he died in the early 1970s, around the same time as Bertrand Russell.
@Topic: Great news for the UK, hope it comes to pass here in the US! Self-defense can be justified!

[the_mango55]

Funny. Winston Churchill was still alive and kicking in 1955, and I think he died in the early 1970s, around the same time as Bertrand Russell.
@Topic: Great news for the UK, hope it comes to pass here in the US! Self-defense can be justified!

This is already legal in the US.

[Visna]

I don't quite follow. You're already allowed to use reasonable force, heck there is even permission of a certain level of "unreasonable" force if you can convince a jury you acted instinctively or in the heat of the moment. Why is a clarification needed?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't quite follow. You're already allowed to use reasonable force, heck there is even permission of a certain level of "unreasonable" force if you can convince a jury you acted instinctively or in the heat of the moment. Why is a clarification needed?

Because people fear that their view of reasonable may not be the same as a judge's. There's also the matter of a long court case (the costs, the losing of your job, the stress and misery) to prove you acted reasonably. That will be much decreased from this adding the fact to statute.

But like I said I think much of this is distracting disastisfied right-wingers.

[Doge Domenico]

While its true in america their is a self defense clause,it favors the criminal. If a criminal comes at you with his fist and you use a knife to defend yourself youre in trouble for assault with a deadly weapon. Unless you are in texas of course,where you can use any force nessacary to remove an intruder from your home, so long as the intruder truly had malicious intent.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

I don't quite follow. You're already allowed to use reasonable force, heck there is even permission of a certain level of "unreasonable" force if you can convince a jury you acted instinctively or in the heat of the moment. Why is a clarification needed?

The defence of provocation or in layman terms "heat of the moment" will never drop your conviction, it will only reduce murder to manslaughter. So even if it was heat of the moment, you may still be convicted.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

I attacked a burglar with a hammer one time.It turned out to be my neighbor that was robbing my house.He never felt the urge to rob my house again as i smashed him up.I did not call the cops i just dumped him in the garden as i was once told by a cop that if they are called and find a burglar smashed up in your home then charges can be brought against you but if they find a burglar in your garden or out on the street they will turn a blind eye and not charge you.I have to say though that the fright response kicked in then the flight response almost came in then the fight response came in and i attacked.As i lived alone i found it very hard to sleep at night thinking some1 was creeping into my house.If you have kids and a wife your 1st role is to protect them by all means.If they send you to jail afterwards so what at least your family are safe.A burglar should stay at home if they don't want to get hurt.They know the consequences of there actions and if my rottweilers don't get them i surely will.Burglars are scum who deserve what they get

[Delvecchio1975]

I agree that a man cannot be expected to 'not defend' his home, I'm sure I'd do it (and violently as well) - on the other hand, will the burglars not simply arm themselves? Is there not a serious risk of society turning more violent as it does in the States? violence provokes more violence and all that?

[the_mango55]

I agree that a man cannot be expected to 'not defend' his home, I'm sure I'd do it (and violently as well) - on the other hand, will the burglars not simply arm themselves? Is there not a serious risk of society turning more violent as it does in the States? violence provokes more violence and all that?

Maybe, maybe not, but at least now you have the option of defending your property.

If you just want to sit in your bed and sob while being robbed, there's no difference between an unarmed or armed burglar.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I agree that a man cannot be expected to 'not defend' his home, I'm sure I'd do it (and violently as well) - on the other hand, will the burglars not simply arm themselves? Is there not a serious risk of society turning more violent as it does in the States? violence provokes more violence and all that?

Well that's a fair point I think but one that would require some extremely vigorous data to really make any point over. Ultimately, bold burglars do already arm themselves although obviously the vast majority will simply attempt to burgle a house that is empty. It also brings us back to the point - won't a homeowner seek to defend his family and property regardless? Is not anybody's home thoroughly equipped with an arsenal of items ready to be turned into makeshift clubs and shanks?

[kentuckybandit]

Is there not a serious risk of society turning more violent as it does in the States?

Care to provide me some numbers and studies? It isn't exactly the Wild West here.

Also in the US there is the civil court sphere to worry about, as the beaten stabbed or paralyzed burlger can simply turn around and sue you (and has been successfuly done many times). There is the running gag that if someone breaks into your home and you intend to hurt them, you better put their ass down for good because they will sue you if you don't. My wife and I keep a metal bat by our bed, I can't bring myself to own a firearm with a small child in the house. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my family I will do anything I have to do, including taking a life. I am ignorant of the laws in England, will this new law protect people from civil lawsuits as well?