Should people have the legal right... (ENDS 10/7/11)

Printable View

29-06-2011, 06:54 PM
Cosmic

Should people have the legal right... (ENDS 10/7/11)

...to defend their homes from burglars using 'reasonable force'? - ENDS 10/07/2011

I'm sure that one of the worst situations that one can find themselves in is being face-to-face with a burglar in their own home. The law currently states that citizens are able to defend themselves and their homes from burglars using 'reasonable force'. However, what constitutes as being reasonable force e.g. does 'reasonable force' stop at killing or seriously maiming someone? Is this morally right? - A better course of action could be considered? Should we only be allowed to attack a burglar in defence or is it acceptable to attack them whilst unprovoked (e.g. by surprise/from behind).

What are your thoughts and opinions on the use of 'reasonable force' on burglars?

An interesting view from the Justice Secretary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587
01-07-2011, 12:56 AM
Narnat,

Well it is our property that we own so we have every right too. Especially if they are putting you in a life threatening situation, If they had you at knife point ect then you aren't just going to stand there buglers will go to any extent to get what they want. So I would say if someone comes onto your property and breaks in then yes you should use the amount of force you feel is needed to protect yourself and your family.
01-07-2011, 10:59 AM
redtom

If someone breaks into your home you should be able to use all necessary force to have them restrained until the police arrive, if that force turns to the point where you have to shoot them gutted for them, they took the risk to break in its their own fault.
01-07-2011, 01:18 PM
dbgtz

If someone breaks in and possesses a weapon which could cause harm or pose as a thread (i.e. someone who's massive and could kick the crap out of anyone), I think the people living there are able to do as they want. If they seem harmless and are there to steal and only steal, then they should be allowed only to weaken them (hit them) and restrain them. So I pretty much agree with what has been said.
02-07-2011, 11:52 AM
addh95

i have always heard that if somebody breaks into your house they are on your private property and you have the right to use any amount of force it takes that is in colorado it was called the "day law" i think and i have also heard that in texas but if we look at the morals of this said situation we will find the good ol "fight or flight" reaction kick in were we will either run away or hide in fear or we will defend our selfs how ever we feel necesary and some times we cant even controll what we are doing with all of the adreinalin pumping and the moment ocurring these are just my thought and opions comment how ever you like
03-07-2011, 03:53 PM
Cosmic

Quote:

Originally Posted by redtom

If someone breaks into your home you should be able to use all necessary force to have them restrained until the police arrive, if that force turns to the point where you have to shoot them gutted for them, they took the risk to break in its their own fault.

Do you not think that shooting someone is far too extreme? I expect that there would be repercussions from using a firearm for that (although, I'm not 100% on the laws surrounding firearms and owning them). Personally, I don't think I could live with the thought that I had shot someone. Not only that, but I'm sure that waving a gun at a burglar could open the floodgates for danger - what if the burglar somehow got hold of your gun and turned it on you/your family?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbgtz

If someone breaks in and possesses a weapon which could cause harm or pose as a thread (i.e. someone who's massive and could kick the crap out of anyone), I think the people living there are able to do as they want. If they seem harmless and are there to steal and only steal, then they should be allowed only to weaken them (hit them) and restrain them. So I pretty much agree with what has been said.

I agree with what you have said regarding using force to weaken and then restrain them. I feel that going 'all-out' on a burglar for being in your home is something that should never happen.
03-07-2011, 04:18 PM
Mathew

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic

I feel that going 'all-out' on a burglar for being in your home is something that should never happen.

Why? They shouldn't be there in the first place.

If they're on your property you should be able to do whatever the heck you like to them. Simple.
03-07-2011, 04:34 PM
Cosmic

Just because they shouldn't be there, I don't think you should directly go and beat them up. With that thought, just because they are on your property, the law still applies and frankly I don't think you should be allowed to 'do whatever the heck you like' to them - I can't imagine the result would stand up well in court.
03-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Mathew

So if you walked into your lounge and found a thug throwing all your possessions in a sack, you'd politely ask them to leave?...
03-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Cosmic

I think you're missing the point. Of course no one would be expected to, as you put it, 'politely as them to leave'. The point of this debate is to question the use of 'reasonable force' and what constitutes it. So are you suggesting that 'doing whatever the heck you like' to a burglar falls under the category of reasonable force? I'm not sure it does.
03-07-2011, 05:55 PM
Mathew

In that case, we can quite easily conclude this debate by saying that "reasonable force" is far too ambiguous to put a label on. There's also the fact that if you were to give someone a punch, it would be extremely difficult for the judge to rule whether it was reasonable or not, as they weren't aware of the situation. There's also the added complication that either party could lie, too.

In reply to your latter question: it depends on the individual as to what "they like" is. Some would throw them a punch, others would "politely ask them to leave". So yes, I do think it can fall under the category of reasonable force.
03-07-2011, 07:06 PM
Aidenn

Personally i'd use any force to get them away.

Im not sure if the law still stands this way however apprently you cant strike first.. if you strike first it becomes assault.
And if this is still the case i find it pathetic, i wouldnt exactly wait for someone to make the first move, because you never know what they are carrying.

I wouldnt however use excessive force either (i dont fancy becoming a murderer, just yet ;)).

Therefore, yes i believe they should.
04-07-2011, 11:29 AM
GommeInc

If someone is on your property without your consent and are a threat to your life then you should be able to defend your property. IF persuading them to move falls on deaf ears then I think force can be used, but as you said force can mean anything. Part of me thinks "beating them until nearly dead" is the wrong course of action, but each case is different as there is no evidence of who beat who and what happened during the events up to that conclusion.

I think if I was in the situation, I would call the police immediately. If I wasn't near a phone I would get my trusted metal pole out from under my bed and go downstairs and confront them. If they do not move or look as though they're heading for me I would probably throw stuff at them and prepare to beat them. They shouldn't be on the property and should be ready to accept the consequences of trepassing.
05-07-2011, 12:18 AM
Xegen

This debate happens so often and obviously is a very hard one to say.

The 'grey area' is of course where you draw the line at 'reasonable force', in my opinion were defending your own home which has your family currently residing in, it's very hard to draw a line a line at 'reasonable force' and there does need to be a lot more clear guidelines.

In my own opinion; if you break into someone's house and cause a 'realistic' threat to the life of any of there familly, there should be no limit on the force used to deal with them in this case.
05-07-2011, 12:54 AM
Gman1229

In Georgia the law is that if anyone breaks into a home it is automaticly with the intention to do harm. I myself believe reasonable force is the use of anything to defend oneself or family from harm.
05-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Kaytti

I knew someone many years ago whose father was in jail for punching a burgular and instantly killing them. How far can defending your home can one go? I do agree that we should be allowed to defend our homes, but where do we draw the line? At murder?
05-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Vinnie:Safety

im pretty sure we have that right.... my step dad shot a guy who climbed through our window... nothing happened to him, seized gun. so im guessing we have that right.... o.o
05-07-2011, 11:34 AM
GirlNextDoor15

Should people have the legal right to defend their homes from burglars using 'reasonable force'?

Imo, no. People do not have legal rights to defend their homes. But, people have legal rights to defend themselves or whoever they know. This is because the word 'burglar' says it all. According to the definition, burglar means robbers. Therefore, they unlawfully breaks into and enters another person's house to steal something. The objective of that is obviously, to steal something. So, burglars have no intention of harming you unless you are standing in his way. If they are trying to rob something from you, you should let him take it instead of hitting them or beating the crap out of them. How can someone kill burglars just to defend their objects? It is not right and if you are in the court, the probability of you to win the case is small. However, people do have legal rights when the burglars have intention to harm you. That will be considered as defending yourself.

Lastly, my answer is still no.

---------- Post added 05-07-2011 at 07:38 PM ----------

In addition to that, if you were to say when somebody trespasses your home, that doesn't mean you have legal rights to use reasonable force against them. Saying that they have legal rights is just like saying North Korea can bomb South Korea whenever South Korea trespassed their boundaries due to a slight misunderstood of boundaries.

---------- Post added 05-07-2011 at 07:40 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie:Safety

im pretty sure we have that right.... my step dad shot a guy who climbed through our window... nothing happened to him, seized gun. so im guessing we have that right.... o.o

Let me guess. The guy that your step dad shot is not dead, right? Well, if he is dead, your step dad won't face simple circumstances such as 'seizing the gun'

---------- Post added 05-07-2011 at 07:41 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie:Safety

im pretty sure we have that right.... my step dad shot a guy who climbed through our window... nothing happened to him, seized gun. so im guessing we have that right.... o.o

Let me guess. The guy that your step dad shot is not dead, right? Well, if he is dead, your step dad won't face simple circumstances such as 'seizing the gun'
05-07-2011, 03:35 PM
Hollie

I think you should go to the extent you need to to protect yourself, your loved ones and your possessions. Why should someone be allowed to break into your house and do as they please. If they are prepared to break in, they should take the consequences, whether that leaves them with a broken arm or them being killed. I'm sure if they are willing to break into your house, they would be the type of person to kill an intruder in their home.
I don't think you should straight up kill them though, do what you can to get them to leave or to keep them at your house or something till the police get there, but if they don't listen or are fighting back, then use as much force as needed.
05-07-2011, 09:55 PM
Robi

You pay for the house, you should own the rights to what happens if a intruder comes on "your payed property"
06-07-2011, 06:13 AM
Hollie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robi

You pay for the house, you should own the rights to what happens if a intruder comes on "your payed property"

Exactly my point.

Why should someone else be allowed to try and take that from you?
Even if it's just your possessions, still doesn't belong to them
06-07-2011, 12:23 PM
Agnostic Bear

Anyone who has their home invaded by a burglar or otherwise should have the right to kill them there and then. That would solve the problem of burglaries, why would you do it if you know you could die?

Castle Doctrine needs to be a law. The Americans have it and it works just fine, why can't we?
06-07-2011, 01:34 PM
Super.willow

If i had someone break into my house and my Partner did't at least hit them over the head with a baseball bat he would be in trouble! Its Self Defence at the end of the day. How do yo no that person has not got a gun on them? Nah we should be able to use as much violents as we want if someone breaks in!
07-07-2011, 01:09 AM
GirlNextDoor15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super.willow

If i had someone break into my house and my Partner did't at least hit them over the head with a baseball bat he would be in trouble! Its Self Defence at the end of the day. How do yo no that person has not got a gun on them? Nah we should be able to use as much violents as we want if someone breaks in!

Although you can 'use as much violent as you want', that doesn't mean you are protected from the burglar. You might end up being beaten or killed by the burglar. Even if the burglar has got a gun with them, I think they only use it to scare you so that he can rob whatever he wants? They don't want you. All they want if your valuable things. So, using violent on them is just a dead end for you. Who knows you might end up killed unintentionally by the burglar? You're standing in his way!
07-07-2011, 08:39 AM
Super.willow

Quote:

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

Although you can 'use as much violent as you want', that doesn't mean you are protected from the burglar. You might end up being beaten or killed by the burglar. Even if the burglar has got a gun with them, I think they only use it to scare you so that he can rob whatever he wants? They don't want you. All they want if your valuable things. So, using violent on them is just a dead end for you. Who knows you might end up killed unintentionally by the burglar? You're standing in his way!

Thats why i said broke into my house xD but yeah i just think if someone kills someone whos got into their house that should be okay if done as self defence
07-07-2011, 09:27 PM
lTraditional

It is your own home so you should have the right to attack them if they trespass. So, if I saw a burglar then unless they start on me then I have to allow them to leave with my stuff? What a lot of bull. We should be able to pick up the nearest weapon and batter them for trespassing. Whatever comes, goes.
07-07-2011, 09:33 PM
Meanies

I think they should be able to.. I know I'd try and fight off anyone if they were in my house, they have no right to be there.
07-07-2011, 09:49 PM
Hollie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Bear

Anyone who has their home invaded by a burglar or otherwise should have the right to kill them there and then. That would solve the problem of burglaries, why would you do it if you know you could die?

Castle Doctrine needs to be a law. The Americans have it and it works just fine, why can't we?

In bold:
Exactly what I think, one problem with that though, they would start targeting people who aren't able to fight back.
But if they were killed for it, they would soon stop.. This is why I think the dealth penalty should be brought back tbh, unless your on some sort of suicide mission, your not gonna do it if you know your gonna die after thus decreasing the amount of burglaries.
09-07-2011, 04:39 AM
.:!SaReBeAr!:.

I think the law in this sense is wrong charging peoplr for defending their own home.. Although if they react in self defence they are let of with a lighter judgement.. But even then.. What are you ment to do if some crazed burglers came in with weapons "sorry family your on your own the law says i cant do anything" bah! No... Human/animal instinct kicks in and you defend your family at all costs and i know a lot of peoples dads say they would rather there family being safe and spend time in prison. But in saying that yes protect your family because items can be replaced and family cant..
It makes me angry when i hear these cases on tv im like OH COME ON WHAT WOULD YOU DO... It should be law u are able to defend your house and be hailed a hero rather then defend your house and be punished for others poor behaviour
09-07-2011, 09:07 AM
Hollie

Quote:

Originally Posted by .:!SaReBeAr!:.

I think the law in this sense is wrong charging peoplr for defending their own home.. Although if they react in self defence they are let of with a lighter judgement.. But even then.. What are you ment to do if some crazed burglers came in with weapons "sorry family your on your own the law says i cant do anything" bah! No... Human/animal instinct kicks in and you defend your family at all costs and i know a lot of peoples dads say they would rather there family being safe and spend time in prison. But in saying that yes protect your family because items can be replaced and family cant..
It makes me angry when i hear these cases on tv im like OH COME ON WHAT WOULD YOU DO... It should be law u are able to defend your house and be hailed a hero rather then defend your house and be punished for others poor behaviour

They shouldn't have to spent time in prison for defending their family, that's stupid, if someone breaks into your house you should go to whatever extent you need to to keep your family safe and not have anything done to you for it.
09-07-2011, 05:25 PM
wiffee1000

I think they should have the right. If a burglar was in your home and was face to face, youd want to defend yourself.At least I would. Obviusly, just maybe punch him or something, though you'll probably fail more than they will, as they're alwasy likewell prepared. Oh well, lets just hope I dont come face to face with one. (Id batter him anyway)

---------- Post added 09-07-2011 at 06:26 PM ----------
09-07-2011, 05:48 PM
redtom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic

Do you not think that shooting someone is far too extreme? I expect that there would be repercussions from using a firearm for that (although, I'm not 100% on the laws surrounding firearms and owning them). Personally, I don't think I could live with the thought that I had shot someone. Not only that, but I'm sure that waving a gun at a burglar could open the floodgates for danger - what if the burglar somehow got hold of your gun and turned it on you/your family?

Late reply been on holiday

If someone breaks into your home you have no idea of their intentions. Say you awake in the middle of the night hear noises from down stairs, you can't just walk down stairs and be like "Sorry guys you'll have to leave now, if you can place anything you have taken back that would be great, obviously you'll need to leave a billing address on your way out so I can send you the bill for any damages but apart from that no hard feelings eyy?" 9/10 you'll get a beating of a life time, Yeah some will stop what there doing and run but that's no the point, you shouldn't have to feel scared or unsafe in your own home. Where as if the law clearly states that people have the right to harm/kill intruders into their home burglary rates would drop dramatically, on top of that people would feel safe knowing that they have the right to protect themselves and their family. Instead now you can't do anything to an intruder without putting yourself at risk of being arrested and jailed.

Obviously the gun example was a bit over the top as not many people have one (I do but because of laws on keeping guns and where its kept it would be near impossible for me to get access to the gun without an intruder noticing me) but even giving people the right to hit intruders with bats and golf clubs means people would feel allot safer in their own homes.
09-07-2011, 06:27 PM
-:Undertaker:-

The law should still count on your property as the laws of not harming others through use of violence are needed and this is from somebody who hates government interference and legislation in general - as a libertarian, the job of the government I believe is to protect you from others with providing courts of law. I do however understand that in some circumstances killing or hurting an intruder onto your property in self-defence is required and shouldn't be punishable as i'm sure a jury would find which is why we need to keep trial by jury and resist attempts to 'Europeanise' our legal system.
10-07-2011, 03:07 PM
Wig44.

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The law should still count on your property as the laws of not harming others through use of violence are needed and this is from somebody who hates government interference and legislation in general - as a libertarian, the job of the government I believe is to protect you from others with providing courts of law. I do however understand that in some circumstances killing or hurting an intruder onto your property in self-defence is required and shouldn't be punishable as i'm sure a jury would find which is why we need to keep trial by jury and resist attempts to 'Europeanise' our legal system.

I mistakenly read that as Euro-penis the first time, not surprising though because I tend to think of one to describe the other.
10-07-2011, 04:44 PM
Cosmic

This debate has now closed. Thanks to everyone who has taken part!