Comments on: As an employer, have you the right to defend your property? http://www.mablaw.com/2010/02/the-right-to-defend-property-munir-hussain-public-liability-insuranc/ MAB Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:34:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: max http://www.mablaw.com/2010/02/the-right-to-defend-property-munir-hussain-public-liability-insuranc/comment-page-1/#comment-85 max Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:32:52 +0000 http://www.mablaw.com/?p=2166#comment-85 Shoot first ask questions later! this country's legal system is sometimes farcical! Shoot first ask questions later! this country’s legal system is sometimes farcical!I think this comment should be removed

]]> By: Janet Donaghay http://www.mablaw.com/2010/02/the-right-to-defend-property-munir-hussain-public-liability-insuranc/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Janet Donaghay Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:42:15 +0000 http://www.mablaw.com/?p=2166#comment-59 With regard to an employee, employed to provide a security service to a company - strict training should be provided to cover the role of the security guard. In all circumstances, the employee should observe the training given and if in doubt, should not enter into any untoward confrontational issue if injury to either party could result. However, should a situation arise where the employee has acted within the confines of their job description, then the company, following full investigation, should support the employee if the company is satisfied that no misconduct has taken place. Regarding personal action following an intruder entering a family home, the intruder should not expect a reaction of considered reasonable force from a frightened member of the public, who would only be concerned with protecting their family and home from potential harm. With regard to an employee, employed to provide a security service to a company – strict training should be provided to cover the role of the security guard. In all circumstances, the employee should observe the training given and if in doubt, should not enter into any untoward confrontational issue if injury to either party could result.

However, should a situation arise where the employee has acted within the confines of their job description, then the company, following full investigation, should support the employee if the company is satisfied that no misconduct has taken place.

Regarding personal action following an intruder entering a family home, the intruder should not expect a reaction of considered reasonable force from a frightened member of the public, who would only be concerned with protecting their family and home from potential harm.I think this comment should be removed

]]> By: Kev Rolfe http://www.mablaw.com/2010/02/the-right-to-defend-property-munir-hussain-public-liability-insuranc/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Kev Rolfe Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:47:16 +0000 http://www.mablaw.com/?p=2166#comment-57 This 'Right to defend your property' question has been given a much higher profile over recent months, I am a regular listener to Radio phone in shows and have listened to much debate which invariably takes one extreme view or other. In nearly every situation that I have heard discussed, I have to say that I am in support of the defender. There are always situations where the potential over zealous nature of a defender comes into question but who is to say whether a defender was in genuine fear for life or not? I think that if we accept that within reason you do have the right to defend property then, within reason, we must accept a judgement of whether reasonable force was used will come into question too. Yes, sometimes our legal process will get it wrong, but not often. Also too lenient a stance will do little to prevent an offence in the first place. This whole question is a judgement call, the intruder shouldn't be there in the first place, the defender shouldn't exercise unnecessary violence. The Judgement of our legal process invariably gets it right. This ‘Right to defend your property’ question has been given a much higher profile over recent months, I am a regular listener to Radio phone in shows and have listened to much debate which invariably takes one extreme view or other.
In nearly every situation that I have heard discussed, I have to say that I am in support of the defender.
There are always situations where the potential over zealous nature of a defender comes into question but who is to say whether a defender was in genuine fear for life or not?
I think that if we accept that within reason you do have the right to defend property then, within reason, we must accept a judgement of whether reasonable force was used will come into question too.
Yes, sometimes our legal process will get it wrong, but not often. Also too lenient a stance will do little to prevent an offence in the first place.

This whole question is a judgement call, the intruder shouldn’t be there in the first place, the defender shouldn’t exercise unnecessary violence.

The Judgement of our legal process invariably gets it right.I think this comment should be removed

]]>