Posted on 10/08/2012 7:16:59 PM PDT by the scotsman
'The long campaign to give householders the right to use maximum force against burglars will end in victory today.
Chris Grayling will announce he is changing the law to allow people to use ‘disproportionate’ levels of violence to protect themselves and their families.
The Justice Secretary said it would ‘dispel doubts once and for all’ over the right to fight back against intruders.
The new rules could, in some cases, allow for lethal force.
The move is designed to remove the threat of a burglary victim being arrested – let alone charged – if they use violence to drive the intruder away or stop them from advancing through their home.
Currently, householders are entitled to use only ‘reasonable’ force.
The change satisfies the demands of MPs and campaigners since Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999.
The call for action gathered momentum after the murder of financier John Monckton, who died from stab wounds in his Chelsea home in 2004.
Last month a judge warned that burglars who break into country homes can expect to be shot at by their victims if they are licensed gun holders.
There have been a string of changes to the law in recent years – including one made by Kenneth Clarke last year.
But ministers have always stopped short of delivering on the right to use ‘disproportionate force’.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Does this mean that Brits can use “excessive” force to save their country from the ongoing Islamic burglary?
The idea that they had to win the right to protect themselves using “disproportionate force” is a disgrace.
Congrats!! and keep it up. It’s great to see your country turning the corner from its experiment with coddling criminals. We’re pretty far along there, but still have pockets where you just don’t to go if you’re the wrong color (or even the right color, for that matter).
Finally, the people in the UK are granted the Castle doctrine of sorts, it’s about darn time. More power to them!
nice!
“The idea that they had to win the right to protect themselves using “disproportionate force” is a disgrace.”
No, it’s a HUGE VICTORY. The clowns who were running things, for decades, from all political parties, just got their heads handed to them. People are FINALLY fed up to the point that they’re through having sympathy for criminals. I knew one in the 1970s that was on a jury (in the states...had been naturalized). She just had to give the poor many another chance. Sure he did it...but putting him in jail just wasn’t fair...to her.
It has been a long time, a very long time, but people in Europe are starting to wake up to some very, very, real threats. Expect to see things pick up quickly, even by reading the article, you can tell this is just the beginning of lots of good things to come.
If this is the case, then everyone convicted for using force to defend their homes should immediately be pardoned. Also any information acquired from home invaders to prosecute home owners should be used to prosecute the home invaders to the full extent of the law.
Glad the legislators had a common sense ephiphany. Now, perhaps they will move along toward their own version of our 2A.
They will need it when it’s time to uninvite the tribe of mohammed, pee(ce) be upon him.
Does this grant a right to self protection, or only a gray area where self defense may be allowed?
You’re right, of course. The point is they never should have had to fight to win that “right” in the first place.
Freedom is seldom free.
“Reasonable” can mean anything, it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
Some people don’t understand what rights are.
A step in the right direction.
I wonder, will it all be repealed as soon as a teenaged thug who happens to be the kid of “someone important” takes a bullet when out for a little bit of B&E.
The only reason this happened was because an important financier was stabbed. Once the upper class is threatened then self defense will be important. Same thing will happen here when a Kennedy or Clinton or any well connected liberal democrat is killed by a jihadist via open border policies. The illegals, the muzzies and the “Amish” will feel the law enforcement boot on their necks.
Can you get a permit to buy/own anything but a double barreled or single shot shotgun?
Can you get a permit living outside of a rural area?
What are the criteria for getting a permit?
Hey, it's better than nothing.
Sorry, I don't mean to antagonize citizens of the UK: just their government.
But it continues to astound me how incomplete non-Americans' concept of Freedom can be. Not that we have it perfect here, there's plenty of Tyranny floating around.
But at least Americans can point to it on paper and try to maximize it in practice.
The RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE is granted by GOD, not government!
Not quite. The right has always existed in common law, and has been exercised by many over the centuries without prosecution, including recent times. What is being proposed clarifies what are believed by many to be unhelpful ambiguities in the statute law, which have led to some well-publicised hard cases in recent years. Had the facts of some of those cases (such as the notorious Tony Martin case) been replicated, I'm told that the householder would have been in serious trouble in more than one US state jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.