Support NeoGAF

[syllogism]

I know enough about the law to tell that this is, while not a totally unacceptable ruling (the severe brain damage inducing beating was completely uneccesary, something I've stated twice already but you and several others love to ignore) is still pretty outlandish and the reasons given are, in short, bullshit. Where did I say I wanted someone to break into my house, or that I would kill them? I think you're letting your imagination run wild.

I do enjoy seeing quite a number of people jump to conclusions though and assume most of us that disagree with the ruling are bloodthirsty cavemen looking for people to "fuck up", though. Keep it up guys! :lol

I wonder what some of you would do in the man's situation. Personally, I'd beat them if it were possible and within my power, but not to the brink of death as in the article. Would you just sit back and watch? Its a terrible situation that nobody should find themselves in.

Actually this is a really, really standard ruling so it's hard to believe you are very well informed

 

[Chinner]

I know enough about the law to tell that this is, while not a totally unacceptable ruling (the severe brain damage inducing beating was completely uneccesary, something I've stated twice already) is still pretty outlandish and the reasons given are, in short, bullshit. Where did I say I wanted someone to break into my house, or that I would kill them? I think you're letting your imagination run wild.

I do enjoy seeing quite a number of people jump to conclusions though and assume most of us that disagree with the ruling are bloodthirsty cavemen looking for people to "fuck up", though. Keep it up guys! :lol

rhetoric

Maybe you should stop reading into people's comments and pretending to be able to analyze them, since your obviously predisposed to your own opinion about people with opposing viewpoints to your own.

can't read.

I don't see ANYONE in this thread saying that they WANT someone to break into their house just so they can kill them. Nothing wrong with keeping the upper hand in a situation though.

true comment though, i didn't actually say someone said that, i said i sounds. fair play.

i guess nobody is going to challenge my points. guess i can self declare myself as the winner of this thread.

 

[J-Rod]

It's irrational to expect a person to act completely rational in a situation that puts his whole world at risk.

 

[Cheeto]

rhetoric

can't read.

true comment though, i didn't actually say someone said that, i said i sounds. fair play.

i guess nobody is going to challenge my points. guess i can self declare myself as the winner of this thread.

Mario Kart is better, fucktard

 

[syllogism]

So can anyone answer this about the law in the UK: If someone breaks into your home and your life is in immediate danger i.e. they're trying to attack you physically or with a weapon, do you have the right to defend yourself? If you killed them or injured them this badly in the process of defending yourself what would happen?

I only ask to see if a difference is recognized or if you are just not allowed to defend yourself whatsoever.

It's all about context. It's possible lethal force will be found to be appropriate. The force has to be found 'necessary' and 'in proportion'. You aren't necessarily required to assess the danger accurately.

It's irrational expect a person to act completely rational in a situation that puts his whole world at risk.

Which is why he wasn't expected to act completely rationally and it was a mitigating factor. He however clearly crossed the line.

 

[KHarvey16]

Sorry man, not the case. I really REALLY don't ever want to be in that situation, but if it ever does come up, I want to be ready. Furthermore, I really doubt that will ever happen considering where I live. I don't think there has been a home invasion in my area for a very very long time. What I don't want to happen is me being completely defenseless while a criminal breaks into my house and does god knows what.

Are you actually reading the story here? For it to be equivalent, you'd have to chase him outside of your home, down the street, and THEN shoot him. That should be legal in your eyes?

This came up in the thread about the woman shooting an intruder. It's absolutely not the same thing and like I said there, this guy would have been prosecuted here in the states as well. And yes, a cop doing the same would have been jailed and likely given a harsher sentence since he wouldn't be emotionally distraught. Remember this guy got a lighter sentence than one is normal given the charges because of the circumstance.

 

[Chinner]

Mario Kart is better, fucktard

i seriously think getting people to sit down, play some mario kart and eat some cheetos would end of the problems in the world. but i was mostly referring to newsbot anyway so chill.

 

[daw840]

because you're acting like one. if you guys were more calm, collective and gave some reasoning to your points like smokey dave i would be happy with that. instead you roll around on the floor saying everythings a joke when you don't really know shit about the law or the role of the judge.

then you say some shit that sounds like you want someone to break into your house so you can kill them and become a hero because thats totally cool and life is a videogame.

Ok.....what points would you like me to address? I am being calm, collective, and happy that I don't live in the UK. I am not rolling around on the floor saying everything is a joke, I will admit I know next to nothing about UK law, just that it seems to protect the criminal over the victim time and time again. That is just from anecdotal observations such as this one, considering that the normal judicial decisions get no new coverage over here on the other side of the pond. I didn't say, nor did anyone else, that they want someone to break in to their house just so they can kill them (although I do have a friend that matches that description to at T.)

 

[Hari Seldon]

Fyi it's not fair game in any western society and he was not defending himself. How does it feel like to be a loon? Maybe Sharia law would be more your thing.

It is in Texas and other parts of the US.

 

[syllogism]

It is in Texas and other parts of the US.

It's not, despite how it may seem based on some widely reported cases.

 

[Cheech]

I think we all learned a valuable lesson here. If a burglar breaks into your house and you get overzealous in defending it, and no one knows the burglar is there...

Well I'll stop there, but I'd not be surprised if that conclusion took place on a somewhat regular occurrence. Houses are wild cards when it comes to theft targets.

The problem is, putting yourself in this dude's shoes is very difficult. I'm usually pretty mellow, but I'm also certain that if someone broke into my house, tied my wife/daughter/son up and threatened them with a knife?

Blind rage would probably overwhelm me. I don't see myself just letting him run back down the street. If I was standing over the guy with a baseball bat? I don't know. I really don't. It's not like there was a substantial delay in between the initial crime and the beating. That's why I am having a difficult time agreeing with the judge. It's not really meting out "vigilante justice" if you don't have to hunt the guy down BECAUSE HE'S RUNNING AWAY FROM YOUR HOUSE HAVING JUST VIOLATED YOUR FAMILY!

 

[J-Rod]

They both committed crimes, but it's a shame one gets held to a higher standard than the other. It seems you either agree with the justice system and think the invader's act should be negated by the owner's actions, or you think the owner's act should be negated by the invader's action.

 

[syllogism]

The problem is, putting yourself in this dude's shoes is very difficult. I'm usually pretty mellow, but I'm also certain that if someone broke into my house, tied my wife/daughter/son up and threatened them with a knife?

Blind rage would probably overwhelm me. I don't see myself just letting him run back down the street. If I was standing over the guy with a baseball bat? I don't know. I really don't. It's not like there was a substantial delay in between the initial crime and the beating. That's why I am having a difficult time agreeing with the judge. It's not really meting out "vigilante justice" if you don't have to hunt the guy down BECAUSE HE'S RUNNING AWAY FROM YOUR HOUSE HAVING JUST VIOLATED YOUR FAMILY!

So basically you sympathize with a fellow sociopath/psychopath. The society does not expect people to behave this way.

They both committed crimes, but it's a shame one gets held to a higher standard than the other. It seems you either agree with the justice system and think the invader's act should be negated by the owner's actions, or you think the owner's act should be negated by the invader's action.

Uh that's not the case at all. The only reason the burglar didn't get a very severe sentence was the brain damage.

 

[KHarvey16]

They both committed crimes, but it's a shame one gets held to a higher standard than the other. It seems you either agree with the justice system and think the invader's act should be negated by the owner's actions, or you think the owner's act should be negated by the invader's action.

The guy isn't fit to stand trial. It's not about the act negating what the burglar did.

 

[Hari Seldon]

It's not, despite how it may seem based on some widely reported cases.

Well it is not legal to chase them down the street, but inside your property lines you would be alright. Some states you can only defend yourself inside the home, but others you have the right to defend your property.

 

[tino]

With American's fucked up law, the best bet is obtaining a gun license and kill all these people. And don't injury the guy, kill him.

 

[News Bot]

So basically you sympathize with a fellow sociopath/psychopath. The society does not expect people to behave this way.

Uh that's not the case at all. The only reason the burglar didn't get a very severe sentence was the brain damage.

If you are calling someone a sociopath/psychopath based on one incident he can't 100% be faulted for, I wonder what you're definition of a complete pacifist is. Someone willing to let their family be raped and murdered and then to have a knife in the chest themselves? :lol

 

[syllogism]

If you are calling someone a sociopath/psychopath based on one incident he can't 100% be faulted for, I wonder what you're definition of a complete pacifist is. Someone willing to let their family be raped and murdered and then to have a knife in the chest themselves? :lol

I'm all for self defense, lethal force included, but I've little sympathy to people who completely lose control of themselves

 

[News Bot]

I'm all for self defense, lethal force included, but I've little sympathy to people who completely lose control of themselves

I'm in the same boat but I take into account that not everyone has the mental conditioning necessary to properly deal with situations like this.

Its a minefield, really.

 

[operon]

Ok.....what points would you like me to address? I am being calm, collective, and happy that I don't live in the UK. I am not rolling around on the floor saying everything is a joke, I will admit I know next to nothing about UK law, just that it seems to protect the criminal over the victim time and time again. That is just from anecdotal observations such as this one, considering that the normal judicial decisions get no new coverage over here on the other side of the pond. I didn't say, nor did anyone else, that they want someone to break in to their house just so they can kill them (although I do have a friend that matches that description to at T.)

your correct in that sometime the decisions judges can make concerning burglars injuring themselves whilst breaking in, and the burglars then suing the owner, now yes thats wrong but thats completely different to this case. No one is saying you can't defend yourself, but under UK law you can only use reasonable force, they did up until they caught him and dished out rough justice.

 

[News Bot]

your correct in that sometime the decisions judges can make concerning burglars injuring themselves whilst breaking in, and the burglars then suing the owner, now yes thats wrong but thats completely different to this case. No one is saying you can't defend yourself, but under UK law you can only use reasonable force, they did up until they caught him and dished out rough justice.

I think the problem is that "reasonable force" is a very undefined term.

 

[Cheech]

So basically you sympathize with a fellow sociopath/psychopath. The society does not expect people to behave this way.

He's not a "sociopath/psychopath" if he's reacting to something that *just happened*. Don't be a tool. Or FFS, take Psychology 101.

 

[xelios]

With American's fucked up law, the best bet is obtaining a gun license and kill all these people. And don't injury the guy, kill him.

You don't have the right in the USA to chase someone down when they're escaping, restrain them and then kill them, or even beat them so badly you give them brain damage.

In fact I believe Navy Seals were in at least a tiny bit of trouble recently for simply punching an alleged terrorist while he was restrained.

There is a difference between protecting yourself when you're in immediate danger and getting revenge after that person is no longer an immediate threat.

I don't know enough details here to really say, but it sounds like they continued out of revenge after the man was no longer a danger to them instead of turning him in to be prosecuted for his crime.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'm all for self defense, but I've little sympathy to people who completely lost control of themselves

I think this is where my opinion differs from most. Given the reasons that this man lost control of himself, I sympathise. I'd still sympathise if he'd chased the burglar into the next city before bludgeoning him. I lost all sympathy for the (career) burglar when he chose to break into a private residence and hold the occupiers hostage.

If he'd tied the ropes tighter and the home-owner hadn't escaped, what would the burglar have been doing? Would he have been content to take the valuables and go? Would he torture the occupiers for their financial information? Would he have raped Mrs Occupier in front of Mr Occupier? What about the kids? These are the questions that would be going through my mind as I chased the offender. I'm not going to stop until I catch him because he knows where I live and I expect he'll be back for revenge.

 

[Sipowicz]

he went overboard, but at the same time he was tied up with his family by people who invaded his home. if someone does that to your family imo they forfeit their right to life

i would have kicked his head in too (although i probably would have done it alone). cant agree with pussgaf on this one

 

[syllogism]

I think this is where my opinion differs from most. Given the reasons that this man lost control of himself, I sympathise. I'd still sympathise if he'd chased the burglar into the next city before bludgeoning him. I lost all sympathy for the (career) burglar when he chose to break into a private residence and hold the occupiers hostage.

If he'd tied the ropes tighter and the home-owner hadn't escaped, what would the burglar have been doing? Would he have been content to take the valuables and go? Would he torture the occupiers for their financial information? Would he have raped Mrs Occupier in front of Mr Occupier? What about the kids? These are the questions that would be going through my mind as I chased the offender. I'm not going to stop until I catch him because he knows where I live and I expect he'll be back for revenge.

I also have no sympathy for the burglar, but he is irrelevant. You are free to do what you feel is necessary but there are going to be consequences

 

[SmokyDave]

I also have no sympathy for the burglar, but he is irrelevant

Take the burglar out of this story and what are you left with?

"A 53 Year old man went home today after work."

Not much of a story.
Edit: Just seen your edit. I'd appreciate there were going to be consequences under the circumstances I described (especially if I chased him to the next city) but I'd still appeal against them.

 

[syllogism]

Take the burglar out of this story and what are you left with?

"A 53 Year old man went home today after work."

Not much of a story.

As in he isn't being punished because we sympathize with the burglar

 

[KHarvey16]

I think the problem is that "reasonable force" is a very undefined term.

No it's not. Reasonable force in that situation is any force necessary to keep him subdued. Three people beating him is not reasonable. The emotional response to beat him is the exact opposite of reasonable just on the basis of pure definition.

 

[inner-G]

Should have just shot him.

Crazy Europe.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Who knows what would have happened had the guy not escaped? Perhaps the criminal threatened to rape his wife or something.

 

[KHarvey16]

Who knows what would have happened had the guy not escaped? Perhaps the criminal threatened to rape his wife or something.

Grievous bodily harm is not an acceptable response to threats of future violence either. If the guy simply subdued him until police arrived that would have been completely acceptable.

 

[neorej]

So can anyone answer this about the law in the UK: If someone breaks into your home and your life is in immediate danger i.e. they're trying to attack you physically or with a weapon, do you have the right to defend yourself? If you killed them or injured them this badly in the process of defending yourself what would happen?

I only ask to see if a difference is recognized or if you are just not allowed to defend yourself whatsoever.

No, you do not. You are to offer the attacker milk and cookies and resolve it in a socially accepted and civilized manner. Everyone knows violence doesn't solve anything. When was the last time violence ended a war?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Grievous bodily harm is not an acceptable response to threats of future violence either. If the guy simply subdued him until police arrived that would have been completely acceptable.

If the guy said in the courtroom, "He threatened to come back and rape my wife" then I would have acquitted him if I was a juror.

 

[xelios]

No, you do not. You are to offer the attacker milk and cookies and resolve it in a socially accepted and civilized manner. Everyone knows violence doesn't solve anything. When was the last time violence ended a war?

I am not sure how that answers the question. I already know violence is sometimes acceptable, was simply asking about self-defense laws.

 

[KHarvey16]

If the guy said in the courtroom, "He threatened to come back and rape my wife" then I would have acquitted him if I was a juror.

You'd be wasting your time since the people using their brain would force you to stay in that room until you came to your senses.

 

[daw840]

If the guy said in the courtroom, "He threatened to come back and rape my wife" then I would have acquitted him if I was a juror.

Agreed.

You'd be wasting your time since the people using their brain would force you to stay in that room until you came to your senses.

So, let me get this straight. A man, breaks into your house, ties you and your family up, then somehow you get free and chase the man out of your house. He then turns around and says that he is going to come back and rape your wife, your telling me you wouldn't do anything?

 

[operon]

If the guy said in the courtroom, "He threatened to come back and rape my wife" then I would have acquitted him if I was a juror.

The guys brain damaged and couldn't even enter a plea, what do you think hes do drool and they could interpet it as a threat, wtf

 

[daw840]

The guys brain damaged and couldn't even enter a plea, what do you think hes do drool and they could interpet it as a threat, wtf

He wasn't brain damaged before the invasion.

 

[KHarvey16]

So, let me get this straight. A man, breaks into your house, ties you and your family up, then somehow you get free and chase the man out of your house. He then turns around and says that he is going to come back and rape your wife, your telling me you wouldn't do anything?

I would catch him and make sure he was arrested. I would not get two friends to help me break cricket bats over his body and give him brain damage, and if you think that would be legal here in the states you better think again.

 

[Chinner]

I think the problem is that "reasonable force" is a very undefined term.

maybe to you, but here are some results from some very basic googling:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/householders.html

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence

here are some things that may stick out to you due to relation of this article:

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:

having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest.You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

another link where i found something interesting
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html

It was recently said by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, in the last 15 years, there have only been 11 cases where householders have been prosecuted after tackling intruders.

11 cases in 15 years? what is britain coming to....

 

[daw840]

I would catch him and make sure he was arrested. I would not get two friends to help me break cricket bats over his body and give him brain damage, and if you think that would be legal here in the states you better think again.

You say that now, but when all you see is red your decision making is quite different.

 

[syllogism]

You say that now, but when all you see is red your decision making is quite different.

See mentally stable persons do not "see red" to the extent where they act like that and even disregarding that there should be consequences. It wasn't just a few hits, it was a sustained assault.

 

[operon]

He wasn't brain damaged before the invasion.

Got the context wrong, though the threat was made in court, not seeing meant the homeowner repeating it :-((

 

[KHarvey16]

You say that now, but when all you see is red your decision making is quite different.

And unreasonable. The man did not get the minimum sentence usually imposed on those who commit this act because of the circumstance. If I remember right normally the minimum for such a thing is 7 years.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Edit: nvm you edited it.

 

[syllogism]

I have no idea what you are talking about. If the criminal threatened the couple while tied up saying something to the effect of "Don't report this or I'll come back and rape your wife", and the homeowner testified to this in the courtroom, then I would acquit the homeowner.

No you can't acquit the homeowner because as mentioned, you wouldn't reach the point. You would probably be removed as it would be clearly against the law to to do so. If you purposefully refuse to apply the law as instructed you can be disqualified.

 

[Hari Seldon]

No you can't acquit the homeowner because as mentioned, you wouldn't reach the point. You would probably be removed as it would be clearly against the law to to do so. If you purposefully refuse to apply the law as instructed you can be disqualified.

Well if I was removed then so bet it. I would refuse to find him guilty.

 

[neorej]

The guys brain damaged and couldn't even enter a plea, what do you think hes do drool and they could interpet it as a threat, wtf

His braindamage is a direct result from a risk he knowingly and willingly took. He's no to little threat now, but at the time he was a risk.

The way I see it: getting beaten the living shit out of you is a risk of the job. Same as soldiers getting killed in a war, freestyle rockclimbers that slip and plummet to their deaths and Formula 1-drivers who crash and die. You can't enter a person's house, hold him and his family hostage, threaten to kill them and expect him to take it all calmly.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well if I was removed then so bet it. I would refuse to find him guilty.

That's completely ridiculous.