Something like that is only useful if you're outside the car, attempting to swing a bat/wrench inside the car would be useless. The guy you're trying to hit would probably end up taking it off you and using it on you to better effect!
Sat-Nav car jacking
- Thread starter juno_first
- Start date
Bolting what to the throttle body?
just lock your doors when driving in the city. I've always done this when using sat nav just in case. Unlikely that they will manage to break in to the car and get you out of it before the lights change. If someone does start attacking the car then get the horn going like mad to hopefully confuse/startle them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Follow the quote trail.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
only my door is unlocked when im driving
The threatened harm must be imminent, although the response need not be spontaneous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law permits a person to prepare to repel an attack. In Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1983) [1984 QB 456 the accused had produced and kept in his shop petrol bombs at a time when there was extensive rioting in the area. The Court of Appeal held that there was evidence on which the jury might have decided that the use of the petrol bombs would have constituted reasonable force in self defence against an attack and, if so, the accused would have had the petrol bombs for "a lawful object". The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for any threat to be imminent. This position was confirmed by Lord Griffiths in Beckford [1988] AC 130.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law permits a person to prepare to repel an attack. In Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1983) [1984 QB 456 the accused had produced and kept in his shop petrol bombs at a time when there was extensive rioting in the area. The Court of Appeal held that there was evidence on which the jury might have decided that the use of the petrol bombs would have constituted reasonable force in self defence against an attack and, if so, the accused would have had the petrol bombs for "a lawful object". The Court of Appeal emphasised the need for any threat to be imminent. This position was confirmed by Lord Griffiths in Beckford [1988] AC 130.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2004
- Posts
- 439
This is why we need big heavy armoured presidential cars for all! either that or lo tech syringes filled with blood..
Even the dimmest of officers would probably query why you carried it under the seat, and not in the boot, where it is normally secured with the spare...
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Easy solution, just lock ya doors! 
(Not my car!) 
(Not my car!) Does it?
Sounds like a lot of subjectivity is used when on trial, and it's all down to the term 'reasonable force', or 'excessive force'..
There is no way in hell of knowing the outcome if the OP did have a breaker bar, and if the thief did open his door to steal his sat-nav and he was immediately hit in the face with said breaker bar, and sustained moderate injury..
The only thing that the link shows is that (obviously), he can rely on pleading self-defence, apart from that, the outcome is very unclear??
Unfortunately most peoples view on "self defence" is coloured by the media which seems to relish in propogating the idea that as someone on the receiving end of violence, defending oneself is tantamount to being the attacker.
Case in point is the farmer who shot the lads who burgled his home. People were up in arms about it at the time saying its ridiculous that someone cant defend their property, when in fact in that case, the farmers use of an illegal shotgun to shoot the 16 year old in the back could in no way be argued as "reasonable force".
Speaking for myself and understanding the law(regardless of the way a jury may interpret it) I would have no issue with taking preemptive defensive measures if I believed that I was about to be attacked. Hitting someone in the face as a defensive measure as you suggest would be skirting on the cusp of what I would call reasonable, as it obviously has the possibility of causing irreperable harm or even death.
Case in point is the farmer who shot the lads who burgled his home. People were up in arms about it at the time saying its ridiculous that someone cant defend their property, when in fact in that case, the farmers use of an illegal shotgun to shoot the 16 year old in the back could in no way be argued as "reasonable force".
Speaking for myself and understanding the law(regardless of the way a jury may interpret it) I would have no issue with taking preemptive defensive measures if I believed that I was about to be attacked. Hitting someone in the face as a defensive measure as you suggest would be skirting on the cusp of what I would call reasonable, as it obviously has the possibility of causing irreperable harm or even death.
Internet bravado kicks in once again.
90% of people even if they did hapen to have a "weapon" quite close to hand as somebody opened your passenger door and went for your Sat-Nav/Phone wouldn't even go for it.
Instead by the time you'd realised what was going on the thief would be long gone.
Locked doors whilst in dodgy areas or late at night is the only real option.
90% of people even if they did hapen to have a "weapon" quite close to hand as somebody opened your passenger door and went for your Sat-Nav/Phone wouldn't even go for it.
Instead by the time you'd realised what was going on the thief would be long gone.
Locked doors whilst in dodgy areas or late at night is the only real option.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Someone made a grab for my coat through my passenger window once - quick touch on the window button and I managed to drag him to the local nick which was 400m away - Police were very grateful and charged him with attempted theft.
Plus, just lock your doors?
Plus, just lock your doors?
Call it what you like, its how I perceive the law and would act in those circumstances.