'Householders have the right to see off burglars'

“Unless he has a weapon what chance has an elderly person got against a young burglar. We should copy US law whereby if you break into someone else's property you forfeit your rights. As it is when a burglar is injured by a householder the defence places great emphasis on the rights of the offender and fails to mention the victim.”

“JMonners you are preaching to the converted - I agree with you entirely. All I questioned was your comment "I always had that right anyway" not in the eyes of the law you didn't. Now it's a little more in your favour.”

“At last some common sense in the British Legal System, at then end of the day being confronted by some one - anyone in what should be the safety of your own home is frightening and threatening. The intruder has no right to be there and obviously if they know people are present in the property has no fear of being confronted by them. Defending your own home from those who choose to enter it un-invited is not vigilanty-ism, it is just re-action to a frigtening and dangerous situation.
It is about time that the tables were turned in favour of the victims. The very fact that a person enters a home knowing there are people inside it should automatically allow those people to be in self defence mode, as the act of entering the building should be treated as an act of agression which it is, why do people get upset when they come home to find their homes ransacked, it is because they have been violated, not directly but psychologically as a result of the break in.
Only downside is that now house burglars may also go armed and expecting confrontation so escalating the likly hood of serious injuries or death of either one or the other.
Definately a quid quo pro - legislation.”

“Hi drt346ys

I understand the law but when an intruder is standing over my bed possibly threatening my family, the last thing I will be thinking of is the burglar's rights or the possibility of my incarceration. My priority will be to defend my family and if the intruder gets severely injured in the process, then tough!!”

“The only comment I have about JMonners post (and I agree with the sentiment behind it) is that although personally you feel you have the right to do that, in the eyes of the law it is debatable and possibly illegal depending on the force used. And as for not dialling 999, that's what the compensation culture has created. A short spell (if you are really unlucky) inside for the crime and a bonus payment if you win your compensation claim. By moving the bar a little higher it will be harder to prove the homeowner used unreasonable force.”

“Anyway if someone breaks into your house, beat the living daylights out of them and throw on to the pavement. They are hardly going to dial 999 and say they were burgling a house and got beaten up are they?”

“@m-dalston .... you are completely wrong . Evidience suggests that someone who has their brains bashed in or hanged will not commit another crime .”

“I always had that right anyway. Any person who breaks into my houses loses any human rights they think they might have had. Top of my list is protecting my wife an children followed by my property, and if you are brazen enough to break into my house, what else are you prepared to do??”

“@m_dalston, I do think the courts are misguided and fail to apply effective sentencing. However the subject matter is about the shifting support towards the homeowner away from the criminal. Had I known this was a topic-wide debate I may well have not commented.

The ambiguity in reasonable force is the issue and that is what they've tried to address. That said, some feel it is only made it worse which may be justified, but for me, all I want is to know that if I find someone in my home unannounced, I can reasonably expect their intentions to be anything other than beneficial to me or my family and I should be able to protect them (and this is the issue) as I see fit. I shouldn't have to concern myself with what is justifiable, whatever stops the threat is justifiable as you have no idea what their intentions are.

The threshold for what is reasonable has been raised reducing the likelihood of homeowners facing the legal system or the civil courts for damages when dealing with an intruder - issues you won't consider when encountering an intruder.

Just to clarify, this isn't about having the law on your side to be a vigilante and mete out your own punishment which is how many people seem to be reading it - it's about not being treated as a criminal yourself, when you are the victim. The pressure situation on encountering an intruder can produce the most unexpected of responses from the least likely candidates - why should they have to concern themselves with the legalities of their actions?”

“Fortunately, the BBC forum on this same subject shows the majority are in favour of this clarification. We seem to have an over subscription from the PC brigade posting on here. I believe that once somebody breaks the law by entering your home illegally, they should lose any rights of protection from that same legal system.”