- There should be a review on occupiers ability to protect their property from theft/vandalism. Physical restraint should be allowed, with minimal force used in defence of property or persons. It is a well held belief that taking the criminals "human rights" into account is not a reasonable defence - did the law breaker consider the human rights of the victim whilst planning the transgretion?
- At the point at which a trespasser enters another persons property with the intention of committing a crime, or at which they begin to actually commit a crime, the right of the persons who legally occupy that property to enjoy that occupation without being illegally victimised becomes paramount over the rights of the trespasser.
- If you discover a trespasser committing a crime on your property or you have a reasonable suspicion that a trespasser on a property is engage in criminal wrongdoing, and you may safely do so, you can use the minimum amount [alternative: what ever amount] of force necessary to detain the trespasser prior to the arrival of the police. The age of the offender is immaterial to this provision.
Alternative views
- If you cannot detain a trespasser who you reasonably suspect of breaking the law but you may safely record their behavior through phone cameras, or other recording devices, it is advisable to do so. Such recordings will be admissible in court as evidence against the accused provided the recording is not tampered with after it is taken.
- If you must defend your physical safety or the safety of others who occupy your home, from a trespasser, then you will not be charged for the use of reasonable force needed to cause the trespasser to desist from their illegal behaviour. It is important to use the minimum of force that you can reasonably use under your circumstances, and in your frame of mind at the time of the attack, to deter the offender. The means by which you achieve doing that will not in themselves be cause for criminal proceedings against you.
Comments
• Does this require provision of a section for "citizens arrest"?
• Criminals breaking into private property should be regarded as "outlaws" and no law should protect them from any consequence of their criminal actions
• A review of the current law is definitely required. It should be stated that any person who actively pursues the act of theft or trespassing forfeits their rights immediately. Of course, this would require strict regulation to protect against falsely accused, and may only want to be applied to cases where there is solid evidence against the accused.
[Some text moved to notes page - Moderator]
