The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024

Latest message you have seen: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bukha=5Fd=5D_To_Good_To_Be_True=2C_wireless_AP_for?==?iso-8859-1?Q?_=A324?=


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: House in self-defence mode...


  • To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: House in self-defence mode...
  • From: "psghome2002" <psghome@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:44:36 -0000
  • Delivered-to: ukha_archive@xxxxxxx
  • Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
  • Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx

I think that car alarm that appeared in that bond film would make a
good model - the one that blew the car (and burglar) up! Might be a
little OTT though?

--- In ukha_d@y..., "Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@m...> wrote:
> > Now, I'm interested if burglar gets hurt by such action,
> > can he sue you? What's the legal aspect of that?
>
> The simple answer is yes. Any person on your property with or
without your
> permission who gets injured can sue you for damages.
>
> Although it may seem weird, it is all down to occupier's liability
and can
> work in your favour. For example, in one case a woman sued her own
husband
> when she fell through their conservatory roof and was injured. His
insurance
> then paid her damages.
>
> In the case of a burglar, whether or not they would report the
crime is
> obviously questionable since they would either have to admit
attempted
> burglary and be prosecuted accordingly or create a very sound
reason for
> being on the property. However, it would not be advisable to take
the chance
> that they would not report an injury incurred on your property.
>
> > There was a case last year or year before where guy shot some
> > burglairs and ended in jail,
>
> Whole different ball game really. Apart from the legality of the
shooting,
> whatever the circumstances, there is a concept of reasonable force
when
> removing a trespasser. Shooting them, is not reasonable force.
>
> There are a number cases where a property owner is prosecuted for
actual
> bodily harm (original term, possibly covered under the newer
assault terms
> these days which replaced the more widely known ABH, GBH, etc) for
forcibly
> removing a trespasser and failing the test of reasonable force.
>
>
> HTH.
>
> Mark.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Click Here!

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.