Burglar Stabbed To Death: Is This Self-Defence?

[JollyRoger]

Mobboss respects me too damn much to every do me any harm.

Wish him Happy Holidays while absconding with a gift from under his festively-decorated tree and you might find out differently.

 

[RedRalph]

If that happened, all he would say is "not cool bro, so not cool", and I respect him so damn much I would not only drop the present, I would send him a bottle of casket-aged whiskey by way of apology.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well if he's right next to your bed when you find him a good kick to the stomach wouldn't be unwarranted. I'm talking about if you see them from a distance, the majority of situations.

At a distance? How big is your house? The furthest someone can be away from me in my bedroom is about 8-10 feet. It doesn't take very long to close that distance.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh come off it kid, this is ludicrous... what does someone have to do in your eyes to 'pose an apparent threat'?

Moderator Action: Please make sure the disagreement isn't getting too personal.

 

[Farm Boy]

But if it was your ugly 40-something wife, you'd just say "meh", and dive out a window?

(I mean, I'm kidding, but that really was kind of a weird thing to specify.)

This is what I get for not being able to check CFC for 3 days. Freaking hilarious!

It was an attempt to imply the fear of sexual violence. I think the term "ravishment" is still used in some common-law definitions. It seems largely taboo to even address this topic squarely unless you are a Womens' Studies professor, so I did not much think about how I was phrasing the hypothetical.

 

[IglooDame]

Which is way outside of my zone of ethical behavior. It's one thing to defend property with lethal force if that property is essential to your life - stealing someone's (only) horse in the old west is the immediate example that comes to mind. But nowadays in the age of pervasive homeowners/renters insurance I can't think of an example of any property (absent natural disaster and/or civil disorder) that rises to that level of importance - if someone steals it, you file an insurance claim, and you go buy another one. And family heirlooms are certainly more valuable in their irreplaceability, but still generally not life-or-death priorities.

What if the item was a family heirloom and was absolutely irreplaceable?

Ummm... See the bolded bit. IMHO, anyway.

 

[civ_king]

Ummm... See the bolded bit. IMHO, anyway.

d'oh mea culpa

 

[Quackers]

Indeed. I think that it is at points like this that the so-called "libertarianism" of many paleoconservatives breaks down, and it becomes clear that their conception of "rights" is not substantially related to any classical liberal or libertarian conception of natural rights, but is a set of implicit social treaties based upon mutual respect for property entitlements.

So do you believe in prison? After all we're violating these criminals the right to freedom of movement by locking them up. Is there any case the state can take away an individual's rights?

 

[IglooDame]

So do you believe in prison? After all we're violating these criminals the right to freedom of movement by locking them up. Is there any case the state can take away an individual's rights?

Fifth Amendment:
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

(bolding mine)

The state can imprison or fine or execute someone after finding them guilty of a crime via due process of law.

 

[Flying Pig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

Clears up the matter somewhat

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.

David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".

 

[Communisto]

Wicked. High five, Britannia.

 

[SuperJay]

Ah, yes. "Whatever force necessary."

So who determines what is necessary? Right here in this thread, you've got some people who feel it's necessary to kill anyone who breaks into their home, and others who feel it's necessary to merely scare the burglar off.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Whatever's necessary to get them out of your house and stop them stealing from you.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, yes. "Whatever force necessary."

So who determines what is necessary? Right here in this thread, you've got some people who feel it's necessary to kill anyone who breaks into their home, and others who feel it's necessary to merely scare the burglar off.

Intentionally vague definitions are intentionally vague. In U.S. criminal code the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is intentional that you cannot assign a percentage based degree of certainty, it is up to the jury or judge depending on type of trial.

"Reasonable care" and "reasonable force" are standards I would assume are very similar.

Short answer: the judge and or jury in any specific case determines what is necessary. This is probably not a terribly thing, though imperfect. Trial by peers is a core building block in much of western civil society.

 

[GinandTonic]

So anyone have any idea what the difference between the existing "reasonable force" and the proposed "necessary force" would be?

 

[Farm Boy]

Necessary force is the bare minimum required to protect what is legal to be protected. Reasonable force would be what a reasonable person in the same situation would do.

If farting really loud is all it would have taken to scare off the 4 burglars that touched off this thread, than that would be the line for necessary force. If a "reasonable" citizen would have been scared enough to stab one of the burglars if found in the same situation, then that was an application of reasonable force, though it was perhaps more than was necessary. Farting really loudly and spooking the burglars, then gunning them all down in your yard while they are madly attempting to flee would probably be an unreasonable, therefore illegal, application of force. Unless maybe you are in Texas.

 

[bhsup]

This is what I find interesting...

... entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes...

So it seems even the UK thinks it is okay to protect property with violence against an intruder.

 

[Quackers]

Out of interest civver, how would you deal with an intruder in your home?

 

[Traitorfish]

This is what I find interesting...

... entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes...

So it seems even the UK thinks it is okay to protect property with violence against an intruder.

"Home", though, rather than "house", which implies something beyond simple property rights. It strikes me as being more about having a socially understood "safe zone" breached, rather than about the threat of theft of vandalism in itself. "An Englishman's home is castle", and all that.

 

[GinandTonic]

As far as a brief potter over wiki's law pages indicates there is no difference between the old and the proposed definitions. "The benchmark as to whether the use of force is considered lawful are whether it was reasonable, proportionate, legitimate & necessary." So the Tories are emphasising a different word in the same definition to, as far as I can see it, no significant end. Bar throwing a bone to the tabloids.

Professional interpretation gratefully received though.