In Aus you have the right to be a victim in your own home, if you do not accept that right and defend yourself, the police will charge you. You will then have to defend yourself at great cost, prolly losing your home in the process.

Now many on this board are more than happy to be a victim (coward) of crime in their own home; but not everyone, and those who choose to defend should be given the right to defend, even if you kill the scumbag crim in the process.


At least the poms are realising the protecting crims from home owners trying to protect themselves is bad policy.




UK HOME-OWNERS who kill or injure intruders will be given more rights despite calls it could promote vigilantism.

The Ministry of Justice is set to overhaul the law "to put beyond doubt" that individuals and small businesses can use "reasonable force" to defend themselves, The (London) Times reported.

The move will reassure homeowners, who have complained that law-abiding citizens who use force to protect their properties are criminalised.

But it will set Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, on a collision course with prosecutors, police and defence lawyers who have warned the change could become a "licence to kill."

Vincent Cooke, 39, arrested after a burglar was stabbed to death at his house in Bramhall, Stockport, northwest England, was told on Friday by the Crown Prosecution Service that he would not be charged.





Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.




.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

It is the third case in three months in Greater Manchester in which self-defence has been accepted after a suspected intruder was killed and there is a growing sense that the legal system is taking greater account of the rights of homeowners over those of intruders.

However, many feel the law should urgently be changed to enshrine the rights of householders over intruders to provide a significant deterrent against break-ins.

Mr Clarke told the Conservative Party conference this week, "We have policies underway to ... resolve public doubts on the law of self-defense by victims of crime."

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson added, "The coalition agreement contained a commitment to ensure that people have the protection they need to defend themselves from intruders, prevent crime or apprehend offenders. We will announce details of our plans shortly."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/home-owners-get-license-to-kill/story-e6freoox-1226162145680

I must say that I think that in the commisison of a serious crime, your rights should be signififantly reduced.  its a complex question  but if you break into someones home and threaten them and then you are beaten to a pulp, shot or seriously injured then your rights should be seriously reduced. Im not sayingn a home owner has the right to kill you but if they use excessive force then you only have yourself to blame.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 7:38am:



no body has the right to kill longy!!!but unless someone was there how do they really know how far this homeowner was pushed to defend himself..

from memory English people dont all have houses full of guns..so it would have to come down to push and shove..I mean we have had cases where someone gets hurt and then sues the homeowner..ridiculous.

accountability only seems to apply to those doing the right thing..

imagine being robbed and then charged with murder... my god..

adelcrow wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 9:01am:



If you kill or seriously injure the crim you will be prosecuted and maybe get off 9depending on your ability to pay fora good lawyer), but you will be prosecuted.

The point is that you should not be prosecuted in the first place, even if you do kill the scumbags.

BTW, it is not equal force it is reasonable force and the courts decide that, not the home owner.



The was a recent case where the home owner was confronted by a a home invader with a hand gun, he wrested the gun from the intruder and in the scuffle the intruder was shot and died.

Did he:

a) Get a thank you from the police for his bravery and actions

b) Get an appology from the police for the crim still being active in the community; or

c) Get arrested for killing the crim and now will in all likelihood lose everything trying to keep out of gaol.


Remember this is Australia.

adelcrow wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 9:01am:


the 'equal force' argument is where that falls down. the definition of 'excessive force' in defending yourself is poor. if someone assaults me and I beat the crap outta him then thats his problem, not mine. 'equal force' is the province of police and trained fighters etc. for the rest of us, if we are assulted we fight back any way we can - and that might mean lethally. It shoudl be enshrined in law that criminals injured in commission of a crime are automatically given a severe discount on their rights to sue or complain about being injured.