Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| El_Presidente |
on Fri 24 Jun 11, 1:36 PM to the Informed_Debate group.
This is definitely one to watch: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-...
(ETA Sky News link, which is much better). http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Salford...
|
A burglar has been stabbed to death and the householder arrested on suspicion of murder after an attempted break-in at his house in Salford. Four masked men attempted to get into a house in Ethel Avenue before midnight on Wednesday. ... Ch Supt Kevin Mulligan, who heads Greater Manchester Police's Salford division, said he suffered "at least one stab wound" during an altercation in the house involving at least one person from the address and four people breaking in. He said he could not comment further on the injuries or the cause of death until a post-mortem examination had been carried out. He also refused to comment on whether the weapon had been taken into the property by the intruder or if it belonged to the householder. ... Prime Minister David Cameron this week vowed to bring in stronger measures to protect homeowners defending their property. He said: "We will put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted." When asked about whether householders should be able to defend themselves, Mr Mulligan said: "Within the existing legal framework, you can use reasonable force to protect yourself - the emphasis on reasonable." "I don't see it as my position to speculate on possible legislation in the future," he added. He urged people who thought they were being burgled to contact police. |
So, what would you consider 'reasonable' if you were faced with no less than four masked men breaking into your house in the middle of the night?
I know this 'reasonable force' malarkey can sometimes be a bit of a legal grey area, but assuming that the premise of the case is true - i.e. multiple masked intruders breaking and entering - it seems to me like a pretty clear-cut case of a man doing exactly what he needed to do to protect himself, his home and his family.
I accept that the police should be called - and in this case they were anyway - but unless they're capable of arriving in the time it takes for four thugs to climb a staircase, then I don't see how they could possibly offer any immediate protection to the householder. In he absence of that protection, the only law left is the law of the jungle, and it's a given that people will try to protect their own.
As far as I can see, this man had been placed, through no fault of his own (but rather directly through the fault of the intruders) in a nightmare situation, where he could have reasonably have believed that he was fighting for his life. Outnumbered 4 to 1, I don't see what alternative he had but to use absolutely any advantage opportunity he might have had to hand in order to put an end to the situation. In this case, he clearly had an opportunity to take the first guy down quickly and decisively, so he took it.
I do hope that common sense prevails in this clear case of self-defence, and that this man is not penalised in any way for doing what any reosonable person would do in a similarly ugly situation.
Edited Fri 24 Jun 11, 3:54 PM by El_Presidente
| 24 Jun 11, 1:50 PM Chauncey_Gardner 23 mths |
I tend to agree, although as I am sure you appreciate, you have made quite a few assumptions to arrive at this conclusion - we do not know the finer detail right now. Four people breaking in seems very unusual, so perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. On the face of it, this seems somewhat different from the Tony Martin case - which is a topic that is likely to cause more disagreement - and looks a little more cut and dried. I certainly believe in the right of a property dweller to defend their home...
Edited 24 Jun 11, 1:51 PM by Chauncey_Gardner | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 2:32 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
Pointless to speculate on that case in particular, because so few of the facts are known, and indeed very few of the facts will be made known to the public at large anyway. That said of course this matter needs to be thoroughly investigated and of course it has to be investigated as a murder. But one would hope, if it plays out along the lines that it seems to, that the courts would err on the side of the householder. The Tony Martin case, where the guy had already defended his property and then went on the counter attack, was a lot more complex. Fundamentally I believe in the right to punitive force to defend person and property, as long as it stops short of pre-meditated serious bodily harm or murder. By punitive force I mean that you should have the right not only to protect yourself and your property to the reasonable level as defined currently in law, but also to take it to the next level. I don't see any particular reason why it should be illegal to kick the shit out of a burglar or mugger. I used to be much more of a pacifist on this issue, but since those days times have changed. Crime is due for a big comeback thanks to the economy (cheers Dave) and people shouldn't be afraid to keep a baseball bat or a chainsaw by the bed. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 2:58 PM geek_love 2 yrs |
Once someone has broken into your house then I'm afraid that they have lost all rights to any kind of protection under the law. I'm sure most people would use only the required amount of force to drive off or restrain said toerags, but if they are unlucky enough to break into the house of a right nasty bastard then whose fault is that? Unless someone can give me a damn fine reason as to why they are in my house at 2am without my permission then I'm doing whatever it takes to get rid of them. I thought I saw your name on a loaf of bread yesterday. But when I looked again it said "Thick Cut". | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 3:14 PM El_Presidente UK(G), 4 yrs    |
I pretty much agree with everything that's been said so far, although I wouldn't endorse the legalisation of 'punitive' force per se, simply because it's the place of the courts, rather than the public or even the police, to decide on punishments. However, I do agree with where @Doghouse_Reilly draws the line as to what level of violence should be acceptable, albeit for a slightly different reason, in that I believe that there should be no compromise between the rights of the aggressor and those of the defender, other than to rule out violence that is entirely gratuitous and grossly disproportionate. As Geek_Love says, as the victim, you don't choose to be in that situation, so if there is any doubt, then why should you have to accept the risk of *not* fully incapacitating the burglar/mugger/attacker? ETA: I thought this might be a bit more contentiouss, but maybe it's a crap topic for debate, because we all seem to agree with each other so far. "...Try as I like, a small crack appears in my diplomacy dyke." Edited 24 Jun 11, 3:16 PM by El_Presidente | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 3:27 PM Monkey_Wench UK(B), 20 mths    |
Quite. I've seen Fatal Attraction. And speaking as a woman I would *really* want to be sure he wasn't getting up again to have another go.
'Reasonable force', is such a subjective term. If I woke up in the middle of the night to find 4 men in my house, they would need to be extremely incapacitated for me to feel they were no longer a danger to me. If necessary I would use a weapon to defend me and mine. Some big strong prop forward would cease to be in danger long before I would, despite have more capacity to do damage. I say that when a burglar make a descision to enter another person's property, he should also lose most of his rights to expect to be treated in a 'reasonable' manner. . | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 4:14 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
A lot of the controversy of the issue is deflected because unlike many countries we don't have firearms in the home, usually anyway. When you add the potential for immediate lethal force to the mix it gets more tricky. But we don't have that here, so no biggie. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 5:10 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Its the doubt bit thats important - in the Martin case, there was little doubt that Martin had the upper hand (he was armed and shot someone in the back IIRC). If faced with 4 assailants and you don't know if they're armed a serious response is appropriate because potentially they are armed (and even if they aren't they still have force of numbers). But yes one to watch indeed.... And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 7:05 PM Monkey_Wench UK(B), 20 mths |
Also, should you wait to see what their intentions are? I think not. Potentially armed + force of numbers = My life in danger. At that point any force used to defend myself would seem reasonable.
. | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 8:11 PM Top_Class UK(GU), 2 yrs |
We all have a right to self-defense both in the US and UK. In the US the right allows citizens to act on their own behalf and engage in violence for the sake of defending their own life or the lives of others up to and including the use of deadly force. In the UK it is a right to 'reasonable' force ie a Paddington Bear hard stare. The right to self-defense clearly maintains the concept that there is no carte blanche right to commit violence against someone who enters your home intent only on a crime against its/your property however you can use any non-deadly technique to prevent a theft/overcome/over-power an intruder but once their ability to pose a threat is overcome you can't then stick the boot in further. Nor is pre-emption usually allowed (he looked a bit iffy so I smashed him in the face with a baseball bat just in case), nor post-crime violence (he nicked my stuff so I beat him up afterwards) as neither is a matter of 'self-defense'. Without knowing the circumstances of the Manchester incident it's difficult to say who my sympathies lie with, but I think back to a couple of past occasions, one the farmer who shot a teenage burglar in 2000, Tony Martin and was given a life sentence. Mr Justice Owens is quoted as saying "The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not be reasonable and that can have tragic consequences." and the other is the guy whose car anti-theft device consisted of making the car's metal bodywork electrically live giving any potential burglar what can only be described as being, in more ways than one, 'a nasty shock'. "Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles." | ||
| 24 Jun 11, 11:59 PM mq1965 UK(DA), 8 yrs |
If the case is as simple as it is presented, i.e. four random masked men broke into someone's house and the householder snatched up a knife to defend himself, and stabbed one of them, not too severely as he was able to run away and only died a bit later, then I have no doubt his actions would be accepted as being reasonable self-defence. I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye though. While the police clearly have to question anyone involved in a stabbing, whatever the apparent circumstances, the fact that all three people in the house were arrested and one held for quite a long time before being released on bail makes it look like it isn't quite as simple as it appears. We shall see. (Or maybe we won't?) |
