Obviously, all the facts are not yet known… but this will be an interesting one to follow…
Eleven houses were burgled one night in the next village.
We have installed a roller shutter over our most hidden entrance and have video surveillance.
We also have a dog!
I think if someone was armed I would do what they said unless I had an opportunity to do otherwise.
I don’t think anybody really knows what they would do until they were in that situation.
I have no firearms… but I do have 2 hockey sticks… and I am quite clear in my mind… if someone enters my home and threatens us…IF I had the opportunity I would bash them with my hockey stick… and bash and bash until I was sure they could not get up…
I am led to believe that this might cause me problems if things went to court… but I have watched too many films where the baddie is whacked once, falls to the ground… and just as folk are relaxing and feeling better… the baddie comes to, get up… and …ooooooooh. 
all the goodies end up dead.
So, as I say… whilst I will do nothing to put my family in danger…given the chance… I will act savagely.
You have all been warned…
1 Like
same here - got a nice solid baseball bat, great for the knees, or other parts further north
The porters at my old college used to say that if you hit an assailant or would-be assailant make sure you hit them good and hard so they don’t get up, because otherwise you’ll just have made them cross and that is dangerous.
I would assume that any stranger appearing in my house by night was an active threat and act accordingly.
The only time I have been physically attacked was on a dark evening in the street and I beat my attackers up as efficiently as possible.
This scenario has always intrigued me, and interesting to read what is reported and the results of court actions. Not only what the papers report, but also they usually have quotes from general public on their thoughts.
Depending on how one reads variations on the theme, i find myself varying in actions i may or may not theoretically take.
For instance the report in Sud Oest serves up a few connotations in just one page…
Think about the following lines, and the severity with which you would act…all these statements are in this one report. ( It may be how the direct translation from Sud Ouest page was made)
-
Two men had entered his house Thursday, near Beziers, he had killed one of them…
Was this too severe, to kill a man just for entering the house ? -
The owner of a house in Servian (Hérault), who killed a burglar who attacked him and his family on Thursday , was indicted for murder and left under judicial control
They actually attacked him and his family…not just enter his house. -
According to the owner’s first statements, two armed burglars reportedly entered his home and reportedly beat him and his wife with a disability
So his wife was also disabled , and they were armed.
…when the demons come, what wold you do ? or would you wait to see how severe the demons were ?
I think that in such circumstances the golden rule has to be that the amount of force used by the victim must be reasonable and appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case, and that said force must always be used in a defensive manner.
Force likely to be lethal has to be reserved for those cases where the offender is actually threatening the life of someone at the time the force is used, and the force used must then be commensurate only with the objective of stopping the offender.
Shooting a burglar simply because he has entered the house is not reasonable, but if he is pointing a gun at the victim, or advancing with a knife, then that is a different matter.
Additionally, there can never be any justification for using excessive force against a fleeing offender, no matter how much one might like to do so.
However, it would be reasonable for the aggrieved party to use appropriate force if needed to restrain the offender, and to detain him whilst awaiting the police, so tying him up would probably be OK, whereas beating him unconscious would probably be viewed as excessive in the circumstances.
As I said before, it’s really just a matter of the force used being proportionate to the threat in the circumstances.
By the way ------- a dining chair or a tall stool is a good means of defence against an attacker with a knife, but the best thing is always to lock or barricade a door between yourself and the intruder and call the cops.
Hi Robert…
Your reply is how I understand things to be within the Law… It is all to do with the perceived threat…and swift decisions may well have to be taken…barricading, making a row and attracting the neighbours… is a good start. Mobile phones come into their own at times like this.
Being the person I am…I would do everything in my power to ensure the baddies left my home swiftly (and alive). I can make a lot of noise, for such a little old lady.
If said villains did not leave and I felt really threatened. My reasonable force would be to take the opportunity (if it arose)… to stop the villains in their tracks. Full stop. I would not want to be “looking down from above”… listening to folk say… “Oh dear, she obviously fought back…pity she didn’t stop them properly when she had the chance.”
and, of course, it all depends who else is on hand to help. Someone to help me restrain said villain, while in a dazed or unconscious state…someone to get the police swiftly on site etc etc… would obviously negate the need for me to bash the living daylights out of said villain. I certainly do not want to kill anyone…but, on the other hand, I do not want anyone killing me or mine…
Due to health problems, I would not be able to hold a chair/stool in such a manner as you describe. I can clench both fists around my hockey stick and although actually using it would cause pain (to me)… I could swing that stick very effectively. 
I was told by a policeman in GB that giving a burglar a good whack with a golf club was a pretty safe bet (from the conviction for gbh point of view) because a golf club isn’t regarded/ officially recognised as a weapon.
1 Like
The type of implement used is not that relevant. What is important is the degree of force used in relation to the circumstances which existed at the moment in time that the force was used. Basically it is only justifiable to use force to apprehend / restrain the offender, or to defend oneself, or someone else, from actual or imminent attack. Whacking the offenders wrist as he reaches into a jewellery box is not acceptable, no matter how much we might feel that it should be.
The Law… …can be surprisingly understanding at times and sometimes absolutely daft… I will whack if and when necessary… and consider the legal implications if I survive. 
One of my relations was (more or less) the last person to “get away with murder” in France (donkey’s years ago) using the defence of “Crime Passionel” after he killed his wife’s lover… 
He got off scot free… the murder was considered well within his rights…
I’ve just realised, I should set the record straight… in that his violence was during his first marriage… my aunt Georgette (his second wife) was the paragon of virtue… (perhaps she didn’t dare be anything else)…
If I found someone rifling anything of mine I’d whack their thigh as hard as possible with the golf club, to ensure they didn’t run away while I called the police. Possibly more than once, to make sure.
This thread reminded me of a breakfast I once had with a met man. He had been working with the with the RAF during the Falklands war and was explaining how he had ended up firing an anti-aircraft gun when the airfield was under attack. He said that if he’d been told a day earlier that he would be firing a gun at attacking aeroplanes he would have run a mile. He pointed out that when your life is turned upside down it’s amazing what you are capable of doing.
2 Likes