jail for catching &beating the burglar who threatened your family ???

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not saying you wouldn't. It just is no longer spur of the moment reasonable force then

[Acid Casual]

As I said, burglars are not content to limit themselves to reasonable force, so neither am I.

No intention of ever using reasonable force if someone enters my house. Is reasonable force not some sort of contradiction in terms anyway? If the situation is reasonable, then force should be totally uncalled for.

Somehow I can't imagine the cut and thrust of a good debate doing the trick in the event of stopping a burglar.

[*Bob*]

This is turning into something of a non-story, evident in news reporting last night.

General political votewinning mumblings aimed at middle england (wherever that is) about being soft of criminals etc etc, but not a lawyer or a politician in sight who was willing to saw that law was an ass with regards to this particular incident: a posse of men (because that's what they were - only in a car and not on horses) out for vengeance.

[Huguenot]

That's it *Bob*, I think Acid Casual's got the wrong end of the stick on this one.

Nobody is suggesting debate is a good alternative when a burglar is in the house. A good hiding may well be in order.

This burglar was not in the house, it was a cold blooded lynch mob.

It doesn't benefit a reasonable society that our security rests on lynch mobs.

I'm sure Acid Casual is not arguing a return to this feudal system?

[mockney piers]

"As I mused earlier, the problem with reasonable force is that criminals never use it."

Notwithstanding that given that any use of force beyond reasonable is criminal makes this statement both circular and tautological, it's also meaningless.

As I said I confronted the masked burglar in my house * wakes up, rubs eyes shouts what the fuck* and he just left my house with a laptop to show for his troubles*. He didn't use any force which I suppose fits in with the clarification that burglars don't use reasonable force if they're not using any at all.

Anyway inclined to agree wih bob that his is a nonstory.

*incidentally laptop belonged to flat mate who managed research teams at a high profile big pharma. I'm still not sure it wasn't industrial espionage.

[Keef]

This simply boils down to whether or not you think it's okay to hunt someone down and punish them for breaking in to your house and threatening your family.

It is not a case of self defence.

It is not spur of the moment.

I agree with Huguenot, it was a lynch mob. Whether you think they were in the right or not, is nothing to do with it really.

[Jeremy]

I know it doesn't make it right, but... how many of you can say with 100% confidence, that if someone held your family hostage and threatened to kill them, you wouldn't want to whack them with a cricket bat? I'm not sure if I can.

[SeanMacGabhann]

As you say Jeremy, it doesn' tmake it right. Once we accept that basic tenet then what we say after that is moot

[Brendan]

No, if I had the opportunity I would probably start hitting and not stop until the sub human shite stopped moving.

But regardless, it still stops being self defence when you are chasing someone down. So the law needs to run its course.

But like I said before I think this guy should have got a suspended sentence. It?s not helping anyone sending an otherwise law abiding father to gaol.

[Keef]

Think I said earlier, that I couldn't say how I'd act in that situation, I like to think I'd be releived they'd gone, call the police, and cuddle my wife and daughter, but who knows.

If I did go chasing with a cricket bat though, I'd be in the wrong as far as the law was concerned, and I'd not be "defending myself". That is the point.

[Jeremy]

True.

[KidKruger]

The term 'reasonable force' is vague and seems like 1/2 a sentence.

I mean 'reasonable force' for what ? to do what ?

'reasonable force' to let the intruder know you exist ?

'reasonable force' to show the intruder that if you have to you can hit them and you will ?

'reasonable force' to stun them long enough to allow you time to call the police ?

Can you serioulsy imagine a tangle with a criminal where you decide to hit them half as hard as you think you can just to be sure you're not accused of being 'unreasonable' ?

Surely when you strike an intruder or someone you are apprehending you initially hit as hard as you can unless you're an experienced streefighting kinda guy who knows exactly what move will do what and what level of exertion to apply.

[Keef]

Indeed. I tend to avoid the dragon punch, as it is a powerful move. I usually opt for a weak sonic boom just to keep them under control.

[mockney piers]

Always go spinning bird, it may be powerful but you'll be too dizzy to administer the coup de grace. By the time you recover hopefully you'll also have recovered your wits and gone back into defensive stance.

Avoid hooked chains and decapitation at all times, very easy to execute technically and of course literally.

[Jeremy]

And Chun Li's "lightning kick" (the one where you thrash the kick button and she shouts "yap yap yap") is most certainly beyond the realms of reasonable force.

[Keef]

As was E Honda's sumo slap, and definitely Blanka's electric tricks!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Lounge speak people

anyway... Opposite if reasonable force is called what?

[SteveT]

My version of 'reasonable force' is to hit them hard enough and frequently enough to reasonably expect them to pack it up and leave me alone.

"Oooooh he can't move" 'well I only hit him I thought, sufficient to stop him from being a threat to my health'.

Well son you have gone beyond 'reasonable force' and now he's croaked, you're booked for murder!

"but I was at home minding my own beeswax and this thieving crooked burglar attacked me and mine, what was I supposed to do but protect myself?

You're knicked put your hands behind your back whilst I hand-cuff you, you low life scroat, when were you last in bovver?

'but but I've never been in bother before officer'.

"Well you 'ave now"!

[mockney piers]

...is a perfect description. If you hit him once and his heart stopped noone would send you to jail. If he's left your house you got yourbmates together and you found him and clubbed his head with a weapon until it split(head or weapon, same place legally no doubt), amazingly you're going to jail.

Still amazed there is a discussion going on.

Well, that isn't concerned with gaming.

[DaveR]

Apologies for a lengthy post, but below is the specimen direction on self-defence issued to judges. It is pretty full, and includes elements about the difficulty of judging what is reasonable etc. In my experience juries have no difficulty, having usually seen both assailant and victim, in coming to the 'right' decision.

"If you think that D was or may have been acting in lawful self-defence, he is entitled to be found not guilty. Because the prosecution must prove D's guilt, it is for the prosecution to prove that D was not acting in lawful self-defence, not for D to establish that he was; and you must consider the matter of self-defence in the light of the situation which D honestly believed he faced.

You must first ask whether D honestly believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself at all. (Add, as appropriate) This would not be the case if D [was the aggressor][acted in revenge][knew that he did not need to resort to violence].

If you are sure that D did not honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence, and you need consider this matter no further. But what if you think that D did honestly believe or may honestly have believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself?

You must then decide whether the type and amount of force D used was reasonable. Obviously, a person who is under attack may react on the spur of the moment, and he cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force he needs to use to defend himself. On the other hand, if he goes over the top and uses force out of all proportion to the [anticipated] attack on him, or more force than is really necessary to defend himself, the force used would not be reasonable. So you must take into account both the nature of the attack on D and what he then did. (Here refer briefly to any features of the evidence which may have a bearing on these issues, eg the speed of the attack, the number of attackers, whether or not he/they had and/or used any weapon(s), and the nature of D's response.)

If you are sure that the force D used was unreasonable, then D cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence; but if you think that the force D used was or may have been reasonable, he is entitled to be acquitted.

Notes

1. This direction may need further adapting, depending upon the facts of the case, and will need to be adapted if the case involves the defence of another person (as to which see R v Duffy 50 Cr App R 68 and R v Chisam 47 Cr App R 130) or the defence of property (as to which see Archbold (2003) 19-187).

2. Whether the plea is self-defence or defence of another, if the defendant may have been honestly mistaken as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts: that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view a reasonable mistake or not: see R v Williams 78 Cr App R 276; R v Beckford 85 Cr App R 378 and R v Oatridge 94 Cr App R 367. In the latter case the court emphasised that in cases where a defendant was not under actual or threatened attack, but honestly believed that he was, then the jury should be directed to consider whether the degree of force used by the defendant was commensurate with the degree of risk which he believed to be created by the attack under which he believed himself to be.

3. Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether it was necessary for the defendant to use force and whether the force used was reasonable. It is not necessary that the defendant should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight: see R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110. Where necessary, an appropriate direction should be given.

4. As to whether a defendant is entitled to rely, in a defence of self-defence, upon a mistake of fact induced by voluntary intoxication: see Archbold (2003) 17-18.

5. As to use of excessive force: see R v Clegg [1995] 2 WLR 80, HL.

6. Whether or not the amount of force used was reasonable is a purely objective question: see DPP v Armstrong-Braun [1999] Crim LR 416.

7. For the availability of self-defence where the defendant sought the confrontation: see R v Balogun [2000] 1 Archbold News 3.

[LegalEagle-ish]

So you have to pretty much go out of your way and over the top to not get off with self-defence when attacked or in fear of attack (even if it's a mistken fear of attack).

So can we stop the melodrama now?

[????]

update

He's been freed

[KidKruger]

Great news.

If the burgars were now all put away for a long stretch that would be perfect, based on (at least one of) their criminal records it would not be a day too soon.

[iaineasy]

Im glad they have been freed!! I dont think they deserved the sentence that they got and the short spell they did will almost certainly be deterrent enough if they are not generally criminal by nature!

[Brendan]

Good, good. The Court of Appeal judge obviously came on here and took my advice on how to deal with this.