Self Defence Against Burglars Poll

[Internal Boxer]

This is linked to another thread about the right to defend oneself under UK law you cannot assualt a burglar in your home, you have the right to use "reasonable force" but it is such a grey area that is nearly always transpires as "the more damage you do to the criminal then the more likely you will be prosecuted"

But most sensible people realise in that spur of the moment of your instinctive reactions you will do what you can to survive, the end result may be the death of the intruder which is not what we would want but the emphasis of the law should be wholey on the side of the idividual who has been placed in that situation through no fault of their own. That my opinion, anway have a vote!

[Sho]

Under the UK law, I'd probably offer him some tea - just kidding. But seriously, I would definitely take action immediately. I think it's perfectly acceptable to use limited force on the intruder, but never to take away his life.

No guns, whatsoever. In case of delivering blows with melee weapons of some sort, never hit the head, try hitting other less fracturable body parts instead. Killing some one would be the last thing you'd ever do.

[Robbie]

Sho,
It sounds like your saying treat the burgler like a point sparring opponent. The point of fighting is to end the fight, not exchange blows with someone. I don't feel confident going toe to toe with someone with a criminal history that 'might' include violence. If I am threatened my thinking is to do maximum damage in minimum time. If someone has already broken into my home I assume the worst about that person. The only hint to their intent I have is their actions.


Personally I think the law should make clear that people voluntarily give up certain right when they commit crimes against people.

[David Jamieson]

Personally I think the law should make clear that people voluntarily give up certain right when they commit crimes against people.

The law of the land in the country I live in, makes this quite clear.
When a criminal, intentionally commits an act that is contrary to civil or common law, they have indeed put themselves in the position of losing their rights as a free citizen and are imprisoned when dealt with.

As a prisoner, you do not have the rights of the common populace, you only have the right to be a prisoner and operate under whatever sanctions are stated by the crime and punishment system.

I do not thinks every situation warrants "maximum damage in minimum time". But then, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then you will tend to see all your problems as nails to be pounded down. In my opinion, this is highly limiting to ones ability to be the best human being they can possibly be which is what Kungfu is.


cheers

[TigerJaw]

The law is often mis-understood and many people think that Britain has laws about this that are somehow different to the rest of the civilized world and particularly to America. I'd just like to point out that this isn't true. The laws of self-defence are broadly the same throughout Europe and America.

Roughly,. you are allowed to use whatever force you percieve to be necersary to protect yourself and your family. That is, if you think that the only way to protect yourself or your family from harm is to kill somebody then you have not broken any laws. This is the case, even if you have not yet been attacked or if the person you attack means you no harm. It's all about the threat that you perceive and how much force you think is necersary. The concept of reasonable force doesn't enter into it. For example, if somebody injures or kills a memebr of your family, you might consider that hurting them is reasonable, this is however not allowed for under the law unless you do it while the crime is being comitted to prevent further harm. Revenge is not allowed.

Unfortunately, you have a duty of care to try and not to injure the person more than is necersary and a court will take into account your level of proficiency in the martial arts. For example If you could have stopped him by shooting him in the leg but you choose to shoot him in the head, that is murder. However if you don't know how to handle a gun, grab one in a panic just point it and shoot and the guy ends up dead, that's self defence.

As far as property is concerned, you can't attack somebody for trying to steal from you. You can attempt a citizen's arrest if you wish or tell the criminal to leave. If you think that after you've told him to leave he looks like he's going to attack you then you can perform a pre-emptive attack with the minimum ammount of force necersary. Of course, if your burglar is brandishing a lethal weapon, it would be safe to assume he means you harm and so a pre-emptive strike would be legal.

[Sho]

Robbie, I meant that you should rather break his legs than smash his skull.