Self defence - what rights do you have if .....

[Tony Williams]

Thank everyone for thier educated posts. Right now I need to secure my car before touch WOOD (touches multiple types) it's stolen. It's outside, but the inside light is on and I can't get in without the alarm going off - until I find the other key. Agreed with kwerk, personally I think a stun guin would be the best - knock them down and handcuff them till the police arrive. Saves all this bloood and people ffighting.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18461914

...... if someone apptemped to? What are my rights "Oi get back" and they leave or attack me, once they head for me I can fight back I assume?

 

[kwerk]

You can use "reasonable force", whatever that is.

In America it would be shouting at them to get off your property, and if they came at you aggressively, to shoot them as now criminal trespassers who could reasonably be believed to imminently use unlawful force against you.

In the UK I have no idea. Tell them to stop interfering with your car? and if they came at you go inside and call the police. Or if you cant then maybe give them a slap, and then they punch you back and you're suddenly sprinting up the steps of "reasonable force"?? Then have everything "taken in to account" afterwards by lawyers and jury members.

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves

Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence

 

[Angilion]

is that story about the woman being succesfully sued by someone who broke into her property true?

None of the others are, so I see no reason why that one should be.

It's possible that someone at some time attempted to sue, but that's a different thing entirely. Anyone can attempt to sue for anything. It doesn't mean anything.

The UK has strong defence laws and it's extremely rare for someone to be convicted after claiming defence as a defence. Those rare cases are for extremely excessive violence, such as severely beating a burglar, throwing them in a pit and setting fire to them (seriously, that's a real case).

 

[atpbx]

I imagine if you kill a burgler the only real problems arise if you tell someone you've done it.

I doubt very much your average scrote leaves a note to his mum "alright la, I'm robbing, 23 high st, 43 acacia avenue, 17 Buckingham court, back by 0430 eh eh eh eh eh"

 

[bledd]

Have they returned the sisters that they stole? I hope they turn up safe.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I don't wish to derail the thread so I'll try not to do that but new kwerk (post ban) seems far more articulate than old kwerk (pre ban). Not that he was poor with words before but there have been several posts which have been extremely well written even if I don't agree with the point being made.

I love Tony's threads. It's like being drunk but without the cost or the hangover.

 

[scorza]

In the UK you will likely face prosecution for standing up to an intruder in any way, shape or form. Yes legally you're allowed to use reasonable force but the legal establishment cannot make a judgement on what reasonable force is, so they drag 12 random people off the street to make that judgement for them. Don't worry though, being prosecuted is really in your best interests because it gives you free access to a lawyer.

 

[DiscoDave]

Just to add, my understanding of reasonable force would be that I could use as much force neccesary so that the intruder is unable to do or potentially do any harm. If that means hitting him with a tennis racket until he's unconscious then so be it.

To define what "reasonable force" is at the time of being burgled, when your heart is pounding and the adrenaline flowing.... it's just not possible.

 

[Mat]

ahh so taser them and if you lock them up till police arrive that's OK? buthanging them upside down and burning thier toes isn't?

buthanging

Sounds painful. Even more so if it's done upside down!

 

[iamtheoneneo]

guy shoots burglers with a shotgun - walks free
guy stabs burglers with a knife - walks free

their are numerous cases where the law has sided with the defendant - its becoming less of a thin line thanks to the tories which is good, I guess its a case of not going overboard - ie shoot someone to defend yourself , but dont go executing them when their down for example.
I dont know the case the OP implies to, but im sure she probably went a bit OTT.

 

[Tute]

As much as I would love to cave their head in, in reality i'd do enough to disable them. And by that, I don't mean restrain, I mean i'd knock them out - after all I don't know if they're going to get free before the police arrive and cause more havoc.

 

[Pestilence]

buthanging

Sounds painful. Even more so if it's done upside down!

*chortle*

 

[4T5]

When I found somebody trying to steal my car on my drive (eons ago) I chased them down the road with a Hammer, I didn't get very far though as all I could find to cover my Nekkid body was a pair of waterproof fishing trousers.

Also when that fella threw a punch at me I was lucky to not get nicked according to the Police, They said my 1st jab & 2nd hook was Ok but my 2nd hook 3rd punch was Excessive force that I could be nicked for depending on how the other Dude played it. After both speaking to the Police we shook hands & forgot about it, We say Hi to each other now when we see each other.

So to answer the OP I do whatever it takes to protect myself my family & my property.

 

[Meridian]

Lordy, these threads always seem to bring out the usual theories, mostly with no foundation.

1) You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself our your property.
2) The force does not have to be reasonable in the cold light of day, it only needs to seem reasonable at the time.
3) What is reasonable is all but impossible to define, so the system leaves it up to the Jury to decide, assuming it ever gets that far.
4) The vast majority of cases don't get that far: papers etc are very good at telling you that a home-owner has been arrested, less good at pointing out that charges have been dropped.

Thus, in general, you are allowed to attack any burglar on your property (including gardens and sheds) until they are no longer a threat. "No longer a threat" is defined as being clearly so under the circumstances - again, not in the cold light of day. If the burglar is lying in a ball on the floor begging for mercy, then they are not a threat, and you should stop hitting them. If they are struggling with you, even to get away, you will probably be OK to keep hitting. But again: it's up to a Jury to decide, as it is with most crimes. And Juries seldom convict. This is not that hard to understand. The law does not require you to make a calm assessment of the circumstances when confronted by a burglar, it just wants you to be sensible.

 

[Pestilence]

You may freely kill them, and then devour the corpse in its entirety. Nobody will ever know.

 

[Burnsy2023]

having practised Ju Jitsu for a few years now we regularly have this debate, we have had loads of police in-put and their stance has always been using reasonable force is a wishy washy term...but you are allowed to defend your family, home and belongings from anyone...if you feel threatened you are allowed to to make the first strike. Ive been in situations at work where I have felt threatened and pre empted an attack and put the person on the floor with a simple wrist lock (ive never damaged anyone) and then called security, this accounts for 0.1% of my defence though id always try and talk my way out of it or remove my self from the situation.

If I was being burgled even with the knife training ive done we are always taught if you see the blade then get out of there....but if you see the blade it usually wont be used as its all bluff, its the knife user that knows what he is doing that is scary.

I guess my stance would be safety first, myself and my family members can not be replaced, everything else is replaceable.



rotters

Lordy, these threads always seem to bring out the usual theories, mostly with no foundation.

1) You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself our your property.
2) The force does not have to be reasonable in the cold light of day, it only needs to seem reasonable at the time.
3) What is reasonable is all but impossible to define, so the system leaves it up to the Jury to decide, assuming it ever gets that far.
4) The vast majority of cases don't get that far: papers etc are very good at telling you that a home-owner has been arrested, less good at pointing out that charges have been dropped.

Thus, in general, you are allowed to attack any burglar on your property (including gardens and sheds) until they are no longer a threat. "No longer a threat" is defined as being clearly so under the circumstances - again, not in the cold light of day. If the burglar is lying in a ball on the floor begging for mercy, then they are not a threat, and you should stop hitting them. If they are struggling with you, even to get away, you will probably be OK to keep hitting. But again: it's up to a Jury to decide, as it is with most crimes. And Juries seldom convict. This is not that hard to understand. The law does not require you to make a calm assessment of the circumstances when confronted by a burglar, it just wants you to be sensible.

Well at least someone posted some sense in this thread

Tasers and pepperspray are section 1 firearms, and illegal, so out of the equation to begin with.

Section 5 actually.

is it written out in plain english somewhere though without having to know the case histories?

If you asked 100 people on the street if they understood the law I think maybe 10 would have a "basic understanding of the law as it stands" and 90 would have a daily mail understanding. There's no point in the law existing if nobody knows about it or understands it. If they think they are supposed to call the police, then do everything the burglar says and hope for the best.

Unfortunately the law changes depending on the ruling of cases. I suppose it is a good point though. People don't know what they can do and this leads to misinformation and fear, which is replicated in the media.

5. Pepper spray + tasers must be offensive weapons, so you shouldn't have them in your house.

The offence is to have a offensive weapon in a public place, which a dwelling is not. However they are prohibited weapons under S5 of the firearms act. You could have a samurai sword at home if you so wished.

 

[LordSplodge]

Tony Williams and Kwerk in one thread. *head explodes*

 

[Tombo]

In the UK you will likely face prosecution for standing up to an intruder in any way, shape or form. Yes legally you're allowed to use reasonable force but the legal establishment cannot make a judgement on what reasonable force is, so they drag 12 random people off the street to make that judgement for them. Don't worry though, being prosecuted is really in your best interests because it gives you free access to a lawyer.

Despite the many cases where they are never charged, you never cease to be ignorant to the law and what happens.

 

[Morba]

I guess my stance would be safety first, myself and my family members can not be replaced, everything else is replaceable.

This, over and over and over again.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Despite the many cases where they are never charged, you never cease to be ignorant to the law and what happens.

Ah, the delightful bi-monthly self defence in the home thread where we see the same suspects again and again. scorza has had it explained multiple times that it's highly unlikely an individual would be prosecuted for self-defence and in the cases where they are that they've gone so far beyond what might be considered reasonable that they and reasonable are no longer within hailing distance of each other. However scorza appears to want that the police should take a quick look at the crime scene and make a snap decision prima facie that the evidence means the homeowner shouldn't be arrested while the incident is investigated.

It's unfortunate that the homeowner sometimes has to be arrested while the investigation takes place but it protects their rights as well as helping to ensure that the investigation can proceed properly.

//edit and while the phrasing "reasonable force" may appear to be vague (and indeed is deliberately so) that doesn't imply there is not mountains of case law to help interpret it in a fair and consistent way. Mistakes will occasionally be made, of that I have no doubt, but that is the price of having humans involved in the system as we're not perfect.