[Robert]

This is just unbelievable.

"Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders."

"The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=403287

WTF is this world coming to?

 

[Kurmudgeon]

There's a guy in prison here because he did something like attack a burglar (so he was defending himself) and he missed out on parole because he's a "danger to criminals" (so they keep him in prison with crims?).

This world has gone crazy. If I ever decide to rob someone's house I'll be glad that I have the Law on my side.

 

[shewolf]

That's friggin insane... it makes me soooo mad....

 

[Robert]

I remember reading several years ago a story in the Toronto Sun (It's a tabloid style daily Newspaper there) about this guy who broke into a house from the back... and was attacked by the homeowners dog. The burglar sued the homeowner because there was no Beware of Dog sign to alert him of the potential danger of breaking into the house.

Agreed, the world seems to be going crazy.

 

[shewolf]

Well, that's alright then, we have a beware of dog sign...

Sued, but did he win?

 

[GhostUser]

I heard a guy in australia fell through a ladies roof (he was trying to break in) so he sued her and won..

That was about 2 years ago.. Im not too sure if its true..

If it was america i would have definately believed it!

Danny

 

[Robert]

Quote:

Originally posted by shewolf

Well, that's alright then, we have a beware of dog sign...

Sued, but did he win?

You know... I really do not remember for an absolute certainty. Having said that, I "think" he did in fact win the case. It was something to do with a bylaw or something for that city and the fact that there was no sign on the back entrance to the house where the guy broke in.

This was approximately 1988 or so when I read that.

 

[Euphoria]

A guy broke into a shop in Aust last year (maybe the year before) and the owner beat him up, so the burglar sued him and got like $35000 and then his mum sued the shop owner for worry and grief caused by his assualt on her thieving son and got $16000. It really is BS

 

[Astarte]

Whatever happened to upholding the spirit of the law, rather than the letter? Does this even apply to the letter? Jeez... if you don't want somebody to attack you while you're breaking into their house, then *don't break into their house.* Shouldn't this be common sense?

 

[epski]

Safer to kill an intruder, as it's easier to argue self-defense and justified use of lethal force and get away with it, obviously.

What a nutty legal system.

 

[Robert]

Epski, exactly... I tend to agree with you here. If you are willing to disregard the law and disrespect the rights and freedoms of another by committing a crime against someone, then (in my opinion) the criminal then gives up those rights that would have otherwise protected him.

 

[Joe]

There's nothing to prevent legislatures from enacting laws that would prevent criminals from suing homeowners for damages due to injuries acquired while in the course of a crime (burglary), or from limiting the amounts of such damages so as to discourage such suits.

I did read in a self-defense book that there is no case on record where a homeowner discharged a weapon while a burglar was in the house, and where the burglar had a means of exit, where the burglar did other than flee the premises immediately. So the author recommended that you just fire a shot into the ceiling or wall, and not try to shoot it out with a burglar.

 

[Joe]

Quote:

Originally posted by epski

Safer to kill an intruder, as it's easier to argue self-defense and justified use of lethal force and get away with it, obviously.

Not necessarily. Many prosecutors would be eager to prosecute you for murder--and it could cost you a fortune to defend yourself--, and then you'd still be liable to be sued in a civil action by the burglar's estate (wrongful death). It would be like the "OJ Simpson" case, where you get to be OJ Simpson.

 

[Robert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe

Not necessarily. Many prosecutors would be eager to prosecute you for murder--and it could cost you a fortune to defend yourself--, and then you'd still be liable to be sued in a civil action by the burglar's estate (wrongful death). It would be like the "OJ Simpson" case, where you get to be OJ Simpson.

And therein lies one of the reasons why the justice system is royally ****ed up.

Someone breaks in and you have no idea if they are willing to do harm to you or your family. You *should* have every right to defend yourself, your family and your property without threat of prosecution at all.

The criminal *should* be seen as one who has willingly waived his or her rights if he or she decides to commit the crime.

 

[GhostUser]

The rule in most of the US is that one is justified in using deadly force only if they are in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury. Texas is an exception here and in some situations there one is allowed to use deadly force to protect property in certain limited circumstances.

We had a case in my state a few years back that involved a foreign exchange student. He dressed up like a ninja warrior with some sort of ninja weapon like a stick, I don't recall. He was lurking around outside a guy's house and the guy went outside with a shotgun to see what he was doing. He told the guy to get off his property and the student charged at him yelling some sort of ninja yell, which resulted in a load ot buckshot to the chest, killing him on the spot. It turned out that the student was under the impression that it was an American tradition to dress up on Halloween and try to scare people, so he thought he'd give it a try. Unfortunately it was a few days after Halloween. The homeowner was prosecuted but found not guilty by a jury. Shortly thereafter our legislature enacted a law which allows homeowners to use any force necessary, up to and including deadly force, to repel and invader from entering your home if you reasonably believe they intend to commit a felony once inside.

 

[Robert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bankruptor

The homeowner was prosecuted but found not guilty by a jury. Shortly thereafter our legislature enacted a law which allows homeowners to use any force necessary, up to and including deadly force, to repel and invader from entering your home if you reasonably believe they intend to commit a felony once inside.

There's the favorite word of the legal system again, "reasonable".

One could reasonably assume ANYONE breaking into your home is doing so for the purposes of committing a felony

You have to assume the worst, in my opinion, if someone is willing to break into your home in the first place.

 

[epski]

Yeah, here in the US we're a little more serious about our property rights, I guess. I don't think any jury would convict a man defending his family.

 

[shewolf]

Or a woman defending her family?

 

[epski]

You think Tony Martin is a woman?

 

[Joe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Robert

And therein lies one of the reasons why the justice system is royally ****ed up.

Someone breaks in and you have no idea if they are willing to do harm to you or your family. You *should* have every right to defend yourself, your family and your property without threat of prosecution at all.

The criminal *should* be seen as one who has willingly waived his or her rights if he or she decides to commit the crime.

Dear Robert,

We need to get one thing straight right from the start. I do not live in the magical kingdom of "Should" or "Ought2B." I am talking about the real world here, with the laws and legal system that we actually have (in North America and in the UK).

Trust me when I tell you that in the real world you are far, far better off putting a bullet hole in your ceiling and scaring a burglar off than putting a bullet hole (or trying to put a bullet hole) in the burglar.

Do not underestimate the willingness of a prosecutor to prosecute you and make your life a living hell and possibly bankrupt you through legal expenses if you dare to try to shoot a burglar. The apprehension and punishment of burglars is seen as the exclusive province of the police and the courts. Shoot a burglar, and you are seen as criticizing the police. The prosecutor will spare no effort to put you in your place if you dare to do that. That is the real world that we live in, I am sorry to have to tell you. (Actual burglars are treated much more lightheartedly by prosecutors.)

Here in Nashville, we had a shop owner who owned a gun and kept it in his shop. His neighbor shop-owner, a woman, was in the course of being robbed and possibly raped. She screamed. The guy came to her rescue. The robber/would-be-rapist fled. Now here's where the guy made his big mistake. Instead of just calling the police, he gave chase, traded gunshots with the robber, and eventually killed him.

The result: the prosecutor submitted murder charges to a grand jury. The grand jury rejected the murder charges. The prosecutor then submitted the murder charges to a second grand jury, which rejected them. The prosecutor then submitted the murder charges to a third grand jury, which accepted them. The prosecutor then proceeded to prosecute the guy. His legal fees bankrupted him, and forced him to enter a guilty plea to end the matter and keep himself out of jail. (He got some sort of probation.)

Unlike the guy who saved his dog from the fire, there was no videotape of this, little news coverage, no help from the NRA or any pro-gun people, etc.

If you can get the law changed to read the way you think it ought to read, that's fine. Until then, though, you'd be ill-advised to shoot a burglar unless your life were threatened or you were threatened with serious bodily injury, or the equivalent for members of your family.

Sorry to tell you this, but that's the way the real world works.