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"

[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"

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

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....

And this is the team I used to play for, junior team.... Before life interfered with my destiny.

http://www.nettunobaseball.net/

[Dedworth]

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

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....

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

[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.

[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

[aromulus]

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

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

[KeithD]

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

Obviously brain damaged before he was attacked then!

[bornatbirth]

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

i think he's a chelsea fan

[KeithD]

i think he's a chelsea fan

Brain damage = Chelsea supporter...... Yep, sounds about right to me

[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.

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.

[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.

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

[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

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

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 - 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 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.

[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
Singapore - Hang the
China - Execute the

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 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 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 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?