to think it doesn't take four burglars to rob one small terraced house

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Burglar stabbed to death

... and they don't normally let themselves in when the place is full of people either. It's going to get played out as a 'homeowners entitled to defend themselves' story but there's something about this story that doesn't ring true.

i thought it unusual tbh. must be more to it than we have been told so far. or not, sometimes burglars are just really really dense!

it hangs on if when the time comes the jury feel he used reasonable force most people would have just hit the burglar with say a cricket bat and knocked him out or IYSWIM and it also will depend upon if they fined the other ' burglars' if they exist and if they brought the weapon into the house that may be looked upon as reasonable as he would have reason to asume they were going to assalt/kill his family with the weapon, I do also think there sounds a lot more to it than this it could be they were looking for something or could have been drug related or a relationship thing going on hard to tell yet

I couldn't give 2 hoots what people do to burglars. If they hadn't broken into someone's home, they wouldn't have been bumped off. People don't know whether someone that has broken in is going to rape them or pinch a CD. Better to hedge your bets. It'll be interesting if Cameron sticks to his guns on this one.

I think 'burglar' might be a misnomer on this occasion. Burglars creep about looking for easily saleable items and really don't want to be spotted. Four masked men attacking a small house is a 'raiding party'.

If someone broke into my home where my wife and boys are I would assume they intended harm or even worse. So i would use reasonable force to stop that burgular. If that meant putting a knife in them, then so be it.
Bearing in mind that burgulars are known for entering armed and also for attacking victims if they are disturbed then they desserve all they get.

I also agree that this story seems odd. three people in house, plus three masked burgulars carry victim off. More like an argument gone wrong and them trying to cover their tracks. Would not suprise me if they are from Salford. (Very rough city).

i'm sorry but i think you're jumping to MASSIVE conclusions.

my sister used to live in a really, really bad part of Scotland and about 3 or 4 months ago she emailed me a link to a story which involved the flat next to her old flat - some masked men had broken into the flat (kicked the door down) at 9am on a SUNDAY MORNING, rounded up the handful of students who lived there, robbed them, and the students only managed to escape by jumping out the window of the block of flats!

that sounded like a totally odd incident to happen, but these things do.

just because your typical burglary happens with 1 or 2 attackers doesn't mean to say there's more to this story.

i think you're posting about something you know nothing about...

Whatever happened, he's deed so one less cretin wasting air.

fgaaagh... I admit I know nothing about the case in question and am merely speculating and inviting conjecture. But that never stopped an AIBU thread yet, you'll find :)

The facts would lead to an assumption of some sort of feud/drug related, but it would be just that, a blind assumption.
On the wider scope no sympathy for a burglar who gets killed but if the homeowner is found to have acted illegally or used disproportionate force then they must be prosecuted also.

Agree mayor but if it comes down to reasonable force in the circumstances then it would be hard to prove either way.

Having lived in Salford for a number of years (and having been burgaled and mugged during this period) this surprises me not a jot.

Says a lot about the other burglars that they dumped the guy who'd been stabbed.

Glad I don't live there any more!

Burgled not burgaled obviously.

Someone that has been burgled should never be prosecuted for any way in which they react. The burgler puts their life at risk the moment they break into an innocent's home.

Agree. the old rule. Any man's home is his castle, and as such has the right to defend it.

Not really. It's judged on a subjective test with regards to the defendant.So an honestly held belief that your actions are proportionate will amount to a defense. The rule of thumb being that the more unreasonable a belief is the less likely it is to be honest. So hitting/stabbing a burglar upon finding him in your home as you feel he is an immediate threat to you or your family is most likely going to be fine. Stabbing him or chasing him down as he flees is not as he no longer represents a threat. Similarly hitting a burglar x number of times to subdue him is fine, once subdued hitting him y number of times to teach him a lesson is not.

There is a chance I suppose that the whole thing is invented to cover something else. Four masked men does seem odd to me too.

Assuming it's true though this whole thing about reasonable force just annoys me and Cameron's comments don't really change anything. I doubt he plans to alter the actual law.

If confronted at 4am by a man standing outside your children's room you are supposed to find out if his intentions are simply to steal and if so retreat to a room out of the way until he has gone. If there is no way to retreat or he plans to rape/murder you then you can use reasonable force which has to be based on various factors. These will be carefully examined in court where they will have weeks to second guess you. If you get it 'wrong' you may go to prison while he is free to try again at your house.

In practice if you ever find yourself face to face with an intruder you have less than a second to make up your mind. The best action is to hit him and keep hitting him with whatever comes to hand until you are absolutely sure he is not going to move any time soon.

Then with him helpless on the floor you should consider what he will do when the court releases him on bail and you should hit him some more until you are sure he will never move again.

Killing a burglar isn't murder as they don't have to break in your house. Think of it as assisted suicide

If someone broke into my home where my wife and boys are I would assume they intended harm or even worse. So i would use reasonable force to stop that burgular. If that meant putting a knife in them, then so be it.

hear hear! I agree with Mr Spoc on this.

i'd stab all 4 of them if i could if i felt my family were in danger and that's what it took to stop me or my own coming to harm.

no sympathy for the buglars until i hear that the law considers it disproportional. and even then my sympathy levels would only go up by a teeny notch.

My mum once had a stalker and he tried our front door one night, she say him from the landing window running off cos she had put the light on. She went to the police and they said 'they cant do anything until he hurts her'

When the story came out about the farmer who shot that young lad who was imprisoned, everyone said he did the right thing. The law then stated that if an intruder was in the house they had to reach the top step of the stairs before you could take action. So if you were all downstairs and someone broke i he could rape/attack etc etc and you couldnt do anything. Which is wrong.

My DH has said if anyone tried to break in he would take the steps to make sure that the burglar didnt get in the house.

I think the burglar got what he deserved.

M0naLisa that's preposterous! (I'm not saying wrong, but if what you wrote is true I'm ).

I'm a law abiding citizen. I would happily stab an intruder or ten if they came into my home and didn't flee when disturbed.

Does that make me a criminal that deserves to be banged up?

Or does it mean that, yet again, the law is a total fucking mockery?

There are many nice parts in Salford, lots of greenery and open space. Like every other place it has it's good bits as well as bad. So please do not generalise.

"If confronted at 4am by a man standing outside your children's room you are supposed to find out if his intentions are simply to steal and if so retreat to a room out of the way until he has gone. If there is no way to retreat or he plans to rape/murder you then you can use reasonable force which has to be based on various factors."

Where are you getting this from? If confronoted by a man in your house standing outside your childrens room stab him and I'll bet that you are not convicted. There is no need to discover his intentions or retreat. All that is necessary is that you have an honestly held belief that your actions are a proportionate use of force to protect you or your family. If you believe he is there to cause you or your family serious harm then killing them is proportionate.

"When the story came out about the farmer who shot that young lad who was imprisoned, everyone said he did the right thing. "

When he shot the lad in the back as he was fleeing and no longer posed a threat. That is why he was imprisoned.

Greenery like Peel Park? Where the Irwell gives up her dead at the bend below The Crescent....

Rule of thumb is If they punch you, you should use slighty less force, i.e push them, If they stab you you should hit them etc. (Just to be on the safe side).

But in RL this does not happen. As lon as they are facing you, then do what you can. Alays assume that if the get up then your in trouble so keep them down. (Tie them up, knock them out etc). But once you have done this do no more other wise you would struggle in court to justify the use of force. Same as if you hit them on the back or whilst they flee. This is seen as them retreating away and so should be left.

The point with Tony Martin (the farmer) was that he used unreasonable force - he shot the boy in the back while he was running away.