Do i have a right to attack someone breaking into my house?

[pennywise]

Ok, let's assume they're robbers.. The US, I think, is the only western country where you can get away with killing a person who comes on your property. That's quite sick, would I take a human life because of a $1k TV? Heck no, but if he was armed or had a knife, I would probably shoot the offender into the leg/arm, then call an ambulance & police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but what if its your family.

 

That, uh, that...that didn;t make any sense. If it was his family he definetely wouldn't shoot them...and if it were his family they would just come over to his house to use his stuff.

 

 

 

I think he's talking about killing somebody over the protection of your family.

[mixand]

oops yeah i meant, protecting my family

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

If someone breaks into my house they better fear the 12 gauge I have under my bed. I am 16 and American

 

 

 

I'd just shoot them, then put a knife in their hand from my kitchen draw ((one not from a set) maybe even giving myself a superficial wound) and place it in his hands, problem solved.

 

 

 

+1

[jgrazotis]

If someone breaks into my house they better fear the 12 gauge I have under my bed. I am 16 and American

 

 

 

I'd just shoot them, then put a knife in their hand from my kitchen draw ((one not from a set) maybe even giving myself a superficial wound) and place it in his hands, problem solved.

 

 

 

+1

 

is it loaded, in Aus im pretty sure you can own a gun but the ammo and gun have to be in seperate rooms

 

and even if it isnt loaded, they dont know that :P also doubles as a great melee weapon

[Will H]

I think laws which protect the criminal more than the victim are complete [cabbage]. We in the UK are allowed to use, I think the word is 'appropriate', force. It's so ambiguous, and I think that you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary as long as it doesn't involve a lethal weapon.

 

 

 

What makes me laugh is that American laws allow people to have guns in order to defend themselves, and yet it means that the criminals can easily obtain guns for the purpose of raiding your house at gunpoint. I know it sometimes happens here in the UK, but it's so much worse in the USA.

 

 

 

I think the USA goes too far, and the UK doesn't go far enough.

[warren211]

Its wrong to kill a human being. true. The only reason you should kill someone is in self defence. true. So we don't know if our robber has a weapon. Do we kill him? Lets wait for him to pull out a gun, then we'll fight back. Does it make sense?

[assassin_696]

I think it's important to make the distinction between someone robbing your house and someone trying to attack your family. The first incident is common, the second is very rare, 9 times out of 10 the robber would just flee the scene rather than confront you. In a court of law it's normally obvious what the intent was, so if you or your family really were in danger they wouldn't take into account the safety of the attacker.

 

 

 

There's a lot of rubbish paraded around by the right-wing media in the UK about how burglars could sue the homeowner for being hurt, truth is the case would be thrown out before it even got to court. Judges aren't stupid.

[ember3579]

There's a lot of rubbish paraded around by the right-wing media in the UK about how burglars could sue the homeowner for being hurt, truth is the case would be thrown out before it even got to court. Judges aren't stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

You, my good sir, deserve a medal. \ To anyone who says you don't have the right to beat the snot out of someone who gets into your house while your supposed to be counting sheep: you are DELUSIONAL. If someone has the equipment or physical ability to get into your locked home, they probably have sufficient power to do harm to you or your family. I stand by what I said previously. If you feel the need, you can also tie them to a wooden chair or pole and call the cops. After that, call your local property damage lawyer, and sue the moron blind. :thumbsup: The above suggestion isn't necessary, but recommended if you find yourself receiving this treatment a little too often.

[nomadmike]

:shock: I believe that if someone comes into MY house where I am SLEEPING they deserve all I throw at them.

 

 

 

I wont kill but I will be forced to shoot their their feet and or arms, beat them in the face, and if still conscious kick them hard in their b's O:)

 

 

 

But thats just if they wake me up.

 

 

 

 

 

Why would they make a law saying someone who is a bad person shouldn't be punished but you should for doing the right things

[samurai_lassie]

My family was stolen from not not that long ago, robbers are there to grab something and run they're 99.999999% drug addicts needing more drugs

 

fuelling an addiction.

 

 

 

They break in grab everything they can possibly and run people don't come to your house come inside and try to have a go at you, all I can say is lock all doors and windows leave lights on a radio keep doors inside closed because a person could be in any of these rooms.

 

 

 

If you do see a robber I guess scream at him put my stuff down and run or ill call the cops or hit him in the leg with something.

[liquidsky]

There's a lot of rubbish paraded around by the right-wing media in the UK about how burglars could sue the homeowner for being hurt, truth is the case would be thrown out before it even got to court. Judges aren't stupid.

 

 

 

You, my good sir, deserve a medal. \ To anyone who says you don't have the right to beat the snot out of someone who gets into your house while your supposed to be counting sheep: you are DELUSIONAL.

 

 

 

(this is in aus, where the OP is from)

 

 

 

R vs. Lean and Aland (93) - a women who was assaulted used a piece of glass to attack 'the victim'. this was deemed 'excessive' and she lost the self-defence defence.

 

newton vs. fox (99) - a guy breaks into a residence and was beaten by the owner with some kind of baton. the intruder needed face surgery, sued and won AU49k (42k US). even worse the mother of the intruder also won 18k for something like 'nervous shock'.

 

In my opinion she should be thankful her (stupid) son wasn't killed and leave it at that.

 

 

 

I'll leave you with one more - about one month ago a women climbed over a neigbour's (of her mother, who she was visiting) fence because she heard a puppy was in distress (or something like that).

 

she was attacked by 2x bull mastiffs and was in critical-stable condition.

 

my understanding is that the whole point of having bull mastiffs is for family/property protection, but would you like to have a guess what's going to happen to the property owner? (dogs are dead already)

[ember3579]

There's a lot of rubbish paraded around by the right-wing media in the UK about how burglars could sue the homeowner for being hurt, truth is the case would be thrown out before it even got to court. Judges aren't stupid.

 

 

 

You, my good sir, deserve a medal. \ To anyone who says you don't have the right to beat the snot out of someone who gets into your house while your supposed to be counting sheep: you are DELUSIONAL.

 

 

 

(this is in aus, where the OP is from)

 

 

 

R vs. Lean and Aland (93) - a women who was assaulted used a piece of glass to attack 'the victim'. this was deemed 'excessive' and she lost the self-defence defence.

 

newton vs. fox (99) - a guy breaks into a residence and was beaten by the owner with some kind of baton. the intruder needed face surgery, sued and won AU49k (42k US). even worse the mother of the intruder also won 18k for something like 'nervous shock'.

 

In my opinion she should be thankful her (stupid) son wasn't killed and leave it at that.

 

 

 

I'll leave you with one more - about one month ago a women climbed over a neigbour's (of her mother, who she was visiting) fence because she heard a puppy was in distress (or something like that).

 

she was attacked by 2x bull mastiffs and was in critical-stable condition.

 

my understanding is that the whole point of having bull mastiffs is for family/property protection, but would you like to have a guess what's going to happen to the property owner? (dogs are dead already)

 

 

 

 

 

Ehh......I don't know about you, but the first 2 would NEVER happen even in the US, to my knowledge of the law. The last one, sure. That one has extenuating circumstances (the distinct noise of a puppy in distress will get anyone's attention, save a deaf man). Other than that, the judges must have been on more drugs than a 1960's Loony Bin ward. :wall: :wall: #-o #-o

[Maxana32]

lol i dont think u can hurt them with a knife :shame: but if u just knock them out with a bat or ur fist, them i thinku can get away with that :ohnoes:

[jackalope14]

...

Smash a person's window, cut your hand on the shards and then sue the home-owner for the injuries you sustained while attempting to rob their house. I'd put money on you winning the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would put money on you losing the case. Give me a break that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard you say.

 

 

 

And alas the judical system cares more for the criminal than the vitim. :roll:

 

 

 

Umm no. It doesnt.

 

 

Really? Oh, boy thats funny. The criminal can SUE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HE, THE ROBBER, CANT STEAL IT.

 

 

 

 

Umm no. Thats wrong too. A robber can only sue or bring charges on someone if the person uses unnecessary force to stop them. For example, shooting them as they run away or attacking him when you already have him restrained. Thats how it is at least in my state.

 

 

They shouldn't even BE THERE in the first place!

 

 

 

No they shouldnt. I think everybody knows that. Whats your point?

[venomai]

I think it's important to make the distinction between someone robbing your house and someone trying to attack your family.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

People tend to jump to conclusions when they see somebody breaking into their house. A lot of home owners will grab their guns for "protection", which often increases the intensity of the situation and, in turn, the chances of injury/death.

 

 

 

I think laws which protect the criminal more than the victim are complete [cabbage]. We in the UK are allowed to use, I think the word is 'appropriate', force. It's so ambiguous, and I think that you should be allowed to use whatever force necessary as long as it doesn't involve a lethal weapon.

 

And what kind of force do you suggest? :lol: Fists and feet are also lethal weapons, depending on the person using them. Same with knives, ballpoint pens, metal wire, etc.