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

[*Bob*]

I sincerely hope a trio of knife-wielding men never try to get into my home.

Should a trio of knife-wielding men try to get into my home, I've no idea what I might do. However, being a reasonable person with no history of engagement in violent incidents to my name (not since I tried to hit my brother back in '87 anyway), I would like to think that my actions - whether cowering in the corner and simply phoning the police, or heroically disarming one of the assailants and despatching all three in a nailbiting match to the death - would be considered reasonable, on account of circumstance - and because I'm a reasonable person.

This is slightly, but significantly different position to predetermining what you'll do to someone before it's even happened, not to mention moaning about how you might get prosecuted for it and it aint fair. Scary.

[Keef]

Well put *bob*.

[KidKruger]

I'm not sure anyone is predicting a 'plan' of what they will do, just empathising with the householder's plight and perhaps concurring with his response. No one knows what they will do on the day but most people have a view on roughly the nature of what their response might be, just like those who reckon they would be sure to follow the law down to the very letter, not applying too much force (but just enough to complete the job) if they were burgled and their family threatened.

[*Bob*]

I can't help the feeling that the person who declares his intention that a burglar 'get everything that's coming to him' might also the same person who wants me 'to get everything that's coming to me' if I accidentally spill his pint down the pub.

That's usually the way these things work.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I'd be worried about my reaction if someone threatened my kids in that way, but I have anger management issues, so am not the reasonable person that *Bob* may be, so therefore, my reaction may not be reasonable. I don't think I would have caved the guys head in quite so badly as the man who chased the burglar and broke his cricket bat on his head, but everyone's anger takes different lengths of time to calm down.

I think it is right to punish someone who commits a revenge attack, but instant reactions to threat and fear of death by someone protecting their family are a different thing. It appears that the jury thought this was a revenge attack, rather than an instant reaction to the threat from the burglars and if that is the case, the guy is right to be punished. I'd still hate to find myself in that position, and would be worried about my own reactions.

[KidKruger]

Im not convinced that if I spilled the pint of the chap(s) above who suggested what their reaction may be to the burglar that they would assault me.

One is a reaction to an everyday accident which is almost inevitable at some pint in your life and can be resolved with ?3.50.

The other is a reaction to a life threatening and traumatic event laid on you by someone of evil intent.

[Brendan]

I think if someone threatened to kill my family and I got my hands on them I could quite happily kill them without feeling a jot of remorse. Hopefully the rational side of my brain would switch on and make me realise that I should rather let the law deal with them or I may face charges. But who can say unless they have been in the situation. Either way I can fully understand this guy?s actions.

But you (or me or the police) can?t run after someone and use more than reasonable force to restrain them. That is a very long running tenant of law. Whether it is right or wrong is a debatable issue but it is not some newfangled, bleeding heart liberals broken Britain bullshit. It is the law.

I do think this guy should have got a suspended sentence though but then I?m not a judge am I.

[SeanMacGabhann]

kidkruger - you can't on the one hand have people saying:

ianeasy: I would have beat the burglar senseles and gone to prison

KidKruger: If I had the guts that guy had I am sure I would also be getting 30 months

and then a few posts later you say: "I'm not sure anyone is predicting a 'plan' of what they will do, just empathising with the householder's plight and perhaps concurring with his response."

Those responses are as close to "a plan" as you can get.

As for quids and his need to pick fights when they aren't there, I have no idea why he does that. Talking about "liberals" and making out that "they" are boo hooing for the victim is poor form

[KidKruger]

Sean,

I appreciate your guidance re what I can't do.

we can get into the semantics if you want, i have explained in previous post what I think people meant (including myself)

most people don't start a solid plan with "If I had the guts...." but perhaps that's our distinct interpretation of what constitues a plan.

I think you're making the assumption I WOULD have the guts and be able to carry out 'the plan', however that is your assumption not mine, as i think i made clear I do not know I could actually do it and the word 'If' is the give-away indicator

you cannot change my view but feel free to pick me up on the style i articulated my thoughts, goo dluck picking it apart

[SeanMacGabhann]

By saying "you can't say x and then go on to say y" I'm not forbidding anything - I'm saying it's not a consistent argument, that's all

I'm not making any assumptions about you at all, so no need to put words in my mouth. I'm simply reading what you are writing

But let's just say the world changes and people are allowed, without penalty, to dispense justice. Can you not see the trouble that would bring and how it would be much worse than the system we have now (for all it's faults)?

[iaineasy]

can't help the feeling that the person who declares his intention that a burglar 'get everything that's coming to him' might also the same person who wants me 'to get everything that's coming to me' if I accidentally spill his pint down the pub.

That's usually the way these things work.

-----------------------------------------

If thats me your reffering to bob don't worry I haven't ever had a fight in a pub in my life and to be honest the last fight I did have was trying to stop a girl getting mugged and for that I got a good kicking.

The point that I was making is that there is something quite instinctive and primeval about protecting your family from harm and that instinct can make thoroughly reasonable people do extraordinary things. Even a fluffed up hug monkey like me.

Unfortunately you cant hug a burglar and make them feel punished and hugs wont save your family from a knife weilding maniac.

hugs as ever

[Keef]

Unfortunately you cant hug a burglar and make them feel punished and hugs wont save your family from a knife weilding maniac.

You never know man, maybe they just need to be loved.

[iaineasy]

haha yeah maybe. Or maybe they just need there ar*es kicked.

edited for bad language in the drawing room

[Acid Casual]

The problem with reasonable force is that burglars, muggers etc don't tend to use it. Therefore using it in response is pretty useless.

Either hand over your cash/wallet/belongings or strike back in a manner over and above what the assailant themselves are comfortable with seems to be the option. Most people are unable to do the latter, so quite sensibly opt for the former, and I would not have any issue with anyone who opted to do that at all.

Violence & threat are about boundaries and comfort zones. Most people are not comfortable with even the merest suggestion of either, hence why your common and garden mugger gets a pretty easy nights work usually.

To me if someone enters your home and threatens you or your family, then all bets are off as far as what might be considered reasonable force.

I've had two intruders enter my back garden since I've lived here. Both times I am pretty sure they had wished they had chosen another house, and I don't give an Aylesbury duck about that.

[????]

edited for peace and love

[Keef]

They were just discussing this, and a similar case from Ireland, on Radio 4. Apparently, Ireland are looking at these laws, and what is acceptable in defending your property.

[Keef]

Here is something from yesterday, about it.

[????]

52 previous convictions........3 strikes is a bit draconian but 52 chances?

[iaineasy]

yeah i have to say that they were lucky the other 52 times not to get caught ,as to be honest I think anyone could have been guilty of bashing his head in on the spur of the moment and given the right provocation.

[SteveT]

A man caught two burglers at his house, he ordered them into the boot of his rolls royce and took them to the police station.

The police knicked him on charges of kidnapping, which subsequently caused a local outcry after a local paper took an

interest, so they dropped the charges.

It takes some working out what one is allowed to do, one things for sure the police do not like being humiliated

by 'have a go' types.

[KidKruger]

It's crazy.

You've just been tied-up and threatened with knives, you chase the guys once you've escaped your bonds and take something to counter the knives which you doubt they have by now deposited in the knife-amnesty skip so that you don't get hurt.

When these guys picked up their cricket bat and a pole as weapons they were still acting in self defense because if they apprehended the burglar(a) they knew they were armed but perhaps they did not know they would serioulsy hurt anyone however they knew they needed something to keep the knife-holders at bay.

It turns out the thief took a hiding, after 50+ offences (how many unconvicted offences ?) he finally got caught, not just caught but caught by someone he'd just tied up and whose family he'd threatened to kill. yeah let's alter the laws because the 2 brothers are getting a hard time of this.

[*Bob*]

What kind of a society are we living in where you can't chase someone out of your house and down the street and then hit them repeatedly on the head with a cricket bat until their head cracks open with the full approval of the law?

The right one, I think.

The law exists to differentiate between justice and revenge - because unfortunately, there are too many people incapable of distinguishing between the two themselves, whether in the heat of the moment or not.

When those two guys caught-up with that one burglar, self-defence of person and property turned-into revenge.. and the law simply has recognise that in one way or another. I think the severity of the sentence is unfair but that doesn't mean to say I think they deserve a medal and tickertape parade.

Incidentally, if my family and I had just been tied-up and threatened with death by three armed men, the last thing I'm sure they'd want to see me do (should I manage to break free) is run out of the door after them with a bat. But then I guess I'm probably not Rambo enough for that sort-of thing anyway.

[Acid Casual]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What kind of a society are we living in where you

> can't chase someone out of your house and down the

> street and then hit them repeatedly on the head

> with a cricket bat until their head cracks open

> with the full approval of the law?

>

> The right one, I think.

>

> The law exists to differentiate between justice

> and revenge - because unfortunately, there are too

> many people incapable of distinguishing between

> the two themselves, whether in the heat of the

> moment or not.

>

> When those two guys caught-up with that one

> burglar, self-defence of person and property

> turned-into revenge.. and the law simply has

> recognise that in one way or another. I think the

> severity of the sentence is unfair but that

> doesn't mean to say I think they deserve a medal

> and tickertape parade.

>

> Incidentally, if my family and I had just been

> tied-up and threatened with death by three armed

> men, the last thing I'm sure they'd want to see me

> do (should I manage to break free) is run out of

> the door after them with a bat. But then I guess

> I'm probably not Rambo enough for that sort-of

> thing anyway.

Fully agree with the sentiment *Bob* but not the reality. As I mused earlier, the problem with reasonable force is that criminals never use it.

I agree that there should be boundaries of some description by law, but also think that the psychological impact of having your home invaded leaves a deep, deep scar on the honest person's psyche and well being.

I'd say that you are entitled to defend your home to the extent that the intruder is incapacitated and their threat countered. Usually that means a fairly violent exchange, during which you can be sure the intruder will not have reasonable force at the forefront of their thoughts. Tell you the truth, I wouldn't either if he was in my house.

[SeanMacGabhann]

But this guy was no longer in the house and the "spur of the moment" defence involved the sudden appearance of a car full of people. This is a long way from hitting an intruder with a golf club in the living room

[Acid Casual]

Frankly, I'd pursue someone out of my house if they had broken in.