People unable to defend themselves in own home??

[Triggles]

uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100110/tuk-myleene-aghast-over-knife-warning-6323e80.html

What's the opinion here? Personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous - she was inside, they were outside - not to mention middle of night and they were looking in her windows. I'd probably feel differently if she ran outside brandishing the knife at them. But if she's inside, or they enter the home, I say she has every right ...

I think the guy who chased the intruder down the street and then proceeded to beat him with help from friends/family actually crossed the line from self defence.

There was however a case in South Australia a few years where an intruder was cut in half by a samurai master after breaking in, in an attempt to steal his swords. I mean really? No sympathy whatsoever for someone that dim. The homeowner was charged but was later released which is as it should be.

got to agree with the others jackbauer, that guy deserves to be in jail.
And the only reason the burglar is not in jail os because he is not fit to stand trial because he suffered brain injuries after having a cricket bat broken over his head.
I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, but the guy who did it was in no way acting in self-defence or protecting his home and family, he was exacting his revenge in a vigilante manner which the courts system can not allow for.

Yep! The cricket bat guy is where he deserves to be. He went way over the line between defending his family and seeking retribution. Can't be allowed. Otherwise we might as well be back in the dark ages.

The legal system has to enforce the law that you can't go after someone to get revenge - otherwise it would be OK to just go round taking it into your own hands to physically attack anyone who had committed a crime against you. There's a reason we try not to run things like that - it would lead to total anarchy. Of course you may want to, and feel you have a right to, but you don't. Justice for criminals in civilised countries has to go through a process to check that they did do it and they are responsible, and even if they did the punishment isn't to be beaten up and potentially killed.

Self-defence is OK and that means you're fighting off someone who is in the process of attacking you. That happens and courts allow it, it's just that obviously the media is going to leap on the cases where someone attacked their attacker beyond self-defence and wasn't let off.

As for Myleene, the right thing to do would have been to call the police - threatening loiterers with a knife is unbelievably dumb and liable to escalate matters, if nothing else. I think it's fair that she got a warning.

as far as the cricket bat guy goes, once the buirglar was off his property,no longer a potential threat and fleeing, there is very little difference in the man chasing him down and attacking him then or finding out who he was a year later and doing the same. In which case i doubt anyone would claim he was acting in self-defence.

Don't get me wrong, I agre he does need to serve some time, I just can't get my head round him being sent down for so long when he is not a danger to anyone else, and the burglar being set free. I do understand once he was off the property he should have stopped, just as Myleene Klass shouldnt have waved a knife, but in the heat of the moment these things happen.
In her case, as no-one was injured, and she was quite clearly not ina position to injure them (what with being the other side of a wall/pane of glass) then I think the warning was not thought through.

"and the burglar being set free."

But this is a fallacy. The burglar hasn't been set free, he is unable to stand trial due to the brain damage he suffered at the hands of the man convicted and his brother as they beat him over the heads with a cricket bat,metal pole and hockey stick when he was on the ground.
There would be absolutely no value in putting to trial a man who would be unable to sufficiently aid in his legal offence as he is brain damaged.
I feel no great sympathy for the burglar, you live by the sword you die by the sword. But absolutely no developed legal system can allow for a system where by the victim is allowed to dish out retribution and vigilante justice.
The courts made it quite clear, no one was questioning his right to defend hius home or his family and the force he used in doing so. It was the unnecessary beating of a man on the ground with a metal pole,a cricket bat (which he hit the man so hard ver the head that it split into pieces) and a hockey stick to the point where the man suffered brain damage that the courts objected to.

Agreed mq. Tis an odd definition of 'free'.

*legal defence...

** oh and obviously they didn't beat him over his "headS"

It's not ideal to chase after someone who has left to punish them. However providing that it is immediately after (a sort of hot pursuit) that should be taken into account. Your defence then would be that you were out of your mind with fear and anger. A perfectly natural reaction.

Of course one of the reasons you need to chase them is that the police are ineffective. If we had some chance of them acting it wouldn't be so bad.

Okay, fair point, but in general (and okay, with hidsight I admit, this was not the best case to use) if you fight back then you are in the shit, so in theory, if someone attacks you you cannot defend yourself. This is what concerns me.

"Of course one of the reasons you need to chase them is that the police are ineffective. If we had some chance of them acting it wouldn't be so bad."

But that's basically admitting that your chasing after them is because you feel that you need to do what the police won't, which is catch and/or punish them. Which quite clearly isn't self defence and enters into vigilante territory which the courts are quite hard upon.

"Okay, fair point, but in general (and okay, with hidsight I admit, this was not the best case to use) if you fight back then you are in the shit, so in theory, if someone attacks you you cannot defend yourself. This is what concerns me."

But is it true that you can't defend yourself?

The guy with the cricket bat is not a good example of that.

Mylene is not a good example of that, she wasn't under attack.

So what happens when people do have to use violence and weapons to defend themselves?

The authorities have said that you can use violence to defend yourself and that there's no need to change the law. Is that so?

Does anyone have any examples?

", but in general (and okay, with hidsight I admit, this was not the best case to use) if you fight back then you are in the shit,"

Where are you getting this from? Bar hysterical "it's pc gone mad/ruined britain/ the youth are out to kill you!" gutter journalism? I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest this.

This is just plain stupid. I can't believe we have come to this as a nation.

Is she sure she didn't mishear and they actually said to her "you must not carry on being so offensive?" rather than this malarkey about weapons?

Mylene was in the kitchen, saw some people lurking around her house and waved a knife at them. Seems reasonable to me. You shouldn't have to wait until you are attacked before you are 'allowed' to act! Surely if you warn burglars off, that is a result for everyone - burglars are in one piece, you are in one piece, nothing has been damaged in any way and no crime has been committed?

As for the Munir Hussain case, clearly he went well beyond any definition of self-defence. And it is ironic that by doling out retribution himself, he made it impossible for the burglar to stand trial. And yet, and yet, people should be able to chase burglars and hang on to them until the police turn up.

Btw, thought I'd seen that the burglar has been accused of other crimes since the Hussain case but hasn't been prosecuted due to his disability? (This may not be the case, got the impression from a glance at someone else's paper in the train.)

I think the blokes that broke in got what they deserved, Only sad thing about it is Mr brain damaged will just drain the benefits system now.

I understand it from the difference of self-defence as opposed to revenge or retaliation. But as far as I'm concerned, someone breaks into my home, they deserve whatever they get. I'm going to defend myself and my kids however I can. If they get hurt or killed in the process, too bad.

Funny, but when I lived in the states and worked for the police there, we were always advised "if there's an intruder, you empty your gun into them. Then it's their word against yours.. and they're not talking."

"But as far as I'm concerned, someone breaks into my home, they deserve whatever they get. I'm going to defend myself and my kids however I can. If they get hurt or killed in the process, too bad."

Yes and i couldn't agree with this more. weirdly though some people seem to think that the law is out to get them here and protect the burglar, this is simply not true. The test for reasonable use of force is subjective so as to be slanted in the defendants favour. i.e. they must prove that the force they used is what they reasonably believed to be necessary given the circumstances. So there's none of this "you can only use a knife if they use a knife/what are you supposed to do ask them what kind of weapon they have so you can decide what to do?" that seems to get trotted out whenever I see the subject come up. What it is there to stop is those who think that "once someone enters my home they forefeit any rights", and would think that it should be legal that should they subdue to burglar and lets say tie him up, they are now judge,jury and executioner and can do whatever the fuck they like to them.
In the brain damage case that's been discussed people are always going to say things like,they deserve what they got, and on the one hand I kind of agree with them, I feel the same way when I hear about paedophiles getting an absolute kicking, but on the other hand I have to acknowledge that I have absolutely no authority to decide someones guilt and what the relevant punishment should be. I mean the punishment for burglary upon conviction is not to be beatent over the head by multiple people with metal poles,cricket bats and hockey sticks until you suffer brain damage, so can it truely be said that he deserved what he got?

My problem with what Mylene appears to have done is that I think it is incredibly unlikely she has any ability to use a knife in a fight situation, and she effectively "upped the ante" by introducing it. So if the people in the garden had been the more dangerous type - chances are she would be at more risk than if she hadn't introduced the knife in the first place.

Never use a weapon you don't know how to use yourself, it just gives the other person something to take off you and use against you.

It worries me that I know about this stuff!

No sympathy for brain damage guy, but the homeowner in that situation did cross the line and I think needs to be held to account.