27
Sep '07

Self Defence

   Posted by: lyle   in Cynicism, Domestic, Thoughts

Add Comment

Apparently, Jack Straw wants to overhaul the self-defence laws, and “eliminate the grey areas in the law”. Personally, I have no problem with this, and fully agree that it needs doing.

However, rather than simply clearing things up, I personally would opt for the following:

Anyone who breaks into your house absolves all their personal rights at that point

In other words, anyone breaking in accepts responsibility for their actions, and has no personal rights once they’ve broken in, and the householder can take reasonable action to protect their property.

Works for me, anyway.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at 08:30 and is filed under Cynicism, Domestic, Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 comments so far

Richard
 1 

I believe that the problem has always been in the definition of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ force. For example, is it reasonable to be able to shoot and kill any person who enters your home, even if there’s no sign of a break-in? If so, then I wouldn’t want to get into an arguement with you at a dinner party.

I do believe that certain changes are in order. For instance, it shouldn’t be the resposibility of the property owner to protect the health and safety of someone who illegally enters their building. So if someone breaks in, has an accident, and injures themselves, then they shouldn’t be able to sue the property owner – as has happened in the past.

September 27th, 2007 at 11:01
Lyle
 2 

Richard,

Your second par is exactly what I’m saying – if someone breaks in, they have to accept that they could be hurt, damaged etc. by whatever happens to be in your property. As such, by breaking in, they take responsibility for their own actions. However, if a homeowner had taken (how shall we put this?) “extreme measures” as ways of preventing a burglary (nasty electrical systems, sharp things, etc. etc.) and someone were hurt by them when *not* in commission of a crime, then the householder would be responsible for injuries, harm, etc. (Of course, if you rigged that system so it only triggered on the activation of the burglar alarm, well…. )

As for your first par – no, you shouldn’t be able to shoot anyone on your property. However, if someone has broken in to your property (i.e. the crime of breaking and entering, rather than trespass) then you should be able to deal with them in an appropriate manner.

“Reasonable force” is fine – except it’s so wishy-washy, most people don’t know what it means. To one person “reasonable force” is a slap, to another it could be attacking the intruder with a claw-hammer, or worse.

September 27th, 2007 at 11:14
Matt
 3 

To the best of my knowledge, this is already in place in Ireland. If someone breaks into your home, the have absolved themselves of all personal rights by doing so. Several years ago there was a case of someone who was shot (albeit not killed) by the householder, and there were no charges brought against the householder as a result of the shooting. I don’t know what would have happened if the thief had been killed in the incident.

September 27th, 2007 at 13:15

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Back to top