This makes no sense
Ok everyone, get this.
In my state, if an intruder breaks into someone's house and if they get hurt doing so, the owner of the house could get prosecuted for it.
An example:
oh oh, an intruder broke into my house and stole lots of money, but he got hurt on glass, I am off to jail!!! See how much that makes no sense?
In my state, if an intruder breaks into someone's house and if they get hurt doing so, the owner of the house could get prosecuted for it.
An example:
oh oh, an intruder broke into my house and stole lots of money, but he got hurt on glass, I am off to jail!!! See how much that makes no sense?
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
thats not how it works, example, intruder comes in steals stuff, then you hit them with a bat, or shoot them. that's when you get punished, not if they trip and hurt themselves.Posted 07-05-2010 at 03:37 AM by Trystaan 
-
Welcome to the club. It’s been like that in England for a long time. You will find that your current situation it is only the thin end of the wedge.
Intruders actually prosecute house owners AND police for assault because they try to protect property. First of all I do think the situation in America of gun ownership and such goes way too far, and is certainly not a realistic option for the UK. We have gone to the other extreme in that you can get into serious trouble for attempting to defend yourself, family or property. You could be prosecuted for criminal assault.
It is also true that if an intruder hurts himself entering your property you can be prosecuted. If for instance you have barbed wire on your fence as a deterrent and an intruder gets hurt you can be in serious trouble. The police would not arrest you and march you to jail as you suggest, because it would not constitute criminal damage, but action could be taken under civil law.Posted 07-05-2010 at 04:25 AM by theone
Updated 07-05-2010 at 04:32 AM by theone -
Actually, we can now defend our selves with a gun that we own. That took place a couple weeks ago. Before that, we could not defend with a gun.Quote:Originally Posted by Trystaan
thats not how it works, example, intruder comes in steals stuff, then you hit them with a bat, or shoot them. that's when you get punished, not if they trip and hurt themselves.Posted 07-05-2010 at 07:52 AM by lokelake
-
Incorrect- you would only be guilty of assault if you used disproportionate force- i.e. beyond that necessary to defend yourself or others- i.e. if you restrained someone to stop them from attacking you, you would be fine, but if you chased them down the street and beat them repeatedly with a cricket bat (as happened not long ago) you could and I would argue should be prosecuted- since you were no longer protecting yourself, but hurting them as some form of revenge. Also note- even if you were guilty of the offence- you may a. not be prosecuted as it the CPS would not deem it in the public interest b. be found not guilty by magistrates or juy or c. be found guilty but receive a much lighter punishment due to the circumstances or d. be found guilty and sentenced, but have the decision quashed or commuted on appeal.Quote:Originally Posted by theone
Intruders actually prosecute house owners AND police for assault because they try to protect property. First of all I do think the situation in America of gun ownership and such goes way too far, and is certainly not a realistic option for the UK. We have gone to the other extreme in that you can get into serious trouble for attempting to defend yourself, family or property. You could be prosecuted for criminal assault.
Quote:It is also true that if an intruder hurts himself entering your property you can be prosecuted. If for instance you have barbed wire on your fence as a deterrent and an intruder gets hurt you can be in serious trouble. The police would not arrest you and march you to jail as you suggest, because it would not constitute criminal damage, but action could be taken under civil law.
Entirely true, in this case you can be prosecuted- by putting barbed wire out, you have created a hazard which could cause someone to hurt themselves- especially as you have presumably not warned anyone of the hazard. Consider that, not a burglar, but a neighbour's child who climbs over the wall to get a football, hurts themselves badly due to your barbed wire- clearly it is your fault, because you put the wire there fully knowing they could hurt themselves on it.
However- if you did not create the hazard, you would almost certainly not be liable for any harm- e.g. if a burglar cuts themselves breaking your window- you are not liable, as you have done nothing to make the window dangerous- the burglar's action in trying to break in has caused their injury. The fundamental legal point is that you owe some duty of care to anyone on your property, but the level of cared owed depends on the situation. So you owe a much higher duty of care to someone you invite into your home, and a much lesser duty to an intruder.Posted 07-05-2010 at 12:23 PM by Jacques
