If you find a burgler in your house and aim to protect what is rightfully yours how can you determine what excessive force should be applied?
In the case of Omari Roberts & Tony Martin, who have both been charged with Murder when finding a burgler in their house. One of which was due to a stabb wound the other via a firearm, should they be prosecuted for Murder?
The Conservative MP for Newark Patrick Mercer’s attempted to change the law in a Private Members Bill but was struck down by MPs in 2005.
Why is it that if you protect what is rightfully yours you could become a victim of justice, if they had not acted in the way that they did who is to say that the burgler may have murdered the occupants of the house instead?
In my eyes had the burgler not been attempting to break the law they would not be there in the first place and therefore avoid such occurances.
I don't condone neither of their actions however if i was to come accross a burgler who was un-armed does that mean I am unable to use a weapon against them? If they have a weapon am i only allowed to use a weapon of similar value therefore working within reasonable force?
Truth be told that if i did find a burgler in my house, the last thing i would do would be to verify their weapon before choosing which one i should use myself as an act of self defence.
At present, home owners are not allowed to use ‘unreasonable force’ against burglars but there have been calls for it to be strengthened so that only ‘grossly disproportionate force’ would warrant prosecution
Why is this idea important?
The public need to be advised how they may deal in such circumstances, no doubt the emergency services would be the first port of call however in circumstances where this is not possible what rights do they have to protect their property?
This is also a waste of efforts as in the case of Omari Roberts:
A large number of people are arrested, cautioned, examined, charged and then when they come to court the whole thing is dropped