Defending you property

[George Jenkins]

I would like all killers who kill for the pleasure of it, and killers in progress of burglary, to be killed in the same manner as their victims, and long may they suffer. Show it on television so that I and the many will feel a bit safer.

I think that might overload the schedules a bit, and the camera crews wouldn't like it much. Nor would you, come to think of it, if a murderer had pushed his victim under a train and was scheduled to be similarly pushed under the one you were driving.

Besides - consider the chaotic ineptitude that would result if the current government were given the job of organising it. I think even Charlie might prefer my adhocery.

Of course Rosemary, I indulge in fantasy of situations that will never come to pass. We know that things will never change but we like to rant sometimes.

[David Williams]

This bloke whose head looks like a cricket ball is clearly in favour of violence. You don't break into someone's house and hold a knife to his throat if you don't like violence. He likes violence, he got violence, what's the problem?

There are a lot of things in life which people do under pressure. I'd give a man a lot of latitude as to what constitutes "reasonable behaviour" when he's 5 minutes removed from having his wife and family murdered.

Absolutely. There's the provocation. There's the 'while the balance of the mind was disturbed'. There's a reasonable intention to ensure he can't get back up and continue. And the situation was not one the original victim sought out, nor one he is likely to find himself in again. And so legally any reasonable behaviour is considered to be self-defence. I'd happily support suspended sentences for many actions that go beyond that.

But to go beyond that because you don't believe the punishment of the original perpetrator will be sufficient? That's retribution, rather than justice, and when it's coupled with an attitude that a few mistakes along the way are fine so long as your family is OK? Is this so far away from the people who think they perform a public service by beating up paediatricians?

[Rosemary Roberts]

Is this so far away from the people who think they perform a public service by beating up paediatricians?

Yes. A long. long way.

My conjectured case was not that I think the wheels of justice will not grind sufficiently small, but that I know they won't. This can be observed over and over again. But nor am I advocating setting out to beat up robbers and hoodlums, merely pointing out - as several others have done - that over-reacting in an extreme situation is perfectly natural and - yes - reasonable, and should not be considered to be criminal behaviour.

[David Williams]

Is this so far away from the people who think they perform a public service by beating up paediatricians?

Yes. A long. long way.

Yes. Sorry. Over the top. Still don't agree with you though.

[Liam Tiernan]

Twenty years ago I was assaulted by a guy who mistakenly believed I was trying to chat up his girlfriend. He waited for me outside the nightclub with some of his mates and hit me from behind, got me on the ground and kicked me in the head.I was only saved by one of his mates pointing out that they'd got the wrong man. This guy was just out of prison after an eighteen month manslaughter sentence (served at Shelton Abbey open prison). His previous victim died from several kicks to the head, and was assaulted for exactly the same reason. A year later he killled again, got 7 years, served 4. On each occasion his excuse was that he had consumed some "tasty plants and little white pills", as if that made any difference to his victims. So if I don't share your rosy view of crime and punishment, Charlie, I'm sure you'll understand.

[Andy Wilson]

Never seen a spliff make anyone fly into a violent rage, although i have seen it make people think someone is chatting up their girlfriend.

[Liam Tiernan]

Never seen a spliff make anyone fly into a violent rage, although i have seen it make people think someone is chatting up their girlfriend.

One spliff, maybe not. Add 4 E's to that and see what happens. I'll give you a hint. It's not spliffeeee.

[Charlie Reams]

So if I don't share your rosy view of crime and punishment, Charlie, I'm sure you'll understand.

I do, but that's just a good example of why the victims of a crime are the worst people to ask for about justice in relation to that crime. You wouldn't let the prosecutor be the judge. Also on a factual point I'd like to see some evidence that cannabis and ecstasy combine to cause violent rage, given that their effects in isolation are exactly the opposite. I think that might be what is technically termed "a shitty excuse".

Anyway I'm retiring from this topic now, I think I made my point and thanks to everyone who managed to resist the KILL THEM ALL kneejerk.

[Richard Adams]

Thank you Rosemary for the succinct description of this - 'an over-reaction to extreme provocation'.

A caller to 'Any Answers' today was thinking along similar lines and speaking of PTSD, citing crimes committed by soldiers returning from theatre; what else should you expect when people's worlds change so totally, so unexpectedly? A 'normal' reaction? But how can it be reasonable to expect someone in that state of mind (such as a soldier returning from the killing fields) to share your comfortable armchair view of what's normal? And can their reaction be their fault, given that it was you put them in the unreal world of war in the first place when you posted them into the theatre of conflict?

There must be something in this. What did Walid Salem think would happen as a result of his putting a mask on and breaking into Munir Hussain's house, using violence on Mr Hussain and terrorising his family? Should he not have anticipated that this might make Mr Hussain so angry that he would respond with extreme violence? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We'll never know. Maybe he expected the protection of our curious system that defends the rights of violent burglars not to be subject to violence inducing brain damage. Not that the law was much help to him.

Under the law of the land, Mr Hussain was wrong to respond as he did, while under the law of the jungle (as I understand it), he was justified.

It's fascinating to see how many people take the view that the law of the jungle is preferred. I'm not one of them, though I'm trying to understand those who are.

[Lesley Hines]

Never seen a spliff make anyone fly into a violent rage

I have. Regularly. You also want to see what people who smoke the stuff are like if for any reason they can't get their hands on it. Plus people who get stoned are often not just stoned, they've had something else like alcohol as well. Add to that the personality changes that smoking dope can cause, at its mildest lethargy, depression, paranoia, to at its absolute worst schizophrenia, and it's not the harmless happy stuff Howard Marks et al. like to make out it is.

I digress. The problem is what is 'reasonable force'? If the people in this case had done it while the perp in this case were attacking them, that would be fine and the law would be on their side. Mortal force would be reasonable as once your family is tied up at knifepoint it's entirely reasonable to assume your life is under threat. The mistake they made was doing it chasing them, and that changes from self-defence to attacking, hence the sentence.

Whatever happened after, though, the perps should have been prosecuted. They weren't injured when they committed the crime and did it with malice and forethought. They should be tried and (IMVHO) imprisoned. That's the real downfall in this case.

[Charlie Reams]

They should be tried and (IMVHO) imprisoned.

Agreed. What's weird (as Raccoon was getting at earlier) is that it's been made into a case of defending one's property, even when the cricket bat incident was clearly non-defensive and off the property.

Edit: oops, I replied again. It was just odd to see something I agreed with!

[Andy Wilson]

One spliff, maybe not. Add 4 E's to that and see what happens. I'll give you a hint. It's not spliffeeee.

Yeah, i know. Although we're talking about the sort of characters who would otherwise just be drunkenly doing the something similar (albeit probably slight less effectively). Most people who take pills just dance a lot and tell their friends how much they love them.

I have. Regularly.

Really? Yet to experience it. I've seen it send a good few people to sleep or made them suddenly very ill for 20-30 minutes, lord knows sure haven't I been there, but i suppose drawing from personal experience as a 'user' for nigh on a decade, i can appreciate how when i was younger, it used to make me do some crazy stuff. I was an isolated case though. My friends shielded me from ecstasy as a result; that and my character was quite volatile anyway. I would never fly into a rage after a joint though . Oh no. It was alcohol that helped me do that; unless i was just sober and pissed off of course.

You also want to see what people who smoke the stuff are like if for any reason they can't get their hands on it. Plus people who get stoned are often not just stoned, they've had something else like alcohol as well. Add to that the personality changes that smoking dope can cause, at its mildest lethargy, depression, paranoia, to at its absolute worst schizophrenia, and it's not the harmless happy stuff Howard Marks et al. like to make out it is.

First hand experience agrees strongly with everything here, although Mr Nice is a riveting read.

I put the subject of this topic to some friends tonight and the general reaction to my surprise was disagreement with the prison sentence.

[Lesley Hines]

Mr Nice is a riveting read.

It is. I also speak from lengthy first-hand experience. That was the place my life was in at the time (for many years) and isn't now. I'm 34, was (quite a lot) a bit of a tearaway, and have done many things that have never made my hair curl However, even stoned off my jubblies I never agreed with his "a few harmless herbs" stance. I read Biological and Medicinal Chemistry, used it, have an aunt that's a psychiatrist, visited my best mate regularly in a psychiatric unit, and more stuff that's not suitable for a friendly (in my world, anyway) forum. I liked getting stoned, but harmless? Never. Ever.

Still, retribution eh? Bummer if you need it

[Andy Wilson]

Bummer if you need it

Maybe if it wasn't so hard to get people could decide when they wanted it.

[David Williams]

Twenty years ago I was assaulted by a guy who mistakenly believed I was trying to chat up his girlfriend. He waited for me outside the nightclub with some of his mates and hit me from behind, got me on the ground and kicked me in the head.

So he believed that you had trespassed on his 'property', and that the legal sanctions you would suffer were insufficient. He was prepared to go beyond any real need to defend himself, and he was not unduly concerned if innocent people suffered so long as his 'family' were protected. A certain irony here, methinks.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Twenty years ago I was assaulted by a guy who mistakenly believed I was trying to chat up his girlfriend. He waited for me outside the nightclub with some of his mates and hit me from behind, got me on the ground and kicked me in the head.

So he believed that you had trespassed on his 'property', and that the legal sanctions you would suffer were insufficient. He was prepared to go beyond any real need to defend himself, and he was not unduly concerned if innocent people suffered so long as his 'family' were protected. A certain irony here, methinks.

Interesting example. It's another of my bugbears when a man assumes that a woman - even a wife or daughter - is his property. And/or that being spoken to by another man is something she needs protection from.

[Andy Wilson]

Twenty years ago I was assaulted by a guy who mistakenly believed I was trying to chat up his girlfriend. He waited for me outside the nightclub with some of his mates and hit me from behind, got me on the ground and kicked me in the head.

So he believed that you had trespassed on his 'property', and that the legal sanctions you would suffer were insufficient. He was prepared to go beyond any real need to defend himself, and he was not unduly concerned if innocent people suffered so long as his 'family' were protected. A certain irony here, methinks.

Interesting example. It's another of my bugbears when a man assumes that a woman - even a wife or daughter - is his property. And/or that being spoken to by another man is something she needs protection from.

He's havin a laugh though, innit?

[Gavin Chipper]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Well I thought it was good anyway.

[Derek Hazell]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Well I thought it was good anyway.

I41 agree with you, Gevin.

[Andy Wilson]

I 42itously agree also.

[Jon Corby]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Well I thought it was good anyway.

I 4t so 2.

[Michael Wallace]

[Gavin Chipper]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Apparently if we had been i4i we would have got £182 million from Microsoft. Shame.

[Jon Corby]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Apparently if we had been i4i we would have got £182 million from Microsoft. Shame.

Dude, you made a good joke. Don't milk it.

[Gavin Chipper]

Oh and remember people, this is the c4c forum, not the i4i forum.

Apparently if we had been i4i we would have got £182 million from Microsoft. Shame.

Dude, you made a good joke. Don't milk it.

Haha, sorry, but I thought that was quite funny when I read it.

[Charlie Reams]

In my house I have complete authority over any intruder. If he has an innocent reason he should have called ahead.

So just to clarify your position on this subject, let's say a neighbour's kid kicks a ball into my shed and (forgetting to call ahead!) clambers over the wall to retrieve it. I catch him and, exercising my rights as a citizen must, torture him to death over the course of a week. Both you and the justice system smile on happily, knowing that vigilantes like me bravely make the world a safer, happier place for everyone. After all, the occasional child murder is a small price to pay to ensure that no one pinches your expensive TV. Right?

(Silly me, children would obviously be exempt. Some additional red tape may be required to ensure that all burglars carry proof of age.)

[Rosemary Roberts]

torture him to death over the course of a week.

I fail to see how any of the arguments presented so far could be stretched to include that.

Although: There used to be a saying among lawyers "you take your victim as you find him". meaning that if you violently assault somebody who happens to have a thin skull and he dies, then that was murder, not accident. So if you break into the house of somebody who is differently weak in the head then you should take those consequences too. In the bad old days when children were allowed to play out and the only rule was "don't be late for supper" they would know exactly where not to venture.

[Charlie Reams]

I fail to see how any of the arguments presented so far could be stretched to include that.

In my house I have complete authority over any intruder.

I have nothing against innocent people dying so long as it isn't me or my family.

But if that's your best objection then we can say I shoot him cleanly in the head instead.

[Rosemary Roberts]

I fail to see how any of the arguments presented so far could be stretched to include that.

In my house I have complete authority over any intruder.

I have nothing against innocent people dying so long as it isn't me or my family.

But if that's your best objection then we can say I shoot him cleanly in the head instead.

Not being a weak and feeble woman you could probably get by with a relatively harmless rabbit punch. Not having a gun I would have to get by with a kick in the balls. One does what one can. And one should be entitled to do whatever is necessary.

[Charlie Reams]

Not being a weak and feeble woman you could probably get by with a relatively harmless rabbit punch. Not having a gun I would have to get by with a kick in the balls. One does what one can. And one should be entitled to do whatever is necessary.

Interesting idea. Perhaps such a doctrine could be called "reasonable force".

[Rosemary Roberts]

Not being a weak and feeble woman you could probably get by with a relatively harmless rabbit punch. Not having a gun I would have to get by with a kick in the balls. One does what one can. And one should be entitled to do whatever is necessary.

Interesting idea. Perhaps such a doctrine could be called "reasonable force".

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

[Charlie Reams]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

So if I say it seems reasonable to me that I shot the kid in the head, you say "well, fair enough"?

[David Williams]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

Actually, in this context, "reasonable" is whatever seems reasonable firstly to the Crown Prosecution Service, and secondly to a jury of your peers.

[Charlie Reams]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

Actually, in this context, "reasonable" is whatever seems reasonable firstly to the Crown Prosecution Service, and secondly to a jury of your peers.

I think Rosemary was arguing that it shouldn't be, but rather it should be up to the householder's own sense of reason.

[Craig Beevers]

Twenty years ago I was assaulted by a guy who mistakenly believed I was trying to chat up his girlfriend. He waited for me outside the nightclub with some of his mates and hit me from behind, got me on the ground and kicked me in the head.I was only saved by one of his mates pointing out that they'd got the wrong man. This guy was just out of prison after an eighteen month manslaughter sentence (served at Shelton Abbey open prison). His previous victim died from several kicks to the head, and was assaulted for exactly the same reason. A year later he killled again, got 7 years, served 4. On each occasion his excuse was that he had consumed some "tasty plants and little white pills", as if that made any difference to his victims. So if I don't share your rosy view of crime and punishment, Charlie, I'm sure you'll understand.

It's situations like that where 'justice' is a complete joke. Premeditated attacks, kicking someone in the head while they're down. Doing it repeatedly despite knowing the potential consequences. People like that should be detained indefinitely. They are too big a risk to be allowed on the streets.

[David Williams]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

Actually, in this context, "reasonable" is whatever seems reasonable firstly to the Crown Prosecution Service, and secondly to a jury of your peers.

I think Rosemary was arguing that it shouldn't be, but rather it should be up to the householder's own sense of reason.

I know. I was correcting her.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

Actually, in this context, "reasonable" is whatever seems reasonable firstly to the Crown Prosecution Service, and secondly to a jury of your peers.

I think Rosemary was arguing that it shouldn't be, but rather it should be up to the householder's own sense of reason.

I know. I was correcting her.

You can't correct me: I know what I think. It's not my fault if "the law" gets it wrong.

It should be the perp's own risk if he picks on somebody with a insalubrious habits or a gruesome sense of humour. Or somebody like me who is prone to panic and lash out with whatever comes to hand. Tough titty.

[David Williams]

I know. I was correcting her.

You can't correct me: I know what I think. It's not my fault if "the law" gets it wrong.

It should be the perp's own risk if he picks on somebody with a insalubrious habits or a gruesome sense of humour. Or somebody like me who is prone to panic and lash out with whatever comes to hand. Tough titty.

Indeed, it's so much easier correcting people who don't know what they think.

If it ever came to it, I've no sympathy for the burglar no matter what you do to him. But I suggest you don't claim that you lashed out because "the law" gets it wrong. That's premeditation, not panic.

[Gavin Chipper]

It should be the perp's own risk if he picks on somebody with a insalubrious habits or a gruesome sense of humour. Or somebody like me who is prone to panic and lash out with whatever comes to hand. Tough titty.

A burglar is taking a risk if he enters a house and he doesn't know what the person inside is like. So in that sense it is his own risk. But that doesn't excuse you when you use excessive force.

Likewise when I wind up a known killer, it is my own risk. But he's still breaking the law when he tries to kill me.

[Rosemary Roberts]

It should be the perp's own risk if he picks on somebody with a insalubrious habits or a gruesome sense of humour. Or somebody like me who is prone to panic and lash out with whatever comes to hand. Tough titty.

A burglar is taking a risk if he enters a house and he doesn't know what the person inside is like. So in that sense it is his own risk. But that doesn't excuse you when you use excessive force.

Likewise when I wind up a known killer, it is my own risk. But he's still breaking the law when he tries to kill me.

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was. Just how terrified I am must have some bearing. And nobody else can judge that, even with hindsight.

[Charlie Reams]

It should be the perp's own risk if he picks on somebody with a insalubrious habits or a gruesome sense of humour. Or somebody like me who is prone to panic and lash out with whatever comes to hand. Tough titty.

A burglar is taking a risk if he enters a house and he doesn't know what the person inside is like. So in that sense it is his own risk. But that doesn't excuse you when you use excessive force.

Likewise when I wind up a known killer, it is my own risk. But he's still breaking the law when he tries to kill me.

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was. Just how terrified I am must have some bearing. And nobody else can judge that, even with hindsight.

So your answer to my earlier question is Yes?

[Rosemary Roberts]

So your answer to my earlier question is Yes?

Sorry, Charlie, I can't see which of your questions I have left unanswered.

[David Williams]

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was. Just how terrified I am must have some bearing. And nobody else can judge that, even with hindsight.

If you had used what others would consider to be excessive force, people might think that at the point you had gone beyond what was necessary, you had decided to exact retribution because you felt that we do not have a legal system that will itself deal properly with the perpetrators of crime. Particularly those who have seen

My feeling is that you should not procesute tha actions of vigilantes unless you have a legal system that will itself deal properly with the perpetrators of crime.

Suppose this guy had captured his perp and handed him over. What would have happened next? It's a certainty the police would just have let him go, either unprosecuted "for lack of evidence" or just out on bail. So maybe he returns the next night to deal with the witnesses.

If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like. He has, literally, asked for it. Chickening out and running away is just adding insult to injury.

[Rosemary Roberts]

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was. Just how terrified I am must have some bearing. And nobody else can judge that, even with hindsight.

If you had used what others would consider to be excessive force, people might think that at the point you had gone beyond what was necessary, you had decided to exact retribution because you felt that we do not have a legal system that will itself deal properly with the perpetrators of crime. Particularly those who have seen

My feeling is that you should not procesute tha actions of vigilantes unless you have a legal system that will itself deal properly with the perpetrators of crime.

Suppose this guy had captured his perp and handed him over. What would have happened next? It's a certainty the police would just have let him go, either unprosecuted "for lack of evidence" or just out on bail. So maybe he returns the next night to deal with the witnesses.

If somebody breaks into my house I should be free to take any retribution I like. He has, literally, asked for it. Chickening out and running away is just adding insult to injury.

I see your point, but there is nothing sinister in your juxtaposition. The second quote, which I wrote first, is my gut feeling - "he has, literally, asked for it". The first quote, which I wrote more recently, is my subsequent analysis of why my gut feeling is the way it is.

And as any student of whodunits can tell you, the person who stampedes around imprecating and proclaiming that so-and-so should be strung up is never the person who subsequently strings them up.

[Charlie Reams]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

So if I say it seems reasonable to me that I shot the kid in the head, you say "well, fair enough"?

[Brian Moore]

Reading Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate last night, the following passage jumped off the page given the debate here.

"Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective general violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. [...] Many historians argue that people acquiesced to centralised authorities during the Middle Ages and other periods to relieve themselves of the burden of having to retaliate against them those who would harm them and their kin. And the growth of those authorities may explain the hundredfold decline in homicide rates in European societies since the Middle Ages. [...] When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out. [...] As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8.00am on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11.20am the first bank was robbed. [...] Within a few more hours, [...] rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home." (p330-331).

[Rosemary Roberts]

Yes. This whole argument is only about what is or is not "reasonable". And I maintain that it is whatever seems reasonable to the householder in whatever alarming situation the perp has embrangled him in.

So if I say it seems reasonable to me that I shot the kid in the head, you say "well, fair enough"?

If it really did seem reasonable to you, then yes - who am I to judge your situation? But perhaps you should try to sound a little bit more convincing. However "reasonably" the law might be phrased, in the absence of a complete free-for-all there will still be some jobsworth with a clipboard and boxes to tick who gets to decides whether or not you are lying.

[Charlie Reams]

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was.

However "reasonably" the law might be phrased, in the absence of a complete free-for-all there will still be some jobsworth with a clipboard and boxes to tick who gets to decides whether or not you are lying.

So just to summarise, your argument is that no one can know what you consider reasonable, but they have to decide anyway? That doesn't sound like an improvement on the current situation to me.

[Rosemary Roberts]

I don't think anybody but me knows what, at the time and in the circumstances, excessive force was.

However "reasonably" the law might be phrased, in the absence of a complete free-for-all there will still be some jobsworth with a clipboard and boxes to tick who gets to decides whether or not you are lying.

So just to summarise, your argument is that no one can know what you consider reasonable, but they have to decide anyway? That doesn't sound like an improvement on the current situation to me.

Not much of an improvement, no. I'm not advocating the jobsworth, just predicting him. He's an inevitable part of the current environment in which a burglar can sue me when he cuts his hand breaking my window. Of course there would be exceptions, but when a criminal is injured or killed in the pursuit of his calling I think "he asked for it" should be the default attitude.

[David Roe]

There's been a proposed change of law for some years now, sadly not yet in force, where the householder will not be prosecuted unless he uses grossly unreasonable force. Which would mean Charlie torturing the boy who wanted his ball back would still be criminal; Rosemary whacking the burglar on the head would be in the clear.

[Rosemary Roberts]

There's been a proposed change of law for some years now, sadly not yet in force, where the householder will not be prosecuted unless he uses grossly unreasonable force. Which would mean Charlie torturing the boy who wanted his ball back would still be criminal; Rosemary whacking the burglar on the head would be in the clear.

Excellent !

[Charlie Reams]

There's been a proposed change of law for some years now, sadly not yet in force, where the householder will not be prosecuted unless he uses grossly unreasonable force. Which would mean Charlie torturing the boy who wanted his ball back would still be criminal; Rosemary whacking the burglar on the head would be in the clear.

Isn't that exactly the law now?

[David Williams]

However "reasonably" the law might be phrased, in the absence of a complete free-for-all there will still be some jobsworth with a clipboard and boxes to tick who gets to decides whether or not you are lying.

No. Someone at the Crown Prosecution Service will assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of a jury, composed of people like you and me, bringing in a guilty verdict. The worst case scenario for a jobsworth is to bring a case that results in a not guilty verdict, so you would have to have done something pretty extreme before even being charged.

I should also point out that if you are concerned about being sued by a burglar who hurts himself breaking your window, which is ridiculous, you should be a lot more concerned as to the civil consequences of injuring him illegally.

[Brian Moore]

There's been a proposed change of law for some years now, sadly not yet in force, where the householder will not be prosecuted unless he uses grossly unreasonable force. Which would mean Charlie torturing the boy who wanted his ball back would still be criminal; Rosemary whacking the burglar on the head would be in the clear.

Isn't that exactly the law now?

Indeed. And in the end, juries, not jobsworths, decide whether force used by householders is "unreasonable". Although the Tories suggested changing this to "not grossly disproportionate", the effect is the same: a judgement must be made as to what is or not acceptable according to a law which does allow for a violent response by householders.

[Rosemary Roberts]

There's been a proposed change of law for some years now, sadly not yet in force, where the householder will not be prosecuted unless he uses grossly unreasonable force. Which would mean Charlie torturing the boy who wanted his ball back would still be criminal; Rosemary whacking the burglar on the head would be in the clear.

Isn't that exactly the law now?

Indeed. And in the end, juries, not jobsworths, decide whether force used by householders is "unreasonable". Although the Tories suggested changing this to "not grossly disproportionate", the effect is the same: a judgement must be made as to what is or not acceptable according to a law which does allow for a violent response by householders.

The jobsworths I mentioned are the ones who decide who to prosecute. We often hear of people being taken to court for injuring burglars. But if most of the people who apprehend intruders on their property do them some damage, then this must be considered man-in-the-street reasonable.

I also don't think people should be expected just to let an intruder escape, even though using enough force to make him stay put is likely to damage him.

[David Williams]

We often hear of people being taken to court for injuring burglars.

It was recently said by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, in the last 15 years, there have only been 11 cases where householders have been prosecuted after tackling intruders. As long as a householder acts instinctively, in the honest belief that they need to act in this way to protect themselves and their family, almost any level of violence can be used.

What more do you need?

[Rosemary Roberts]

We often hear of people being taken to court for injuring burglars.

It was recently said by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, in the last 15 years, there have only been 11 cases where householders have been prosecuted after tackling intruders. As long as a householder acts instinctively, in the honest belief that they need to act in this way to protect themselves and their family, almost any level of violence can be used.

What more do you need?

That is interesting - eleven in the last 15 years is not a lot. But we hear about them more often than that. Each case is argued about for months on end and dragged up afresh to illustrate the next one, so it seems as though it is continually happening.

If my hazard is as low as that I guess I can lash out with impunity in future. Thanks guys.

[Brian Moore]

If my hazard is as low as that I guess I can lash out with impunity in future.

Almost. But not quite.

[Rosemary Roberts]

If my hazard is as low as that I guess I can lash out with impunity in future.

Almost. But not quite.

Yes, I've seen those. When the DPP feels it necessary to issue a clarification that is a sure sign that the law is badly formulated and widely misunderstood.

I will just have to hope that my burglar brings a weapon that I can a) get hold of and b) use effectively. Perhaps I should put in some practice.

[David Roe]

The Daily Telegraph did a survey of Chief Police Officers a couple of years back, and about a third of them said that keeping a baseball bat by the side of the bed just in case of attack, would constitute premeditation if it was used and therefore be unreasonable force. I sincerely hope they are plain wrong and that is not the law. But it does suggest the law needs clarifying if even the police don't know it.