Heres a question for those in the US (and other places if it applies):

Here in the UK the law is an arse when it comes to protecting your own home from a burglar (yes, the burglar has a surprising amount of rights, believe it or not). People always say that we should be able to protect our houses like they do state-side (i.e. in the US). So what can you legally do to protect your property if a burglar as much as enters your property?

Dave

 

Make sure that most of the body is still inside when the police arrive.

 

Make sure that most of the body is still inside when the police arrive.

So essentially, if someone enters your house then you can legally do whatever you deem fit to the burglar - even if your actions are in retribution for his/her invasion of your privacy?

Dave

 

It's going to vary from locallity to locallity, but if one has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, doing in a housebreaker usually won't create many legal problems. As you may have noticed, most laws protect property, not people.

 

I understand that different areas of the US have different laws, so what is acceptable in one state may not be acceptable in another.

So there has to be an element of fear for ones safety before you can physically act - its not a case of, you are in my house so everything is fair game? I know that in the UK, you can only act if there is a genuine fear for ones safety, and even then you must only use reasonable force (which may mean permanently disabling the intruder if necessary).

Its just interesting to see what the situation is in other countries around the world because I feel the UK is very soft in this regard.

Dave

 

Reasonable force is going to be an extremely legalistic concept. There is a magazine, "The American Rifleman", that has every month a story of how an armed citizen used a (usually) handgun to successfully defend his home. The crazed meth freak is dropped dead on the threshold.

Then there was the real story of the old woman who came out of the grocery store to find three strange people in her car. She hauled her pistol out of her purse and told them she'd shoot if they didn't get out and leave. They ran off. She got in the car and found her key did not fit - it was a mistake on her part about the car. Good thing she didn't shoot anybody.

Guns are a bit like nuclear weapons - you may command more respect by possessing one, but using it may create more problems that you intended. And since they are useless unless ready to fire, just having one around is problematic.

Still, having an armed citizenry may keep the government in check. A little balance of power thing.

 

It's going to vary from locallity to locallity, but if one has a reasonable fear of bodily harm, doing in a housebreaker usually won't create many legal problems. As you may have noticed, most laws protect property, not people.

Just shoot the mail man, or the neighbour that is going to get is frisbee back. 2nd amendment allows it.

 

Reasonable force is going to be an extremely legalistic concept. There is a magazine, "The American Rifleman", that has every month a story of how an armed citizen used a (usually) handgun to successfully defend his home. The crazed meth freak is dropped dead on the threshold.

Then there was the real story of the old woman who came out of the grocery store to find three strange people in her car. She hauled her pistol out of her purse and told them she'd shoot if they didn't get out and leave. They ran off. She got in the car and found her key did not fit - it was a mistake on her part about the car. Good thing she didn't shoot anybody.

I can believe it!

Guns are a bit like nuclear weapons - you may command more respect by possessing one, but using it may create more problems that you intended. And since they are useless unless ready to fire, just having one around is problematic.

Still, having an armed citizenry may keep the government in check. A little balance of power thing.

Our attitude to guns in the UK is very different from the US. Gun ownership is restricted to the armed forces, armed police and criminals. It is something that is largely frowned upon, particularly in light of incidents like Dunblaine. When we talk of reasonable force in defending your home, its just fists and maybe a bit of kicking.

The problem we seem to have is that the criminal has rights as soon as he enters your property, as an example you can't set boobie-traps to maim an intruder no matter how small. Also, as you say, reasonable force is very subjective and legalistic. I recall a story in the papers about a home owner brought before the courts because he used excessive force on an intruder in his house - basically he floored the intruder. In his defence, the defendant claimed he felt at risk because the intruder was coming up his stairs - the judge claimed this was excessive. When the defendant asked the judge, "what would you have done in my circumstances?" the judge replied, "I would have negotiated with him!" - yes negotiated an amicable settlement with a thief who was uninvited and has willingly entered your house! Not in he real world are they?!

Dave

 

Living in different worlds, aren't they?

The irony of a home protection gun is that the burglar who comes while you're away just steals the gun and sells it for his profit.

 

Living in different worlds, aren't they?

21st Century Britain is full of this kind of nonsense.

The irony of a home protection gun is that the burglar who comes while you're away just steals the gun and sells it for his profit.

Warner Bros Cartoons have given you all a way of protecting yourself against this - tie some string from the door/window/other to the gun trigger, when the burglar tries to enter he/she would get a pleasant surprise. Just don't forget when you return home! ACME anyone!

Dave

 

Fortunately, I've never had my home invaded. But, a dead burglar doesn't have any excuses, or defense to invading your home. Also, isn't likely to be out of jail in a couple of days, while waiting for his trial date. A burglar with a deadly weapon, is fair game in the United States, it's in the constitution. So make sure you provide the burglar with such a weapon before the police or witness arrive, and old screwdriver, rusty fishing knife (knew there was a reason not to throw it away...), baseball bat, anything really. Just tell the police it was sitting out on the front porch, on the coffee table, ect... the burglar won't deny it.

I'm not really an ideal victim, large and in fair shape. Basic house, nothing fancy or ornate. Older, well used vehicles, basic transportation. No watch, gold chains, or sparkly jewelry. Had a huge dog, about 130 lbs, but he died 2 years ago, but still well remembered in this small town.

 

Gun possession is not the solution. Remember that one can be killed with is own gun. I think gun restriction to police and army forces should be enforced, with very hard penalties to who is caught with a gun. Hence burglars won't have easy means of possessing guns.

Nevertheless, I do agree with personal defence by all means necessary. And notice, I mean defense, not offense.

 

One might as well try outlawing alcohol as so many ills come from its misuse.

 

One might as well try outlawing alcohol as so many ills come from its misuse.

A gun only serves one purpose. To kill.

Do not try to compare guns with alcohol. You are comparing the incomparable. Most alcoholic drinks like Porto or Scotch exist to be apreciated, not for getting drunk. Guns only exist for killing.

 

A gun only serves one purpose. To kill.

Do not try to compare guns with alcohol. You are comparing the incomparable. Most alcoholic drinks like Porto or Scotch exist to be apreciated, not for getting drunk. Guns only exist for killing.

Target shooting isn't such a bad thing. It takes time and lots of practice to develop the skills. I did quite a bit of it growing up (father was a gun nut). I don't own a gun (no where to go, too many laws and restrictions). Hunting never interested me. I strongly agree that citizens just being allowed to own guns is an excellent deterent to crime. The potential of death is a great motivator to keep criminals in check. I think we had fewer violent crimes back when the 'death penalty' was more promptly in use. A death-row inmate is more likely to die of natural causes these days.

There are laws against robbing people, yet criminals are still robbing people. Laws against owning guns? Wouldn't the criminals still be owning guns?

This happened earlier today...
http://www.wftv.com/news/14112612/detail.html

The man hasn't been charged with any crime as yet. 14 shots seems a little excessive for defending his business...

 

Didn't mean to offend, the statement was intended as irony. You may recall hearing of Prohibition? Almost as successful as outlawing drugs.

The horse is way out of the barn, as far as enacting any real reduction in individual possession. The bright spot is that most people who own weapons never kill people (or even animals) with them. Preservation of the social fabric should be everyone's focused interest, however. One of the ugliest photos I have seen is of a 20 year old Serbian woman using the back of a sofa as a rifle rest while sniping at former neighbors through a shell hole in the living room wall.

 

Target shooting isn't such a bad thing. It takes time and lots of practice to develop the skills. I did quite a bit of it growing up (father was a gun nut). I don't own a gun (no where to go, too many laws and restrictions). Hunting never interested me. I strongly agree that citizens just being allowed to own guns is an excellent deterent to crime. The potential of death is a great motivator to keep criminals in check. I think we had fewer violent crimes back when the 'death penalty' was more promptly in use. A death-row inmate is more likely to die of natural causes these days.

There are laws against robbing people, yet criminals are still robbing people. Laws against owning guns? Wouldn't the criminals still be owning guns?

This happened earlier today...
http://www.wftv.com/news/14112612/detail.html

The man hasn't been charged with any crime as yet. 14 shots seems a little excessive for defending his business...

As I said...your gun may turn against you. And gun possession won't demotivate crime, as it may even motivate it. See the example of United States.

"The forbidden fruit is the most desired one", as they say where I live.

 

Most normal and sane individuals value their life over a few dollars. The real possablity of getting shot and killed robbing a house, would make the rewards less attractive to most, but not all.

Prison life sound too soft and easy for those who actually make it that far. It should a hard, terriable place, with only minimal necessities. Inmates should only be allowed the most basic of human rights. Seems like there should be some kind of productive work they could be used for, instead of just keeping them in a cage.

 

Here in the mid US, we don't bother with simple firearms anymore.

www.acmenukesforless.com

 

When the US 2nd Amendment mentions the "right to bare arms" most people went off on a tangent and started collecting guns, when what their forefathers REALLY ment, was "It's OK to wear T-Shirts".