Reasonable force/Defending the home

I find it utterly absurd that in a lot of cases that I have read or heard about, the victim gets the harsher punishment. People should be able to defend their homes and families without the worry of being prosecuted for doing so. Also, reasonable force needs to be redefined. It is impossible to tell what reasonable force means. There needs to be radical changes in self defence.

Why is this idea important?

I find it utterly absurd that in a lot of cases that I have read or heard about, the victim gets the harsher punishment. People should be able to defend their homes and families without the worry of being prosecuted for doing so. Also, reasonable force needs to be redefined. It is impossible to tell what reasonable force means. There needs to be radical changes in self defence.

Let my home be my “castle” again

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

Why is this idea important?

There are times when, I'm sure, we all feel a little unsafe or scared on the streets so when we are at home, we should feel completely safe and secure with the law on our side but the current system by which anyone breaking into a house has more rights than the home owner is completely backward and needs to be changed.  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 goes part of the way to redress the balance but not far enough.

I fully accept that we can't lie in wait to attack anyone entering our property but homewowners should be allowed to use more than "reasonable force" to repel intruders. Why should I have to wait for an intruder to assault me before I assault him back?  I don't accept the general USA model where intruders can be shot but I do like the concept of "if you break into a house, you have no rights and have to accept the consequences", including getting hit with the cricket bat I keep by the bed  Similarly, if a burglar injures himself inside my house by slipping on loose carpet, or falls in a hole I hve dug in the garden, he should have no rights at all and should not be able to sue me for injury.

Protect The Victim..Not the Criminal

There needs to be a total rethink of the term 'Reasonable Force'

For too long, the Criminals rights seem to come before the Victims Rights, and people protecting themselves and their property (or indeed, helping someone who is being assaulted) have to think twice before getting involved, not only for their personal safety..but because they risk prosecution themselves

Why is this idea important?

There needs to be a total rethink of the term 'Reasonable Force'

For too long, the Criminals rights seem to come before the Victims Rights, and people protecting themselves and their property (or indeed, helping someone who is being assaulted) have to think twice before getting involved, not only for their personal safety..but because they risk prosecution themselves

Review laws which punish those protecting their property

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?

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

Have the right to protect your property when an intruder breaks in

You should have the right to protect your property when an intruder breaks in. You should have the right to be able to protect your family and belongings and if you attack the intruder then you shouldn't be charged.

Why is this idea important?

You should have the right to protect your property when an intruder breaks in. You should have the right to be able to protect your family and belongings and if you attack the intruder then you shouldn't be charged.