Strangely cheering

[smokingboot]

There is an interesting article in the Times about what British householders can do in defence of self, house and home against burglars. The article in entirety is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1466593,00.html
but the Cluedo rules make me smile, so here they are.

The Cluedo rules

Colonel Mustard awakes to find a burglar standing by his bedside — he reaches for a length of lead piping, strikes out and knocks him unconscious or kills him.
Lawful

Miss Scarlett hears noises in the night. She creeps downstairs and sees a burglar in her dining room. He has not seen her. She seizes a candlestick, hides behind the door and strikes him unconscious.
Lawful

The Rev Green is woken by the noise of a burglar making his escape. He races after him and and with the butt of his revolver knocks him unconscious to the ground.
Lawful

Mrs White disturbs a burglar in the library. She seizes a knife in the kitchen and stabs him. He falls to the ground and is rapidly becoming unconscious. Just to teach him a lesson she stabs him again.
Unlawful

Professor Plum hears on the grapevine that a man he suspects of thefts from his house is planning forced entry through the kitchen. He lies in wait to trap the burglar and then shoots him or knocks him unconscious.
Unlawful

Mrs Peacock disturbs burglars in the billiard room. They flee empty-handed. She chases after them with a shotgun and shoots one of them dead.
Unlawful

larians' journal mentions the whole Florida 'Kill Bill' issue. On a good day, said news would appall me. On a day like today, it's just a temptation to post certain peeps a free ticket to the sunshine state and meet them at the other end.

Just kidding of course;-)

Comments

[scary-lady.livejournal.com]

The tricky one appears to be that it is lawful to chase down a fleeing burglar and knock him unconcious, but not lawful to chase down a fleeing burglar and kill him.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

..and then there's the whole issue of precisely why Colonel Mustard just happens to have a length of lead piping beside his bed...

[yapman.livejournal.com]

Just out of interest, why does that seem tricky to you? Or are you talking about accidentally killing someone while attempting to apprehend them?

[scary-lady.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's it.

The article says that "You are not expected to use fine judgement over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment"

Seems to me that this distinction expects exactly that.

[yapman.livejournal.com]

Once you start chasing somebody, the heat of the moment argument pretty much starts to fall apart, however. They're running; your fear for yourself is no longer the issue. It generally starts to be about anger/revenge. If you attempt to use non-lethal force and accidentally cross the line, I'd expect you to get in a bit of trouble, but not too much. If you choose to use lethal force, then there will be consequences.

[scary-lady.livejournal.com]

Trouble is, if I walloped someone with (for eg) a jo stick or bokken (which is just the kind of thing that might be to hand in our house), then I would have no clear idea of where non-lethal force ended, and lethal force began. And that's sat here discussing it; not with adrenaline pumping round my system.

I suspect most people wouldn't.

When we were burgled last year, our next door neighbour ran one of them down with a baseball bat and held him until the police arrived. The police were full of praise for him, but I always wondered what their reaction would have been if either party had been hurt.

[yapman.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but that's the point.

If you walloped somebody who'd broken in with a jo and killed them (not hard to do) you'd be ok. If you chased them out of your house and then did so when you caught them, you wouldn't. If you chased them and restrained them, you'd be ok.

Once you start chasing somebody, you can't really claim to be acting in fear of your life, at which point you need to exercise restraint.

[scary-lady.livejournal.com]

I understand this, but the original examples were
(a) chase them down and knock them unconscious (Legal)
and
(b) chase them down and kill them (Illegal)
not
(c) chase them down and restrain them

My point is that most of us are not so skilled with a weapon as to be able to successfully choose between (a) and (b).

[yapman.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but if you're not skilled enough to use non-lethal force to restrain somebody, then you really shouldn't be trying. If only from the point of looking out for yourself, because if you aren't sure of your ability, then you can't be sure you'll be able to overpower them. Add to that, if they are no longer a threat to you, you don't have the right to kill them. You just shouldn't go after someone unless you are sure you can do so safely.

[ephraim.livejournal.com]

Intent is (in my limited understanding of the law) also important. Hard to prove, but important nonetheless.

Thus, if you hit your burglar (having chased him/her down the road) with the jo or bokken with the intention of rendering him/her unconcious but accidentally kill the miscreant, then that's likely to incur less of a penalty than hitting an unconcious burglar repeatedly til dead.

You do, of course, have to counter the CPS lawyer who may be trying to prove that you intended to kill.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

HOWEVER, if you intend GBH and accidentally kill someone it's still murder. You can't get around it by saying you just intended to hurt them a lot and unfortuately they didn't survive the beating.

[thru-her-lens.livejournal.com]

LOL

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Rev. Green needs to be careful post Dunblane, however - merely the fact of having his revolver to hand will be the cause of questions from the police - I can't remember whether it's now illegal for you to have a handgun in your house at all, but at the very least you have to have a weapons safe for a handgun.

I'd have thought that the miscreant in question would have an excuse to claim against the good Vicar, unless Rev. Green has a good explanation for why he hand his gun in hand at the time.

And Professor Plum is a fool. "I wasn't lying in wait, Officer; I heard a noise downstairs and on investigating, found the burglar inside my property. In fear of my life, I struck him unconscious."

That brings up another peeve, of course (was the Times article written by a roleplayer?).

It's bloody difficult to knock someone unconscious without doing them serious damage at the same time. While that may well be justified, it's not as easy as Hollywood or RPG rules would have us believe :-)