Justice is never for the victims!

Remove all ads!

I've changed this from the original thread as I was being stupid and totally mis-read something.

Anyway, comments made on here have got me thinking about the face that the victim of a crime never gets justice because God forbid we should upset the free-loading, oxygen-wasting parasites on society that more commonly called criminals!

My big gripe is:
You are no longer allowed to act in self defence if you find somebody robbing your home in case you hurt them

 

My view is that if you are attacked, you should be allowed whatever means necessary to protect yourself with the exception that I agree that before killing your opponent, you should generally run if you have the option. That is, the kick to your dignity is less important than sparing the criminal's life. But your safety is more important than his safety when he has attacked.

Also, in situations like above, there should be no tort claims.

There is only one case in which I would allow criminal or tort liability:

If the harm was intentionally done to the attacker by the defender, out of spite, or in revenge, without a good reason, and not in shock. Spite or revenge should further not apply if the attacked was taunting or otherwise spiting the defender or provoking him.

In short: sheer unwarranted malice should be the sole base of criminal or tort liability.

In lawyer parlance: I would exclude negligence and recklesness, leaving only intent, as far as tort goes. In criminal law, only full unmitigated intent and absence of any mitigating circumstances (e.g. you punched me, so I'm gonna kill ya).

 

Erm...yeah, what you said Chev

I was meaning that if somebody broke into my home and tried to rob me, I wouldn't be able to hit him/her in case I hurt him/her. Plus, I have recently been told by a police officer that if a criminal injures themselves while breaking into your property, they can sue you!

 

Silly laws, really. They should apply an estoppel construct to all such claims. It's idiotic. You don't owe anything to a trespasser. I honestly don't know how such cases make it through the court because as far as my knowledge of American tort law goes, it shouldn't happen. And UK isn't that much different.

 

Unfortunatly, the UK political system is geared towards justice for criminals, not victims. Most UK Politicians roll over and play dead for anyone who frightens them

 

Silvery, you have read the article wrong. It doesn't say give PRISONERS money, it says give the Probation Officers and Prison Officers money for reduced re-offending.

 

Dalveen is right about the article.

I wonder if it will really help though. How much does the parole officer actually help cut down on re-offense? It seems like it is luck of the draw on who the parole officer gets - if the prisoner is rehabilitated, then they probably won't commit crime, if they aren't, they probably will. How much do parole officers affect their parolees?

Of course, that could be my wildly uneducated assessment of prisons effectiveness speaking.

 

Saber, to some degree I imagine it is luck of the draw, but I've also heard a number of stories about caring probation officers who genuinely changed the lives of their probatees(?). Just like some probation officers won't even care to try, some prisoners genuinely don't care and won't change no matter what you do. Other officers will try regardless, and other prisoners will do anything to stay out of prison a second time, including going clean. I'll bet that both of those are rather small percentages of the whole, though. This measure is designed for those that fall in between, on both ends of the law.

As for culpability if a criminal injures himself while committing crimes in your home, I figure I can legally say he was 'misusing' my home, and that it was never designed to function properly with him in it. I'm no more culpable than an oven manufacturer is for someone who takes their oven apart by themselves. If I caused the injury, I can just say I was never intended to function properly with a criminal invading my home. User error.

Seriously, though, I figure anyone engaged in criminal activity is inherrantly engaged in risky activity. The two kind of go hand-in-hand. They willingly and knowingly expose themselves to great risk, so they are responsable for the consequences of that risk. I, on the other hand, being the homeowner with locked doors and windows, did not willingly engage in risky behaviour; it was forced on me.

 

Sorry guys, I'll climb off my soap box! Man, I feel stupid now

Anyway, I'm still annoyed about the whole thing that somebody can sue you for breaking into your house!

 

In America they can only sue you if they survive.

 

Yeah, that reminds me of some bumper stickers / signs I have seen:

1: This house guarded by Smith and Wesson!

2: This house guarded by a post menopausal woman and her insane attack dog 3 days a week. YOU GUESS WHICH THREE!

Silvery, the UK isn't the only place that criminals have more rights and more stupid bleeding heart liberals who care about them more than the actual victims. It is the scourge of modern Western Democracies, IMHO.

 

It's ridiculous. Bring back capital punishment!!

 

Yes, it is horrible that there is an attempt to uphold the rule of law. We should all just go out and shoot everyone we think deserve it.

 

Actually, that depends on where you live. There are states that have adopted the "Castle Doctrine" which basically states that it is understood by the law that someone who breaks into your home/car/business etc. is there to do you grave bodily harm and therefore self defense (even lethal) is not unreasonable. There are other states that have the exact opposite theory such as mine (Massachusetts) that believe your primary motive should be escape and you could be charged/sued for harming a criminal.

I'm with Silvery, this drives me crazy.

 

Texas is one such state with a castle law. This may surprise some here, but I happen to agree with it completely. Somebody breaks into my home, I don't care who or why - they're getting two in the head. Invading someone's home crosses a very strong line with me, and I'm not going to allow anyone to take that sense of security away from me or my family. It's one thing I'm completely unwilling to forgive.

When they are in your home, you're not going out and looking for them - they came to you. If they didn't want to get shot, they should have thought about that before they chose to break into my home. In this case, the fault lies entirely with the perpetrator. They have it coming. And I'm hardly a gun nut, joac.

 

My question is, what should a person do when a criminal breaks into their house? Especially if the resident does not live alone, but has several children.

1: Run away? Fair enough if you live alone, though I question the idea that the criminal has more rights to your possessions and domicile than you do. Difficult to do if it means leaving your family behind. Not even the vilest liberal that I know would abandon his family to potential rapists or murderers.

2: Call the police? They could be there in 5 minutes -- or they may be otherwise occupied and be there in 5 hours -- good move but hardly a guarantee of safety.

3: Try to scare the criminal away? Might work, might not -- especially if said criminal is high, drunk, or even just desperate.

4: Give the criminal all of your worldly possessions? That's very generous, but what if whatever you give him isn't enough? what if he's a sexual criminal (you can't tell at first glance) and he wants your 6 year old daughter? Do you just hand her over because the criminal has "rights" -- no legal code in the world that I am aware of grants a criminal the right to rape a 6 year old in a house that he just broke into -- correct me if I'm wrong.

5: Use force. Doesn't have to be a gun, but if it is, a 120 lb woman has a much better chance of damaging a 200 pound man using a gun (assuming she knows how to shoot) than if she engages him with a baseball bat or other weapon, though that's still better than going up against the criminal hand to hand. It's almost a guarantee in any culture that the criminal has SOME sort of weapon. Even if he doesn't, the rule of law that joaqin advocates for so strongly is very clear -- the criminal has no right to be in a private residence.

It boggles my mind that there are people so wound up in humanist ideology that they believe that self defense is a greater crime than breaking and entry, or even rape or murder. I've heard counsellors actually state that it's better to let someone rape you because if you fight back you might be killed. That just makes me sick. What's worse is those out there who it appears believe that hurting the rapist is a bad thing. Unbelievable.

 

Self-defense must not be restricted. It is the objectively necessary defence against a current, illegal attack against you or your property (i.e. any 'geschütztes Rechtsgut'), that is suitable, nothing less, to stop the attack. Self defense is a sharp right, a sharp sword. You don't need to run. You are entitled to defend yourself, your property, your honour and your dignity against current, illegal attacks! Trutzwehr! If the law is to take the rights it protects seriously it must not expect someone who is being attacked to run. Self-defense is not restricted, it must not be restricted. Considerations like 'pride vs. life of attacker' have no place in self defense. Your view falls way short of what self-defense means. Under German law it would be fatally wrong.

Someone robs your € 1000 watch, you draw your gun and shoot him - that's self defence against a current, illegal attack on your property. Iirc the case law says that the limit for trifles is about € 80 or so - under which the use of lethal force would be considered excessive. I think the argument of the court in that case was wrong. Well, I remember days when € 80 would have to be considered a significant loss to me and my budget. Something like € 250 or more would have seriously compromised my ability to pay my bills and buy food in a given month. It would have constituted an existential threat.

It is plain silly to put the onus on the defender, and expect him to deliberate, when defending his property, or his life, whether a life is worth, say, 80, 100 or 1000 Euro, or maybe a blue eye. Legal systems generally don't want people making such calculations. Not only that the self-defender is, indeed, the victim of an illegal current attack. In defense against an current, illegal attack there is no time for such idle musings, and it is indeed preposterous to expect a defender to make such careful deliberations Hmm, as life is the highest good ... is him breaking my arm worth me taking his life ....? It is thoroughly 'lebensfern', unrealistic.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. My friend unfortunately was victim to this, she didn't fight back and survived, the other girl she was with fought back by biting and scratching and was not so fortunate.

 

DR, my comment was more general and aimed at the attitude expressed by some people here who seem to completely dehumanize all "criminals" and seem to be under the impression that our western system of justice is weak and soft favouring and cuddling the criminal. A point of view I strongly disagree with and of course this extreme fear that comes up again and again especially from the US about homeinvasions and stuff. Is that so prevalent? If someone really came into your house with the intent of doing you and yours harm I doubt they would actually give you a chance to fight back so there the point is moot. When it comes to burglaries and other crimes I think most countries have the rule of proportionate force and to my knowledge and experience the courts tend to judge heavily in favour of the victim. A while back a man here in Sweden shot a teen who was trespassing and harassing his family in the back of the head while the teen was kneeling and the man walked was not sentenced. I do not think that was proportionate, force in the defence of you and your family's safety is a no brainer but I doubt many people ever get into that situation. If you and your family is sleeping and you hear someone rummaging around in your garage I would say that you are just plain stupid if you confront them whether you are armed or not. Any confrontation is a risk and maybe some people are willing to risk their lives to save the case of beer in their garage but I am not. Same as if you are mugged, sure I could have a pretty decent shot at taking out the average hoodlum but why would I risk it? Why would I risk bodily harm for the 20 euro in my wallet and my cards? Sure it is a nuisance to get new ones but finding a knife in my stomach is a bigger one.

 

One of my favorite quotes from a second amendment website was "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." It really makes you think about the role of the police. The police are primarily a source of revenue through traffic violations. As to crime, I have to believe that the majority of the time they are there after the fact and are more a part of solving a crime then preventing a crime.