I took you off ignore to read this?
Self defence - what rights do you have if .....
- Thread starter Tony Williams
- Start date
I took you off ignore to read this?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
Man of Honour
How do I add people to my ignore list again?
Go to this page and add them.
Where did I quote the lettering of the law. I merely wrote advice in a simple way that would generally see you fall within the legal definition of self defence.
Acting vindictively would NEVER fall within that definition.
Why did you hit him? "Because he burgled me" Won't fly.
Why did you hit him? "Because he refused to leave and approached me in a threatening manner raising his fist" Would fly and would be the carefully constructed witness statement that would be presented to court.
As much as you like to think you can stand up in the witness box preaching common sense, 'The Right Thing to Do' and what most might DEEM reasonable - you cannot.
The law is rarely a matter meer interpretation. A lot is well defined, often by extensive stated cases.
Well,if the prosecution tries to convince the jury one way then I guess you or your defence would have to counter that point... that's what I meant. Of course you're innocent until proven guilty.
If someone is in your home and says I'll shoot your wife who's upstairs you'll have every right to shoot first. Pre-emptive strike is legitimate according to the CPS. You can even shoot someone who is unarmed. Case law supports this.
Wrong.If the burglar is in your house and you feel threatened you have every right to take action against the threat. I you fear for your life or your families I'd bet good money you can clobber them out of your home without fear of prosecution. It's how you perceive the threat and to what level you felt threatened.
You keep saying it's simple but then use examples that are wrong. If reasonable force was so simple to define there probably wouldn't be lots of commentaries and opinions on it's meaning and definition.
Preemptive strike is relatively stringent in where it can be applied. Shooting someone who threatened someone not in direct and immediate danger and only under the verbal threat of such action would not be legitimate.
Using the example of "or ill shoot your wife" perhaps adds too many other elements (mainly the gun) and "or ill hurt your wife" might be a simpler concept to put across.
Last edited:
You are complicating it.
Hitting someone JUST because they burgled you is not a legitimate use of self defence or reasonable force.
If someone enters your home, is stealing from your kitchen when you come across them only to find them leg it to the door and trip you are in no way empowered to stick a boot in "Because he burgled my property"
If he grabbed a bottle from the side and brandished it, now you have reasonable grounds to use force in self defense/preemptive strike.
Far too many keyboard warriors who think you are justified in using force JUST because someone enters your home. Morally and lawfully are 2 very very different things.
At the end of the day avoidance is the best self-defense. Dont get in those situations to begin with.
- don't live near or hang about with poor people
- drive a massive 4x4 so you can intimidate other drivers so you dont get in road rage incidents
- don't go to pubs or clubs where drunk people may be
- don't go in to cities at night time
- don't answer your door if someone knocks unless they have phoned first.
- don't ever let your kids play with poor kids, they may "case" your house if they come over
Ok,
I do have a right to protect my property. If need be with force.
Again I disagree with your assumption that you must be threatened in order to tackle the intruder. Their presence alone is a threat.
Are you a solicitor? I'm not,by the way. I read though.... a lot.
Come on Kwerk,enough of those silly games. You're really a sociology student writing a paper on prejudice in the UK population,aren't you?
Protecting your property does not imply you can shoe someone.
Force is from touching someone all the way up to cracking them around the head with a bat. Laying hands on all the way up to deadly.
It's why the term REASONABLE is used. Everyone assumes force starts at striking, it does not.
Force is from touching someone all the way up to cracking them around the head with a bat. Laying hands on all the way up to deadly.
It's why the term REASONABLE is used. Everyone assumes force starts at striking, it does not.
Again I disagree with your assumption that you must be threatened in order to tackle the intruder. Their presence alone is a threat.
Are you a solicitor? I'm not,by the way. I read though.... a lot.
You say you read a lot, but he didn't say what you think he assumes
1.Depends where I was, who I was with and who grabbed me
2.If one on one then chase and attempt to injure
3.I dont have a garden, If I did I wouldn't be bothered. Garden hopping used to be fun! If it was families or I had a family and they were looking to break in instead of drunks, then chase and injure
4.I have a lump hammer next to my bed, however the intruder would have to get through 3 locked doors (4 when I am asleep) and past cctv first
Man of Honour
Again I find myself pointing out (and yes, I know that you will take no notice):
THE LAW DOES NOT EXPECT YOU TO MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS WHEN UNDER THREAT.
I thought I'd emphasise it a bit because a number of people - but mainly you - are struggling with this. Seriously, why is this point so hard to grasp? The law merely expects you to stop defending yourself when it is CLEAR that there is no long a threat. Ambiguous is fine. CLEAR is not. The law entirely gets that you may lash out when confronted with a stranger in your house. It has no problem with you lamping them with a stone bowl (say) and killing them. What it thinks is a tad excessive is continuing to hit them after they stop moving. Or dragging them to an inspection pit, tying them up, throwing them in, and setting fire to them. This is why a person has been found guilty of the latter two, but not the first. I'm constrained to ask: are you actually reading anything that anyone apart from you has posted?
Just trying to imagine myself hitting the burglar over the head with a slipper.
No,I can't shoot the person.However I can fight to recover my property.Punching in the face to let go of my laptop will not get me convicted.
No,I never assumed that. But what is reasonable? Reasonable can range from shooting an unarmed man to slapping someone slightly in the face. It must be reasonable to how you perceived the threat. That is my point.
In the heat of the moment and fearing for your or your families life or property can stretch reasonable quite a bit,I would think and case law supports this.
You say you read a lot, but he didn't say what you think he assumes
Ok,enlighten me then.