To think that if you get stabbed by the owner of the house you're trying to rob...

[BupcakesandCunting]

That it's an occupational hazard of being a burglar?

Obviously I am NOT glad that someone has died here but if you break into a property, you cannot guarantee that you will come out of it very well off. If someone broke into my house, I don't know how I would react but if I felt that my family were under threat and I was panicking, I imagine it would be very easy to go OTT and the other person come off worse.

I know that the law says that you're supposed to use "reasonable force" but heat of the moment/panicking etc etc...

What does everyone else think?

I also think there may be more to this case than a straightforward breaking and entering, and if that's the case then unfortunately it'll muddy the debate just as the Tony Martin case did. According to the Daily Mail, those who have been arrested are the people living in the house.

But there does need to be better understanding of what it's like to be confronted with a stranger in your house, especially in the middle of the night. The legal system operates mostly via facts and not emotions; it's only recently that victim statements have been admissable in UK courts.

Householders are deemed to have a duty of care to all who come on to their property. Generally, that's a good thing, except when that includes people who climb over the garden fence in the dark, etc., not with the intention of visiting but with the intent to break in and steal - why on earth should anyone have to have a duty of care for people like that?

Some three decades or so ago, when my DC were young and my maternal instinct kicked in, I realised that I wouldn't be prepared to die or sacrifice myself for them (in the complete belief that my continuing to be alive was the absolute best thing for them) but I would fucking well kill for them. And I think once that instinct of protection kicks in, it never leaves. I don't know how I'd react if I confronted a burglar in the dead of night - probably initial panic, but I think the anger would soon follow and I wouldn't be thinking about "appropriate" response at that time.

Coming from the US it is quite common for thieves to be shot by home owners. As JoySzasz said the unspoken rule is that if you shoot them outside, drag them back in. I don't remember ever hearing of a case where the homeowner was prosecuted. I'd feel pretty bad about killing someone so probably would have shot in the legs.

I do remember a case where a shop owner was sick of being burgled like 8 times in a month so he electrified the outside of his shop. Had tons of warning signs and everything. A guy tried to break in and was electrocuted on the spot. The cops didn't press charges but they family of the guy tried to get the owner in civil court. They sued for "lost wages" etc. The cheek! They lost and the judge basically laughed at them.

This is the thing isn't it? To me, reasonable would be anything that would prevent an intruder harming me or my family. One might assume that since the intruder is the type of person to break into a home, asking politely might not cut the mustard. I wouldn't want to risk punching/kicking. It would probably aggravate him/her more, thus putting me in more danger. I would only feel unthreatened if the intruder was out cold.

The issue that concerns me with 'reasonable force' is that as a smallish woman with no special training I am likely to get ONE chance to defend myself and the kids before being overpowered. So I can hardly plan to give them a light tap on the head and hope they run away. Either I go for it and aim to totally incapacitate them, or I do nothing. I imagine a slight injury would infuriate a burglar and increase the danger.

Ah, like minds!

I have been in a position (not burglary) where I felt very threatened indeed. I went straight into fight, not flight mode. I was unarmed (as was he) but I found a strength I never knew I had. And it scared me just how capable I could be of hurting someone.

If four men broke into my home, and I felt under the same threat, and I was not able to escape, I would use whatever was closest to hand. If someone got stabbed, then they should not have been in my house in the first place.

I agree, occupational hazard. I wonder if their partners know what their men are up to, shame on them if they do.

Someone tried to break in here last night. If they'd managed it, I'd have gone for a knife, and (for the same reasons lovethesea and bupcake have said) I would have wanted to completely stop rather than just hinder/annoy the intruder.

There's got to be some kind of reasonable force clause though. I very much doubt that anyone who attacked through genuine fear would be prosecuted. But equally people can't have carte blanche to kill someone as revenge for entering their property. The courts are for punishing people.

But the question is, if somebody is threatening with a knife, even your own knife... or you are asking them not to get nearer to you with a knife in your hands and they don't stop... what do you do? it is not as if burglars carry ID specifying how dangerous they have been in the past or something that says they wouldn't kill a fly...

I'm obviously a wimp as I would barricade me and the kids in a room and let the burglars take what the hell they liked. I've got home insurance and very few would attack unless you got in their way. There is a high risk that your own weapon could be turned on you though if you tried to attack them.

And his mates scooped up his nearly dead/ dead body to cover their tracks, obviously, and then dumped him by the side of the road.

Something Dh has just pointed out, if someone breaks into your home, how are you going to know whether they are there to steal or rape/kill? Or if they are going to steal, whether they are likely to want to kill witnesses?

My opinion has always been that by breaking the law you are taking yourself outside of the law, therefore you cannot then rely on the law to protect you if something happens to you as a result of commiting a crime. If that means you get shot whilst robbing a house for example, well tough, if you hadnt committed a crime then it wouldnt have happened.

Either you support the law in which case you obey it and it protects you, or you dont in which case you break it and cant expect any assistance from it.

The vast majority of people who break and enter are there to steal. Most rapist/killers are known to their victims and not masked strangers that break into houses. That's not to say it never happens but I think the risk you pose to yourself by tackling them would be greater.

I have four kids to protect. Lamp them first and ask questions later.

@Graffalosma yes, it is well known that all intruders carry a color coded badge saying they are there just to burgle, to burgle with a bit of violence, to rape etc etc so the petrified householder can tell in the middle of the night....

I wonder what the laws on this are like in other EU countries, to the best of my knowwledge most do not give the intruder so many rights.

It maybe quite fun to equalise them :)

Unfortunately in the area where it happened (and I'm speaking from local knowledge) there are certain thugs who will beat the crap out of the people in the house - male or female - to get PIN information, car keys, whereabouts of cash etc. I don't think we're going to get the full story for a while though.

I don't care that I might not get physically attacked by an intruder. I'm assuming that they haven't broken in to my home to have a cup of tea and a nice chat about politics with me so yeah, I will lay the smackdown.

What story is this? Can somebody give me not a daily mail link please? I am overseas btw.

We had one failed and one succesful break in in our last flat in London. We were there on the failed one. I made dh walk in front of me to the front door where there was someone outside. We were out when we were broken into.

It left me stressed, sleeping in my clothes. And on one occasion throwing a bag of golf clubs downstairs when I heard a boo in the night.

I didn't say that you would KNOW what an intruders motives were just that statistically most people who break in want stuff and only attack when provoked. If you attack them with a weapon the chances are you will come off worse - they will probably be better at using it than you.

The 'reasonable' test is about balance. If you're a lone man, woman or an elderly person or a teenager faced with a big burly bloke flashing a torch in your face in the middle of the night, it's 'reasonable' to lash out with whatever comes to hand and no jury in the land would convict you of anything, whatever happened to the intruder.

However, if you're a big burly bloke yourself and the intruder is some bit of a kid that you have easily immobilised, it is 'not reasonable' to finish him off with a tennis racket.

Near where I live, a madman crashed his way into his neighbour's house and stabbed the woman who lived there. Her teenage son overpowered and killed the intruder. The mother later died. The young man was questioned by police but, quite rightly, no charge was ever brought.

The whole 'if I fight back, I'll be done for murder' thing is not the reality at all.

The Tony Martin case did certainly muddy the water - it tends to be forgotten though that he shot that kid in the back as he was running away.

A PC once advised me that if a burglar was to be 'injured' by something you would have normally around the house, it wouldnt be something they would take any action on. I have a hammer and a walking stick under the bed.

A baseball bat, for instance, might be a bit harder to explain.