Seems like common sense to me.
Time to let people kill burglars in their homes, says Met chief
By John Steele, Home Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 04/12/2004)
Householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary to defend their homes against criminals, even if it involves killing the intruder, the country's most senior police officer said yesterday.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said those who defended their families and property should only face prosecution over injuries to intruders in "extreme circumstances", where they could be shown to have used gratuitous violence.
Sir John: 'People should be allowed to use what force is necessary'
Speaking exclusively to the Telegraph, days after John Monckton, a financier, was stabbed to death in an attempted robbery at his home in Chelsea, Sir John said: "My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and that they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution.
"There's a definite feeling around when I go out on the beat with officers and talk to members of the public that we need clarity in the law."
He said the current legal test of "reasonable force", which has evolved in common law, seemed to be weighted against householders and left the public confused about their rights.
Sir John suggested replacing it with legislation that put a statutory duty on police, prosecutors and the courts to presume that the force someone used in their home against a violent intruder was within the law, unless the facts clearly disproved this.
Other police chiefs shared his view - the strongest assertion of a home owner's right to self-defence issued by a senior officer in recent times - that there was too much doubt about what people could do, he said. The issue should be resolved by Parliament as "a matter of urgency."
Sir John, who will step down in January after five years as commissioner, said: "There is a real difficulty in people understanding what force they can use to defend themselves, their loved ones, their families and their homes. In years gone by I think there was a broad understanding of what it meant.
"The test at the moment is that you use reasonable force in the circumstances. You do not use excessiveness. I think the test of reasonableness needs to be looked at and clarified within statute.
"The thing is too imprecise at the moment for people when they are in extremis. You should be absolutely clear about what your legal rights are to defend yourself."
He suggested that the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a 16-year-old burglar, Fred Barras, in August 1999, was exceptional one which had distorted the issue of self-defence.
Martin, he pointed out, "did shoot the burglar as he was running away. He did use a gun that was illegal. The Martin case skewed everything and it was the wrong case to concentrate on".
Speaking at Scotland Yard, Sir John said: "Now is the time, specifically with these two cases we have had recently - in Chiswick and Chelsea - for the law to be clarified." The Chiswick case involved a teacher stabbed to death in his home in west London. A man has been charged with his murder.
"It's all very well for the lawyers to say the law is clear, but I'm afraid people on the street don't feel that, and on occasions neither do the police," said Sir John.
"Of course you don't want to have gratuitous or excessive violence? but you have to be given the power to use what is necessary.
"I'm not talking about guns but people being allowed to defend themselves and use whatever is necessary to defend themselves against someone who may well be armed with a knife."
There should be a presumption in law "that the person using the force to defend themselves is acting within the law, rather than the other way round".
Even if a struggle led to the death of an intruder, Sir John added, the law would presume that the person in that house had acted lawfully "and let the law change that presumption because of fact in evidence".
He said: "The message it sends to the would-be attacker is, `Do not think you can come into people's homes and people will not defend themselves with the right type of force that's necessary.' At the moment it seems it's the other way round."
source
Seems like common sense to me.
I agree. However, the article mentions a case where a homeowner confronted an intruder who tried to run away, but the homeowner blew his head off anyway. That doesn't seem right either...
Maybe the Brits are softer than we are. Here, the general rule is that you can use force equal to that which is being used against you. So for example, if someone shoots you with a water pistol, you aren't free to bust a cap in their ass. However, if they pose a threat to you or your family, then you can use deadly force.
But...
Only as long as the force is present. So for example, someone breaks into your home, you chase him out, follow him to his home, and shoot him there...I don't know. Hard to call.
Indiana has a specific jury instruction that you owe no duty to retreat from your property, a murder suspect was recently acquitted for that reason.
OK, force equal to what you encounter, but if you wake up to an intruder in your house, how do you assess the threat? If I draw a bead on an intruder with my .50 caliber Desert Eagle with laser sight but notice he is unarmed, must I put down my weapon and attempt to force him outside with my bare hands? What if I do that and it turns out he has a hidden knife or .38 special? Seems like legally giving the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner would reduce the confusion. I agree on the running away thing as I already stated.
<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 04, 2004 06:07 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And yet police officers face this decision everyday and are mericlessly and unjustly skewered by the media and 'civil rights' leaders for that split second decision.Originally posted by LanDroid:
OK, force equal to what you encounter, but if you wake up to an intruder in your house, how do you assess the threat? If I draw a bead on an intruder with my .50 caliber Desert Eagle with laser sight but notice he is unarmed, must I put down my weapon and attempt to force him outside with my bare hands? What if I do that and it turns out he has a hidden knife or .38 special? Seems like legally giving the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner would reduce the confusion. I agree on the running away thing as I already stated.
<font color="#a52a2a"><font size="1">[ December 04, 2004 06:07 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font></font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And whose to say the intruder can't pick up a kitchen knife or other household item and use it to bludgeon you? I'm sorry, but if I have an uninvited guest in my house, it seems like he should be fair game.Originally posted by LanDroid:
OK, force equal to what you encounter, but if you wake up to an intruder in your house, how do you assess the threat? If I draw a bead on an intruder with my .50 caliber Desert Eagle with laser sight but notice he is unarmed, must I put down my weapon and attempt to force him outside with my bare hands? What if I do that and it turns out he has a hidden knife or .38 special? Seems like legally giving the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner would reduce the confusion. I agree on the running away thing as I already stated.
<font color="#a52a2a"><font size="1">[ December 04, 2004 06:07 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font></font>
Pina, I would say he is fair game up to the point you have him in a "surrendered" position. Now if the intruder happens to try and fight back a minute before the police arrive....then all bets are off.
My rule of thumb on this....Once a person enters a house univited and with intent of criminal actions.....That person is taking the risk of being injured or killed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep. Even if I had the (ahem) alleged intruder cuffed with a zip, one wrong move and the firearm would probably be discharged.Now let's say that you have them at gunpoint in your living room, on the ground face down, spread eagle and facing away from you with no apparent weapon in site. You have called the police and they are on the way, estimated time 5 minutes.
Are they still fair game?
Because, you see, Pina... It's MY living room. Said intruder has no business being here.
Why is that so hard to understand?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, if you are taking the stance that with the intruder "cuffed" that it would take "one wrong move" for you to shoot them then you really aren't considering them "fair game" as you have made the act of shooting conditional.Originally posted by gae:
Yep. Even if I had the (ahem) alleged intruder cuffed with a zip, one wrong move and the firearm would probably be discharged.
Because, you see, Pina... It's MY living room. Said intruder has no business being here.
Why is that so hard to understand?
If they were "fair game" even though not immediately an active threat then you would shoot them regardless.
I'm curious about your "Why is that so hard to understand" comment. I assume it is directed at me and the implication is that I disagree with people having a right to defend themselves in thier homes. If I am correct I'd like to know why you assume that you know my position on the matter?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks