Peoplesoft bloke 'ave it...

[AtW]

Tories' licence to kill a burglar: Homeowners using self-defence should escape prosecution, says shadow minister

Homeowners would be handed a licence to kill burglars by a Tory government.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling raised the election stakes on crime by promising law-abiding citizens extra rights to defend themselves.

If the Tories win the election, he said, they would tear up the law which lets householders use only 'reasonable force' to defend their families against intruders.

The move comes amid public outrage at the 30-month sentence handed last week to Munir Hussain, who chased and beat a member of a gang who had held his family at knifepoint in their home.

Mr Grayling said homeowners should escape conviction even if they kill a burglar - unless they use 'grossly disproportionate' force.

His intervention put the government on the back foot and forced Home Secretary Alan Johnson into a pledge to review the law.

Mr Grayling made it clear that killing a burglar would not necessarily be classed as 'grossly disproportionate'.

He said: 'If somebody breaks into your house with a knife and goes for you and you end up defending yourself and killing them, arguably in many cases that wouldn't be.

'It's got to be clear that the householder has gone way beyond what any reasonable person would expect to be the case to defend yourself.'

The Tory promise is a key plank in plans to overhaul the failing criminal justice system which will be at the centre of a New Year policy blitz.

More here.

------

Good start - next logical step is to provide homeowners (or renters alike) with necessary self defence tools that would help said defence - attackers can be more numerous, they have element of suprise, they have already committed a crime and are ready to do another: firearms ownership for law abiding citizens is a must for any country where Govt isn't afraid of it's own citizens.

[NickFitz]

I don't see any difference to the current situation, just a bunch of soundbites from a politician.

At present, you are allowed to use reasonable force; this vote-hunting bozo is saying that you will be allowed to use a level of force that "is not grossly disproportionate".

(Debating the semantics of the two terms seems likely to provide rich pickings for lawyers. Still, it's not as if the courts have anything better to do with their time.)

It's already clear that he is saying nothing of meaning, but merely seeking populist appeal. He is quoted in TFA as saying:

"It's got to be clear that the householder has gone way beyond what any reasonable person would expect to be the case to defend yourself."

That is already the law: reasonable force may be used. In the case on which he has chosen to hang his ramblings, it is clear that the householder and his accomplice (for remember, he didn't act alone) used force beyond what any reasonable person would expect, and that is why he was found guilty of an offence.

Although the story, and therefore presumably the ramblings of this politician, have been carefully crafted so as to make it seem that they are offering something new, they aren't. They are merely riding on the back of public brouhaha in the hope of conning you into thinking they are promising something they cannot deliver.

Given that he carefully covers his back by putting in the reference to "what any reasonable person would expect" (BTW, If you didn't already know that the concept of "the reasonable person" is a term informing much of Common Law, you should learn more law) he reckons he cannot later be held to account for the fact that, if he were to be in a position to do so, no change to the law would alter the outcome of the above-mentioned case. In that case, the actions of the householder and his accomplice would still be considered by the courts to be beyond reasonable.

But he's playing the long game here; he assumes you are all sufficiently stupid and short of memory that, come election time, you will think "Oh, they're going to let me kill burglars" and give them your vote. Of course, even if they win, any change will be mere window dressing, the common law principle of reasonable force will stand, and if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to act on what you think he said, you will find yourself reflecting at very long leisure in a very small room on the huge gaps between what a Tory newspaper tells you you're being promised, what the Tory is actually promising, what the Tory can actually deliver... and the reality of living under the rule of law.

[threaded]

Yes, any chance that changes to the current system will also result in a less lucrative scam for lawyers means it is just not going to happen.

[AtW]

At present, you are allowed to use reasonable force; this vote-hunting bozo is saying that you will be allowed to use a level of force that "is not grossly disproportionate".

Who can decide what's reasonable in a split second when someone gets into your house? Intruder will be saying all sort of things that he did not threaten etc, to make house owner look like they used unreasonable force.

Grossly disproportionate is a better definition, though without legal tools (firearms) of self defence it is meaningless and just invites people to use crude weapons like cricket bats.

[Not So Wise]

It was not for using cricket bat's that they got sent down, it was for chasing the guy who was running away down, knocking him to the ground and THEN beating him with cricket bats

Defend yourself/family (up to and including killing attacker) with a cricket bat = innocent*

Chase down a man running away and beat him up with a cricket bat = guilty

*though note if you continue beating him with he clearly is no longer a danger, aka unconscious/without a unbroken bone in his body this will probably turn to guilty

[Coalman]

Who can decide what's reasonable in a split second when someone gets into your house? Intruder will be saying all sort of things that he did not threaten etc, to make house owner look like they used unreasonable force.

The Jury and the Judge.

Thats why they are used and not the mob.

[Diver]

ATW and Fitzy keep making these long post's that I just can't be bothered to read.

Can somebody summarise please?

[Coalman]

ATW and Fitzy keep making these long post's that I just can't be bothered to read.

Can somebody summarise please?

AtW: Hark is that a burglar I hear? <GRABS GUN> <BANG> <DEAD BURGLAR>

NF: (Judge) He was invading your property - your innocent of murder but guilty of owning a firearm without a license.

OR

AtW: Hark is that a burglar I hear? <GRABS GUN> <CHASES BURGLAR DOWN STREET> <BANG> <DEAD BURGLAR>

NF: (Judge) HANG HIM! HANG HIM!

[DimPrawn]

ATW and Fitzy keep making these long post's that I just can't be bothered to read.

Can somebody summarise please?

One is making moronic suggestions and the other one is talking sense.

Which is which I wonder?

[Diver]

One is making moronic suggestions and the other one is talking sense.

Which is which I wonder?

Well obviously the one making moronic suggestions is quoting from or being guided by British law