self-defence weapon or not?

[Freefaller]

haha! I'm not that big!!

 

[TheOverLord]

I've got a couple bottles of guinness next to my bed. Not sure if it's worth using them as weapons though (they're full!)

 

[Hitman_Leon]

haha! I'm not that big!!

Probably same ballpark, he's 6'5 and has the rugby player build.

 

[Freefaller]

I'm titchy - I'm just under 6'1"!

 

[Meridian]

In order to act in self defence one must apprehend that they are going to be subjected to violence and/or have been subjected to violence AND the act of self defence is reasonable under all circumstances"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/appeal-court-frees-man-burglar-attack

Did you actually read the whole of the story, or just stop when you got to a bit you liked? From near the end:

However, the court heard that the case "had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes".

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone, no one was in any further danger from them," said Judge.

"This is not, and should not be seen as, a case about the level of violence which a householder may lawfully and justifiably use on a burglar.

"It is also clear that the violence to which Salem was subjected was not designed to ensure that he was detained and somehow kept pending the arrival of the police to be handed to them. So far as both these appellants was concerned the purpose of their violence was revenge – to teach at least one of the burglars a lesson … such violence is not lawful and no one at the trial suggested that it was."

(My emphasis). This was not self-defence, because the person concerned sought out the criminal in order to attack them. He just has a good lawyer.


M