Flip
14-01-2005, 07:59 PM
Just watched an interesting, if not short, debate with Trevor McDonald about the Rights of Homeowners against burglars. Featuring Dominic Lawson , the Baker-Whites [a couple who have been burgled 3 times the last one Mr BW being beaten up badly by the burglar], Antony Scrivens QC and a rep from the Chief of Police Committee.
They showed 4 dramatisations of different scenarios relating to a burglar entering a home in the dead of night, with the express intention of stealing property.
It seemingly all boils down to the words [b]'reasonable force' and the perception or understanding of those words. Being an ex-police officer, I had to follow the 'law' behind 'reasonable force' whilst arresting people - so I have some knowledge of how it can be viewed and what can/could be construed as reasonable force. But is it common knowledge - and do you agree it is so utterly subjective??
Do you think the laws need tightening up or clarifying when it comes to people entering your home and your action upon them, and the consequent action on you afterwards?
Just a point of interest: when committing crime people generally have higher levels of adrenalin, which enables them to run faster for longer periods, withstand greater pain, affect reactions and judgement and many other bodily functions [eg pooing]. I wonder do juries take this into account? I would like to think they do.
Does anyone remember me telling them about a bloke I once locked up - and the force needed to restrain him, caused me to dislocate my little finger squeezing and twisting his balls?? He was just pumped with adrenalin and nothing I did touched him. So my reasonable force, which at the time I thought excessive did not even make him flinch!!
They showed 4 dramatisations of different scenarios relating to a burglar entering a home in the dead of night, with the express intention of stealing property.
It seemingly all boils down to the words [b]'reasonable force' and the perception or understanding of those words. Being an ex-police officer, I had to follow the 'law' behind 'reasonable force' whilst arresting people - so I have some knowledge of how it can be viewed and what can/could be construed as reasonable force. But is it common knowledge - and do you agree it is so utterly subjective??
Do you think the laws need tightening up or clarifying when it comes to people entering your home and your action upon them, and the consequent action on you afterwards?
Just a point of interest: when committing crime people generally have higher levels of adrenalin, which enables them to run faster for longer periods, withstand greater pain, affect reactions and judgement and many other bodily functions [eg pooing]. I wonder do juries take this into account? I would like to think they do.
Does anyone remember me telling them about a bloke I once locked up - and the force needed to restrain him, caused me to dislocate my little finger squeezing and twisting his balls?? He was just pumped with adrenalin and nothing I did touched him. So my reasonable force, which at the time I thought excessive did not even make him flinch!!