Man who attacked robber is freed on appeal

[Sour Mash]

But the salient point is that the burglar had fled. The man's family were safe by that time. The burglar was chased down the road and caught and had the living daylights beaten out of him.

 

So whilst reasonable self-defence is defendable in law, beating the crap out of someone once self-defence isn't required isn't.

 

It's all about disproportionate revenge. And it had to be tested in law.

 

How do you know that? How do you know he wasn't going to leg it round the corner and come back in two minutes with a gun?

[Johnny Bognor]

The law protects the guilty and ignores the victim.

 

If you are awoken at 2am in the morning and there is an intruder in the property, you don't have time to google "reasonable" force and so you act on your instincts. If this means in a fit of rage you run down the road and kick the crap out of the intruder, surely there is some defence under extreme provacation?

 

If anyone holds a knife to my wife or daughters throats and I flip my lid, they will get whats coming to them.... I'll act first and consider the consequences later.

 

I think when you cross the line and violate someone or their property, you forego your civil rights. It is madness that criminals can use the legal system to their benefit. If I put up barbed wire and someone enters my property with the intention of burglary, but injures themself in the process, I would be sued and prosecuted. How is that fair?

[.comsaint]

They were discussing this very topic on Question Time tonight.

 

Funny how - with a panel of 5 guests - the 2 non-politicians spoke the most sense by far!

[Saint George]

Louisiana "Castle Doctrine ("Shoot the Burglar" and "Shoot the Car Jacker" laws) as writen.....I particularly like the bits in bold

 

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

 

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

§20. Justifiable homicide

 

A. A homicide is justifiable:

 

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

 

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

 

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

 

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

 

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

 

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

 

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

 

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

 

 

Basically, Over here in Who Dat Land......the bad guys are ****ed!

[Johnny Bognor]

They were discussing this very topic on Question Time tonight.

 

Funny how - with a panel of 5 guests - the 2 non-politicians spoke the most sense by far!

 

I have to say, I was surprised that I agreed with virtually everything Richard Madeley said.....does that make me a knob too?

[saint boggy]

Louisiana "Castle Doctrine ("Shoot the Burglar" and "Shoot the Car Jacker" laws) as writen.....I particularly like the bits in bold

 

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

 

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

§20. Justifiable homicide

 

A. A homicide is justifiable:

 

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

 

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

 

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

 

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

 

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

 

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

 

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

 

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

 

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

 

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

 

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

 

§2800.19. Limitation of liability for use of force in defense of certain crimes

 

A. A person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or his property in accordance with R.S. 14:19 or 20 is immune from civil action for the use of reasonable and apparently necessary or deadly force or violence.

 

B. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses to the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from suit in accordance with Subsection A of this Section.

 

Acts 2006, No. 786, §1.

 

 

Basically, Over here in Who Dat Land......the bad guys are ****ed!

but from what i understand of that (which tbf,isn't much! LOL) it doesn't include (or at least doesn't seem to include) chasing after someone once they have LEFT the building/car etc and beating 7 barrels out of them , being within the realms of "using reasonable force" :confused:

[Saint George]

but from what i understand of that (which tbf,isn't much! LOL) it doesn't include (or at least doesn't seem to include) chasing after someone once they have LEFT the building/car etc and beating 7 barrels out of them , being within the realms of "using reasonable force" :confused:

 

Yup your right...the trick is, you shoot em 'before' they leave.....

[bungle]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AN7LF20081124

 

Low crime rate in New Orleans. Oh, wait.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The law protects the guilty and ignores the victim.

 

If you are awoken at 2am in the morning and there is an intruder in the property, you don't have time to google "reasonable" force and so you act on your instincts. If this means in a fit of rage you run down the road and kick the crap out of the intruder, surely there is some defence under extreme provacation?

 

If anyone holds a knife to my wife or daughters throats and I flip my lid, they will get whats coming to them.... I'll act first and consider the consequences later.

 

I think when you cross the line and violate someone or their property, you forego your civil rights. It is madness that criminals can use the legal system to their benefit. If I put up barbed wire and someone enters my property with the intention of burglary, but injures themself in the process, I would be sued and prosecuted. How is that fair?

 

From what I understand you can defend yourself/property/family when the intruder is actually ON your property? A lawyer on BBC breakfast the other day said that if an intruder was coming at you with a knife in your house, you could use a knife or even a gun to defend yourself.

 

The problem with this case is that the intruder had left the guy's property and so in the eyes of the law, the danger had gone and he was partaking in vigilante justice.

[Johnny Bognor]

 

The problem with this case is that the intruder had left the guy's property and so in the eyes of the law, the danger had gone and he was partaking in vigilante justice.

 

...but when faced with extreme provacation, such as having a knife held to your wife's throat and believing you may actually be killed, even the most rational of people would be overcome with anger and hence chasing the bloke down the road is not necessarily vigilante justice, just a very natural reaction. In the heat of the moment who knows what one would do, but the fact remains that if the ****ebox didn't do what he did, then he wouldn't have received a cricket bat around the head.

 

In my view, everything you do in life has consequences. If you can't take the consequences, then think long and hard about what you do. Simple really.

 

In the Tony Martin case, ****head was still on the property when he was shot and that didn't stop Tony Martin from being prosecuted. After the event, ****head then sues Martin for loss of earnings...WTF is that about???? The career criminal didn't have a job in the first place and his only earnings were from ill gotten gains.

 

Then take Mylene Class who had intruders on her property. She brandishes a knife to scare them off (remember she was a female on her own) and then gets a police caution for carrying an offensive weapon.

 

No sorry, I don't buy this liberalist clap trap. If you are a hard working law abiding citizen, you are screwed in the eyes of the law.....

[View From The Top]

I know a lad who was sent down for two years for chasing a burglar and giving him a hiding.

 

The chap in question, lives in West End now, woke and heard something downstairs.

 

We went down, disturbed two youths who legged it. He chased them, barefoot and in his boxers, caught one and punched their lights out and then waited for the OB.

 

The OB knicked the youth and then, the following morning, nicked the fella in question.

 

He was charged with and convicted of GBH.

 

He was told that as soon as he gave chase it changed from self defence.

 

This was circa 1990/91.

[Mmm Donuts]

...but when faced with extreme provacation, such as having a knife held to your wife's throat and believing you may actually be killed, even the most rational of people would be overcome with anger and hence chasing the bloke down the road is not necessarily vigilante justice, just a very natural reaction. In the heat of the moment who knows what one would do, but the fact remains that if the ****ebox didn't do what he did, then he wouldn't have received a cricket bat around the head.

 

In my view, everything you do in life has consequences. If you can't take the consequences, then think long and hard about what you do. Simple really.

 

In the Tony Martin case, ****head was still on the property when he was shot and that didn't stop Tony Martin from being prosecuted. After the event, ****head then sues Martin for loss of earnings...WTF is that about???? The career criminal didn't have a job in the first place and his only earnings were from ill gotten gains.

 

Then take Mylene Class who had intruders on her property. She brandishes a knife to scare them off (remember she was a female on her own) and then gets a police caution for carrying an offensive weapon.

 

No sorry, I don't buy this liberalist clap trap. If you are a hard working law abiding citizen, you are screwed in the eyes of the law.....

 

Sorry I don't agree with some of what you say. The law does protect everyone, however, there are circumstances like this where the letter of the law is applied when it defies common sense.

I do agree that the issue of self defence needs further work. There is a difference between self defence and retribution. This is often confused by people who aren't familiar with what the legislation is.

[Johnny Bognor]

I know a lad who was sent down for two years for chasing a burglar and giving him a hiding.

 

The chap in question, lives in West End now, woke and heard something downstairs.

 

We went down, disturbed two youths who legged it. He chased them, barefoot and in his boxers, caught one and punched their lights out and then waited for the OB.

 

The OB knicked the youth and then, the following morning, nicked the fella in question.

 

He was charged with and convicted of GBH.

 

He was told that as soon as he gave chase it changed from self defence.

 

This was circa 1990/91.

 

...and that kind of illustrates what I am trying to say.

 

In law, it changes from self defence, but under extreme provocation, one may not act rationally and hence become a law breaker through no fault of their own.

 

Sorry I don't agree with some of what you say. The law does protect everyone, however, there are circumstances like this where the letter of the law is applied when it defies common sense.

I do agree that the issue of self defence needs further work. There is a difference between self defence and retribution. This is often confused by people who aren't familiar with what the legislation is.

 

The problem is (a point which Richard Madely made on QT last night) is that if someone is in your property in the dead of night, you have to assume the worst...that they may try and kill you.

 

Therefore you have to act accordingly, so if it turns out that the intruder wasn't armed and you stabbed him with a kitchen knife and he subsequently dies, this will not be deemed as reasonable force.

 

Unfortunately, you don't have time to check what the intruder is carrying, perform a full on risk assessment and sit down with the wife to discuss what force should be applied. You act on intinct, simple as that. Therefore, "reasonable force" needs to be changed.

 

Another point made by an ex-squaddie on QT, was that they go through days of training and understanding the rules of engagement..... and they get it wrong sometimes. So what chance does a homeowner stand with such a vague definition?

 

The law tries to protect everyone, however it is mis-used by the guilty whilst the innocent have to go whistle.

Edited 22 January, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[.comsaint]

I have to say, I was surprised that I agreed with virtually everything Richard Madeley said.....does that make me a knob too?

 

Snap!

 

Quite incredibly - Madeley was the most intelligent & sensible speaker on the panel last night!!! FFS I'm losing it.

 

And that Liberal bird (Teather?) epitomised everything that is wrong with Britain & British politics today. I hope & pray they never get in...

[View From The Top]

Quite incredibly - Madeley was the most intelligent & sensible speaker on the panel last night.

 

Because he applied that rare commodity that is called common sense.

[Son of Bob]

If someone tied up and threatened my wife and little girl they'd need to think themselves lucky if they got away with just the minor brain damage, whether they were running away or not. I've seen first hand the mental anguish and long term effects on people who are violated in the supposed safety of their own home and the scum who do this deserve to suffer the consequences of their mindless, life ruining actions.

[richie]

I work in the criminal justice system. There is no definition of reasonable force. Nor does there need to be. Each case it judged invidually and on its own merits. The decision as to what is reasonable is up to a bench of magistrates, District Judge or jury.

 

Let us not forget that the gentleman in this case has been found guilty of a serious offence (GBH?) and has acted outside of the law and that has been upheld by the court of appeal. The only problem in this case was the sentence NOT THE LAW. The sentence was inappropriate and excessive. I sympathise with any judge in this case as for me there is no appropriate sentence.

 

Feel free to cave a burglars head in with a cricket bat when he is running down the road with your PS3 but what happened in this case was not reasonable force. You do not have the right to inflict excessive violence on a person. Its as simple as that. No matter what they have done to you.

 

The law has not changed becuase of this change of sentence nor does it need to be. You have the right to defend yourself but if you tie up a burglar, torture him and stab him to death expect to end up inside.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The law is an ass

[amsterdam]

The law is an ass

 

Agree - and these little feckers getting 5 years?? Joke.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/22/edlington-brothers-jailed-torture-boys

[.comsaint]

I work in the criminal justice system. There is no definition of reasonable force. Nor does there need to be. Each case it judged invidually and on its own merits. The decision as to what is reasonable is up to a bench of magistrates, District Judge or jury.

 

Let us not forget that the gentleman in this case has been found guilty of a serious offence (GBH?) and has acted outside of the law and that has been upheld by the court of appeal. The only problem in this case was the sentence NOT THE LAW. The sentence was inappropriate and excessive. I sympathise with any judge in this case as for me there is no appropriate sentence.

 

Feel free to cave a burglars head in with a cricket bat when he is running down the road with your PS3 but what happened in this case was not reasonable force. You do not have the right to inflict excessive violence on a person. Its as simple as that. No matter what they have done to you.

 

The law has not changed becuase of this change of sentence nor does it need to be. You have the right to defend yourself but if you tie up a burglar, torture him and stab him to death expect to end up inside.

 

All very well Richie - but where the law IS failing is the pathetic feeble sentences dished out by the law courts. THAT is the number one complaint I continually hear over & over again - me included.

 

If I see Mr Scumbag legging it down the road with my PS3 - I already know as I'm chasing him that the law is going to let me down big time if I simply hand him over to the police. What - 60hrs community service? An ASBO? If I'm lucky! 99% of burglars are bailed & out nicking again the same night. Poor little drugged-up luvvies with such a hard life & up-bringing. Bless.

[bridge too far]

Agree - and these little feckers getting 5 years?? Joke.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/22/edlington-brothers-jailed-torture-boys

 

I often wonder why some people misinterpret what is clearly stated.

 

These boys have an 'indeterminate' sentence. That means they could be in custody for the rest of their lives, or for 30 years, or for 20 years. The length has not been determined - that's why it's called 'indeterminate'.

 

However, their sentence / custody CAN be reviewed after 5 years. That does NOT mean they'll be released after 5 years. It means their progress towards normality might be reviewed - then again, it might not.

 

Given the 'toxic' upbringing they received at the hands of their parents, I suspect that they will be in custody for many years.

[Ruffo]

From what I understand you can defend yourself/property/family when the intruder is actually ON your property? A lawyer on BBC breakfast the other day said that if an intruder was coming at you with a knife in your house, you could use a knife or even a gun to defend yourself.

 

The problem with this case is that the intruder had left the guy's property and so in the eyes of the law, the danger had gone and he was partaking in vigilante justice.

 

he should have dragged the guy back onto the property them.