Posted on 09/18/2011 4:30:30 PM PDT by Daffynition
A wealthy family man was arrested on suspicion of murder yesterday after allegedly stabbing a burglar to death with his own knife.
Businessman Vincent Cooke, 39, was relaxing when he heard a knock at the front door of his detached home.
When he answered he was confronted by two men, at least one armed with a knife, who threatened him and tried to force their way into the £350,000 house in the Cheshire stockbroker belt.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Generally speaking in most states in the US, you can use a sufficient level of force to neutralize the threat.
But we also take into account ‘disparity of force’ and that allows the victim to use a higher level of force than their attackers, under certain conditons. In general, if the victim is smaller than the attacker they may use a higher level of force. If a woman or small man is under attacke by a larger man, the victim may use a higher level of force. If the victim is being attacked by more than one person they can use a higher level of force. If the victim is older or have physical handicaps or disabilities they may use a higher level of force. If the victim is surprise attacked by one or more attackers they may use a higher level of force. In most if not all cases they must fear imminent permanent injury/death.
We take this into account because in all such cases the victim is inherently at a disadvantage and a higher level of force is therefore justified as reasonable.
I never hear of this ever being considered w/r/t the british cases discussed here.
This figure is constantly cited with absolute no evidence for it provided, and its utter nonsense.
Nowhere near 60% of British newborns are Muslim. It's somewhere between 10 and 15% - which is disproportionately high given they are only about 5% of the population, but this 60% nonsense is simply untrue.
Just curious - if taken literally, if he pulls a knife on you and you manage to wrestle it away from him, and he then gets stabbed during the struggle and dies, then have you committed murder? After all, once you have gotten control of the knife, you then have the upper hand, you are armed and the perp is not.
Well, it is taken into account.
The test in law is whether a reasonable person would feel you had a genuine reason to feel under threat.
A 6 foot tall 220 pound war veteran like myself would find it difficult to argue that I needed to kill an unarmed 14 year old mugger.
A 19 year old girl in the same situation could almost certainly argue that she felt she was at serious risk of being seriously injured (which would include being raped) or killed by the boy - and she would be more likely to succeed in that claim.
It is taken into account in these cases.
You may use the level of force you reasonably believed to be necessary when all the circumstances are taken into account. That includes issues of size, experience - all circumstances are relevant because they are what lead you to believe you were in danger.
No, in such a case you would not be considered guilty of murder. You are still acting in self defence - getting hold of the weapon was part of you defending yourself and as he was still fighting you, he might have managed to retrieve the weapon so you are still under threat.
Even if you brought the knife into the room - say, you heard the burglar, grabbed a bread knife and went into the room, once he attacks you, if you believed he might seriously harm you, you'd probably be justified in using the knife.
If, on the other hand, you got hold of the knife, knocked him unconscious and then slit his throat, you would likely be guilty of murder. Because by that stage, you are no longer under threat.
In this day and age, "running away" doesn't automatically mean that there is no longer a threat. Gone are the days where you can say about someone running away with their tail tucked between their legs "I taught him a lesson", and then you go on about your business.
Many times, and in the more violent places, most of the time, the criminal "runs away" to come back again with more "fellas", more deadly weapons, or what have you.
A very limited right to defense. Do you really expect a person to awaken at 0300 to noise in his home, go into the living room and see a crook and be able to determine in a second or less what the intentions of the crook are? Hogwash! There should be a bright line rule. If you break into a home you are presumed to be intent on harming the occupants. Therefore, you are now in a free fire zone.
Everyone seems to have heard of the Tony Martin case where he was convicted for killing a burglar - but he was convicted because the burglar was running away at the time, and was no longer a threat - and Martin admitted he was no longer a threat.
Are these people nuts? Leaving flowers for the criminal?
There you go again, destroying a perfectly good rant with facts.
Somewhere, George Orwell is shaking his head and muttering, "I warned those poor bastards..."
If someone forces their way into my home and threatens me with a knife, they're telling me that they're expecting someone to die. The only courteous thing I can do is give them a death.
In more civilized environs, those vehicles would be magnets for vandelism.
"Your Honor, the deceased's rap sheet provides preponderance of evidence that he needed killin' and my client should be released and commended."
ORB BTTT
A Limey Castle Doctrine.
No, I don't. And nor does the law. If a person is woken by a noise in their house at 3 am caused by a burglar they are perfectly justified in considering themselves under threat at that time - and until something changes, they will continue to be justified in that. If they attack the burglar in the dark, they are probably acting in self defence.
If they turn the light on however, and the burglar turns out to be a 10 year old boy, they would be expected at that point to reassess the situation, and perhaps reasonably conclude that the danger isn't that great.
The key question in law is 'Does the person reasonably believe there is a danger.' If they do, the use of force is justified to deal with that danger. If they reasonably believe they, or another person, are in danger of death or serious injury, that force can include deadly force. But what they believe is based on the situation as they believe it to be at the time. And if there are reasons they should reasonably conclude the danger is less significant, those count as well.
You are right - running away doesn't mean the person is no longer a threat - which is why if, Tony Martin, had said to police he short the burglars because he was worried they would return, he might have had a better defence.
Instead he told the police that he no longer considered them dangerous and shot them because he wanted to punish them.
His own declarations to the police are the reason he couldn't claim self defence. They are also part of the reason he was eventually found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Martin was a paranoid who very likely set up a trap for the burglars (pretty much proving he was not in deadly fear of them - he saw himself as the hunter not the hunted) and when they tried to escape that trap, shot them in the back at a time when he admitted he had no fear of them.
He does seem to be a well liked burglar doesn’t he?
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.