Did she enter the house with the intent to commit a felony?
That was the original meaning of the term. William Pitt when he said “the wind and rain may come in but the king of England may not” he was specifically talk about the right of the home own to exclude agents of the crown (specifically cider tax inspectors). Obviously it was never an absolute right that universally applied to all agents is the crown in all circumstances, but that was the original meaning.
It had grown to mean a right to use reasonable force to exclude any unwanted trespassers, not just agents of the crown, from your home in English common law, before it was used that way in America.
I don’t follow- what crime was the husband particpating in? As far as I can tell, the housekeeper and her husband didn’t commit any crime.
He and his wife recklessly caused the homeowner to fear for his life by trespassing and attempting to break in I suppose. I’m not the lawyer here, but I’m sure something similar will be used.
Subsection 76(3) and (6A) of the English statute, that you referred to, states that whether a retreat was reasonable is a factor the English court must consider in deciding if self-defence is available and the use of force was reasonable.
Is that the same as in “stand your ground” laws in the US?
Is it the case under “stand your ground” laws that the US court is required to consider the reasonableness of retreat before allowing deadly force as a defence?
I’m pretty sure that “conduct” is not meant to apply to the underlying crime (like burglary) but rather to deadly ohysical force which is defined in the law as as
“Deadly physical force” means physical force which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
or other serious physical injury.
Yes! That’s how laws work in democratic countries. If someone commits a crime, you collect evidence then you arrest them, then try them in front of jury or their peers, and then punish them in accordance with the law for the crime they’ve been found guilty of
In a just country you don’t punish them for some other much worse crime that they haven’t committed!
Like murder, when they didn’t have subjective foreseeability that a killing would result. Agreed, that’s how just countries operate.
That is insane. Jesus Christ.
What felony was he committing when she was killed, pray tell?
Would a reasonable person have been? That’s the legal standard, of course.
Did you link the wrong story? The couple in the story you linked weren’t trespassing nor were they attempting to break in.
Though only “In a case other than a householder case” so actually this was closer to the crazy US “stand your ground” laws as it weakens the duty the retreat outside the home. iIRC this was the tories responding to some tabloid clamour or other, and trying to placate the gammons.
There are many different laws, in many different US jurisdictions. But fundamentally the right to stand your ground is the same in the US and UK. You have no duty to retreat in your home, you can stand your ground there (but not if you feel threatened randomly walking down the street)
I’m quite sure the attorneys will argue that it’s indeed the case. And if they win, which is very strong possibility, then husband should be charged no?
I can’t figure out who in this thread you think you’re arguing with.
This isn’t the debate forum, so I’m just thinking out loud. I think three tragedy I linked to is a possibly interesting nexus between the topic of Felony Murder and the Castle Doctrine that can occasionally lead to the former for accomplices.
You think there’s a very strong possibility that they will win a self defense case where they shot someone who was at their door who showed no sign of having attempted to break in? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. That’s an exceedingly spurious self defense claim that should fail and, in my non professional opinion, very likely will.
Even if they did win, that would mean that the shooter had a reasonable fear for their life (I really don’t see that happening but let’s pretend), but not that the person who was shot or her husband were committing a felony, which is necessary for felony murder. What felony do you think they would be guilty of?
It sounded like they were trying to unlock the door with the wrong key. Is it crazy to believe they thought someone was trying to pick the lock? That being said, I would think the situation would not be dangerous for the homeowner until the “intruders” actually gained entry.
No, it isn’t; but someone starting to try to pick a lock isn’t an immediate threat to you the way that an unknown person standing inside your house after already having broken in is.
If only I said
I didn’t say or imply that you thought it was a threat. I just agreed with you that it’s not crazy to believe that they were picking a lock, and gave my own reasoning as to why it wouldn’t matter for self defense.