By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
palou said:
donathos said:

Excuse me, but if someone breaks into my home, why should I rely on what's supposedly in the criminal's interest and trust him to act rationally? The criminal is risking life and limb for the sake of stealing, at least; his actions already suggest to me that he has a poor grasp of what's in his interest, and rational action. He has further established that he's has no respect for me or my rights. His actions are careless, dangerous and malevolent. How can I trust such a person at that point -- and how can I risk my family's lives?

If you have family in the house, that's fundamentally a different question. However, what concerns just yourself - if you don't do anything, the chances are extremely slim that the thief will actively try to kill you (there are over 300k burglaries in the UK per year - less than a hundred result in a death), but *engaging* the thief will *assure* you a fight. How does that seem like a good idea?

I think you guys are debating something besides the point. He broke in to your home and is trying to steal something. Killing him should be 100% legal when he's trying to take something that is yours. There have been studies that have shown that public executions and cutting off of limbs for shop lifting/thievery have lead to reductions in those crimes in past societies. When someone breaks in to your home they know that there's a chance they will die. Whenever you do something that you know may result in such a consequence then you've essentially signed a liability waver for whatever happens.

 

HigHurtenflurst said:
Teeqoz said:

Unless the laws that are applicable in this case have changed lately, it's got nothing to do with "these days". You'll always have cases that are in a grey area, in fact one of the most important duties of the justice system is to cover those grey area cases. If all cases were clear cut, black and white, trials wouldn't be a thing.

Exactly, and always should be.

It's no doubt horrible to be arrested for something like this but there should always be an investigation. There can't be an automatic get out of jail just because the person you killed was in your home. It's the intent to kill that matters, and as far as I am concerned intent to steal someones life should always be considered beyond intent to steal someones possessions.

If someone breaks into a home it's perfectly reasonable to deter them (eg brandish a knife, point a gun) and if that person advances on you or threatens you in any way it's perfectly reasonable to defend yourself. If in the process of this you kill the burglar then so be it, it's not murder and I don't think it's manslaughter (not sure on the definition of manslaughter but I imagine there has to be negligence) so there should be no charge.

There has to be an investigation to find out what happened, you can't just take the word of the survivor.

The only investigation that should be needed is whether the the guy tried to burglar your home.

Peh said:
You can't just kill someone because he entered your home. He has to be a thread to your life i.e. trying to kill you, only then in self defense of killing someone by protecting your or the life of others is being justified.

Why not? Maybe that's what the law says in some places, but that doesn't make it right. He took the risk, he gets the consequences.