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

Who cares about the law anyway when your and your loved one's life is in danger. Considering the fact burglars comes to your house and threatens you and your family" don't $%$&# tell me what is the law. plus don't tell me that gives them whatever they want.

I am not going to be politically correct in this scenario. Will kill them right away if I see the even slightest possibility of danger to my loved ones. Period!

Killing someone will never be right, whether it's intentional or unintentional in the eyes of the law. The least he can do is that he should have shot the burglar in his legs so that the burglar cannot move or run, then call the police. Well, at least he didn't kill the man.

That's the most stupid thing I have ever fucking read in my life.

You might as well be bending over and handing him the pot of vaseline....

 

Any burglar who enters your home needs to be put down.

Because if you see it very clearly the perpetrator's motive has been fulfilled and done intentionally, the perpetrator enters the house and is already in the main room suspected of attacking the body or taking things or attacking the honor so that "the coach" defends.

I dont think its right to kill someone even if they break into your house.  The only way I think it is justified is if they have a weapon and are threatening to kill you.

In morally and ethically speaking it is not right to kill, nor hurt someone. But in a life and death situation, It's uncontrollable, whether you like or not bad things may occur. Though, the result or the outcome still depends on both parties judgement or succeeding actions.

Been there done that, and trust me, In such situations where your safety and life is on the line, A lot of things will come popping in your mind and it's really uncomfortable. Though, I decided not to put the law in my own hands. I agree on what @descon said, I just disabled the robber and wait for the authorities to do their thing. At that point, I only think of my family and what could be consequences I could face if I killed the robber. Yes, it is an act of self defense but the damage done is irreversible and I don't think that I could live with the fact that I just killed someone.

The killed person would still be alive if he hadn't tried to rob this family. I say give the pensioner a medal and 125 BTC. Good job!

There are times when that may be the best choice. But consider that you are letting a violent criminal decide your fate. That is never going to happen in my home. I don't want to kill someone but if they are risking my life, then shooting them dead won't even raise my pulse.  I won't cooperate, I will become a threat to the intruders lives.

No one has the right to kill anyone, regardless of what they done, said and thought. No matter how guilty, insane and unforgivable that person, you still don’t have the right. If those stories and scenarios you have heard that burglars are dead or wounded on the crime scene, I think it is only because of self defence. But I think if you stay calm, not let him get triggered or just follow his/her instructions, the burglar won’t be violent.

This is really a tricky one, kìlling has alot to do with the motive. While the burglar did wrong by invading, killing can hardly be justified. if this kìll was strictly in self defence then the pensioner should not be prosecuted for defending his family but if its for any other reason, the authorities should get to work and do the needful after concrete investigation.

In my country, murder and theft are very different. Even if there is a thief, if you kill him, then you will go to jail. This is the law, we can't change it!

encounters like this are over in seconds. its why there's no point in relying on the police. I'd think anyone who has a weapon in the house would be trained to use it. Not like Arnold, lol, but there's a basic level of operation required and offered to those who prefer this option.... other than being helpless. Besides i'd call pointing a gun at someone the best way to de-escalate the situation......... anything else, and  the perp will most likely attack.

I feel like it would ruin my life to kill an intruder. The trauma of shooting someone, the legal fees, it would be horrible.  However during the event the only thing that matters is winning the fight. I have had the displeasure of getting into gunfights on three continents now and I know how to shoot back. But it is illegal (in my state)  to kill someone to protect property. The only time you can use that gun is when "You or someone in your immediate presence is threatened with death by an assailant".

That means if my gun comes out someone is going to get shot in the chest.  The idea of wounding an intruder or shooting for the legs is an absolute movie fantasy. If an assailant has chosen to risk your life you do not play games. You do not yell "Freeze!" or threaten to shoot them, you shoot them. Follow these best practices if you are considering joining those who carry everyday.


1. Budget.
It will be very expensive to carry. The gun needs to be a good one that you can bet your life on. $1000. You will need to join a club to train. That will be maybe $400 per year. You will need to get a background check for the gun, another for the CC license, and you will likely need to attend a class. All these will run about another $100. You will want to get insurance to cover yourself and that will cost about $400 per year. Ammo for training will run about $600 per year minimum. That is only 50 rounds per month. Better to budget 50 / week.  Holster, spare mag, cleaning kit and miscellaneous accessories is another $100. So that should get you started for your first year at about $2600. It ain't cheap.


2. Train with the best.
Most clubs have three-gun, CC, and other training opportunities to improve your skills, pay for them. Listen to your instructors and always:
Keep your gun on you, chambered and safety off.  On you mens ON YOU, not in your car, not in your purse.
Always shoot for the center of mass. Not the legs, don't try to shoot the gun out of his hand, shoot right for the center of the chest.
Stop shooting when the threat is over. If you keep shooting because you are mad or whatever, then you are going to jail for murder.
Plan your defense at home. Mark out all the distances you might be fighting from in your home and set your sights accordingly.
Do ballistics tests with your gun to determine the best ammo. Under and over-penetration are problems.

3. Watch videos.
This is a weird one, but you can learn much from watching the successful and failed attempts of others to defend themselves.  Check out this youtube channel for an example of what I mean.  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

4. Avoid gunfights whenever humanly possible.

 

Right, I agree pretty much. But that doesn't change what I said really; if you're pointing a gun at a trespasser, and you shoot them in a space like a house, it doesn't matter how hard you try, the chances of killing them are pretty high. Presumably you would go for the head shot though, right?

There's about as much chance of succeeding with attempting to kill as there is of trying to do minimal damage. Let's put it this way: if I confronted an intruder and they were a safe distance from me or anyone else, I'd warn them to drop everything and get out, without shooting. But if the confrontation happened too close for comfort, I think I'd just shoot them quickly without a word.  

So really, heed your own words. If this actually happened to you, would you really turn into Arnold Schwarzenegger in a 'roid rage? Or would you do everything to prevent the situation escalating to something more dangerous? I think you'd be more likely to come out of it better if you don't deliberately take extreme or risky courses of action.

what about protecting your family? children? sisters, grandma?

You two have no idea of reality. Try waking up at 2am with a bunch of robbers running through your house? believe me you're not thinking of "disarming" lol....... if you break in to do any crime, being where your not supposed to be, expect to be met with brutal force!

Exactly, the idea is to protect your property from theft and trespass, not to take revenge for the robbery they were prevented from committing as a consequence of killing them. That still carries a high risk that they will be killed, of course. 

Most places then to legally favor gun self-defense over any other kind of weapons or fists.

From the moral point of view, i believe it's obvious. When you get in dangerous situations yourself you will see that it's pretty simple in fact. You draw your weapon and threaten the intruder to leave or you will kill him - Tends to be more than enough for most of them. However, if the intruder have a gun too the situation needs to be controlled carefully by either surprising them for a place where they cannot look at and making them drop the gun or ultimately shooting if he is going to shoot back.

There is a good amount of clueless people with good intentions defending taking the guns out of the honest people. Defending with knives or bats for good people without training against a criminal experimented using it won't be any easy, in fact its unfair.

The lesson of the day, get a gun and learn to use it to defend your family. The criminals will always know how to get guns.

That's a pretty bizarre story. I'm not too familiar with the UK, but are such crimes so rare that people are in a way innocent and don't realize that everywhere else in the world burglars often times kill their victim and posses a huge danger? Or are the rule makers extremely innocent of such matters and think there's no way that a criminal is capable of such things, because they've never experienced anything negative in their lives?

It is sad what is happening into our society but if you can by any means can disable the burglar its a much better way than killing.

That's part of the risk a burglar has to take and ACCEPT when they decided to take people's stuff in their own home. And if they have an accomplice that lived, he should be charged with murder, because they both set the wheels in motion that led to the criminal's death. And makes you wonder about the burglar's family, where they can't comprehend why the homeowner would kill their precious boy, and that the home owner should be in jail, as if the burglar was just a regular citizen, walking home from church and was randomly attacked by a stranger.

Yep I've seen mob justice here in South Africa and it is brutal. They do phone the cops but what can 2 cops do when there is a whole mob beating the burglar up? In my opinion its not right, but If you break into my house and threaten the lives of my loved ones you bet I'm going to fight back.

In my honest opinion, if it a violent burglar gets hurt or killed as an effect of act of self defense or defensing the people that you love, then it should be excusable. Besides, the thief disregard his own human rights when he decided to rob someone.

I agree with what you have to say sir, that burglar did deserve what he got. How could you violently rob a senior citizen? That is just way too low for a human being.

For me, however, killing should be the last option to anything, as I myself believe that I do not have the guts to kill anyone. Moreover, if someone uses violence against you and threaten your life just to steal your property, then you should not hesitate to commit self-defense and try to harm the attacker as well, and killing them would just be one of the many just consequences.

Well, it's potentially more complex than even that.


If you were a 12 year old housebreaker, would you go unarmed? Or even if you're just a physically small adult? This is why I'm against modern strict gun legislation, a regular person cannot defend themselves against any attacker if the attacker has a gun and the victim does not.

Guns are not the ultimate answer to the problem, addressing the causes of criminality is (and that's so so much harder). But should the general depravity that drives criminal behaviour not improve, and there is little sign of that, then calling the police is not going to work either. Vulnerable people without the means to employ their own security must be able to defend themselves in these circumstances, and so the law is a disgrace in this instance.

And of course, the police apply an entirely different standard to themselves; instead of arresting police officers for murder whenever they kill on duty as a matter of procedure, it's always assumed that the police officer did the right thing as a matter of course. Which is illustrative of how corrupt this modern policing system is: police officers are presumed innocent, and everyone else is presumed guilty. Unless they're powerful.

---

Local people should be paying a local officer who they trust to police their neighbourhood. People often reply "but that would lead to complete corruption", but at least the police would be corrupt in the way that the people who pay them wanted.

I think if the burglar becomes a great threat the home owner has the right to
bear arms and protect his home and the inhabitants within. There may be laws
that cover this certain situation in several countries, but from my point of view
when an intruder enters your home, it's better to assume that the intruder will
pose as a threat and may be violent. It's something probably one must never
underestimate. It may be your life at stake. Some may not like this approach
but when you're in that situation it's all fight instinct.  

the pensioner should be celebrated as a national hero.

Every criminal should know when they break into someones house they can be killed, and not one iota of trouble will meet the home owner who killed them.

What kind of law are they enforcing? First, I supposed that it happened inside the house which is clear that the burglar cleary commits trespassing. Second, what do the police expect the old man to do? Law enforcers are sick!! Do they know the word self-defense?

I think it`s part of the deal, when this criminal decides to break in to somebody`s house he accepted the risk that there is a possibility that the victim try to defence himself, his family and his belongings and that there is a change that he get hurt or worse. A painter accept the risk that he can fall of his ladder. Isn`t that calling business risk?!

The problem is, manufacturing guns can be done at home and with a hardware shop. You can 3D print a gun and buy a tube and get something that can lethally kill someone within 10 ft of you. You literally can't stop people from obtaining weapons, if they so choose.

However, you can educate and regulate the safety of firearms to individuals. Overall, America does have a mental health problem. We have more suicides than any other nation. It probably also has something to do with our weak social safety nets.


For those thinking about about removing personal ownership of weapons from America:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I think a person has every right to defend their house and family. If someone breaks into your house, you really don’t know their full intentions.  They could be there with the intention to not just steal, but to murder, rape, or kidnap you, your wife or your kids.  I personally support the right to defend your family and home even if you kill the intruder.   

i strongly belive in the case of violent burglar if he of she is harmfull you can kill in self defense. there is no wrong in that. or if ou dont want to kill you can just run to avoid killing..

In America it is also much more likely that the criminals are armed. In other countries (like most commonwealth countries) handgun ownership is almost nil and heavily restricted. There it is almost unheard of that a burglar has a gun.  So your risk of being shot by an intruder is extremely low.

In some fortunate nations - even the police don't normally carry guns. Your chance of getting shot is that low.


 United States   2016   119.6 gun related deaths/ 1 million people 89% gun ownership (71.0 of those suicides)
 Australia   2016            10.4  gun related deaths/ 1 million people 13.7% gun ownership (8 of those suicides)
  Norway   2012            17.5 gun related deaths/ 1 million people  31.3% gun ownership (16.3 of those suicides)

What it doesn't show is whether the death by homicide are gun owners or people who don't own the guns.

If you calculate an 80 year lifespan your risk of getting killed by a gun in a high gun ownership country is reasonably high so having laws to protect yourself against intruders in your own home / property would make sense.

In America where almost everyone seems to have a gun in their homes, when you decide to rob a house, you have a 50% of getting shot and killed and I do believe that's not a good probability at all especially when you know your life may be at stake.

In America, a lot of states have "defend your castle" laws, which are quite interesting.

If you feel your life is in harm's way, you have a natural right to defend your life. It's just biological survival. Anyone who wants to punish you for that biological survival instinct has never been in the situation themselves.

In most commonwealth countries the laws are similar.

You have a right to protect yourself.
If there has to be a plausible threat of harm to you or another person then you can legally defend yourself.
You can only use proportional and reasonable force.

But self defense is a defense - not a legal right. (There is a subtle difference)
The law states that you cannot assault or kill a person.
You have a valid defense from conviction if you acted in self defense.

Just because they are in your house doesn't mean there is a threat. But if they threaten to hit and have the opportunity to do so (physically close enough) then you can act in self defence.

(You can also arrest them but that is more complex law)

So if a small 12 year old kid broke into my house and tried to take a swing at me and I killed them with a blow from a hammer - it would not be proportional.

If a 2m 150kg thug broke into my house and threatened to hit my 1.6m missus popped him on the nose with a hammer and he dies - it would be proportional.

When weapons are involved it becomes more serious. Someone with a baseball bat can potentially be more dangerous and the level of violence allowed to be used to neutralize the threat is much higher.

If they flee you can't shoot them with a gun, stab them in the back or run them over with your car - because there is no longer a threat to you.


I wouldn't want to kill someone over property. But I would defend myself and others against harm.

I believe we must have the right to defend ourselves and our house. If somebody breaks in, you don't have enough time and desire to take a risk, thinking whether the criminal is armed and how serious the threat is.

However, in my country, self-defense can have bad consequences for you. If there are no witnesses and the attacker suffered. They can blame you for exceeding the necessary self-defense measures, and even call you an initiator of the attack (depending on the situation of course).

It's not fair, but I'd still prefer to first protect myself from the burglar, and then deal with the police. The burglar got what he deserved. And the laws - they're changeable and imperfect things.

He should not given fines, or any sort of punishment.

If you wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day, should you be given fines?

If a drunk driver decides to crash into your car, should you be given fines because a drunk driver made a choice to ruin your life?

Welcome to the almighty all powerful state and their sick and warped sense of justice and morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSvFpBOe8eY&list=RDEMRoCx7NEN4B1lXoHSAiz26w&start_radio=1

I do not think it is an easy thing to take a life, whether deliberately or not - mental and emotional trauma afterwards can be huge; sometimes you hear of soldiers who have gotten to war on how they have to deal with inner issues after killings. Even though this could be a one time thing, I want to believe that the act of taking anothers life can have a permanent effect on you.  If there is an opportunity to neutralize the situation, maybe aiming for important parts of the body rather than the fatal parts, I will choose those options, but if those options are not available then, I have to save myself and go for the kill. So I cannot for sure say it is the right thing to killer a violent burglar.

Morally speaking, killing is killing no matter the reason. But if you are talking about self-defense, then perhaps. It is still killing, mind you, but what would you in a situation like what the man went through? Would you let the burglar hurt/kill you and/or the ones that you love? I think not.

Of course he does. It's outrageous that they arrested the home owner. It's stupid.

I also read that one of the friend of the criminal passed by the house threatening the home owner.

Yes,  we have so called Human Rights, but if you are a real man you will do exactly what the 78 year Old did. It is a win win situation, there is a possibility that the old man get killed when the old man didn't act to kill the violent burglar.

For example,  let us pivot the story. The old man was killed rather than the burglar,  and then the burglar went to other house and kill somebody, again,  and then next day another homicide case happen and the culprit was the same burglar again.

now which is right to hear?  A violent burglar was killed and it lessen the crime from that place or the burglar continues to do the same crime again and again. 

If i were the old man. I will not regret what did he do, rather accept the fact that i killed a violent burglar and i don't care about the laws,  atleast i saved myself and my family. 

If you let the violent burglar live,  and consider human rights then you are selfish.

I think everyone puts themselves at risk for one reason or another. In a burglar's case this reason may be poverty or desperation or just stupidity in some cases. The violent part may come from either being too scared or mental issues. In any case, I don't think its right to kill a violent burglar because this person is just in need of help and we should try to be more understanding even if circumstances sometimes pressure us into taking tough decisions.

it's scary, I won't wish it on anyone. I can't judge anyone, but I think it's right that if the police can't catch him, ordinary people do.

If I were in the same situation, I will probably do the same. We need to protect our selves all the time and on this scenario, the only way is to strike first when you have the chance. The situation could have been different if the pensioner didn't defend himself. The police will have a murder case and a chase for the 37 year old burglar. Sometimes the law protect those criminals instead of sending them behind bars.

Its hard to tell what will we do if we are in the situation of the pensioner. I think i will kill that burglar too if it is for the safety of my family and myself.

funny enough where am from, if you are a burglar and you get caught in the act, immediate jungle justice will follow you get beaten to death and only with luck can you survive.   

You csn't really blame the person fo protecting himself from an attack what if the Burglar had a weapon and had killed the person rather.

I think it's a vigilante, because every country has its own policy and there is a separate rule of every crime whether in the theft or in the case of murder.

Private property and self-defense must be a sacred right in all societies, I believe such criminals truly deserve death but it's not my burden to decide that, I don't wanna be the responsible for the death of someone else, it must be backed up by law so he knows what's he getting for doing that, after all, a burglar with such a big historic like that has any sort of respect for someones else life already, thus, he can't expect the same to happen to him, most of them are actually just waiting for a release of their own self-demise. And their deaths will be the lesson for others who are following the same path. It's hard but necessary.

If a burglar came into my home armed and with intent to harm me or family, I will shoot first and ask questions later.

He or she should not have entered my private home and by doing so it was with malice in mind.

Would I want them to die? Of course not. But at the heat of the moment these things will not be registering in my mind.

My will to survive by protecting myself and family will be first and foremost. If they do get grievously injured and or die, they should have though twice before entering my home.

intrusion = risk of death.

welcome texas, florida and co.

it's not part of the protocol to invade, at any time.

edit never heard of lambo hunting? keep you lambo in the garden well exposed, car open... and wait for the bait to make it's work .

it can work with girls in bikinis... but it's more splashy , some don't like it .

It depends on your jurisdiction. Most people are completely oblivious to how the law really works. For example, my natural country is called America, while a privately owned non-profit religious corporation called the United States claims to be the government.

A maxim of law states that any corporation may only interact with other corporations. This means that by interacting with a government official (police officer, etc), you are providing proof of the false claim that you are also a corporation.

It is bad to BE a corporation, because they are created by the government (United States), and therefore are owned by the government. We are actually REAL PEOPLE. But the ONLY way to provide proof of that claim (to be real flesh and blood), it is required to say 'under protest' before answering or doing anything a police officer says. AND by writing 'under protest' above your signature before signing ANYTHING.

By using the phrase 'under protest', you become a sovereign, literally a King or Queen. And you then have the right to create a Charter to set out cannons, which can be enforced in court (In Admiralty).

The only things a sovereign cannot do is harm another or damage property, however, if someone fails to use the phrase 'under protest' they are not a real person, and therefore may be legally executed, prosecuted, charged, tazed, kicked or robbed. (execution is a form of murder by a sovereign that has no legal repercusions if sufficient evidence is provided that the victim was a 'person' (legal corporation, i.e. not 'under protest', A.K.A. 'ens legis'.

If someone decides to intrude your home then they in turn accepted the possible risks that may come with it. As the victim you have to assume the person is armed and willing to kill (At least here in South Africa). There is nothing wrong with defending yourself, you have a right to life and this person is threatening that right. The pure B.S. of this comes in to play when they fire a gun at you and you shoot them back but the bullet hits them from behind as they retreat, you are then called a murderer. The fact the guy was trying to kill you falls out the window and the criminal gets all the rights.

Home invades should have zero rights, they chose to invade a house. If you really need to resort to crime there are many other non violent illegal ways to get money. No need to go shove a 12 year old boys head into boiling water and light people on fire and all.

The sad part comes in when you consider the invader is someones parent or child. But again, the person knowingly chose to invade a house. That said you guys are very lucky that these things still make the news. When it gets to a point where the police sends one car out 5 hours after the incident and its just another day at the office then you know you got a problem.
How I envy the freedom of not living behind 6 locked doors, armed response and alarm beams all over my garden with a few dogs..

**Opinions above are a bit more severe than you guys in the EU has I know,but unfortunately this is our reality

The burglar really deserves what happen to him. If i am on the position of the pensioner i will do the same thing for the safety of my family.

I think that the murder of a robber is not right, because after that you will have to live, how you will feel after this. no it's not right

There is a requirement or facts to fulfill for the said "self-defense" and ofcourse If the requirement was fulfilled on the 78 yrs old pensioner could not be going to jail and actually it's the job of the police to find the facts of self defense for the defendant. But on the on the hand we know it was not moral good to take lives someone but what if the 78 yr old was the one who killed? then intruder lives? Think again.

In the U.S. it varies by state, but what may matter most is his risk level. I have heard it often asked as "Did the shooter assume his/her life was in danger?" and "Was it reasonable to think that?". I don't know about this case. Did these guys know each other? Is Mr. Osborne_Brooks known around town as "The lying stabber"? Because that would also matter.

I say shooter in my example since we shoot intruders rather than stab them. Assuming the guy found someone in his home threating him after breaking in and he killed the intruder, I think he would have to give a statement to the police and they may hold the knife for evidence, but he wouldn't be charged.

It was self-defense and it is in the law. I don't know all the facts but maybe his life was threatened we was a 78 years old man and the burglar was 37. The burglar may decide to kill him at anytime, no one know what ideas run in a criminal's mind.

You reap what you sow in life.This career burglar and criminal remains an
unrepentant and die-hard criminal who may unleash untoward attack on its
target.Hence, in a bid to defend and protect its target and the worst happens.
It should not be misconstrued as unfairness.The criminal who remains unrepentant after
experiencing jail penalties may never need mercy.Hence, if he or she is killed in the
course of criminality, the person reaped what was sowed.

I'd pray for a violent intruder in my house.  I have many special features built into my home for protection. Not to mention that as an American I have guns, lots of guns. Shotguns and handguns for inside, AKs and ARs for the property. I think it would be a very one sided fight as I watch them on camera while putting on my body armor.
 

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

In my country you will get in trouble with the police if you kill or injure a burglar.

It is crazy. You can't legally defend yourself. And if you do, maybe it is best NOT to call a police 

I recently read about a case, where a burglar had come to a house, and slipped on the slippery pathway and injured himself. In that case the owner of the house had to pay the burglar for his injuries.
(There is a law, that requires house owners to keep roads non-slippery)

I don't think it is right to kill anyone, but I don't think you can blame someone for defending themselves either.

In my opinion, if a person violently entered your home, it shouldn't be punished with jail time if you kill them.
You can't be at fault for not willing to risk your's and your families lives.

Old dude shouldn't go to jail for this. Give him some fine, sure.
Just so he knows you can't just kill someone and have no cost or consequences for it.
But he isn't really at fault here. This should be a legal decision someone can make.

An intruder killed during a raid on a pensioner's home was a career criminal who worked in a family gang and had spent time in jail.
Henry Vincent, 37, from Kent, was stabbed during a break-in at the home of pensioner, Richard Osborn-Brooks, 78, in Hither Green on Wednesday.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/05/burglar-killed-pensioners-home-wanted-previous-robbery/

What do you think? I think that a 37 year old career burglar who attacked a 78 year old pensioner in his own home, deserved what he got, and I hope they catch his accomplice. It seems the police don't agree, and they have arrested the pensioner for defending himself and his family.