DSPUK Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Should home owners be prosecuted for using force to defend their property. - Please note force - nothing specific. So far it's 94% say No. -- Seems 6% of population are criminals or Sun readers. http://www.dailymail...ndex.html -- scroll to bottom of page. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb403 Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Page no longer exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Whats the chances of this being on Jeremy vine this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Page no longer exists? Its been stolen already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 Or maybe they didn't like the way the poll was going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 No conspiracy, just an error in the original link. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html scroll down to near the bottom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Better link http://www.dailymail...olls/index.html Now 95% 5% Edited September 4, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clakk Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 so 5 % of daily mail readers are ***** thats interesting.the other 95% are hoping they dont get a visit from innocent ramblers looking for a lost dag in theyre front room at 3 am .wot happened to an englishmans home is his castle its good to see the majority agreeing that you should be able to defend your family and home from verminous scum.but when are they going to remove the problem and make all trespass a criminal offence ,its not a civil case 4 toerags inbreak into your property its a crime simples.soon as they cross your boundry its 999 time and if they keep coming you should be able to protect what is near and dear to you without fear of prosecution but please dont use it as an excuse to bladder some1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I wouldn't be surprised if half of that 5% just misread the question and thought it said should homeowners be allowed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSPUK Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 HW - That was Sun readers that got confused. - Thanks for correcting the link. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 If its in a poll, wherever it is and 94% are in favour, it will be Government policy tomorrow. The quest for popular policies recognises no sensible controls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I thought you were already allowed to use reasonable force to defend your self and your property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted September 4, 2012 Report Share Posted September 4, 2012 I thought you were already allowed to use reasonable force to defend your self and your property. Yup,but the devil is in the detail:and your version of "reasonable"if you are put under pressure at 3 a.m. may not look so reasonable under cross examination in court whatever the rights & wrongs of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yup,but the devil is in the detail:and your version of "reasonable"if you are put under pressure at 3 a.m. may not look so reasonable under cross examination in court whatever the rights & wrongs of it. What other way can it be. You can kill someone that brakes into your house and there be no investigation. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Interestingly the mail story has now changed to shot at 4 people trying to break into their house, if they were outside then they may have trouble getting away with it on self defence grounds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 the old saying applies here - better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...make of that comment what you will, if I ever feel my family and I are under serious threat - you think i'm going to care about a poxy certificate or even my liberty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottonseed Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 It sems the whole of British Law is bedevilled with the word 'reasonable', which is ridiculously subjective. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is trying to break into your home when you are inside, then your life, or physical well-being is in danger. Judges pronouncing on these cases always use the word 'proportionate' to describe the amount of force needed to repel the intruders--ie, if someone attacks you with a knife, you can respond with a cricket bat, but not a flame=thrower, or machine gun. If there is more than one person attempting to enter your house in your presence I believe the use of any firearm is acceptable. In the Leicester case one man and one woman were up against four, presumably, men. Even if the householders had a knife and a cricket bat, they were outnumbered. If I was judge, jury, or prosecutor I would maintain that the use of a shotgun was reasonable and proprtionate. They should walk free and the matter should not be involved in any decision over the SGC holder's future suitability to own a shotgun, or any other firearm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 It sems the whole of British Law is bedevilled with the word 'reasonable', which is ridiculously subjective. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is trying to break into your home when you are inside, then your life, or physical well-being is in danger. Judges pronouncing on these cases always use the word 'proportionate' to describe the amount of force needed to repel the intruders--ie, if someone attacks you with a knife, you can respond with a cricket bat, but not a flame=thrower, or machine gun. If there is more than one person attempting to enter your house in your presence I believe the use of any firearm is acceptable. In the Leicester case one man and one woman were up against four, presumably, men. Even if the householders had a knife and a cricket bat, they were outnumbered. If I was judge, jury, or prosecutor I would maintain that the use of a shotgun was reasonable and proprtionate. They should walk free and the matter should not be involved in any decision over the SGC holder's future suitability to own a shotgun, or any other firearm. Agreed! - surely they look at the home owners past - it's fair to say if he has never had any real involvment with or been in trouble with the police then he is not a "gun toting looney" - in my opinion if you set foot on someones property with the intent to do harm you are fair game - although the person firing the gun should be accountable if it is proven that the person was a girl guide selling boxes of chocolates etc or a person asking for directions. it would also be good practice to not go to persons private residenced between 11pm and 4am - usually if someone is skulking around a house at this time they are up to no good! Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 or broken down locally or occasionally as I find myself delivering documents late. The simple facts are if they were outside trying to get in it wasn't self defence and he could have put a warning shot into the ground and they would have cleared off. If they were inside its a different matter we shall see, but it also smacks of having the gun by the bed incase as lets face it nailing them outside doesn't sound like they had time to get the gun out of the safe etc. They were held for 3 days which doesn't sound good for them, its a hard one you want to be pro self defence and the law is clear that you can if the right criteria are met but this increasingly sounds like it has more to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) or broken down locally or occasionally as I find myself delivering documents late. The simple facts are if they were outside trying to get in it wasn't self defence and he could have put a warning shot into the ground and they would have cleared off. If they were inside its a different matter we shall see, but it also smacks of having the gun by the bed incase as lets face it nailing them outside doesn't sound like they had time to get the gun out of the safe etc. They were held for 3 days which doesn't sound good for them, its a hard one you want to be pro self defence and the law is clear that you can if the right criteria are met but this increasingly sounds like it has more to it. Alex, I have documents delivered continualy and have never ever seen anyone trying to deliver these after 11pm or before 4am - can you honestly say this is common? and breaking down? nowadays how many people go to a house? nearly everyone has a mobile phone an coverage is rarely a problem in the UK... I would also argue someone trying to get in is self defence - are they trying to get in to harm you and your family? who knows! once they are in it's too late - castles dont have defences on the inside - they have it on the outside! one the attackers are inside it could be too late. the whack job liberals have our laws standing on thier heads to the point where people are in fear of even defending thier family and home! how ridiculous is that!!! I would hate to have to shoot someone but if it was a choice of my family or them?...BANG! as long as it is found to be a criminal i'll dance a jig as the police lead me off to prison. having been robbed in a previous house I can say it puts severe strain on a person and thier family, my wife did not settle - ever - in that house again and it was known to be a reletively good area! Regards, Gixer Edited September 5, 2012 by gixer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 What other way can it be. You can kill someone that brakes into your house and there be no investigation. ? If that happened i'd probably recommend a good mechanic and ask for their insurance details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 5, 2012 Report Share Posted September 5, 2012 Alex, I have documents delivered continualy and have never ever seen anyone trying to deliver these after 11pm or before 4am - can you honestly say this is common? and breaking down? nowadays how many people go to a house? nearly everyone has a mobile phone an coverage is rarely a problem in the UK... I would also argue someone trying to get in is self defence - are they trying to get in to harm you and your family? who knows! once they are in it's too late - castles dont have defences on the inside - they have it on the outside! one the attackers are inside it could be too late. the whack job liberals have our laws standing on thier heads to the point where people are in fear of even defending thier family and home! how ridiculous is that!!! I would hate to have to shoot someone but if it was a choice of my family or them?...BANG! as long as it is found to be a criminal i'll dance a jig as the police lead me off to prison. having been robbed in a previous house I can say it puts severe strain on a person and thier family, my wife did not settle - ever - in that house again and it was known to be a reletively good area! Regards, Gixer you'd be surprised we do legal documents and fairly regularly these go to remote smart houses late god forbid getting the wrong house and getting shot knocking on the door same as remote not necessarily meaning good mobile signal so the potential is there for someone late to need a phone. Its fairly irrelevant as most intruders don't break into a house that is occupied and the occupier is awake as they don't go looking for a fight unless there is something of proper value there. I'd still suggest while they are outside they aren't a true threat but once inside and challenged that would make them fair game and its far from too late. This story has miles to go when more comes out till then its speculation but its sure got the trigger happy fraternity excited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.