Consider this scenario

[Nadkor]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house (which is in an urban area)
- They tie you up as well, and attempt to rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish? At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat? At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

edit: A question that sprung to mind:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

[Wallonochia]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house
- They tie you up as well, and rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish? At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat? At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

Stop right there. Anything past that is unnecessary.

[Yootopia]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house
- They tie you up as well, and rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home

*END OF HOME DEFENSE, REALLY, VERY UNDERSTANDABLE AND POSSIBLY CORRECT VIGILANTISM BEGINS HERE*

- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

But tragically not enough of a brain injury to stop him committing another burglary. Should've stoved his back in instead tbqh.

[Jordaxia]

as far as I can see, the only reasonable line is the moment they're no longer on your property, defending your property ends. And whilst the scenario is understandable, it's not OK by a rational viewpoint. That's my opinion.

[Disco Tetris]

Probably once they are running away, it becomes the end of defense. But I'd have to admit, if I felt they were going to kill me or my family, it would be hard to resist the urge to take them out.

[Callisdrun]

When the villain has been chased down and restrained. No need to beat him on the head with a cricket bat if we've got him secure enough to hold until the authorities arrive. While the threat to my family and house would be already passed, I would like to see him stand trial and such, hopefully (and probably) convicted. That's the proper, civilized way of doing things. He goes to jail and hopefully gets rehabilitated, a dangerous criminal is removed from the public, etc. Cracking him on the head when we've already got him down is just unnecessary.

[The Corparation]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house
- They tie you up as well, and rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish? At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat? At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

Why a cricket bat an aluminum baseball bat would be better

[Station 12]

Stopping at the chasing them off would do it. Though if you did catch up to them somehow, grabbing one and calling the cops on him would be acceptable. Definitely no bat smashing though.

[Yootopia]

Why a cricket bat an aluminum baseball bat would be better

We don't play baseball in the UK.

[Jordaxia]

Why a cricket bat an aluminum baseball bat would be better

We don't play baseball in the UK.

Yes, and we stop playing rounders before we leave school.

[Euroslavia]

When the villain has been chased down and restrained. No need to beat him on the head with a cricket bat if we've got him secure enough to hold until the authorities arrive. While the threat to my family and house would be already passed, I would like to see him stand trial and such, hopefully (and probably) convicted. That's the proper, civilized way of doing things. He goes to jail and hopefully gets rehabilitated, a dangerous criminal is removed from the public, etc. Cracking him on the head when we've already got him down is just unnecessary.

I have to agree with this statement.

[Yootopia]

Stopping at the chasing them off would do it. Though if you did catch up to them somehow, grabbing one and calling the cops on him would be acceptable. Definitely no bat smashing though.

Err these are people who tied up you and your family, roughed you up a bit and stole things after breaking into your house. If someone did this to myself and my nearest and dearest, brutalising the fuck out of them to send a message to anyone else who might want to commit a robbery in the area would certainly be on the cards.

[Nadkor]

One further question that I'll add to the OP:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

[Yootopia]

Why a cricket bat an aluminum baseball bat would be better

We don't play baseball in the UK.

Yes, and we stop playing rounders before we leave school.

Aye, and softball was only Years 8-11 in our school for some reason (smaller children don't have big enough hands to catch the ball, I suppose)

[Yootopia]

One further question that I'll add to the OP:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

Certainly understandable.

[Disco Tetris]

One further question that I'll add to the OP:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

I suppose, although it might be considered a "crime of passion" or whatnot.

[Yootopia]

One further question that I'll add to the OP:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

I suppose, although it might be considered a "crime of passion" or whatnot.

That's how this guy got a fairly short sentence for GBH.

[Wallonochia]

One further question that I'll add to the OP:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

If the scenario played all the way through then yes. If the burglar attempted to resist you in your house and you injured him that's different. Of course even then I could understand being prosecuted if you went obviously too far such as continuing to attack them after they were incapacitated or ceased resisting, although the effects of adrenaline and pants-shitting terror should obviously be taken into consideration.

[Saige Dragon]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house
- They tie you up as well, and rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish? At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat? At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

Don't those two points contradict each other? They've robbed me of my property and are now fleeing with it. I want it back, and rightfully so, as it's mine.

A similar situation happened here in Alberta a few months ago which resulted in one of the criminals being shot in the ass, escaping and then caught again by a vigilante party led by the victim of the theft.

Here's the link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/ ... armer.html

Pretty much, had the farmer instead called police out to his rural farm rather take immediate action, the farmer would be out an ATV, the three criminals would not have been caught and charged which means they'd be free to thieve again. With in the scenario you've provided, while I don't agree with the beating a criminal brain dead, apprehension (buckshot in the buttocks seem to help) until the proper authorities can be contacted and have arrived to take over I'm totally down with.

[Nadkor]

Don't those two points contradict each other? They've robbed me of my property and are now fleeing with it. I want it back, and rightfully so, as it's mine.

They aren't fleeing with your property. They're fleeing from your property.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Oxford comma.

[Natapoc]

The moment you are no longer in imminent physical danger, any aggressive action you take is not justified as "self defense."

[Nadkor]

I've added a poll that, I think, covers most options.

Hopefully.

[LINTYLAND]

i dont have a brother

[Lackadaisical2]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house
- They tie you up as well, and rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone

I'm not sure you cna reasonably say the threat is gone, they're still out there, possibly with an even greater motive to harm you.

More importantly, did they take any of your stuff with them? If they have any of your property, your pursuit is completely justified.

- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

Eh, if he was already subdued, there was no heed for the bat upside the head, was there?

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish? At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat? At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

edit: A question that sprung to mind:

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

Probably, since you bashed his damn brains out after he was already down, 2 on 1, presuming his friends left him behind, it was unnecessary.

[Saige Dragon]

Don't those two points contradict each other? They've robbed me of my property and are now fleeing with it. I want it back, and rightfully so, as it's mine.

They aren't fleeing with your property. They're fleeing from your property.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Oxford comma.

Well if they've robbed me, then yes they are fleeing with my property as well as fleeing from it.