POLL: Should the intruder law be changed?

Remove all ads!

Absolutely, though everyone is going to have a different opinion on this depending on their experiences. While I may not feel the need to have a gun around my house, I don't think you can judge anyone for defending themselves and especially their family from a perceived threat using whatever means they have at their disposal. My only problem would be someone who would actually enjoy or be thrilled by beating, slashing, or shooting an intruder to death and have no remorse. Sure, I'm speaking from lack of experience in break-ins and threats, but it would seem to me that the lack of remorse for causing the death of anyone, even a scumbag who deserved it, is setting someone on the path of becoming a scumbag himself.

Fair enough...but for me, if I lived in a place where I felt I needed to have a gun to protect myself or my family, I would move. I don't own a gun, and pray that I'm never in a situation where I wish I had one. As I have not been in any such situation, I don't blame anyone who has been for wanting a gun.
I feel very safe where I live, and have a dog with keen hearing and a loud bark. If someone were try to break in during the night, we'd be woken immediately and probably so would the neighbors. My dog's bark would probably be enough to deter any jerk trying to break in.

 

Here I go... heh, vehemently defending Darkwolf's position. Strange days

What if you were standing behind someone that was going to do something terrible to a loved one?

Do you have health insurance? If the answer is yes, then I have to ask - Are you in constant fear of becoming terminally ill or critically injured?

I can answer for myself, I do have health insurance, and no, I'm not in constant fear of going to the hospital.

Someone with a gun (I do not, big surprise) for home protection will probably tell you that its more or less, insurance.

Just a guess, but probably as often as you think it does.

Probably, but that really depends on the circumstance, and what part of town you live in.

Let me tell you all a true story, I live in a big college town (small city actually, but with a ton of colleges). Its a magnet for stalkers. Every year, every college gets at least one violent reported rape, which is the result of a break in (I stress reported). On two occasions, there were serial rapists. One in particular, would stalk a girl walking home from her classes, then finally kick down her door (in an apartment complex no less), rape her, then lock her up in a bathroom or closet and burn the place down.

Now try telling me that if any of those ladies was packing heat, she wouldn't be well within her rights to shoot that man dead. That unarmed man, that is.

Also, prior to the break in, I'm sure those ladies had 100 other more important things to worry about.

 

As much as I love this country that is one of the things I can't stand about it. Not that I disagree with your reasons of self-denfense, but that we live in such a violent country.

My wife spent a year in Japan and she has forever raved about how safe and secure she felt there. She claims she could go anywhere, at anytime of day or night, and not worry for her personal safety. In fact, she says the people are so law abiding that they just put up card-board policemen and the people actually respect and obey whatever these artifacts are supposed to represent. Could anyone imagine that here?

It is often cited that people become law-abiding as a consequence of the "fear factor." But, if what happens in some other conutries is to be believed, then it is the result of a community of people who respect and value not only the law of the land, but each other as individuals as well. That is something that appears to be lacking here in the USA.

But yes, I agree with Darkwolf - in a violent place, one may have to rely on violent means to protect his family, himself and his property.

 

I think that the right to self defence is very important. If someone breaks into your house to commit a crime, then they deserve what they get.

AS for those with guns, take the moment of stealth to confirm your target, and consider lethal force as a last resort, but if that's what has to happen, then so be it.

Our Dog sometimes takes shelter in the Garage on a cold night. One night someone entered without permission, startled the dog and got bit. The moron came back the next day to complain about getting bit. While asking questions, we learned that the guy entered at 2 AM, claiming that his car broke down and needed to "borrow" some tools to fix it. He didn't bother to knock on the door because he didn't want to wake us up. At that point he was told to leave. We never heard back from the guy...

 

What if I heard that someone I loved had been murdered/raped (raped might be even worse in this case) and knew the one who did it? It might spur primitive reactions in myself which could make me harm the one responsible for the act. It still does not make the deed right though.

 

ArteChoke, how would a gun have helped those poor women? I reckon they lived in a dorm room, and that the perpetrator was good enough in kicking down doors that he did it on the first try. Judging by the size of the normal dorm room I would say that the stalked girl now would have had 2-3 seconds to register a threat, remember where her gun was, get it, point it and shoot. I think the rapist will get to the woman first.

However, even buying these arguments and ignoring how kooky the whole thing appear from the outside the risk of shooting a family member is a lot higher than a dangerous criminal if you go around and expect the criminal and pack heat just for that occasion.

I actually like how the self defence law is set up here, it is like Morgoroth said it was in Finland. Reasonable response, if some thug tries to beat you are allowed to beat him back and perhaps even get a poke or something, if he pulls a knife you can get a sword or perhaps even a gun and if he has a gun and need not bother about shooting him in hte leg. All this keeps things from escalating, if some fuzzyminded dopehead stumbles into my garage loocking for some stuff armed with a pack of matches I cant pull out my Magnum 44 and blow his head out even if he ran towards me, what I could do is bash him in the head with a board.

I have one more question, is the US really that violent? I am now going to do something horribly stupid and on par with Godwins law and invoke Michael Moore but isnt this what the whole of Bowling for Columbine is all about. That people in the US are scared stiff by a threat which if looked upon with realistic and rational eyes is non-existent. Why are you so afraid? Have you ever thought about that?

 

So in effect, your law assumes that the victim's fighting skills are on par with the aggressor's. Interesting.

 

The Poll question is rather misleading,
As stated, at the moment the British law allows the use of reasonable force. In wake of the Tony Martin case (Farmer who shot dead a teenage burglar) "Reasonable Force" does not include shooting someone in the back with an unlicensed shotgun. As I understand it, the Tories aren't talking about watering down the current law (Which is the implication of the "yes" vote, just asking for the definition of "reasonable force" to be updated to give people more confidence in being able to defend their homes. Though "grossly disproportionate force" isn't really that much clearer either.
To be honest, I think it's just the Conservatives trying to canvas more votes for the forthcoming election by making people think they would be prosecuted for defending their homes. There was also a police spokesman who said that it exceptionally rare that this actually occurs anyway.

Personal opinion: Every case has to be judged on it's merrits which the change in law wouldn't make a difference to. Shooting someone in the back as they try and flee is not acceptable.
How do you judge the psychological state of someone who finds an intruder in their home to work out if it constituted disproportionate or unreasonable force to the crime that might have occured?

I agree with Tal, not having guns in Britain means the chance of violent crimes ending in death are actually fairly low.

Interesting case in the paper today about a 60 year old who tried to defend his wife and home with a pair of Samurai swords. He was thrown to the floor and stabbed through the arm with a screwdriver. But if he had managed to kill one of the intruders would it have been "grossly disproportionate?" They had already attacked his wife, so I think not.

 

I would like, for once, know why Americans are so paranoid. I mean, they are afraid that their neighbours will rape their family, they are afraid that the Englishmen will try to take back what they once haid, they are afraid that the UN are out to get them and remove all traces of their sovereignity, and of course, the French are after them.


For once, Americans, realize that the world doesn't resolve around you nor your country.

 

@Morgoroth, I'm talking about using a weapon to prevent someone from being injured or killed, by an intruder. Not getting your gun to go out and track someone down.

See one is defense, the other is offense! Of course its wrong to go on a rampage.

@Joacqin: I completely agree, a gun probably wouldn't have helped those girls. My only point was, the intruder was unarmed, and fully planned on killing them, so *if* they had access to lethal force, would it be unreasonable for them to have used it? If one of these ladies did happen to get lucky and kill this guy, you think they should be prosecuted? Manslaughter? Murder?

I agree with most of what you're saying, I do think guns probably are used in more crimes and accidentlal shootings than actual home defense, but as long as people are allowed to have them, they should be allowed to actually defend themselves.

Fact is, in my humble opinion, if someone kicks down your front door, you shouldn't have to ask them, "why."

 

Ah but if you are a lonely woman in an area where several rapes and murders have happened lately and someone kicks in your door to your small dorm room with nowhere to run a reasonable response of force would be to bust a cap in that persons buttocks. I am advocating the use of *needed* force, the amount of force needed for a woman in that situation to defend herself would be to shoot the person. However, if the woman in question had a black belt in several martial arts and the rapist was a scrawny 60kg man then the amount of needed force would not be to shoot him in the face but to beat the crap out of him and hold him down until the police arrives.

Despite this so is the average burglar just that, a burglar he is out to get stuff with as little fuss as possible. People looking for violence most often do so outside and dont go through the trouble of finding a house and opening doors and such. I for one have no interest in shooting someone because they are trying to nab what little they could find in my home and material stuff is at least not for me worth to live with the knowledge that you have taken a life. I am insured, sure it would be a bit of hassle and I would have to pay part of it but that doesnt compare to the hassle of living with another persons life on your conscience.

 

Personally I would beat the crap out of anyone who I catch in my house unwanted, even if it means I'm risking jail for it. Someone is in my house who doesn't belong there, so in my opinion I have every right to incapacitate that person and hand him/her over to the authoraties.

In the Netherlands, you can go to jail for beating a burglar. I am not opposed to that law, but what stings me is that the law states that you must persuade the burglar to leave you're home. You may not hold him or force him out. WTF??? He doesn't belong in my house goddamnit!

 

I think that keeping a firearm in the sort of ready-to-use way that would be make it useful in a home defence situation is very unwise, especially for families that have children. I am comfortable using guns but don't want one in my home. Having said that, I think "reasonable force" is whatever it takes to stop an intruder, and if that means shooting someone who might turn out to be merely be a thief, so be it. Criminals should not be able to count on the protection of the law while they're committing a crime against the person or property of an innocent person.

What would happen if someone broke into my house is this: My dog would bite them. And then the police would take my dog away and kill her, and I would be arrested for keeping a violent dog. Because under similar laws in Canada, if you know your dog would bite an intruder, you are supposed to have her pre-emptively destroyed to protect the potential criminal. My feeling is: screw that. My girl belongs here, the intruder doesn't. So let's just hope criminals get the message from Aerie's barking and the "Beware of the Dog" signs that this would not be a good house to break into. For that matter, I think only an idiot would break into *any* house with a German Shepherd in residence.

Although the one time a man did try to break into my home while I was there - he followed me home and apparently mistook me for a small defenceless woman instead of the ex-soldier on her way home from a martial arts class that I actually was - I did indeed use "excessive force" against him, and the policeman who came laughed and gave me a high-five instead of arresting me. I think these laws against excessive force are themselves excessive, but at least the police tend to be on the side of the victim and are likely to apply the laws with a fair amount of discretion.

 

Some years ago here in Denmark a houseowner woke up in the middle of the night and caught a burgler redhanded. The burgler jumped the man with a knife and tried to stab him. He did not succeed, however, and the houseowner pushed the burgler back. The burgler tripped, fell and hit his head on the floor and died from his injuries later on. The houseowner was sent to prison. His sentence was.... I guess we would call it first degree manslaughter, or something similar and he was punished accordingly. Now, where is the justice in that?

If anyone comes into my house at night and tries to steal my stuff or conduct whatever business he might have in mind.... he is on his own. I would kill him instantly, IF NEED BE. I would kill his ass anyday, make no mistake about that. If he doesn´t want to die, he should stay the hell away.

Greywolf, I agree with you 100%. I may be a little bit more explicit, but overall I would say that I am pretty much on your level in this case. So I´m not going to repeat everything you said.

 

Now that's stupid. I'll illustrate how. First of all, how do you determine, what is more powerful? Is there a master list or is it up to the judge? In a pipe vs. knife debacle, does it favor range (pipe) or lethality (knife)? If the assailant comes in with 'only' a knife, and you shoot him with a blowgun or a sling, were you not using excessive force? Sorry for using such extreme examples, but the law seems silly to me.

How about a handicapped person, riding a wheelchair, who has got a firearm, and the person comes in unarmed, do you have the right to use that firearm? Can you shoot him (using disproportionately powerful weapon), or is he or she forced to defend themselves unarmed, with bare fists? Nevermind that the assailant could get behind the victim and push him down the stairs, you can't shoot him.

'Might???' 'Might,' I ask you?! That means that in most self defence cases, the victim who shot the assailant was prosecuted???

How does a physically weak person knock out a well-built burglar?

 

The Finnish law encourages you to avoid violence. I repeat myself by stating the fact that burglars who seek to physically harm you by braking into your home are rare, very rare. Inside your house you are entitled to follow same laws as you are on the streets. You have the right for your privacy in your home but you are still not allowed to take the law into your own hands.

Someone in a wheelchair should do the same thing as any other person. a) call the police b) hide c) if the burglar finds him threaten the burglar with a gun d) if the burglar decides to attack anyway shoot. At least that's what I would do. Violence is to be avoided as long as possible and preferably all together. And about blind people who can't shoot because they can't see, perhaps they should be allowed to install a minefield on their yard to keep the burglars away? Handicap is no excuse for using an "unreasonable" amount of force.

They all get prosecuted, yes. Some of them avoid sentence depending on the case. If it can't be proven that you were under immidate threat you will face sentence.

He is not supposed to do that. He is supposed to call the police and if possible, leave the house through an emergency exit and possibly wake up the neighbours to help.

 

It is the same in the UK or almost. You hurt a burglar before he hurts you're in trouble. Well, you are if you phone the police after you've hurt the burglar. Most burglars just want to steal your stuff and then leave, believe it or not, most of them don't want to hurt or kill you. The best thing to do is make sure your home is secure and get a dog. I wouldn't recommend trying to tackle a burglar unless you know what you are doing and have the ability to disarm and or make a citizens arrest until the police arrive. It is probably best all round if you just leave them alone. If you are a physically weak person and a burglar wants to hurt you, then that is just tough **** ain't it. It would probably be best if the law remained the same.

 

Here in Poland, a burglar broke in with an axe in hand. Threatening to kill the owner, the latter drew a kitchen knife and, in an act of desperation, took one stab - unfortunately for the burglar, it was fatal. In most countries, a simple crime scene check, dusting the axe for fingerprints and checking the doors to find out they were hacked open would be enough to state that it was an involuntary death as a result of self defence within reasonable force restrictions. Here the 'catch 22' story takes off:
The defending house owner is prosecuted and arrested. Additionally, the mother of the burglar sues him and his family for murdering her son. Not only that, but she is allowed to bear witness to the cause, and she lies under an oath, stating that she was eye witness to the crime, and describes it, even though she was probably in another city, and stone drunk. Not only that, but she even exaggerates on what was already known, saying: "My son has been stabbed fifteen or sixteen times, in all areas, even when he was lying on the floor," and the judge only asked her if she was sure. She said she was, so he didn't remind her that the guy was hit just once.
This prosecution and trial was extensively criticised by the press, as well as in professional circles. Because of police's, and then the legal system's negligence (or even incompetence), the man should have been able to leave without even a single trial because of assumption of innocence - no proof of crime even existed, after all.
But in the Polish legal system? Try and prove you're not a camel, as the saying goes...
The guy is incarcerated for 25 years (the longest sentence available) and the following statement is issued (paraphrase since I cannot find the original text in Polish):
"This heinous act of violence - stabbing a man to death whilst he was in the sanctuary of his assailant's home - should be punished even more severely. How can someone invite a person over, and then proceed to murder them is beyond our ken. Especially as us, the Poles, have always been known for our hospitality. This day is indeed one of the darkest days in history."

I leave it without comment.

 

I find it strange that, when faced with someone who is obviously not playing by the rules, you're still expected to go through the motions that its not the worst case scenario.

"Don't worry Martha, he's just as afraid of you as you are of him. Don't corner him and he'll just take the television and and go back to the wild."