Time for a change in the law?

[Nick]

TV presenter, M&S model and one-time popstar Myleene Klass is the last person we'd expect to see in trouble with cops

When a couple of trespassing potential burglars began looking through her windows, Ms Klass had no hesitation in attempting to frighten them off.

According to The Sun, Myleene was alone in her kitchen with two-year-old daughter Ava asleep upstairs when she spotted a couple of ill-meaning teenagers trying to break into her garden shed.

With her fiancé Graham Quinn away on business, there was only one thing to do.

She grabbed the nearest weapon (a kitchen knife) and began waving it around, shouting: "I'm calling the police."

When the police did arrive though, they gave her a ticking off for carrying an "offensive weapon".

A source told The Sun: "She could see two teenagers trying to break into her shed and pressing their faces up against her windows to see inside.

"It wasn't just high jinx – she was genuinely frightened. She was alone with her baby and scared out of her wits.

"Acting completely on instinct, she grabbed a knife and started banging on the windows, making as much noise as she could and shouting that she was going to call the police."

The burglars were quickly frightened off and apparently the police were "very kind" about it all but had to offer their "official advice" about weaponry.

Don't worry Myleene... we're guessing most people would have done exactly the same thing.

 

[Cliff Beer]

Nick, here in the US, if a person comes onto one's residential property uninvited, you can just about shoot them dead, particularly where it's clear they are breaking the law (such as in the course of breaking and entering), and not be at risk of prosecution yourself. They have to be on your residential property, and present some risk of potential harm to the inhabitants. They do not have to be brandishing a weapon.

The laws here in the US in this area are much more sympathetic to the rights and interests of the (law abiding) home owner, rather than the criminal invader. Partly, it reflects our perspective that our home is our castle, and having a few guns around the place to protect it is viewed by many as completely acceptable and expected.

My wife was a captain in the US Army (so she knows guns) before being a stay at home mom, and I'm a decent shot and comfortable with them too. So, while we have the guns secured (we have small children), I'd have no problem grabbing one and shooting a burglar dead if he was trying to break into my house in the middle of the night and presented some risk to my family's well being. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

 

[Doug S.]

Nick, here in the US, if a person comes onto one's residential property uninvited, you can just about shoot them dead, particularly where it's clear they are breaking the law (such as in the course of breaking and entering), and not be at risk of prosecution yourself. They have to be on your residential property, and present some risk of potential harm to the inhabitants. They do not have to be brandishing a weapon.

Looks like Texas is even a bit more lenient than that, Cliff. Do a google search for "Joe Horn"....a resident of Pasadena, TX (near Houston) who observed two burglars breaking into the home of his neighbor, who was out of town. Joe had a shotgun in his house and grabbed it, called 911 and got hold of a dispatcher who told him to wait for the police to get there. The perps exited the house with the neighbor's property in hand, Joe told the dispatcher that there were no police to be seen and that he wasn't going to let them get away with it. You can hear him chambering the first shotgun shell on the 911 tape. Joe shot both of the burglars in the back as they ran--once the issue was investigated it was revealed that the perps were in the country illegally, both having been deported twice for criminal activity and both had lengthy rap sheets.

The Grand Jury no-billed Joe Horn. Lots of people were upset, called this vigilante action, but even more of us were willing to doff a few in Joe's honor. The news media recently ran an "update" on Joe Horn and he said he sincerely regrets having done what he did every day and wishes he had made a different choice.

Now, Arkansas, that's different. There was a farmer there who had his barn repeatedly burglarized, so he set up a shotgun inside the barn with one end of a string attached to the door and the other end to the trigger on the gun. Sure enough, the burglar paid another visit and, you guessed it, got what many of us think he deserved. He sued the farmer and won.......now, where's the justice in that?

So, having opened up this can of worms, I wonder if future posters would coment on which state you feel is more "backward", Texas or Arkansas....please.

TIA!

Doug

 

[Dalton Veitch]

In Australia you are generally in trouble if you do any more than "tap" a burglar with something not too aggressive,such as a length of wood. If you tap him vigorously with, say, a steel pry bar you will generally be charged with assault. And this is AFTER you've warned him verbally a couple of times about the error of his ways. Shoot him, and you are in BIG trouble, no matter how threatened you have been. Not good, if you are seriously trying to protect your home. There are many Do-Gooders on the side of the unfortunate criminals.
This subject has been raised on the Forum before, and it is a can of worms of course.

 

[Nick]

Hi,

Realised I had probably opened a can of worms after I had posted, with hindsight perhaps I should have left well alone especially as I am actually totally against guns.

However, I was incensed by the thought that a frightened woman, in her own house on her own with a baby is not allowed to try to frighten off potential aggressors, without being told off by the police, wonder what they really think. It’s even more poignant as Myleene Klass was mugged by a gang not that long ago.

 

[Martin]

If I heard a burglar in my house, my families protection would come first and I wouldn't be thinking of the possible repercussions from the police. If I thought it necessary I would certainly take action. If the legal system wished to pursue me on it after the fact, so be it.
I think there is strong public feeling that a change in the law is needed. Protecting the rights of criminals has been higher on the political agenda than protecting law abiding citizens for quite a while now.
Martin

 

[Dalton Veitch]

+1 Martin

 

[Mick Ridley]

Laws are to protect the Inoccent....

Not ror the guilty to hide behind.......

When are the authorities going to realize this ....

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

If a person breaks into my house, he is there univited and has unlawful intentions. If he does anything to threaten me or mine in any way, I am going to deal with that in as harsh a way as the law allows. And no, there won't be any lawsuits.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

As far as I understand Queensland law, you can only use sufficient force to ensure you protect yourself and your family against an intruder. If that force turns out to be deadly force you will be charged with murder or manslaughter. This results in you the victim, having to hire lawyers to prove you were in fear of your life. Even if you manage to be acquitted you will have to have mortgaged your house or sold it to pay the legal fees. And will have the stigma of a criminal charge against your good name.
If you do not kill the intruder but only injure him either physically or mentally he will be able to sue you.
Of course you can sue him similarly but the chances are he will have no assets.
I would dearly like Australia have your home is your castle laws like Texas.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Thankfully, Arizona has the "your home is your castle" law. How asinine to fault a person for protecting his family and himself against a criminal. Liberals, I can't get my mind to grasp their thought process, or lack of!

 

[Doug S.]

Liberals, I can't get my mind to grasp their thought process, or lack of!

I'm not sure it's about being liberal, Al. If I HAD to classify myself, which I steadfastly refuse to do :thumbsdown: , I'd say I lean more to the liberal side than the conservative, but I prefer to call myself "progressive". For me it's about common sense......or lack thereof, as you say. People of all political/economic persuasions display a shortage of common sense.....a member on one of my guitar forums uses the following for his signature line: "...why do they call it common sense when it is so uncommon?".

I couldn't agree more :thumbsup: !

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I'm not sure it's about being liberal, Al. If I HAD to classify myself, which I steadfastly refuse to do :thumbsdown: , I'd say I lean more to the liberal side than the conservative, but I prefer to call myself "progressive". For me it's about common sense......or lack thereof, as you say. People of all political/economic persuasions display a shortage of common sense.....a member on one of my guitar forums uses the following for his signature line: "...why do they call it common sense when it is so uncommon?".

I couldn't agree more :thumbsup: !

Doug

I would say that common sense would dictate that you could use any amount of force to remove a threat to you or yours from your house or property. I don't see waiting for the police as an option, you could be dead by then. And I don't see having to be penilized for your actions when a criminal is threatening you or yours on your property.

 

[Dave]

I believe that if someone chooses to commit a major crime they should instantly give up their right to be protected by the law.

Alot of places use the "reasonable force" line when dealing with situations like protection of persons and property........... so what is reasonable force???

Frankly in this day and age you don't know what someone has on them..... a knife, gun, half a ton of TNT taped to their private parts!!!

What is reasonable when your life and the life of your family is threatend??

I really dispise a legal system that protects criminals.

 

[Dave]

I had to laugh the other day when they banned to use of body armour by the general public.... it is now illegal to wear body armour in B.C.

Like the criminals are going to abide by that..... someone should really point out to the idiots that make these laws, that the people that the are aimed at are "CRIMINALS" if they don't give a crap about stealling, murdering and dealling drugs they also won't give a shit about wearing body armour!!!