Summations Only

I’m no lawyer and don’t know the exact legislation, but I believe in the UK you are allowed to use sufficient force in self-defence. That could include lethal force, if necessary. (Obviously, it’s down to the authorities and jury in the luxury of their own time to decide what constitutes sufficient force.) I understand you can only do this for personal defence, not for defence of any property. I.E. If you attack someone simply for the fact that they broke into your house or your car, when there was no immediate risk to anyone’s safety, then you can and almost certainly will be prosecuted for that.There was a famous case a decade or so ago in which a farmer, Tony Martin, opened fire with a shotgun and killed a member of a gang that had broken into his home at night. I think the person who was killed was aged 16 and the other gang members were all over 18. If I remember correctly, the farmer lived alone in quite an isolated farmhouse that had suffered several break ins. He had set up a kind of barricade at the top of his stairs in anticipation of another break in, and from which he fired upon the intruders. It was the fact that he was prepared in this way, almost ready and waiting for them, that seemed to lead to his being prosecuted. I think he went to prison for about 6 or 7 years.I’m sure that if he’d been more surprised by the break in and swung a lamp stand at the intruders, or if he had a family to protect, he’d have been looked at more favourably by the authorities and jury, even if he’d killed one of the intruders. In my opinion it’s wrong that you should be looked at less favourably if you are pre-prepared, as he was. I also think that if your home is broken into in the middle of the night, and you are outnumbered, you should be excused almost any kind of reaction, because physically and psychologically you are in a very vulnerable position. You can't exactly ask the intruders whether or not they intend to do you any harm before making a considered decision whether or not to use force against them. Yet that seemed to be what many expected him to do. I never really understood the prosecution in that case, although I stand to be corrected if I’ve got any of the facts wrong.

In my opinion, yes.I was amazed in the case of Tony Martin how many people (both in the media and those I spoke to) thought he was wrong to do what he did.They seemed to lack the ability to comprehend the situation.Many thought he was at fault for shooting a 16-year-old - AS IF HE COULD HAVE KNOWN HOW OLD HE WAS! "Er...excuse me. I see that there's about half-a-dozen of you just broken into my house in the middle of the night. Just stop where you are for a minute and I'll come down and discuss with you how we're going to play this. OK. Before I make an appropriate decision on how to deal with this situation, I need you all to show me some ID. OK, so 5 of you are 18 or over and one of you is only 16. This is how we're going to play it. Those of you over 18 may be shot at. So you need to make a decision as to whether or not you wish to continue with this break in. I won't shoot at the minor though, so he can do whatever he likes. OK? Just give me 10 seconds to go back upstairs and we'll start over."

Fair point. I do recall that particular detail now!However, I believe they were still inside his home as this happened. And it was at night. I don't know how much the police, prosecution and the jury were able to ascertain as to how obvious it was that the intruders were fleeing, or how sure Martin could have been that they were fleeing and that he would have been reasonably safe. Or, indeed, how sure he could have been how many of them there were, exactly where they all were, and whether or not they were all fleeing.What I don't like is the way that the law doesn't seem to put those who cause the problem in a position of ultimate responsibility, but rather it puts those innocent ones who find themselves in a difficult situation that they have to deal with immediately who are held to account for the consequences.I think that anyone that plans to break in to someone's home at night must instincitively know that anyone inside the home will naturally fear for their safety and could take any kind of action to defend themselves. And their reactions are only likely to be exacerbated if they are heavily outnumbered.

"Reasonable" is the vague but critical word in this context. Because in some circumstances it may be necessary to physically harm or even kill someone to prevent them carrying out a crime. But that may not be considered "reasonable".For example, if someone a lot bigger and stronger than you is about to take your TV, the only way you might be able to prevent them from doing so in the particular circumstances is to pick up an iron poker and attack them with it. Knocking them over the head might be the only way you could prevent the crime taking place. Even though that would be preventative rather than punitive, I don't believe that would be considered reasonable. In that case, you'd be expected to let them go ahead and commit the crime.I think this is where it gets difficult in the case of someone breaking into your home. Should that automatically be considered a threat to your person, and does that then give you the right to do whatever is necessary to eliminate any possible threat to you? Again, if the intruder is bigger than you, or you are outnumbered, your only chance to eliminate the threat might be to use very violent and possibly lethal force.

I think Oni was implying that if you shout a warning at a stranger you find in your home, it's possible they may not be able to hear or understand you. So you wouldn't necessarily be justified in shooting at them just because they didn't heed your warnings.You may be correct that a disabled person is more likely to do you harm, I really don't know, but it is also more likely that a disabled person might wander into your home because they were lost, confused or needed help.

I entirely agree. No surprise there! But as you say, it's very difficult and I should imagine almost impossible to write a law that specifically covers all possible scenarios.