I heard on the radio today that there are proposals to change the law so that when a burglar enters a house he is outside the law, and the homeowner can take any measures to protect himself and his property, even if that results in the death of the burglar.

That raises a lot of questions, but basically I'm in favour. How about you?

I am in favour too :) The old law is ridiculous. Will it affect dogs attacking burglars/intruders as well tho' ?

Daisy

As far as I understand the proposals, anything that happens to a burglar on someone else's property, where they haven't been invited, will be their own fault. The burglar will be beyond the protection of the law.

Richard and Judy interviewed David Blunket yesterday and that wasn't what he was saying.  The new law would do away with the possibility of a burgler sueing if he hurt himself by falling through a roof for instance but house holders could still only use reasonable force to defend themselves or detain the criminal until the police arrived.
Personally I think it would be very wrong if a householder could do anything they felt like, that could be, in effect, dishing out punishment rather than mere defence and you may get the situation when householders commited acts of retribution, not very civilised, which is what I believe happened with the Tony Martin case.

I knew it sounded too go to be true.

When is the law going to protect law abiding citizens? At the moment is seems to me that the harder you work and abide by this governments policies, the more you are penalised because you are a soft target. JMHO, yet if you are in anyway breaking the law, you just have to preach "human rights act" and it gets you out of all sorts of trouble.

Thats just what Blunket is saying this law will do, it will take away any chance of the criminal crying "foul" if you use reasonable force to protect yourself or your property or to detain him, why would you want any more than that, surely people don't want the right to punish the criminal themselves that would be barbaric wouldn't it?

I agree that if someone breaks into your home if they get hurt its tough but where do you draw the line at reasonable force? I dont want to start an arguement but some people do want to take the law into their own hands (maybe in the same suitation I would feel the same) like Tony Martin he may have thought he was using reasonable force but he killed someone.

If someone broke in here I would call the police and lock me and the kids and the dogs in a room.

I have to say it would take a very brave burglar to risk it - both Willis and Phoebe go beserk if anyone comes near the house and with Willis at 38inches at the shoulder with a formidable bark - even delivery men run off :D He wouldn't let anyone here here without being invited.

The only time I would use force would be if I felt I had to protect my family. Material goods are just that and can be replaced. When it comes to my children I would so whatever it takes to protect them - within the law or not.

So you were listening to Jeremy Vine too JG????  ;)

I think in self defence a houseowner should be allowed to use reasonable force to defend their property but I think it could be open to all sorts of interpretation.   Who's to say the burglar might not be fleeing the property after having been rumbled when he's bopped over the head or shot?  Not that I'm saying he/she should've been there in the first place but you could get some Jack the Lad houseowner who basically will act first & think after. 

<<That raises a lot of questions>>>

It does indeed JG- what happens if someone attacks another and claims they "thought" they were a burglar ?

Yeah..great...maybe I could bump of the x-mother in law,drag her to the house and say I thought she was a burglar!!
Now being serious,I know it will need 'fine tuning' but in theary I think its great.
Archer

IMO it must be down to each householder to ensure that their property is clearly fenced/gated etc, then there couldn't really be any confusion. The average person doesn't normally 'wander' into other people's property - particularly onto their houses. Obviously, there are going to be circumstances (ie where someone has a footpath through their house ( ;) ) where it could be a major problem :( An instance was where my friend's father who has Alzheimer's wandered off when they were shopping in Windsor once and after a major police search they found him - he had wandered into the kitchen of a house Fortunately, the occupier recognised the symptoms and called the police, before giving him a cup of tea. It could have been a lot worse tho' :(

Daisy

Basically, i'm in favour simply because i deplored what happened over Tony Martin, poor man.

If someone breaks in - they takes their chances. It raises many questions but ...

Lindsay
x

About damned time if you ask me! I have always maintained that anyone breaking into my home deserves all he gets!

As  understand it you are allowed to use the minimum force necessary to protect yourself and your property.

Bazza

Yes, but it's all too vague. What is construed in the law as "minimum force"?

you're probably only allowed to tickle them until they run off at the moment :rolleyes:

Or shout BOOOO at them :D

The worry is if the media are portraying it in this way then a lot of the public will get hold of the wrong end of the stick and a few nasty incidents are going to occur :(