..to say that if you break into someones home

[WildWorld2004]

You should be ready to be attacked.

Have just read a news story about a guy who broke into a house & got attacked by the homeowner.

Now if someone broke into my home i would do whatever i could to protect myself, my child & my home. Wouldnt everyone else??

Whose fault is it if the burglar gets injured?

@perfect storm ok he had some weird views, shame the burglars didnt take note. I have never been burgled, but i have been raped, and im sure many of the feelings are the same, violation for one and fear of the burglar/rapist returning...i would have shot my rapist in the back if id had a gun, and im sure victims of burglary feel the same way. its not what they take in monetary terms, its the shattering of the illusion of safety. you dont feel safe any more, even if they are running away, you are still scared and are trying to protect yourself

scurrfunge -

Not sure you understand what I'm saying to be honest. Waking up knowing that somebody - fuck knows who has been in your house and taken your stuff is frightening. It might not give you the legal right to kill, I never suggested I was going to get out my pitchfork and hunt them down... but if my home had been intruded more than once I do think that like Tony I'd be more intent on defending myself. Your home should be somewhere you feel safe.

The act of running away at the time he was shot is what is relevant to the court.

Mrsrant -

Sorry to hear that. You have worded what I was trying to convey much better. It is indeed the violation and shattered illusion of safety that creates such fear.

Glassy, I get the feeling of being frightened if someone has entered your home but you have to justify each action. You have the absolute right to enjoy your possessions but you cannot kill if the threat isn't there.

Might be relevant to the court, but the people in the court have a black and white view of what happened. They do not feel the terror, the violation or need to defend. By law you might be able to declare a right or wrong... but you can't really judge anyone who acts in defence or fear.

scurry - You don't get the fact it's not about possessions. It's about safety, boundaries and violation and the fear they cause as well as the reactions they cause.

The witnesses in the court paint the picture of how they felt and the fear they experienced at the time and any jury loves that. A good portrayal in court of how their actions are justified leads to a good understanding.

Glassy, that's what I am trying to convey - if you are justified, it is fine.

thanks glass, im fine dealt with it. but i dont think scurry understands at all, when you have been violated by crime the threat doesn't go away because the criminal is running away, victims can still perceive a threat and feel scared after the crime has taken place, In the cold light of day ok maybe you an realise there was no actual threat, but at the time, I do not know how anyone could coldy deliberate if the threat was still valid, and not want to protect themselves

I couldn't care less if my television gets stolen because my insurance will take care of that. Insurance cannot give you back the feeling of being safe in your house.

The intrusion can extend to certain material items though. My partners laptop was stolen during the burglary. That means some random stranger has an insight into our life. Even has access to a few raunchy pictures from a skype session that took place when my partner was working abroad. It's hard to describe how an intruder makes you feel. It's almost as though you go from feeling fully clothed and safe in a warm jumper to being naked in public. You lose that feeling of security. Even with a lovely alarm with movement sensors, window and door sensors you totally feel safe, that illusions gone. You just feel like you get a head start.

It's relevant to the crime because murder requires intention to kill - mens rea, the "mental element" to the crime. He'd said he would kill any burglars, and he said he hated gypsies and would kill them too. That's intention, which removes it being purely instinctive self-defence (which is, rightly, legal).

You're wrong on the law, incidentally. The test of reasonableness is fairly subjective, which is why the Tory Party dropped plans to alter the law to make it "grossly disproportionate" force, instead of reasonable. And even under that change, he'd have been found guilty, because it was plainly disproportionate.

And if we're talking breaking the law... he was keeping a pump-action shotgun in breach of it. His license had been revoked. That's a crime, too.

Obviously, if a burglar breaks in and is stabbed/smacked over the head with a bat/shot while still in the house and scaring the legitimate occupants, and dies, then tough luck to them. But that isn't what happened here, not by a long shot. He wanted to kill the intruders and he did just that. Not legal, and not right. The kid was a crim, but he was also a 17 year old. He's been dead decade, yet he would only be 27 now. He was a human being, and while he was probably headed on a life of crime he was also a son, a brother, a cousin, a friend. He will have had people who loved him, who will have been devastated. He didn't rape anyone... or kill anyone. But he was killed. If that had been in genuine self defence, again I'd say tough, poor life choices and sad outcome. But it was not.

I'm not going to reply any more because this is just pointless. People are coming into this with their minds made up and not really engaging with what happened. When I first heard about the case I supported him too, but learning the actual facts made that impossible. You can't decide you're going to kill anyone who breaks into your house (and sleep with a loaded gun next to you, fully dressed, with a series of booby traps set to delay an intruder's getaway) and expect to get away with it when you succeed. That's light years away from a terrified person striking out to protect themselves and their family, which is why the second is legal.

Everyone knows about the Tony Martin case because convictions like this are so exceedingly rare.

I have been a victim of crime and understand what that means, thanks. I am just trying to explain that your actions have to be justified on what you believed to be happening at the time.

Ask a woman who is being beaten by her husband, and who fears he may kill her, "what is reasonable force?"

Ask a man who fears that he is only thing between a gang who have broken into his house and his wife and family, "what is reasonable force?"

Its easy to sit in your home with no threats and say "well you should or shouldnt do X"

But when all that stands between your children and violence or death is you, can you honestly say that you wouldnt take your Le Creuset pan and hit them until you knew they werent a threat?

You break into my house, I am not going to wait to see who you are or what you want. You will be rendered no longer a threat. If that means you sre incapacitated then so be it. If that means you are dead, then tough shit. You made the decision to invade my family space, you pay the price. I would lose zero sleep. Not a jot.

The people on here who think that home invaders should have the same human rights and protections of the law as everyone else are frankly idiots and probably part of a far wider problem in this country.

And the people who think that it is exceptible to lay flowers of the doorstop of a family who your relative terrorised before they were killed by the homeowner, actually make me physically sick. Grief may be grief but how actually fucking dare they?

What I am trying to say is that the definition of "reasonable force" is easy to establish in the cold hard light of day. But when you fear for the life of yourself, your OH and your children, "reasonable force" is anything that protects them.

Often the two are not the same but it isnt until you have been in that life threatening situation that you appreciate that, which is why so many people who are simply trying to protect their families get convicted.

You say What, that is why the we have Law.

perfectstorm -

It was downgraded to manslaughter.

I don't think its relevant whether he liked Gypsies or not, he didn't go out with intent looking to kill a gypsy - one broke into his home.

This thread wasn't solely about Tony. I have my mind made up as do you... if you're not going to engage because you can't change peoples minds then thats fine.

For the record I believe your wrong. Being prepared to defend yourself if someone breaks in isn't lightyears away from someone who is unprepared but defends. BOTH are acting out of fear AND in Tony Martin's case, his fear of being broken into was justified because the bastards had already intruded previously.

I really have to go to bed now. Thanks everyone for a good discussion.
Will continue to try to lock up the burglars without killing them.

I'm so sorry to hear that, mrsrantalot. For what it's worth, no jury would convict you in that situation. The Martin case was a specific set of factors that are unlikely to be replicated.

For what it's worth, I've been sexually attacked, I've also been burgled, and when we had the robbery the gang had our house keys and our address, as a letter was in DH's wallet. I do know how horrible it is to feel nowhere is safe. But that doesn't make killing someone okay, even though the urge to kill someone who hurts you so badly is human and instinctive. We can't apply justice based on how people feel about it at the time. It has to be a level playing field. Social systems where people mete out their own justice are violent and scary places.

And now I really am off to sleep!

Ahh could you see if you could lock up Wayne Bishop? The repeat offender (Burglary, Assault, shoplifting, driving without licence & insurance, driving whilst disqualified, threatening behaviour) and who gets let off to look after his five kids.

Bogeyface, that's what I'm trying to explain: very FEW people are convicted in this way. Most of the time, reasonableness is fairly easy to prove. It's a pretty subjective test - were you terrified, was it reasonable in your shoes to be? Yes? Okay then, reasonable force. And rightly so.

There was a kerfuffle over changing the law at the time, which went away when it became clear that the law actually works rather well. People are NOT convicted of this all the time - that's why it makes headlines when they are.

Scurryfunge,

Yes I understand the law, thanks.

So are you suggesting that if I wake up and find someone in our bedroom, I politely ask them if they intend to just rob my possessions or whether they intend to hurt my family? Personally i would prefer I just hit them with the nearest fucking big object or stab them with nearest sharp one.

We can argue the finer points of 'The Law' later, and I will thank my lucky stars I am still alive to do so.

@perfect storm, its not that I don't understand your point of view, in this particular case. I haven't read transcripts or any of that to be able to make an informed comment on this particular case. But in any theoretical case an intruder scares the hell out of any normal person and even if they are running away that threat is still there and the need to protect ones person and family and the pumping of the blood must be a factor in whether they actually pull the trigger, because i for one doubt i could kill my worst enemy, but if i thought it was me or them....well its a no brainer

Both dc sleep in my bed room. If a burglar makes it upstairs I will bash him with a base ball bat and not stop until I'm reasonably sure he is dead. I will not stop while he is living to make a phone call to the police and hope he doesn't harm my kids. Sorry. Luckily the law is on my side where I live, not as luckily though the law allows for people to own and carry guns here which means I better be quick with my bat.