Topic: Is it right to kill a violent burglar? - page 4. (Read 2168 times)

Oh, I'd say there are plenty of times where killing another human being is justified--and OP's scenario here is one of those IMO. 

Some states in the US have "castle law" where you can kill a burglar with no legal repercussions if you think your life is in danger (or not).  Other states say you have a duty to retreat.  I like the castle law philosophy, though I've never killed anyone.  I would imagine I would not feel like a more complete human being for having done so.

There are so many countries where a burglar can break into your house and you can't do anything. For instance, in Mexico, if they break into your house and you are inside, it will be needed for them to commit a physical aggression against you in order for you to can do anything. But, even so, police can just take you away (corrupt system).
As I know, in US you can even shot everyone who is trespassing your property, but I'm based on some friend experiences and I have no idea.

Regarding the new of course, it is legit to take action against any kind of aggression. If we look at it from the victim point of view, this old man was pushed to do something he probably didn't want to do. Even if he was found innocent by a court, what is going to happen with him now? I mean: this is a huge shock, a really shocking situation to be pushed-up to kill someone!!
Is there any kind of health system which will provide to him some kind of help? Was he injured and placed in a jail? For he was arrested, according to the bbc.

I mean: he's a victim too, he was in his house and a couple of guys just broke in.

Earlier I fully supported capital punishment (death penalty). But then a realized, that is too easy way for the felon to escape struggling.  I think that hard work somewhere in mines till the end its life is more cruel.

Also I recommend you to watch the film Felon(2008), about a guy who defended his house from robbers and was judged. 

LOL where do you live? In the UK, where this happened, you have the right to defend yourself from an aggression, but furthermore, you DO have the right to strike preventively if you have a well founded suspicion of someone going to harm you. You cannot however go after someone who hits or harms you if the individual is running away or not going to harm you further.

In most European countries you get the right to self-defense with proportional means (don't use a gun if the other guy has only a stick). However, once things go to trial, it is very difficult to prove anything.

in my country killing thieves should not be. But for me, if the lives are threatened, defending yourself and protecting my family from the cruel thieves, killing thieves can be done. the cruel robber is a useless person. the police can not protect my life from brutal criminals. If there were only two options to kill the thief or be killed, I chose to kill him to save myself

I mean that means there's at least four of you in the house, so you could be able to intimidate them enough.
Although, I would side with attacking with intent to kill if you feel that you're going to be killed and your family attacked/killed also.

---

a 70+ year old would probably be quite fragile at that age and so should've probably used all the force he could on a young(er) intrudor.

"Let three people judge better, than four carry" (carried in the cemetery )
But seriously, the crime can have different circumstances. And police, investigators and judges will rather objectively sort out. You can not make a conclusion about a crime by newspaper articles.

I'm a lawmaker here. you should tell the lawmakers in your country to add a new law. any woman or girl above the age of 18, should have no pants on at home. it would make it harder for the intruder to jump them if they have pants.


Would it be morally right, if you attack with the intent to injure just to give the intruder enough excuse to kill you? when you have a young wife and young girls in your house, forget about morality, save their pussies from getting jumped hard.

Criminals for me had no right to live because they are no more human but still we had no right to take life to a criminal or not.Theres a legal process for those situation but in that case were his family is at risk I barely understand why he do that and killed that criminal because he is just protecting his love ones.It is better to take life to a criminal than taking life to an innocent one.Sometimes we can do mistake in order to protect the lifes of our love ones.Nobody will let his/her family get hurt by someone so his action was just normal.

It will depends form case to case. If someone enters your home and is defensive or trying to flee if you see them and you shoot it should be charged with manslaughter.
But if they attack you, you should not have to think about the government taking action against you. The only priority needs to be to stay safe! And if you need to use deadly force for that then so be it.
The burglar have then not only choosen to invade your home, but also assault you. Imagine having children asleep, the burglar may be affected by drugs or psycotic, you would and should only think about the safety of your family!

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-04-06/pensioner-richard-osborn-brooks-to-face-no-legal-action-over-burglar-henry-vincents-death/

The CPS have dropped the case.

I remember that case. It spread quite widely with outrage just because they had to pay compensation to a burglar who was at least trespassing on their property.

A country in Western Europe?

Here in the Netherlands one has the right to defend him or herself against intruders, albeit proportionally. Proportionally in this case means that you basically aren't allowed to kick an enemy when he or she is down and the use of firearms isn't allowed (possession of firearms are illegal for normal citizens as a whole btw). Deaths of burglars go unpunished in rare cases if it is proven that it happened in self-defence.

Personally I think it is right to fend off a violent intruder, even if it results in the death of said person. But as mentioned above, killing shouldn't be the main priority.

The good news is that the prosecution service has decided that there is no case to answer.

In my country you can use proportionate force against someone in order to defend yourself. However, if this force is excessive you will get into trouble.
Killing a burglar is a difficult case and will alawys depend on the specific circumstances of the case. If the burglar physically attacks you, it could be proportionate. The situation would very be different if you for example shoot the burglar in the back while he is running away with your property. This would be an illegal use of self defence.

From a moral perpsective I must say that I believe that killing someone is even in cases where it may be legal very difficult to justify. One should always use the smallest amount of force to save ones own life.

I am not a legal expert in U.K. law (or any other for that matter), but based on what I do know, the police have legitimate grounds to treat an incident as suspicious and to initially view the pensioner as a suspect.  In some cases, if he was being uncooperative or if they had reason to believe he was hiding something, they could arrest him to question him formally.

However, the use of force to defend your life is generally permitted from a legal perspective, provided that the force was "reasonable".  Of course, that's open to interpretation and there is no clear-cut way to determine what is inside or outside of these bounds.  Hopefully, the police will agree and the death will be viewed as self-defense.  If they do not, and in fact charge him with manslaughter or murder (or their U.K. equivalent), then through Court proceedings this pensioner could assert the defense that he was acting in fear of his life or safety.  Then the Court (Judge or jury, however it is done in the U.K.) would decide the matter.

All of this is very messy and time-consuming, but unfortunately, that's the way it goes sometimes when there is an incident in which the police/authorities believe it happened differently than the suspect claims.

The reality of the situation is that, while the police are there to protect us, in those crucial first minutes when your life could truly be in danger, the police haven't yet had time to be notified and/or arrive.  People must be prepared to defend themselves if it becomes necessary in order to preserve your life.  The use of force in doing this is sometimes required.  The use of lethal force, to me, should be considered as an absolute last resort.  I hope I never have to make such a choice in my own life.  Circumstances like that can weigh on your conscience for life.

Best regards,
Ben

An interesting point, and in the particular case you are talking about, the police have decided that no further action will be taken.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43676359

I think views on this vary wildly, both geographically and politically (and a whole load more factors depending on the situation). Personally I think that every case should be dealt with on an independent basis, there are so many different scenarios which could sway opinion (and legal decisions) either way. I don't think any law abiding citizen wants to commit murder, even when their life is possibly in danger, it is just not part of the majority's moral code, but if put in a situation where myself or my family's life is being threatened, I don't think I would have any other option. I would imagine most people just hope they are never put in that situation. As the saying goes, if you play with fire...

Good post.  In Canada, you can use as much force as necessary to defend yourself.  That includes killing the attacker if you believe you will be killed if you don't act.

That being said, if you kill the intruder when it wasn't necessary (which is most cases), you will be charged with manslaughter.

It is also morally wrong to attack with the intent to kill.

From a legal standpoint, it actually depends only on the laws or the place, where such action would be committed.

From a moral standpoint, it is also unclear.

What is certainly not right, is to attack anyone with an intention to kill, if there is any other realistic way to protect your and your family members' lives. It is not right to kill a human over any property, but it may be OK to kill the offender to prevent a murder. It is unclear from the Telegraph's article (which is common for that source, since Telegraph is the tabloid), if there was a clear life threat or not, so the police has to take action and investigate that matter.

I think the police are probably afraid of telling people it's alright to kill someone if they break into your house. Honestly, I'd rather kill them then have them get away with it and go onto reoffending and I have a payment for what they have done - especially if you got attacked.

I can see that the police are probably saying you shouldn't actively attempt to injure any intrudor and are supposed to use "reasonable force" - I mean a 78 year old can't exactly hold back a young burglar until the police get there anyway... Although, this probably would open up a lot of other cases (there was an isolated farmer who got prosecuted and found guilty a few years ago for "accidentally" shooting someone - he shot down his staircase as a warning to the burglars and accidentally fatally hit one of them.

While it's not right from law and morality views, it should be done rather than let you/your family killed and your property got stolen.
The only problem is harsh punishment for self-defense action. I think spend time on prison might be too much, but pay some fine and do community service is better alternative.

Maybe the defender should accuse police/government that they don't protect their citizens properly