Reasonable force, burgary etc.

[johncar54]

Further to a post of a couple of weeks ago, which wandered off the original subject and questions were asked about what does 'reasonable force' mean.

The man who was recently convicted of causing GBH to a burglary, by hitting him with a cricket bat, has now been released from Prison. His sentence was reduced but the conviction stands. Thus he used excessive force.

In that previous thread I posted a definition of reasonable force.

This morning on BBC an eminent lawyer, Joshua Rosenberg, was asked the same question. He in effect repeated what I had posted.

For those who maybe interested, this is what I posted:-


The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property:-

Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defence in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defence. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

Rosenberg also said, that a court would not be too clinical in deciding what was reasonable, as long as in the circumstances the person acted with what he though was reasonable force. He also said that if a person had a knife it would probably be reasonable to protect yourself, family etc, with a knife of even a gun.

[Dedworth]

Munir Hussain who gave the criminal germ a good hiding deserves a Knighthood, it just goes to show how bizarre our legal system has become when people like Mr Hussain end up in jail for defending his family and property whilst the burglar stayed free and has carried on being a career criminal.

Step forward Tony Blair, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" :cwm23:

[aromulus]

Munir Hussain who gave the criminal germ a good hiding deserves a Knighthood, it just goes to show how bizarre our legal system has become when people like Mr Hussain end up in jail for defending his family and property whilst the burglar stayed free and has carried on being a career criminal.

Step forward Tony Blair, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" :cwm23:

To be fair, he got hold of the perp, after the event, well far outside of the house...:doh

I would have done exactly the same, maybe I would not have used a cricket bat, as cricket is totally alien to me, but my nephew's old baseball bat, which is in the attic.... :Rasp:

And this is the team I used to play for, junior team.... :xxgrinning--00xx3: Before life interfered with my destiny. :NoNo:

http://www.nettunobaseball.net/

[KeithD]

Depends what judge you get and his definition of 'reasonable' though.

I guess he won't be thieving again so the vigilante punishment worked :D

[aromulus]

I guess he won't be thieving again so the vigilante punishment worked :D

Apparently, he got re-arrested since, for something else...:doh

[KeithD]

Apparently, he got re-arrested since, for something else...:doh
Obviously brain damaged before he was attacked then! :D

[bornatbirth]

Apparently, he got re-arrested since, for something else...:doh

i think he's a chelsea fan :Erm:

[Dedworth]

To be fair, he got hold of the perp, after the event, well far outside of the house...:doh

I would have done exactly the same, maybe I would not have used a cricket bat, as cricket is totally alien to me, but my nephew's old baseball bat, which is in the attic.... :Rasp:


My BBB Slugger resides within easy reach under the bed

[bornatbirth]

My BBB Slugger resides within easy reach under the bed

you use the wife's sex toy's :Erm:

[Gavanddal]

This subject was debated at lebth after the Tony Martin case. I emailed a point to BBCs Question Time programme. How can you use reasonable force against someone who is unreasonable by virtue of the fact that they've broken into your house and are probably threatening your family.

I, like most people would beat the **** out of anyone I caught in my house. If more burglars got beaten up or shot then it would be a bigger deterrent than the limp sentences handed out by judges.
I also believe that petty criminals would be less likely to re-offend if they were pilloried in public rather than be given a pathetic asbo or commmunity service order.

[johncar54]

Interesting but unsurprising replies.

The problem is that most people do think beyond the obvious (outside the box).

The law does allow a person to use force to protect. The word 'reasonable' is defined by legal president and has a much wider meaning than we might normally think, for example we we might say our spouse or friend acted 'unreasonably.' In 'reasonable force' to protect, is has a much wider interpretation.

I know this might be going a bit to the extreme but it explains, I hope, what I am thinking: A person breaks into your home, threatens you family etc. and then leaves. When you come home your wife describes the person. You are certain you know that person, so you get a gun, go to his house and kill him.

People here are saying that's OK. The problem in this hypothetical case is that, its is then discovered its the wrong person.

That could not happen? Well, if the news stories are to be believed, the police with all their resources, judges and juries, apparently convict innocent people who are subsequent acquitted on appeal. Pretty easy for 'Joe Public' to get it wrong.

I see nothing wrong with the law as it stands. I can kill a person in the 'heat of the moment' who is violating my home, but ONLY TO PROTECT. Once that person runs away, (Farmer Martin and the Cricket Bat case) they are no longer attacking. I can then (I hope) leave it to the legal system to catch, convict and punish that person.

[aromulus]

. I can then (I hope) leave it to the legal system to catch, convict and punish that person.


:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Sorry John.... but you really have to come back to Britain and stay for a couple of years....:doh

[Dedworth]

This subject was debated at lebth after the Tony Martin case. I emailed a point to BBCs Question Time programme. How can you use reasonable force against someone who is unreasonable by virtue of the fact that they've broken into your house and are probably threatening your family.

I, like most people would beat the **** out of anyone I caught in my house. If more burglars got beaten up or shot then it would be a bigger deterrent than the limp sentences handed out by judges.
I also believe that petty criminals would be less likely to re-offend if they were pilloried in public rather than be given a pathetic asbo or commmunity service order.

:xxgrinning--00xx3:

The idea of an annual Martin Ceremony appeals to me with awards to those battering intruders, OBE's (for service to the community) given to the heroes who permanently rid us of the vermin.

[KeithD]

i think he's a chelsea fan :Erm:
Brain damage = Chelsea supporter...... Yep, sounds about right to me :D

[KeithD]

The question should be, what is the definition of 'reasonable' from the viewpoint of the person confronted by a burglar, and not the meaning of it with hindsight which is what the law seems to use. :doh

What is wrong with chasing after someone who broke into your house to make a 'citizens arrest', and you need a weapon as you don't know these days if he has a gun or a knife, and he WILL resist you you've got to subdue the bugger so he don't move. That's real life, not the fantasy world the judges and law live in.

[johncar54]

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Sorry John.... but you really have to come back to Britain and stay for a couple of years....:doh

Aromulus. It was because of what you said the other day about the way things are in UK that I added "I HOPE" in parenthesis.


However, having said that, a country generally gets the government / police service which it deserves. If so many people are always ready to jump on the band wagon to complain about almost everything the police do then it would not be surprising if most of them took the easy way out and did as little as possible or nothing. At least that way no one will complain about their actions and they will still draw their pay.

On the other hand if people support the police and bend the ear of their MP about what they (the government)are doing wrong and how the public services are not meeting expectations then maybe things would get better rather than worse.

But I for one will not be holding my breath until the public start complaining to those who are responsible rather than complaining about those at the sharp end who are doing what 'their masters' (parliament) dictate.

Generally speaking the police in Spain, in comparison with the police service of 30 years ago in the UK, do a pretty poor job, but the public support them and they are not frightened of loosing their jobs every few minutes.

So as for your suggestion that I might go back to UK for a few years (even if I could with my Filipino wife, the Spanish system having made it easy for her to come here and have welcomed her) no chance !

[Dedworth]

:xxgrinning--00xx3: Common sense comment of the day


David Cameron has stoked the row over the prosecution of ‘have a go heroes’ by saying that burglars leave their human rights at the door when they break into a property.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7104132/David-Cameron-burglars-leave-human-rights-at-the-door.html

[IainBusby]

:xxgrinning--00xx3: Common sense comment of the day


David Cameron has stoked the row over the prosecution of ‘have a go heroes’ by saying that burglars leave their human rights at the door when they break into a property.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7104132/David-Cameron-burglars-leave-human-rights-at-the-door.html

It's a nice little soundbite, but he is as always, very short on detail with regard to what he will actually do about it. There is and he knows it, a limit to what can be done by way of UK legislation in this area, which will not contravene European legislation which (whether he likes it or not) we are signed up to. As usual he's just playing to the gallery with all this bullshit and he won't (or won't be able to) do a damn thing about it if he ever does get into 10 Downing Street.

[Dedworth]

As usual he's just playing to the gallery with all this bullshit and he won't (or won't be able to) do a damn thing about it if he ever does get into 10 Downing Street.

Is that a bit like some of the "bullshit" these fellas came out with ?

Blair - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

Brown - "British jobs for British workers"

Reid - British Forces would leave Afghanistan "without a single shot being fired."

[johncar54]

:xxgrinning--00xx3: Common sense comment of the day


David Cameron has stoked the row over the prosecution of ‘have a go heroes’ by saying that burglars leave their human rights at the door when they break into a property.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7104132/David-Cameron-burglars-leave-human-rights-at-the-door.html

This is just about what I posted (No. 1) above.

People just love to, mis-quote the facts and exaggerate what has happened in the past.

There is nothing basically wrong with the law the way it stands. People like the Farmer Tony Martin and the recent case where the victim chased the guy along the road and hit him with the cricket bat, went way beyond what the law allows.

[keithAngel]

The question should be, what is the definition of 'reasonable' from the viewpoint of the person confronted by a burglar, and not the meaning of it with hindsight which is what the law seems to use. :doh

What is wrong with chasing after someone who broke into your house to make a 'citizens arrest', and you need a weapon as you don't know these days if he has a gun or a knife, and he WILL resist you you've got to subdue the bugger so he don't move. That's real life, not the fantasy world the judges and law live in.

The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and propety loosing your silver is not considered giving reason to kill

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable.

All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defense:Cuckoo:

[johncar54]

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable. All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defence:Cuckoo:

I would go along more or less with what you say, but there was an interesting case on the 1960's when one Saturday afternoon a butcher named Bridger was going to a night save to deposit the days takings. He took with him a large knife 'to protect his money.'

He was attacked by 4 people, one of whom died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the butcher.

On the advice of the Metropolitan Police solicitors branch, New Scotland Yard, he was not charged with anything. At the subsequent coroners court a verdict of 'Justifiable homicide' was recorded.

The three surviving robbers were subsequently convicted of robbery at the Central Criminal Court.

[IainBusby]

The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and propety loosing your silver is not considered giving reason to kill

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable.

All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defense:Cuckoo:

Cameron is just trying to grab a headline, as you say in your first paragraph The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and property or in legal terms “unreasonable force” and Cameron want's to "limit prosecutions to cases involving grossly disproportionate violence".

Cases like the recent one of Munir Hussain who chased the burglar,attacked him with a cricket bat and brain damaged him and the case of Tony Martin who shot the burglar when he was running away would both still fall outside the law and would still result in prosecutions if you used the yardstick grossly disproportionate violence instead of unreasonable force.
Iain.

[Dedworth]

Cameron is just trying to grab a headline, as you say in your first paragraph The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and property or in legal terms “unreasonable force” and Cameron want's to "limit prosecutions to cases involving grossly disproportionate violence".

Cases like the recent one of Munir Hussain who chased the burglar,attacked him with a cricket bat and brain damaged him and the case of Tony Martin who shot the burglar when he was running away would both still fall outside the law and would still result in prosecutions if you used the yardstick grossly disproportionate violence instead of unreasonable force.
Iain.


Well done Hussain and Martin :xxgrinning--00xx3:- these men should be honoured. It is a shame the damage they inflicted wasn't a bit more severe - Salem's brain damage didn't stop him re-offending, and Brendon Fearon carried on with his life of crime despite getting a taste of Tony Martins 12 bore :angry: It's a pity the Government (remember Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime) doesn't do anything to protect Joe Public from these scum.

[IainBusby]

Well done Hussain and Martin :xxgrinning--00xx3:- these men should be honoured. It is a shame the damage they inflicted wasn't a bit more severe - Salem's brain damage didn't stop him re-offending, and Brendon Fearon carried on with his life of crime despite getting a taste of Tony Martins 12 bore :angry: It's a pity the Government (remember Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime) doesn't do anything to protect Joe Public from these scum.

I totally agree with you, it is a pity the government won't or in most cases can't do enough protect the public, but unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that David Cameron will fix this problem, where in reality he is only using this as another one of his bandwagons and if and when he gets into power he won't do a damn thing about it.

[keithAngel]

I would go along more or less with what you say, but there was an interesting case on the 1960's when one Saturday afternoon a butcher named Bridger was going to a night save to deposit the days takings. He took with him a large knife 'to protect his money.'

He was attacked by 4 people, one of whom died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the butcher.

On the advice of the Metropolitan Police solicitors branch, New Scotland Yard, he was not charged with anything. At the subsequent coroners court a verdict of 'Justifiable homicide' was recorded.

The three surviving robbers were subsequently convicted of robbery at the Central Criminal Court.

Of courseJohn if he had been stop and searched befor the incident he could have been charged with possesion of an offensive weapon (although perhaps as a butcher he might have reasonable excuse if he said he was taking "his tool" home to sharpen for example but if he said it was for "self defence"instant nick)its only the police who can carry weapons although there is no statute that "allows" this only an unwritten agreement Ive had my guys asked so is that 3 cell maglight in case you get attacked "no officer its a torch"

[johncar54]

Of courseJohn if he had been stop and searched befor the incident he could have been charged with possesion of an offensive weapon (although perhaps as a butcher he might have reasonable excuse if he said he was taking "his tool" home to sharpen for example but if he said it was for "self defence"instant nick)its only the police who can carry weapons although there is no statute that "allows" this only an unwritten agreement Ive had my guys asked so is that 3 cell maglight in case you get attacked "no officer its a torch"

He said he was carrying the knife to protect his money and stuck to that even though there were 'suggestions' made to him that he might have been, 'taking it home to get it sharpened' etc. That was why we spoke to Solicitors branch as we could see no alternative to charging offensive weapon at the very least.

The point established was that under Common Law one can even take life to 'protected' their life, another's life, ones own property or that of another.

The problem with the Tony Martin and the 'cricket bat' man cases was that they were not 'protesting' at the time they attacked.

The UK law will never condone attacking to 'punish' or arrest people for crime. Which some people here think it shout. That is what the criminal justice system is there for. If people consider that is inadequacy then it's up to them to lobby their MPs to get the law change.

[KeithD]

"Reasonable Force" - Meanings

US - Shoot the :furious3:
Singapore - Hang the :furious3:
China - Execute the :furious3:

UK - Make sure you make him a nice cup of tea (a bad one can get you sued by the thief), help him pack the video (with instructions as you don't want him coming back), and order him a taxi (which you pay for, don't forget the tip!)

[triple5]

I had some scally trying to get through my window at 2am the other morning. Luckily - for him - when I pulled the curtains back and asked him, "What the :censored: he thought he was doing" he scarpered. Had he actually gotten in I wouldn't have been weighing up what would be considered "reasonable force" to remove him.

The law should surely realize that when somebody is confronted with an intruder they may not be thinking rationally. The adrenalins pumping, and all you can think of is that you're in danger and must protect yourself.

If he had gotten in I would have used whatever force came to me at the time.

[johncar54]

I had some scally trying to get through my window at 2am the other morning. Luckily - for him - when I pulled the curtains back and asked him, "What the :censored: he thought he was doing" he scarpered. Had he actually gotten in I wouldn't have been weighing up what would be considered "reasonable force" to remove him.

The law should surely realize that when somebody is confronted with an intruder they may not be thinking rationally. The adrenalins pumping, and all you can think of is that you're in danger and must protect yourself.

If he had gotten in I would have used whatever force came to me at the time.

And providing he was coming at you, not running away, you would almost certainly have been 100% in the right.

[Gavanddal]

I had some scally trying to get through my window at 2am the other morning. Luckily - for him - when I pulled the curtains back and asked him, "What the :censored: he thought he was doing" he scarpered. Had he actually gotten in I wouldn't have been weighing up what would be considered "reasonable force" to remove him.

The law should surely realize that when somebody is confronted with an intruder they may not be thinking rationally. The adrenalins pumping, and all you can think of is that you're in danger and must protect yourself.

If he had gotten in I would have used whatever force came to me at the time.

That was very restrained of you. I'd have hit the c*** rather than ask questions

[Gavanddal]

By the way, I see in the news that burglary has declined as videos, DVD players etc have little resale value. Now crooks prefer to attack people and nick their mobiles and iPods!

So can we resist violent crime with more violence?