I think the police should adopt the same attitude as the police in America from this:

(Yes, I know I've posted it before)

I love it.

Unless it's an insane coincidence, it looks like it's a hoax.

I do not think that the police injured him. Though here the police are so target driven that they go after the easy convictions.

Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

They didn't injure him bit they didn't question the cause of the injuries either. In the uk there would have been a full investigation with eye witnesses and CCTV and people being suspended from the marines etc...

I heard ken on the radio this morning and it made sense to me.

If you are under threat and manage to defend yourself in your home using a knife, baseball bat, hammer etc... Then fair game.

If the burglar does a runner and you chase him down in the street and start beating him to death with a group of friends you called to help then no, that's not right.

Couldn't be clearer IMO.

It's that final clause that is the issue. It essentially put the burden of proof on the householder that the force they used wasn't unreasonable. Effectively, the law assumes the householder stepped over the line and it is up to the householder to prove they hadn't. All they have to do is reword that section so the presumption is the householder did use reasonable force and it was up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Presumption of innocence, like every other area of the law.

It's very hard to disprove a negative. Without witnesses, it's almost impossible to prove beyond doubt that the amount of force used/injury inflicted was the absolute minimum required. Conversely, it's generally pretty obvious when the force used is excessive. Make the law work in the latter direction rather than the former and the whole thing becomes much easier.

As for it meaning more burglars are likely to be assaulted in pursuance of their activities, well cry me a river.

Jon

I would question whether we want a situation where burglars tool up on the basis they're likely to be attacked.

There's nothing to stop them doing that already.

It might deter the more opportunist burglar though.

Your argument is self defeating. If all excessive force is obvious, and there is no obvious excess, then it obviously isn't excessive.

The clause "providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary" does not presume guilt, and it does not move the burden of proof, the prosecution still has to demonstrate that unreasonable force was applied, and if they can't justify that claim, they don't win.

The problem is the ambiguity inherent in the concept of what is reasonable. We certainly have one or two people on this forum whose opinion on that matter is, in my opinion, bloodthirsty to the point of savagery.

Very possible. Especially for the bigger raids on country houses.

TBH I like the Tony Martin method, just shoot the bastards.

He should never have gone to prison for that.

Though I do like the hunt them down like vigilantes method as well.

You'd initially think that, but no. And that's the point. While the existence of excessive force is generally obvious, the non-existence of excessive force is not generally obvious. A disproof of a negative is not a proof of a positive. And therefore proving the lack of excessive force is actually much harder than proving excessive force.
OK, using the Tony Martin example. If the kid turns up with a load of buckshot in his back, you can pretty much say that excessive force was used. That's your trivial case. However if the kid turns up with a load of buckshot in his front, can you say for certain that excessive force wasn't used? Trickier, I think. It might have been - he might have been shot when he was no obvious threat - or it might not have been - he might have been shot in a struggle with the property owner who was (or at least thought they were) in mortal peril.
The problem is, as I say, the current law as stated allows for prosecution on the basis that there is no disproof that excessive force was used. It's easy for the prosecution to say they did use excessive force - they have the injuries to the burglar to prove it. The defense has to prove that those injuries were reasonable given the events that unfolded, which chances are they will have no witnesses to and very little forensic evidence either way. See the problem now?


No, but it implies it. If I say to you 'you can do that provided you don't drink more than three pints of beer' I'm implying you planned on drinking more than three pints of beer until I told you not to, aren't I? The statement as quoted does the same. If you imply guilt you end up having to prove innocence, if you imply innocence you have to prove guilt. If you changed the statement above to 'providing they cannot be shown to have used excessive force', you've not changed the logical meaning at all but you've changed the basis for prosecution around entirely.


It's actually not just about who wins the final case, it's also about whether the case should proceed in the first place. Someone who may be found innocent after spending time in jail on remand and thus losing their job/livelihood would probably consider it a phyrric victory.


Well that doesn't exactly make you sound like an objective observer either to be honest with you. If the law as stated is ambiguous, then we must attempt to resolve the ambiguity, surely?

Jon