Go one then, name a injustice of the system then? about self defence.
Pretty much all the famous ones they where killed or injured running away. you are not allowed to do that.
Man Dies in Bedford after being Tasered....
- Thread starter Heliospherez
- Start date
Go one then, name a injustice of the system then? about self defence.
Pretty much all the famous ones they where killed or injured running away. you are not allowed to do that.
I can do, but I can't name names - which makes it a pointless exercise as the case won't be traceable in the public domain - then I could be accused of making it up.
If you believe it really is that black and white, you're mistaken - is all I'm going to say.
I never said it was black and white. However there are few incidents of people being sent down for self defence, which aren't justified. There's a few miss-carriages of justice. But no where near what some people make out in this thread. You are almost certain to win. Unless they have there back to you or are running away.
Personally, I feel this comment is just as offensive.
What do you mean by this comment? Have you simply believed what the Daily Mail have said in their hysteric manner?
I'm 99% sure you don't really have a clue what the NI situation was like, or the reasons for the discharges of plastic bullets, so please kindly keep these sweeping statements out of this..
Miscarriages of justice happen every single day in every single court throughout this land.
What about this one?
It's 0330 and somehow some burglar type has got past security and is in my house. He's trying to be quiet but I wake and hear a noise. I arise and very quietly make my way downstairs with my method of self-defence. I look around the stairs and see the very clear outline of a man with his back to me, one hand fiddling with the wall safe, and his other hand by his side with a very sharp, mean looking hunting knife in it.
I don't want to challenge him at this point because it gives him a larger percentage chance of escaping or harming me - what I want to do is get the percentages on my side - get as close to him as possible then disarm and disable. Which is what I'm going to do.
Does the law prohibit this?
What about this one?
It's 0330 and somehow some burglar type has got past security and is in my house. He's trying to be quiet but I wake and hear a noise. I arise and very quietly make my way downstairs with my method of self-defence. I look around the stairs and see the very clear outline of a man with his back to me, one hand fiddling with the wall safe, and his other hand by his side with a very sharp, mean looking hunting knife in it.
I don't want to challenge him at this point because it gives him a larger percentage chance of escaping or harming me - what I want to do is get the percentages on my side - get as close to him as possible then disarm and disable. Which is what I'm going to do.
Does the law prohibit this?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Let's see, are you being threatened? Not from the scenario, you might be scared but at the instant there you aren't under any direct threat so no, the chances are if you beat him about the head or stab him without any warning or after experiencing any threat to your person then you are most likely to be in the wrong. You would probably be judged less harshly than an average assailant though because someone has broken into your house and therefore it is reasonable to assume that your thought processes aren't as clear as they otherwise might be.
How do you propose disabling the burglar? That could also make a difference to the scenario.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That is a bit sweeping isn't it? Tasers probably wouldn't kill most people but I'd be surprised if they haven't directly caused or exacerbated a condition that has led to someones death. An analoguous example could be shouting, if I were to shout threateningly at most people it wouldn't have any impact beyond possibly leaving them a bit shaken but for some people it might trigger a fatal heart attack. We are back to the eggshell/thin-skull rule here, you must take your victim as you find them.
Are there actually any documented certified cases of a Taser directly killing someone, now I know people have died because of an underlying medical condition but this is not the same as the Taser being the direct and absolute cause of death.
The adrenaline would be going that's for sure. My though processes would be very clear, I'm trained in methods of disarm/disable in all kinds of situations and in that scenario my method of self-defence would have to be (and would be) equal to or above the burglar's means.
This is my gripe here --- I know exactly the best way to go about this is to not alert the burglar, that's how it's going to end without anyone getting seriously hurt or worse. I can get to a good distance and make good my means of defusing the situation. Broken bone(s) at the worst. However I'm not allowed to do that - I have to alert the burglar in order to disarm/disable which puts into the situation the risk of one of us getting badly wounded if not inflicting fatal wounds on the other.
Not true... the laws on home self-defence have been emphasised more in the last few years, Blair himself even went on TV to say that if someone enters your home you can do whatever is necessary in order to protect yourself or your family. If a burglar has his back to you that isn't because he is running, it's because he hasn't seen or noticed you yet, and considering when he does he may then let all hell loose on you it is not excessve to incapacitate him while his back is turned. By walking into your house he has given up all right to any fair treatment, if he did not mean you some form of mental or physical harm he simply would not be there. I would put good money on you not being prosecuted or treated harshly for tackling any unknown intruder in that manner.
If you was in the same situation, and you were a police officer. What would you have done? Stood there and potentially got stabbed?
If it's true, then they did right to disarm him.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The problem really is that although you might be able to disarm the burglar safely and you might even not intend to hurt them in the process there will be others who would seek their own brand of vengence on the transgressor. We can't have people exacting their own 'justice' because that is what the judicial system is for - sometimes the judiciary gets it wrong, I'll agree, but more often than not it gets it right and the principle that it is the highest authority to dispense justice should not be usurped lightly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 6,674
- Location
- East Sussex
No indeed, the other guy would have.
Much better outcome!
Silly police defending themselves, what will they think of next!
So he killed himself and as I said the Taser had nothing to do with it!!!!
I'm sure Amnesty international will argue otherwise!!!
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
According to reports, he was a schizo who was in and out of mental institutions. As I stated in my second post, he probably missed his medication / or shouldn't have been out.
Either way - I don't see how any of you you who stated 'he is better off dead' can really still feel that way.
And just for the comment I made about the plastic bullets. If you had read some of my other posts in here, you would see I am from N.Ireland, and I have seen many people shot with plastic bullets (including my best mate who was shot 3 times after being led out of a bar (which had caught fire) along with 150 other innocent people (including women and old people) into to middle of a riot situation (with the cops on one side, and the rioters on the other) - It was then the RUC opened fire (and not stopping, like you would think they should have) and hit him on his neck, ankle and back for absolutely no reason (in fact they hit dozens of innocent people who were caught in the middle of it). I believe they fired over 200 plastic bullets that night - surprisingly few were fired as directed (not at head height)
I also had to help a man who was shot on his spine by a plastic bullet at close range many years ago, he collapsed - and went into fitting due to the shock.
So please don't tell me I don't have a clue about the situation here - and no, I don't read the daily mail - I read The Independant - maybe you would like to tell me something about that.
Either way - I don't see how any of you you who stated 'he is better off dead' can really still feel that way.
And just for the comment I made about the plastic bullets. If you had read some of my other posts in here, you would see I am from N.Ireland, and I have seen many people shot with plastic bullets (including my best mate who was shot 3 times after being led out of a bar (which had caught fire) along with 150 other innocent people (including women and old people) into to middle of a riot situation (with the cops on one side, and the rioters on the other) - It was then the RUC opened fire (and not stopping, like you would think they should have) and hit him on his neck, ankle and back for absolutely no reason (in fact they hit dozens of innocent people who were caught in the middle of it). I believe they fired over 200 plastic bullets that night - surprisingly few were fired as directed (not at head height)
I also had to help a man who was shot on his spine by a plastic bullet at close range many years ago, he collapsed - and went into fitting due to the shock.
So please don't tell me I don't have a clue about the situation here - and no, I don't read the daily mail - I read The Independant - maybe you would like to tell me something about that.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
I now agree with you.
He had every right to go at the police with a knife and not be tazered.
Wheres the petition? - I'll sign it.
IIRC Blair just repeated what has been the law and policy for god only knows how many years, it was just a case of him having one of his little PR moments.
The press had been talking rubbish and rather than correct them he made out he was changing the guidelines/law - it looks better to say you're changing the law to be in favour of the property owner, than it is to tell them to look at the existing law and get a clue what they are bleating on about.
It doesn't give you a free hand to go after anyone who has broken into your house (it never has), but you've always had the right to use any level of reasonable and appropriate force (up to and including lethal) to defend yourself or anyone else whom could reasonably be thought to be be in danger by an average person - 12 of whom may end up ultimately deciding on the case if it gets to court.
That applies anywhere and any time, it's just that when it's a burgler/intruder in your own home it's normally a bit easier to justify that level of force than in the street (for one thing if there is only the two of you the intruder is immediately in the wrong for being in your house so there is little question that you would have felt some level of threat from the word go).
I believe the rough comment from a serving magistrate on another forum to the announcement was "so nothing has changed then?"
P.S.
I believe it's the same law the police firearms officers are covered under and part of the reason every shooting by them requires a full criminal investigation (the main difference being that the police officers are allowed weapons specifically to protect themselves/the public whilst doing their job).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Just got back from work and discovered that Werewolf has summed it up pretty nicely, you still need to act in a reasonable fashion although what is defined as reasonable is likely to be less stringent than what occurs outside your home because of the very nature of the trespass.
Stating that he has given up all rights to fair treatment is slightly dubious, the law does not state that and my definition of fair treatment will probably differ from yours, not disregarding that we both are highly likely to differ from the view taken by the law.