How does self-defence apply when defending your home? 

He's NOT a TikTok "prankster" as the media says... he's an outright criminal that films himself. He should be behind bars.

The law needs to be totally scrapped and rewritten to favour the victim. Criminals are afforded more rights than victims right now

I once stayed in another country where a burglar was caught and killed by the homeowner. The response from the police there was " Tough. The burglar should not have been there". The burglar never did it again.

You really should be able to protect yourself by any means necessary. If somebody is in your house then all bets are off.

With the amount of knife crime in London, you would be stupid not to take action or run away. As for walking into my house, I would take off his head with a cricket bat. These are not pranks, they are crimes, especially at a time of so much criminal activity by gangs in big cities.

Nothing he did could remotely be consider a prank, he's just a criminal and shitty person. The fact he's not getting time for it is just another disgrace of our legal system.

I've been married for 50 yrs and my main concern is my wife.I wouldn't care what the law says these people would need an ambulance.

If you act in self defence and I'm on the jury, I'm going to find you not guilty.

I don't care about reasonable force when lives are under threat. How can a "reasonable" person make a "reasonable" decision when they're in a state of flight or fight? The law needs a reform desperately.

Walking up to a woman and saying ‘do you want to die ? ’ I should imagine is very traumatizing for the victim, and I believe deserves a heavy fine, and custodial sentence.

This is why I lock my door the moment I enter my home. And as a single mum I’m ALWAYS defending my child. Thankfully I live in the USA, in a state with Castle laws. So if you enter my home without invitation here, I’m highly unlikely to face criminal charges.

As for the Tony Martin case, he should’ve been knighted for what he did. He’d been plagued by scum for years and the police were as much use a cardboard stab vest! “Reasonable” force may not be enough. It’s always going to be better to “win” comfortably than just get over the bar.

I do not understand how asking someone if they want to die (threatening their life) can be considered a prank. It is not.

He was on Piers Morgan and during the interview he was questioned on ‘getting off lightly’ his reply was “it’s not my fault the UK justice system is soft, is it?”

When I was a young person, I was an unpleasant and, to my shame, violent individual. As a result, I was locally extremely unpopular. By the time I was in my late twenties, I was a parent, and a lover of, and contributor to, my community; Arrests, subsequent severe court imposed punishments, the efforts of prison staff and the probation service, led me to understand right from wrong and to appreciate the long term impact my actions had on others. This seldom happens today, because the sentences imposed by the courts are laughably lenient and have zero deterrent value. This kid has just received a slap on the wrist for a home invasion. If he and his mates do it again, and they scare somebody to death or they themselves are killed or harmed during, it will be because the courts were too scared to give him 6 months in the nick for what was obviously legally burglary. It also sets a worrying precedent, as in, "Nah, officer, we weren't going to Rob or harm anyone, we was making a tiktok vid init". It would have done the lad, and everyone else, a lot more good than harm to punish him accordingly.

Of course, when faced with immediate danger, in or out of your house, the first thing you do is stop and spend a few minutes thinking through how "proportionate" your response is. Hopefully, while you're doing that, the robber / assailant / murderer pauses to give you that thinking time 🙄

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Tony Martin: Legend. Norwich fans were subsequently singing "We shoot burglars. We shoot burglars."

There was nothing remotely disproportionate about Tony Martin's actions. He should not have been charged with anything given the circumstances.

If someone breaks into your home, you should be able to defend yourself and your home without worrying about being in trouble. If you hold back and then get injured or worse, where is the justice in that?

Let me just say. He wouldn't have walked back out on his own.

As far as I’m concerned when an intruder enters a private residence then they relinquish any ‘rights’ they may have. The law be damned.

I’m not British but at least based on the stories I read I would never know self defense was legal in any form in Britain. I see lots of stories where people are clearly defending themselves yet still end up in jail or prison and the criminal either gets off completely or gets a lesser sentence than the victim.

'Prankster', because tresspassing into people's homes, dognapping, inappropriately touching random people in the street, and threatening to kill them is just side-splittingly hillarious. I think we all know that if this happened in certain states in the US, Mizzy would be a problem that would sort itself out in short order. The fact that he received such a paltry fine is ridiculous, especially when others get fined heavier for far less.

Mizzy. Don't come into my house. You won't like what happens. Some of us don't care about the consequences.

If you are in someone else's property without permission, and especially if you are causing problems, you deserve whatever you get! Why do we make laws which protect criminals more than us law abiding citizens?!

I believe if someone comes through your door or window un announced you should have the right to seriously hurt them. Otherwise how are you supposed to protect your property. It's actually ridiculous, criminals have more rights than homeowners in the UK

The British criminal system always seems to want to protect the perpetrator not the defender and we wonder why the law and the legal system is considered such a joke by the public.

For a start, ban him from holding any social media accounts for the next 100 years.

The "I was just pranking him by smashing his face in with a baseball bat" defence.

In Canada the right to use self-defense is "sort of, kind of, iffy, maybe, possibly." Our PM, Trudeau has stated if you use a gun (even if it's the intruder's gun that you wrestled from him) and kill the intruder, you WILL be charged with 1st degree murder. What a pathetic excuse for a prime Minister. Thus, in rural Canada there are numerous reports of home intruders dying in a fight with the homeowner, no police are called (who wants to be charged defending one's family against a guy breaking into your home at 3am), the intruder is buried at a far corner of the property. Who can blame the homeowner? Right of self-defense should be robust. If a criminal doesn't want problems with a homeowner, DON'T DO CRIMINAL ACTS!!!!!

" Well, Your Honour, I immediately identified the accused standing in my house and recognised that he was subject to a Court Order that he was clearly ignoring. It was then abundantly clear that as he had no respect for the law, the Order or the consequences of ignoring either, I decided the only viable course of action was to let him have it. "

The length of time you could possibly be in custody for dealing with an attacker is definitely shorter than the length of time you will be dead if they kill you. That makes it simple for me.

Our self defence laws are pathetic.

If they break in. You are in fight or flight. Its not a sit down and make a decision, its an instant reaction.

If the law says I'm not allowed to use deadly force against something like that then the law is wrong... There's my take on it.

He might walk in, but he wouldn't walk out.

Opposed as I am to capital punishment… Peter Osborne-Brooks did set a precedent. As is inculcated to combat troops when in any doubt about "the rules of engagement" "It is far better to be «tried by twelve» rather than «carried by six»." 🥀

I've been in this situation before. Teenager throwing himself repeatedly against the kitchen door, trying to smash it in (we got lucky - he broke the lock, and that made it "stick"), while the alarm is going, and security company might be on the way. I chose a big stick as a weapon (we have a real risk of home invasions, so it's a good idea to have some kind of weapon handy). Had he broken through, me and my old uncle would've taken turns hitting him with sticks until he stopped moving forward. Odds are this would not have helped because in all probability there were another four older gangsters outside ready to rush in as soon as the door went. Even in the circumstances, there's something unpleasant about the thought of hitting a teenager as hard as possible (so possibly lethally), when you can see him out there, and how young he is. What a waste of life. (Eyes suggest that he might've been paid in drugs to attack the door. He did manage to break a steel gate on the outside of the door, BTW. A steel gate gives you about 30 seconds; that's all.) We would've also probably been "punished" for hitting the kid instead of just submitting, once the rest of the gang came in. Why do they use kids to do the actual break-in? Because the law basically does nothing to them, most of the time. No consequences. Also I suppose a big thug can more easily bully a kid than an adult - especially if he has drugs. Luckily for us, security, and almost the entire police force arrived before the door gave, and the gang ran away. (When you're in the midst of the situation, you don't think in terms of your right to self defence. You do what seems to offer the best chance of survival. For an ordinary person, that would mean not carefully measuring out a carefully limited amount of force. The most natural thing to do is to try to maximize your own chances of not dying. Let the law take its course later. And that kid's lucky. Not many months before, I still had my great grandad's shotgun in the house, and ammunition. I handed it in to the police, because the gun laws are being changed to make the private gun ownership, and I'm a bit squeamish about using one to kill someone, anyway - outside of a pressing emergency. On that day, I'd have not hesitated to load the gun, cock one hammer, put the barrel right up against the part of the door he was hitting into, and shot on the next impact against the door. I'd have threatened him with it, first, but I get the feeling he would've just kept attacking that door, regardless. So I got double lucky that day. The door held. The cops arrived much faster than they usually do. And I didn't have to kill someone. So it all ended happily ever after.) Except for my 83 year old next door neighbour, whose door didn't hold, and who instinctively tried to defend his wife when the got too rough with her, and was stabbed for this. (He died about a week later.) This is where I get my estimated four older gangsters from. There were five of them in that attack. Self defence laws based on vague abstractions, that ignore the "survival mode" any normal person is going to go into (by being human and ordinary - if that's a crime) when faced with threats like these are downright evil IMHO.

If they're illegally in your house, they're fair game, even for lethal force. You do not know their motive and you shouldn't have to try to reason why they have entered.

Why would you care about the law or consequences if your wife and children were in danger??? You should eliminate the threat without hesitation. What is wrong with people?

The moment you enter my house ubanounced and outside of law you're considered an invader.

Back when I was about 14 years old (in the early 90's), one of my neighbours was burgled. He caught the burglar and shoved him through a windowed door, which smashed and the trespasser suffered cuts to his arm and shoulder, might ave had his head cut as well, my neighbour was fined and ordered to pay a compensation of around 3000, which was alot more back then than it is now! The trespasser got something silly like 60 hours community service!

Its ridiculous. The law is upside-down on home invasion. If a stranger enters someone elses home they should be aware that they are putting their own life at risk invading a house. They are putting themselves in danger. The fact that this is up for discussion is ridiculous.

I live at home with my disabled mum. My priority is her and to hell with the consequences

As I'm in my 70's, a long prison sentence has no fear for me. I would defend my home with all my might. As I'm a former Royal Marine, his prospects would not be good.

I know this is four days ago. But he's already been let out of prison. He will now carry on doing the same thing. I feel sorry for the person who actually takes him down and then has to go to court to defend their actions. It's the justice system that needs to go to court.

People don't realise there were 3 of them that went into the house, all dressed like chavvy yobs. I'm disappointed in the sentence, and the lack of a kicking.

My dog would have bitten his leg. 😊 before I even realised he was in the house. His screams would alert me to his presence.

As soon as someone breaks the law they should be considered as operating outside the law and as such should have no protection from the law. 😡

I will not stop to think of the legislation when I react to such behaviour, and I would expect my peers to agree with me.

Anyone walking into my place like that does so at his own risk. Why has he not been charged with 'threats to kill'? He has shown a video where he asks a young girl if she wants to die and says he can 'take her out'' whilst putting his hand in his pocket, a deliberate move intended to suggest that he has a weapon. I recommend he stays in London where the people are too frightened to stand up to him. I really don't recommend that he comes to Yorkshire.

How can the force used in my defence of my life EVER be disproportionate ?

"Well, your honour, when I became aware that there was an intruder in the house, I was in the kitchen making some toast. Funny story your honour, I couldn't for the life of me find the butter knife that evening, and therefore, I had to improvise. So there I was, buttering this toast using a 17" Wilkinson Sword Pattern 1907 bayonet, which for one reason or another, was still attached to the fully functional, and licenced, Lee Enfield rifle I use for target shooting and historical battle re-enactments...............". :D

these laws are so crazy and confusing .. glad you are here to help

From where I am sitting in my living room, I can see three cavalry sabres hanging on the wall. For decorative purposes only - obviously.

I simply do not care about the law when it comes to someone just invading my home or telling me if I want to die. After that far as I am concerned there will be true violence just for my own safety.

I’m a four foot ten 66 year old woman, if I found him in my home uninvited I would use as much force as I thought was necessary. I thought that this crime was either trespass of burglary. I would do whatever was necessary to protect myself. This person Mizzy is mentally I’ll if he thinks that what he does is “fun “ he needs his brains testing. Someone will probably hurt him eventually and that will be his fault

Ive been threw a home invasion you will never know how it feels untill it happens to you. Its HORRENDOUS never get over it

His latest 'prank' has been to drive a train... He filmed himself grabbing at the controls of the train. The train had passengers onboard!

It wont be long before Smokers have to put away their cigarette if an intruder comes in, as its classed as their workplace. Stupid laws that help the criminals.

I know a lad by the name of "Scouse" (no prizes for guessing where he's from) and his girlfriend was telling us at a BBQ how there was a woman in Liverpool who was going around shouting for help through letter boxes so when people opened up to help, men would burst in and tie them up and rob them ect. Scouse at the time was about 16st and looks like Tom Hardy in Bronson but with more tattoos and a beard. He had a plan to deal with these intruders but that never happened but what did happen (allegedly) is two people tried to steal his car, so he (allegedly) got his girlfriend to cover him in baby lotion (an idea he stole from the film Bronson ironically) put on a pair of battered old army boots and climbed out of the bedroom room window and onto the canopy above the door and then jumped down and started attacking the two men. Moral of the story is, people might be prepared for a fight but they're certainly not prepared for a 16st naked scouser to fall from the sky and start chasing them. Honestly the best way to deal with intruders is to just charge at them naked because not many people want to get bummed.

If he walked into my house without permission... He would be having his next few meals through a straw

"I was cleaning my shotgun. I really didn't anticipate there would be somebody in my house without my permission when it accidentally went off."

The 'Tony Martin' case was interesting insofar as relates to the mitigating factors. He was a elderly, frail gentleman, living alone, in an isolated dwelling, had been subject to a number of previous burglaries and this occurred during the hours of darkness. He fired a gun, into the darkness, as a warning shot (???) and it just happened that one of the offenders received a fatal wound. As an aside, both the offenders had many, many previous convictions for offences of dishonesty - theft, burglary etc. -

Daniel I think that the beautifully worded extract from Palmer v R 1971 AC 814 and now enshrined in statute might help many of your readers, "If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."

Imagine how that poor family felt when their home was being invaded, they probably still feel traumatized by it, same as the lady whose dog was snatched. It may be funny to the perpetrators but it leaves a damaging and lasting effect on the victims. The laws of this land are ridiculous!

As a female, I wouldn't be held responsible for my actions, he wouldn't have walked out. Its a home invasion.

Slightly different here in Czech Republic, guns are allowed to be used in self defence, concealed carry of a hand gun is permitted here. I don't own a gun, but I do have a crossbow hanging up on the bedroom wall.

An accident with a boiling pot or kettle would be unfortunate. Getting spooked by a complete stranger in your own home may be alarming and cause a reflex action when carrying things.. Oh, the baseball bat? He fell on that after being scalded by the water, your honour.

I’m the least violent person you could meet, but if someone breaks (or otherwise enters, uninvited) into my house, I’m going to assume they’re there to do harm to me and my family, and I’m going to do what I feel I need to do, to protect them..

He would fall down the stairs and break both arms in several places

I'm in the US in a stand your ground state so at home I would have just grabbed whichever firearm that was closest and poked a lot of holes in him. Bad day for him. On the street I MIGHT have warned him he was about to die if he didn't move on.

The trouble is that "proportionate" is not enough of a deterrent, threat or defence. "Deadly force" is. In the UK it feels as though you have to be on the brink of death just to be given a crime number, defence laws here favour the perps.

I am female and seventy-five years old, which gives me a distinct advantage. After ordering the intruder out of my house I would give him a good handbagging. Given the weight of my reticule I might well do time for manslaughter. Great video.

THESE "PRANKSTERS" HAVE NO RIGHT IN THREATENING PEOPLE

What home invader? Oh, dont worry about that noise. Its just the dog in the basement.

The bar for convicting a victim of a burglary of any crime should be a great deal higher. This is what happens when we let people who would soil themselves before defending themselves make the rules.

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If someone cames into my home, only one of us would be leaving, let the jury decide if it was reasonable or not at that moment I am protecting my family and I couldn't give a.....

Best self defence advice is to not call the police afterwards, unless you have reason to believe someone else has witnessed the events. That is the best way to legally protect yourself within this corrupt country.

It is ridiculous that if you are threatened or attacked without provocation regardless of whether you are in your home or not, the aggressor has any rights at all. As for reasonable and proportionate force given that most people are not trained in any way or for such circumstances how can that be ascertained? Having worked in security at an NHS hospital we were trained in control and restraint by a former police officer. We had no equipment like cuffs or sprays or tasers and had to rely on various holds or strikes to deal with the drugged and or drunken idiots we dealt with. What became clear was that sometimes, despite the training, those moves didn't work because the people we were dealing with were virtually immune from pain. Also take into consideration that we never dealt with these idiots single handedly as it would have been dangerous to do so. They would often have knives. No untrained person on their own can be expected to know how to deal with those situations. We should have "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" rights to deal with these scum. It's a fact that, in the USA where those laws exist and where you have the right to lawfully defend yourself and your home with deadly force, that assaults and home invasions are less prevalent. The safest states are where these laws exist. The UK has long abandoned the law abiding citizens of this country and hence we see scum like this worthless piece of s**t laughing at the law. He wouldn't get away with it in Texas. Perhaps we should crowd fund him to visit there and try his antics on their citizens. It wouldn't end well for him but at least it would be one less piece of scum bothering law abiding people.

3:30 the man should get a medal instead of a conviction

The main problem that the ivory tower legal intellectuals fail to understand is these laws have a chilling effect on your willingness to defend yourself. They introduce hesitancy in a scenario where hesitancy could be death, not just for you but your family. We keep having arguments about what we would do in retrospect which is wholly faulty and damaging. The fact I need to run a legal library including all definitions and interpretations through my head in a split second is all it takes to destroy the whole concept of the right of self defence. The process of going to court is the punishment / deterrence to defending yourself. One bad day, one bad jury or increasingly judge equals the end of your life as you know it for the crime of not being an SAS specialist in violence escalation. Not to mention the cost in money, emotional distress and reputational damage you could suffer in the meantime.

He wouldn’t be walking back out of my house.

Seeing as you asked… I’d have broken him, because my belief at the time was my family ( wife and children) were in imminent danger of life threatening injuries…. That was my belief sir!

“Reasonable Force” if he comes near my property is something rather different to the legal interpretation.

He needs pranking very hard, so much so that he has all the pranking scared out of him.

Doing a half hearted job of defending yourself due to the fear you will be punished puts you in more danger again. Even if the person is arrested it doesn't always end there with the potential for vengeance or intimidation from the culprits or their friends and family. This is especially likely within certain communities such as those that were regularly burgling Tony Martin and those that forced their way in to the home of Richard Osborn-Brooks. In both cases the victim would have been better off killing both intruders and disposing of them given what they went through and still go through following the incidents.

The key part of the law people miss nowadays is it is not only applicable for yourself, but also what you witness being done to others.

It’s enrichment man. Us stale English folk wouldn’t have a nice society without folks like this.

Tony Martin should NEVER have been charged in the first case ,3 people were involved excluding himself ,and he was alone in the middle of nowhere,he gave a warning to the intruders which I believe they ignored. IF The law on firearm ownership was not taken away from the public previously by the politicians these people/criminals maybe would not have committed their crime . The Law still is an ass when it comes to protection of UK citizens ,Criminals have all the lethal firearms (even tasers or spray are not allowed )and the public are still denied the right to fully protect themselves and their families with deadly force .

Introduce him to my golf clubs.

In my uneducated opinion, if a person enters my home without permission, and appears to be violent in nature, that person and I will have a violent confrontation, anything I can use to help me eject them from my home will be used, I have four daughters, and anyone who thinks they will enter my home, will quickly learn how violent a father who fears for his daughters can be. I am not a big strong guy, so it's perfectly reasonable for me to use a force multiplier. If I end up in prison having saved my family from rape or similar, then I will go to prison with my head held high. The law really needs to simply allow any defence possible within the bounds of a person's home. Low life scum who burgle and rape would be less likely to do so if they know the occupants can legally terminate their worthless life.

If there is a perceived threat to my life, such as because the attacker is wiedling a potentially lethal weapon, anything less than all the force at my disposal is unreasonable. If somebody attacks me in a way that lets me suspect intent of killing me, it is appropriate to assume that merely scaring them off does not end the threat, using lethal force in self defence is appropriate.

In Englandstan people can't even move protesters blocking roads without getting in trouble. In Florida, it is a 3rd-degree felony to do so without a permit and drivers trapped by protesters may escape even if it causes injury or death to protesters and the driver will have no civil or criminal liability. Have not seen roadblocks lately.

Tony Martin was a hero stood up for his rights

I recall that the Tony Martin case was that the young ‘burglar’ was in the process of running away when he was shot - I fail to see how anyone could call that anything other than excessive force to ‘defend’ your property/life. He only served a minimal term in prison but the burglar spent a much longer time dead! Mr. Martin was also prepared to attack as he prepared a shotgun rather than simply grabbing it because it was nearby - he had been burglarised two or three previous times and therefore was effectively taking the law into his own hands.

I'd love to see the Mizzy American special, specifically either a castle or stand your ground state.

First, I do mot know all the details of this, but If I can tell this little story: A friend I once sparred with was threatened once night. A thug pulled a knife behind him, luckily his wife saw what was happening, screams. My friend defended himself with a reverse kick to the jaw, putting him down. The law on the other hand tried to threaten him with jail time saying 'such a powerful kick was more force that necessary'(over a knife to the spine, I might add) - Karate experts of our school all over the country were called in to analyse his reaction, it was caught on cctv - All said the same, this is what we train for. Long story short, it dragged on for a while, weighed heavily on his mind, his familys, he even questioned why he holds a black belt. All we could do was support him, saying this could have been far worse if you didnt react. He was acquitted in the end. The guy who threatened him was seaking 'justice.' 'nuf said. So, you can defend yourself, to a degree decided upon by court.

In my view, if someone breaks into my house I would immediately feel threatened because I wouldn't know their intentions. People have been murdered after a break in, so just hurting them allowing them to respond would not be sufficient to keep me safe, so I would have to make sure they wouldn't be able to harm me the first time. So extreme force initially would be my first option. It's always easy when a jury sits and decides after a few hours or more whether you used the correct amount of force or not, but you have to make a split second decision - possibly to save your life. Get that wrong and for you it could easily be an coroners inquest!