self-defence weapon or not?

I can't even imagine someone standing at the top of their stairs at 3am in the morning with a crossbow. Does not compute. I mean come on...
 
atpbx said:
It has to be something you would reasonably have close to hand to grab if someone took you by surprise while you were in bed.

So that rules out swords, knives, bats, half bricks, chainsaws etc etc.

Limits you to big maglites and such really.
Click to expand...

dunno about you but many people keep their sports equipment in their bed rooms, under the bed is an ideal place for storing long thin stuff like bats, clubs/hockey stick,s etc.
 
torque wrench sits under the edge of the bed. solid enough to that one good hit will put anyone down
 
Another +1 for a German Sheperd, maybe a rescue dog from GSDR etc...

Sadly people don't care about hurting dogs so I wouldn't count them as the be all and end all, they do make fantastic alarms though!

Personally I'm significantly security concious, have studied a bodyguard qualification, I personally never go to bed without my mobile phone, and keep a legal self defence tool within arms reach...

There was a spate of burgalry's taking place in my area not so long ago, cheeky sods where actually melting the frames of upvc windows and then clearing the places out...
 
Reality Bites said:
Are you sure it was illegally obtainted? The guy lived on a farm, not uncommon for farms to have shotguns? Two ****** broke into his house, was that planned too?

Edit:/ just double checked and you are indeed talking tosh!
Click to expand...

Since I know I'm not, I'd like to know what sources you checked with. Abovetopsecret? The Daily Mail?
 
Castiel said:
I am surprised that so many people actually have various weapons by their bed in case they are burgled......there seems to be a significant amount of paranoid people frequenting OcUK.....
Click to expand...

I have several smoke detectors in case a fire starts in my house.

I have several carbon monoxide detectors in case a leak occurs in my house.

I have a couple of objects that could be used as weapons by my bed. They have other purposes, such as making it easier for me to smash a window in order to have an alternative escape route in case of a fire, but they would serve as weapons in case I'm burgled while I'm at home and I need to defend myself.

None of those three scenarios are very likely, but any of them could happen.

Why are the first two prudent precautions and the third one paranoia?
 
EniGmA1981 said:
I've got a camshaft out of an old Audi Coupe (5 cylinder) by my bed for this very reason... I've stripped many cars and have various bits and bobs in random places...

"I heard a noise and feared for my family officer. It was the first thing that came to hand... My apologies for the shape of his head!"

Sorry, but if you're entering my house, I don't know what your intentions are - but my intentions are to prevent you posing a threat... unconsciousness serves that purpose nicely!!
Click to expand...

You don't legally need to know what their intentions are and you can legally assume they intend to harm you and/or your family because their presence is deemed a threat in itself. You can, therefore, use reasonable force against them immediately and it's a legal defence because they have already made a threat by being there. It's in your own home. You don't know what weapons they may have. You don't know how skilled they are at fighting. You cannot make a calm, accurate assessment of precisely the minimum amount of force required to end the threat they are making and you're not legally required to do so. So knocking them out is reasonable force. As long as you don't keep hitting them after they're unconscious or too dazed to do anything, of course. Using a hefty metal club might be an issue if you kill or really seriously injure them, but I doubt if you'd be convicted if it came to a trial.

People have killed in the UK and had it ruled reasonable force in defence. In one case recently, a man shot dead someone who hadn't even made it into the house (he shot him through a window). That case made it as far as a trial, since he'd shot him dead and done so before he broke in. Acquitted on the ground of reasonable force. Which it was - the man he killed was very dangerous and very likely intended to kill him as soon as he succeeded in breaking in.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
People have killed in the UK and had it ruled reasonable force in defence. In one case recently, a man shot dead someone who hadn't even made it into the house (he shot him through a window). That case made it as far as a trial, since he'd shot him dead and done so before he broke in. Acquitted on the ground of reasonable force. Which it was - the man he killed was very dangerous and very likely intended to kill him as soon as he succeeded in breaking in.
Click to expand...



If this is the case I think it is, it was a bit more complicated than that. The man was IIRC originally found guilty, then let off at appeal. The issue was, again, premeditation. He knew the man was after him, and failed to report it to the police, preferring to tool up and wait in ambush. That is, he was up and waiting by the window when the "burglar" appeared. Not precisely self-defence, and he was lucky that appeal judges tend to be quite generous.


M
 
Meridian said:
If this is the case I think it is, it was a bit more complicated than that. The man was IIRC originally found guilty, then let off at appeal. The issue was, again, premeditation. He knew the man was after him, and failed to report it to the police, preferring to tool up and wait in ambush. That is, he was up and waiting by the window when the "burglar" appeared. Not precisely self-defence, and he was lucky that appeal judges tend to be quite generous.
Click to expand...

I remember reading he was acquitted by a jury and not convicted in the first place. To me it was a pretty clear case of self defence and evidently the jury thought so too. I personally think it's irrelevant that he didn't tell the police or even if he did plan to kill him, as far as I am concerned someone is perfectly within their rights to kill someone who is attempting to kill them, and I would vote not guilty every time. There should not be an onus on the defendant to escape the situation anyway, the "stand your ground" laws in the USA have it right, it's untenable otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom