 
|
sideways
 |
It sounds like assault to me. I heard a guy got trapped in someones garage and couldn't get out they were off on vacation and he ate dog food for a week and sued them and won. |
|
mysterious_gal1984
 |
such a situation would come under the law of self-defence (or personal-defence) or provocation in criminal law. see the case on the farmer Tony Martin. |
|
Jo.
|
If he had hit him in the house then no but because he has hit him outside the house then ........................................... NO the man was trying to rob his bloody house for gods sake Id have hit him as well!! |
|
mbaker_713
 |
I am not to clued up on my law terminolgy but if negligence has anything to do with neglect maybe the owner neglected to inform the burglar that as a result of trying to take his stuff a beating would follow.
Was the owner supposed to check with the burglar if he would kindly stop running away and wait for the police to come and take his freedom away or better yet if ask him "If I try and stop you will you resist and if so do you have any concealed weapons on or about your person so that I can be sure if I have to knock your **** out to avoid you trying to stick me."
Sometime the law makes no sense to me!!! |
|
gvih2g2
 |
It's not negligence, it's assault (at least in the UK).
You are only allowed to use reasonable force in self-defence or to apprehend a criminal. If he was running away before the owner hit him, and it wasn't necessary to hit him to restrain him, then (whether you agree with his action or not) the householder has committed a crime. |
|
mickeyg1958
 |
Negligence would be if the homeowner did NOT beat the krap out of the thieving little ******. :) |
|
?
|
No i would call it protecting your home.if their was some one trying to rob my home i would do the same thing give them a good slapping |
|
my_mas0n
|
absolutely shouldn't be but who knows.i once heard of a person who was charged for negligence because he didn't have a beware of dog sign after a burgular was attacked by a dog in the house. |
|
9inches
|
no i ketch somebody robing my house and you call it negilnce?? right, the bigger the baseball bat the beterr!! its caled self defense |
|
Diana
|
No, it's called JUSTICE.
He NEEDED his butt beat. Maybe he won't go into someone else's house. I hope he learned his lesson.
Incidentily, the BURGLAR could be charged with:
Trespassing
Breaking & Entering
Attempted Burglary,etc.,etc.,etc., |
|
The Ego
|
the owner should not get charged |
|
mommyofsix
 |
Is this question for real? The robber should get his *** whipped.I would chase his *** too if he put my family in danger.He should still be prosecuted for his actions as well. |
|
mr struth
|
not negligence ............ just revenge |
|
dpboorman
|
There is no negligence - just common assault.
If you mean negligence on behalf of the Governement, then you may have a point. The police are negligent for not protecting your home. The governement are negligent for having such crap policies.
Did you know - if you dig a hole in your garden and a robber falls in the hole and hurrts himself while trespassing on your property he can sue you aas you have not protected his safety by fencing off the hole. The same applies to a pond!
This is fact and can be found as an example in many English Law books. |
|
LYN W
 |
I can't see any negligence here.
The homeowner effected an arrest pursuant to s. 24 (4) or 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
He used reasonable force to detain the suspect, who by reason of running resisted arrest and became a danger to other members of the public.
During the arrest the suspect struggled and accidentally sustained minor injuries during his arrest. (Contributory negligence on the part of the robber).
UK law. |
|
Sandee
|
No - it's called justice! |
|
joe916
|
No! He is using reasonable force to effect a citizens arrest. |
|
?
|
No , Just a Bloody Good Result , hope the Houseolder gave him a Good Battering |
|
Robbo31
|
Absolutely.....if the attack was carried out with the person in a normal state of mind and if you like as a revenge motive to the initial stealing...
If the attack was due to fear or a perceived sense of needing to defend oneself....then you could probably argue your case although it would be a judgemental one for those trying the case.
I'm not saying the law is an ****......but sometimes it appears to be. Having said that you do need to make a distinction between reasonable force given a predicament and being able to take the law into your own hands given the slightest bit of provocation.
Most normal law abiding citizens should know where the cross over lies..... |
|
bob kerr
|
No it's common assault. The law says the householder is only allowed to use minimum force to defend himself. If the robber was actually running away the householder was under no threat and should have simply reported it to the police. The only defence he could have is that he used minimum force while carrying out a citizens arrest. |
|
bigtimejk
|
No, not negligence. Possibly assault, actual bodily harm, attempted murder or murder. Read the case of Tony Martin who shot a thief running from his house. |
|
alexio
|
yes it is, he should have made sure that either the owner is not at home or sleeping then try to break in. In fact that is gross negligence |
|
KU
|
no, just assault. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
