Out of the UK;



This isn't the first time a home owner has been charged with the a crime while defending their home and family against intruders.

So here is our debate, should home owners face charges for defending their home and families from intruders/harm? If some one breaks into your home, should you not have the right to defend your home?

Personally, yes you should be-able to defend against intruders/harm without the fear of prosecution.

Actions like this only hurt law abiding home owners. That if some one breaks into our homes to hurt us and our families, or any other act they wish to carry out, then as a home owner we can no longer fight back. In a sense, its like we are defending the rights of the law breaker over the victim.

Yes we should be able to defend against intruders/harm without the fear of prosecution.

Agree to a certain point, we are not suppose to go after them when they are not in our house nor can we install electrical fences (an example) that might have the possibility of harming innocent people type of thing.

In the case that we don't have to fear prosecution, I don't think many people will fight off intruders, for instant me, if someone robs my house, I rather they take what they want and leave as quickly as possible without harming anyone.

Your home is the single solitary place in the entire world that is completely yours. If someone is disrespectful and criminal enough to think they can walk in, destroy it, and remove your stuff from it, then they have absolutely no right to press charges if the owner of the home does something crazy to stop them.
If it were me, I'd confront a home invader. I'd be damned if I'd hide away while someone took off with my stuff like nobody's business. I would do what I could to get them out of there, and not only out of there, but out of there and not thinking about ever coming back. If it takes hitting them with a bat, threatening them with a gun, or pushing them out a window, I'll be doing the first one to do it.
I think the rage I would feel toward someone who thought they could do that would make me somewhat irresponsible for my actions as well.

I think that it is appalling that the "home owner" really doesn't have the right to protect themselves, their family or their home. If the moron intruder didn't fall, and something else had happened like him injuring someone else, well that would be a different story, and he would be reprimanded. It really annoys me, to think that criminals have the upper hand when they get hurt. But what about the people they have basically terrorized. That is where the law really sucks. More power to the home owner for protecting themselves against some scumbag intruder.

Honestly, homeowners should have the right to shoot an intruder dead, and claim it was self defense. Someone breaking into your home isn't there to say hello, they are there to commit a criminal act.

Gee what's next? Someone rapes me and I go to jail for stabbing the bastard in the eye.

God who keeps coming up with these laws. :skull:

My thoughts exactly.

My feeling on this is that by the very act of intruding and then rifling through the homeowner's belongings, the intruder violated the homeowner's rights. I think we can all agree that one has the right to safety in one's own home and that a burglar certainly represents a threat to safety. In compromising the homeowner's right to safety in his own home, my view is that the intruder forfeit his own right to the same. In my opinion, any bodily harm up to and including death was/is justified because the intruder had by his actions given up his right to continue unmolested along his chosen path when he chose a path that included breaking and entering.

A homeowner (or a tenant, or a shopkeeper, etc.) cannot be expected to politely inquire after an intruder's intent or, even worse, to wait for the intruder to make a violent physical attack before taking action. A victim must be permitted to defend himself or herself. If someone breaks into or comes uninvited into my home and rifles through my belongings, I will point a loaded gun at him or her when I ask him or her to leave. If the intruder leaves peacefully, I will then call the police. If the intruder makes a violent threat or attack, I will shoot. I will not much care where the bullet lands, so long as it neutralizes the threat to my life, safety, and property. If the intruder lives, but is injured, so be it. If the intruder dies, so be that, as well. The worst case scenario is that an unfair system might send me to prison. If I allow the intruder to continue with his or her plans, the worse case scenario might end with police searching for my body. One never knows what an intruder intends to do. I think the law should reflect that and support the victim in whatever action he or she deems reasonable to secure his or her immediate safety. The intruder, it seems to me, must accept possible harm or even death as an occupational hazard.

I am all for defending your home,

now come the question of how does one determine the person killed in your home really did break into your house? What if I kill a very irritating person and bring him/her back to my apartment, or simply kill them in my apartment and then claim they break into my house? break some windows, mess up the place, and put some loot in a bag or something.

The police can tell if a body has been moved, especially in cases where a gun was used... things like powder residue, blood from the exit wound, and the final resting place of the bullet usually give cops a pretty good idea as to where someone was shot. Might be a little more difficult to prove that the intruder wasn't making a sudden move towards a weapon though...

Britain definitely has some messed up laws in that regard.

Well, here we have a lot of home invasions...(yeah, go figure, desperate criminals). They don't care if you are home or not.

I say the minute they (meaning a criminal, not the mailman) set foot on your property they have NO RIGHTS and you can use 'force' to rid yourself of them.

If that means they face the barrel of a gun or whatever weapon you keep to protect your family, so be it.

What were they doing in the first place on your property? They obviously had malicious intent so why should you 'be nice?'

Nixie, Reindeer's right. Forensics can ALWAYS tell if a body was moved. Blood stops flowing soon after death. No blood at the 'scene', no death there either, for example.

HCAC, there's a difference between a home invasion and a robbery, criminally speaking. Home invasions are usually planned to occur when someone is home, whereas simple robbery is planned to occur when no one is home. Home invaders usually get slapped with at least one assault charge (occasionally sexual assault or battery, but normally assault with a deadly weapon) and occasionally attempted murder charges when they beat, rape, or attempt to kill a homeowner so they cannot be identified. A simple robbery can become a home invasion when a homeowner arrives unexpectedly in the middle of the robbery. But criminally speaking, they're two different crimes.

A home owner should have the right to defend life and property, plain and simple. It does not matter if the perpetrator is shoved out the second story window. It is self defense, and shame on Scotland Yard and the British justice system for bringing charges.

Wonder if if I could apply that logic to the Jehovah's Witnesses? :yech: + :sniper: = :gnight: :evilnod: :bigwave:

I recall a similar case in the UK where a farmer shot a burglar, not fatally, and went to jail. I think the burglar was on the stairs when it happen and may have had a knife. The farmer did have a license for the gun. I think farmer got a harsher sentence than the burglar and was headline news. The burglar even sued the farmer for causing grievous bodily harm later I think.

Naturally the general public was in an uproar over the rights of the burglar and his case to sue the farmer.

I am in agreement that one should be allowed to defend one self and possessions, but where does it change from defense to actual causing bodily harm ? If some one attacks me and I punch back, that would be self defense. But if the attacker comes at me with a weapon and I disarm the assailant by breaking an arm or leg, would I be charged ?

In situations like this, it feel it really is who has the better lawyer and the sanity of the judge and jury.

The law needs to protect ordinary people but at the same time it also needs to prevent mob rule. Just because some one attacks you does not automatically give you the right to beat that person close to death or kill him/her.

Some other flaws in this theory as well in addition to the whole medical forensics/body position stuff that's already been mentioned. If you were planning to do things this way, would you remember which direction you'd have to break the window from? Would you remember to wear gloves so your fingerprints weren't on the items you planned to play the loot? What if the intruder already had his hand bandaged from breaking your glass bare-fisted? Couldn't very well glove him and do the loot set up then. Not to mention how rattled you might be while trying to consider all these variables.

(Bold mine)

What else but an attack could give one that right? I'm sorry, but if someone makes an attack, the only thing one can know about intent is that it is malicious. One cannot know in those few instants for which it is a "him/her or me" situation how far the attacker intends to go, and so one cannot temper one's response in order to match the intent. Beating an intruder senseless may seem excessive in a case in which a school age kid throws a single punch, yet totally justified in a case in which a murderer is prevented from committing that crime. The trouble is that, in those few moments during which the victim must decide how to address the threat before him or her, it is impossible to know what the attacker intends. It is safer for the victim to go with the worst-case scenario and act accordingly than it is to underestimate the attacker and temper the response. That is why I feel that a person who makes a violent attack or engages in some other illegal, malicious activity (like breaking and entering) automatically forfeits his or her rights during that activity to the victim; the innocent victim's right to be free from harm trumps the assailant's right to the same because the assailant knowingly and willingly took that risk when he/she chose to make an attack.

I think what Kinneer was referring to was proper versus excessive use of force...The problem with his theory, in my mind, is that if someone is breaking into my home, I do not know that he doesn't intend to kill me. Unlike a bully on a schoolyard, the intruder could have a knife, gun, or some other weapon on him in case someone is home and catches them in the act. When someone breaks into your home, they are already a criminal, and cannot be assumed to be harmless. A father being sent out to investigate the strange noise at 3am by his wife with the baseball bat has no idea what the criminal is capable of. As such, should be able to use any force necessary he deems to eliminate the threat caused by the intruder. He isn't concerned with the safety of the intruder, he is concerned for his own safety, and the safety of his family.

However, the police were also justified in arresting the homeowner. From a law enforcement perspective, they do not know what happened, for all they know, the intruder could have been invited there, and they had an argument, and the owner could have thrown him down, in attempted murder. The police will investigate, and if it was a case of self defense for the homeowner, he should be vindicated in court. The police have to show due diligence though, thats their job. If they have any reason to suspect it was a crime, they have to investigate it as if it were...I hope the homeowner is vindicated, and the intruder gets NOTHING, however its unfair to blame the police at all for merely doing their job.

I think there's a very fine line between defending your home and using self defense as an excuse to act violently toward an intruder. There's nothing wrong with accosting the burglar with physical force, pepper spray, tasers, etc. in order to protect your home, but causing an intruder to take a fatal fall is abusing the right to self defense. This was an excessive use of force and the homeowner should be the one in the wrong. The intruder was obviously doing something wrong, as well, but it is the homeowner who should be punished more severely. This is a prime display of an excessive and entirely unnecessary use of force.

Thats why I think the police were also justified. It will be their job to determine if it was legitimately self defense or, if the homeowner committed attempted murder, and is covering it up...They also do not know if the burglar was pushed or if he fell of his own accord. But, I think overall, the homeowner's rights trump the rights of the intruder.

I don't think there should be a line. I do agree that an investigation is necessary to ensure that this case is truly a case of self defense. If it is in fact determined that the person who took the fall was an intruder, then I don't think the homeowner should be punished at all - let alone more severely than the intruder. One does not need an "excuse" to act violently toward an *intruder." The intrusion - and the inherent threat implied by an act of intrusion - is the excuse. By the act of intruding, the intruder rendered force necessary; after all, the homeowner did not seek out the intruder with the intention of throwing him out a window. Instead, the homeowner reacted to a threat to his safety - a threat that was voluntarily created by the intruder. The intruder took a risk. The intruder broke the law and threatened the safety of the homeowner. In so doing, the intruder must have known that there was a chance that the homeowner might make a counterattack in order to defend himself, his family, and/or his property. Because he must have known that and chose that course of action anyway, it is my opinion that he consented to that risk - waived his rights, so to speak. I do not think it is possible for an ordinary civilian to use "excessive" force in the course of defending himself/herself. I think only trained law enforcement and military professionals are in a position to know what qualifies as excessive or satisfactory amounts of force in various life threatening situations. Ordinary citizens are not trained, and so any amount of force that proves effective as a method of defense - even if it proves deadly - should be acceptable.

I think that it's not his fault (the home owner); and the intruder should be held responsible. It's just not fair to arrest him he could have came in and killed or hurt or harmed one of his family members.

I'm not sure about in the US or in other countries but, the last I heard tasers are an illegal weapon in the UK so tasering someone in self-defence wouldn't be possible, and in general folk don't walk around with pepper spray in their hand, when in there own home. So that leaves knives/forks (which can leave to stabbing), DIY equipment, if it's on hand (how about "I'm going to drill you to death as self-defence" ?" :P) If people don't know any specific techniques to either disarm or take down (without deadly force) a person, then the only thing they have is their own bodies - headbutting, biting, scratching, pushing, shovering, kicking; which would be considered "excessive force" in a situation like this.

In this case, from the initial post, it says that the burglar was the one who smashed the window and took it outside, and went onto the balcony. Reports said he was pushed, but with the home owner - the only other witness not being allowed to comment, it's feasible that the burglar lost his balance. Until the actual facts are told, then it's only paper speculation.

If an intruder breaks into a business then excessive force (in some cases guard dogs) attack the intruder, to the obvious detriment of his/her health. It shouldn't be any different for a homeowner.

There was, quite recently, a spate of burglaries where the intruder targeted females and attacked and raped them as well - if one of those women had done what this homeowner did in protecting his property, would some people still react with, "It was excessive force"? If the homeowner had been disabled in some way, or was ill in some way, would some people still say it was excessive force? Or if the homeowner in question had scared family in the residence as well, would the same be applied? It is a genuine question, I was wondering if minds would differ if the victimised person had another disadvantage, other than being in the "wrong home at the wrong time".

As a few people have said, the burglar could have had other intentions; in which case the only appropriate course of action to take, to ensure the homeowner remains safer, is to make sure the burglar is either not going to get back up, or is so terrified he/she will not go there again - and hopefully wouldn't commit a crime ever again. If this homeowner hadn't taken the action it's assumed he did, then who would the burglar have decided to rob next? Would he escalate and not just take items next time?

if I was ever in that position as this homeowner, and I was fully aware someone was in the house and they were aware I was in the house; I'd call the police if I was able but if it came to the point where I had to fight then I would, if that means throwing the burglar through a high-storey window or stabbing the man/woman, then I would do it. They would be on my property, violating my rights, so I damn sure would not care if the intruder is carted away on a gurney.

Whoa...I'm actually agreeing with Davious here.

Situations like this is exactly why we need someone to shake up the law system and realise that criminals should have their rights taken away the moment that they commit a crime. They abused those rights when they did whatever they did to break the law, so why the h-ll should they get to use those rights and use them to take advantage of everyone else? And come on, guy breaks into someone's home and falls out their window, in reality it's his own fault for breaking into that home in the very first place. Why is the homeowner getting arrested and charged for it? He was only protecting his home. Everything's gone mad I swear

Though I tend to agree that they should have the right to defend themselves, there has to be a limit. What's worse, a murderer or a burglar? What if the murderer killed someone who was a burglar?
Most people, at least I would hope otherwise I'm very worried for people's morality, would say the murderer. And anyone who responds to this by saying that they gave up their rights by breaking in is really just saying that as long as they're allowed to, they would do anything they want, be it ethically right or wrong. And there's a difference between defending your home and killing someone, or trying to. As far as I am aware, this was only a burglar. No matter what, killing is a worse crime than stealing. Sure, get rid of him, use whatever force is necessary. But go much beyond that, and you're the one in the wrong.