If a gang of people in the current example, or a single person breaks into someones home, then by doing so, they automatically scare the shit out of the occupier. Let's be straight here; the intruder doesn't have to do anything. The mere act of breaking in is enough, as any reasonable person would be terrified to hear or see a stranger who has broken into their home.
At that point, no one should act surprised if an intruder is killed. An Englishman's home is his Castle. The person who committed the crime, made a decision to cross the threshold into a property belonging to someone else. No one made anyone commit the crime, the act was based on choice.
If a person wants to live their life to the full; then they need to choose not to break into a persons home. The breaking and entering at the point of entry is an unknown act containing at that point in time, an unknown intent to steal, or rape, or beat, or to kill. It is an initial act, that is leading towards something unknown that will naturally place the occupier or occupiers in fear of their safety.
The occupier does not know if you have come to steal, or rape, or beat, or to kill. My view for what it is worth; is that the rights of an individual are automatically forfeited the moment that they break into a property belonging to someone else. There can be no scale of 'reasonable force'. The victim will be terrified as to why the intruder is there. The victim will not be thinking of reasonable force, and will only (and quite rightly) be thinking of self preservation.
The law should be 'Intruder Beware'. You choose, and if you get hurt or killed; then it was your choice. It is as simple as that, and the law needs to be changed to protect those who are faced with an intruder inside their home.
Custom Search
