Leicester Mercury opinion: Raising the bar on rights of victims

“I support the Justice Secretary's intention but wonder how the idea will be put into effect.

It's all very well to alter the law in a way which might enable the CPS and courts to come to just decisions but if the police do not exercise appropriate discretion at the scene of the crime and continue to simply always arrest people such as the couple at Melton then no progress will have been made. Don't forget that the Melton couple were photographed, fingerprinted and had DNA samples taken and spent three days in custody whilst the police waited for the CPS to decide that they had acted quite lawfully.

The likelihood of any of us actually encountering a burglar in our homes is very remote. Being the victim of physical attack, robbery, rape or indecent assault is a much more likely prospect. I wonder whether Mr Grayling might apply his mind to the lawful right to use disproportionate force defending oneself or family against an attack of this nature?”

“well said likeltalot”

“"It seems to me that there are a lot of opinions on her from folk who have no concept of a volent home invasion"

I've had a group of lads kicking my front door in as I held it shut using sheer force. Does that not count? Oh, and I went to court as a witness and got one of them sent to prison.

I absolutely HATE it when people take it upon themselves to assume you can't possibly have any experience of being on the receiving end of crime if you aren't foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog and screaming "HANG 'EM" till you are blue in the face..........

Let me ask, WHY do you assume we have "no concept of violent home invasion"?”

“by buschka
Thursday, October 11 2012, 7:09AM
."SANSUE...shut up for Gods sake...you must be the most BORING person posting on here !! YAWN ..........
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
.
Try and engage with debate or are you only capable of insulting”

“It seems to me that there are a lot of opinions on her from folk who have no concept of a volent home invasion. If you house gets invaded and you feel your life, and the wellbeing of your family is potentially put in jeopardy then an instant reaction is to defend them with every means at your disposal. The message is that by invading someone's home by the use of violence expect to get harmed if you do not leave immediately you are confronted by the occupier. And do not expect that later on the law will come down on your side if you do get harmed.”

“This change is typical right wing Tory thinking, pandering to tabloid journalism and those who are sucked in by it. It's the thin end of the wedge that ultimately leads to everyone owning a gun, the police being armed and vigilantism.

The leader contradicts itself blatently. Anyone except a half-wit can see the flaw.

"That is not a charter for vigilantism. Householders will not be able to murder burglars in cold blood."

So how do you define murder in "cold blood"? What an absurd, vague, wishy-washy concept that is. The article goes on:

"This is all about what happens in the heat of the moment and making sure that the law takes into account how difficult it is to make rational decisions on the appropriate level of force when faced with a terrifying situation."

So there is an admission that the householder is unable to make rational decisions. If that isn't a charter for giving him a right to shoot in cold blood I don't know what is. If I shoot a burglar and kill him without stoppping to think about it first that is not grossly disproportionate I assume from this comment. That's not killing in cold blood?

If instead I knock him over the head but, by lucky chance, that doesn't kill him and then I have a think about it and then I shoot him dead, that I suppose, by the LM standards, is killing in cold blood.

People should really stop and think about this. The second example is obviously blatently murder; few would disagree (except that thinking about some of those who leave comments I am not sure even about that). But think on this. Are we really saying that one has to go to that kind of depths of depravity before it is regarded as "grossly disproportionate". I find that utterly scary. That an evident majority of people want for this kind of society. It's shocking and deeply depressing.

It is clearly a vigilante's charter and it is disingenuous to state otherwise. If it changes the way courts look at people who go around taking the law into their own hands it can only have that result. If you really believe that it isn't going to have this effect, then ask yourself why the need to change the law at all. Many defenders are arguing it won't change much - SO WHY DO IT?”

“"providing the clarification on the law to protect the homeowner might have saved Andy and Tracey Ferrie additional suffering after being arrested and held in a police cell after protecting themselves after 4 men who had broken into their farm house and terrorized them."

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that when someone has been shot in the face when there are no independent witnesses that people shouldn't be arrested whilst the Police do an initial investigation??!!!

I'm sorry, the black and white world of "goodies and baddies" where you can instantly and irrefutably know if someone "deserves" to be shot in the face or not does not exist. Look at the Trayvon Martin case in America where the man who killed him wasn't even arrested; it caused utter outrage, and this in a country where the laws ARE much more black and white!”

“And jonger, the judge didn't say "more than reasonable force" had been used in the Melton case, he said it was reasonable. This is the point; you should not be able to use unreasonable force, especially when shooting someone in the face isn't deemed as such!!!!”

“For once I can say CGLee has it absolutely spot on. Surely nobody would argue that the householders shouldn't have been arrested whilst the Police investigated?”

“"Exactly my point, the defendants solicitor said their sentence should be reduced because of the injury's they suffered, it took the judge refusing the request for it to become so newsworthy because it was unusual to refuse such a request in trials in the past where more than "reasonable force" was judged to have been used in the cold light of day."

Rubbish. Show me the evidence to back up your claim (that it was unusual for such a request to be refused). It simply isn't true. Solicitors will say anything to get their clients sentence reduced. Its like the case of the Muslim girls who attacked the girl in Leicester. People claimed their sentence was reduced because they were Muslims; it was utterly untrue. It was simply something their solicitor had argued, there is no evidence the judge took it into consideration.”