home defence

timmy222 · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:02

Yes

matt_fsr said:
Good stuff.

So you'd wake up, go to your hiding place for your cabinet keys and get them out. Open your main cabinet, noisily, then get the next key, open the ammo box, and in the dark (without having practiced this most likely) get the correct ammunition for the gun (bearing in mind you may have more then 1 caliber of ammo) and load the gun, possibly via loading the mag first?

Remember, the only reason Tony Martin got a shot or 2 off was because he kept a loaded shotgun, outside of the cabinet under his bed 'at the ready'.

I can reach out and touch my gun cabinet where I sleep.

You do not have to keep shotgun shells in a cabinet, its not the law, you follow the picture now?

cHk4 · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:04

Mac10.

nHook · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:12

Ok, yeah, bit of a tangent but wouldn't you prefer bludgeoning weapons like bats? Mostly to subdue threats. Bladed weapons would be only used to inflict serious damage. Have you ever seen the kind of damage blades can do? :eek:

That probably goes out of the window if you just want it for pure intimidation factor.

Semple · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:13

I watched a film not too long ago about a bloke and his family who were sleeping at home when it was burgled and he chased the burglar out of the house with a baseball bat giving him a blow to the head. Anyway the burglar died and the bloke was convicted of murder because he hit the burglar over the head after he had got out of the house.

nHook · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:26

Yeah, obviously, a blow to a head with a baseball bat is dangerous. If someone knows that, why do it? A few whacks to the torso would do just as fine? Cracked/broken ribs could be dismissed as reasonable force especially if they are armed.

Of course, this is just based on a fantasy scenario but when push comes to shove, who knows what people would really do.

FARGO · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:39

The possibilty of this sort of situation really worries me as I don't know what I'd do or what I'd be allowed to do. I'm not confrontational at all but have often wondered what would happen in the spur of the moment or I was pushed until I snapped :confused:

I've never experienced the "red mist" but I imagine that even the least aggressive people can flip out and let out a flurry of knuckle-suppers in the heat of the moment... it only takes one punch to affect someones life for life.

Semple · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:44

Obviously you can never plan on what to do as when something like that happens and the adrenaline is pumping you really have no idea what to do.

Don't have any intent to kill. So no guns/knives/other pointy objects. And also if you're using a bat of some kind don't aim for the head. A blow to the legs or something may knock them off balance or make them try and run away. Of course if they're armed with a gun then you're pretty screwed.

Diesel · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:48

If i discovered a burglar in my house I'd hope that on the way out he 'fell' down the outside metal stairs in a way as to inflict permanent damage on the lawless scumbag.

Whether this would be followed by a few kicks to the ribs remains to be seen.

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:52

Nitefly said:
Still eagerly waiting an answer to this from anyone.

I've already given the answer from the CPS and the police, so I'll wait until you explain why the CPS and police are so completely irrelevant in this context that the answer from them should be completely ignored.

nHook · 13 Apr 2011 at 15:58

Semple said:
Obviously you can never plan on what to do as when something like that happens and the adrenaline is pumping you really have no idea what to do.

Don't have any intent to kill. So no guns/knives/other pointy objects. And also if you're using a bat of some kind don't aim for the head. A blow to the legs or something may knock them off balance or make them try and run away. Of course if they're armed with a gun then you're pretty screwed.

Yeah. Fully agree with this pretty much.

Now, this intent to kill personally bothers me. Do people really think, hey an invader. Let's kill him/her/it? Or is it more of a last resort situation?

Cosimo · 13 Apr 2011 at 16:01

SteveOBHave said:
I keep my trusty keyboard under the bed...

[/QUOTE]

GD's weapon of choice.

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 16:08

nHook said:
Yeah. Fully agree with this pretty much.

Now, this intent to kill personally bothers me. Do people really think, hey an invader. Let's kill him/her/it? Or is it more of a last resort situation?

I think some people have "intent to kill" and others have "intent to be able to kill if necessary". I don't see how that distinction could be made in law, though. It might be possible to show that a person keeps a machete under their bed as a weapon to hand, but it's not possible to show if their intent is "anyone breaks in and I'll kill them straight off...and I hope someone breaks in" or "I'm going to call the police and stand in front of my kid's bedroom with this machete, which I will use only if they try to go in there."

CHokKA · 13 Apr 2011 at 16:47

Anyone else think that it is stupidly crazy that if you have something next to your bed in case you need to protect your family, that the law can see that as premeditation and you can get into major trouble for it? Now I'm not talking axe etc, but many items can be used to seriously hurt someone, so what are you supposed to protect yourself with? Christ, it is my house, and if someone breaks in I'd like to know that I was well prepared to protect my family and myself if it came to it. The law these days requires a serious rethink. If you can't protect yourself in your own home, what the hell are you supposed to do? Just give up and let them do whatever they want?

Alpherah · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:09

It was in our local paper once that a guy was jailed for beating an intruder badly with 21" Imac, apparently it counts as excessive.

Nitefly · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:12

Angilion said:
I've already given the answer from the CPS and the police, so I'll wait until you explain why the CPS and police are so completely irrelevant in this context that the answer from them should be completely ignored.

Errr I'm very willing to listen to what the CPS and the police have to say...

Angilion said:
UK law explicitly states that the presence of an intruder is deemed an immediate threat regardless of what they do or do not do. So you can go straight in at them, no warning, nothing - you are responding to an immediate threat.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

Your link does not say that. At all. To go from that link to what you said is one hell of a paraphrase. You are not permitted to just 'straight in at them, no warning' on an offensive at somebody who is in your house in all circumstances. For example, if he is leaving your house and you know he is leaving and is unarmed, you may have no justification to 'go straight at them'. It completely depends on the circumstances and what will be viewed as reasonable in hindsight.

Nor does it say:

Angilion said:
Predicate: You are allowed to use reasonable force to counter an immediate threat.

Predicate: An instruder in your house is an immediate threat.

Anywhere.

So yeah, that's why I'm asking where you got that from.

Redmint · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:14

Think I agree that the laws are too much towards protecting the thieving gits in the UK, obviously being able to shoot anyone on your land as in the US is excessive, but there has to be a happy in between. Short of killing them or giving them a permanent injury I don't think it should be considered 'excessive' force especially given the circumstances most people are prone to panic and over-react.

~>Dg<~ · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:22

lol at police reading thread your guilty if it ever happens

i keep a keyboard like most on here but i have beveled the edges slightly

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:33

Redmint said:
Think I agree that the laws are too much towards protecting the thieving gits in the UK, obviously being able to shoot anyone on your land as in the US is excessive, but there has to be a happy in between.

I think the UK already has that "happy in between" you refer to. Also, it's not generally true in the USA that you have carte blanche to shoot anyone on your land.

Short of killing them or giving them a permanent injury I don't think it should be considered 'excessive' force especially given the circumstances most people are prone to panic and over-react.

Which is why the law allows for that. You're not expected to be able to calmly and expertly evaluate exactly how much force is required.

In extreme circumstances, killing can be seen as reasonable force in the UK.

It's normal to have the idea that the UK forbids any force at all even in immediate self defence and that burglars can sue you for your face bruising their knuckles when they punched you, while in the USA it's "FIRE AT WILL!" all the time everywhere, no questions asked. Neither is true.

Insanties_birth · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:43

Baseball bat, say the kids play it and you went to check on them.

Angilion · 13 Apr 2011 at 17:55

Nitefly said:
[..]
So yeah, that's why I'm asking where you got that from.

For the first predicate, I'll respond by asking if you're genuinely arguing that there is no right of defence in the UK at all or if you're just being awkward for the sake of it.

For the second, there's the official position of the CPS and numerous precedents in law.

Furthermore the law understands that when people are under attack in their own homes they cannot judge precisely the level of their response. They are not expected to do so. So long as they do no more than they honestly and instinctively feel is necessary in the heat of the moment, that will be the strongest evidence that the householder has acted lawfully.

Indeed we routinely refuse to prosecute those reacting in the heat of the moment to finding intruders within their homes. So householders who have killed burglars in this situation have not been prosecuted. Householders who have shot burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have stabbed burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have struck burglars on the head, fracturing their skulls, have not been not prosecuted.

On an informal trawl the CPS has only been able to find 11 cases in the last 15 years where people have been prosecuted for attacking intruders into houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of these appear to have resulted from domestic household burglaries.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/106_05/

That was from the DPP in 2005. If anything, in the last 6 years the use of more force has been allowed. Look at the public support for Munir Hussain, who acted purely in revenge when trying to beat someone to death with a club.

You have to go way over the top to be convicted on the grounds of it no longer being defence because of the use of excessive force. We're talking about shooting people in the back and deliberate torture here.

But I'm going to leave it at that because since you're arguing that there's no evidence that the UK legal system allows for reasonable force in defence, I think you're arguing for the sake of having an argument.