Police chief talks sense!
Discussion
Sir John Stevens has apparently voiced the opinion that people should be allowed to use what ever force is necessary to defend themselves and their families and property!
He also says you should be able to do it without any fear of prosecution.
You could run for prime minister with a policy like that
He also says you should be able to do it without any fear of prosecution.
You could run for prime minister with a policy like that
hedders said:
Sir John Stevens has apparently voiced the opinion that people should be allowed to use what ever force is necessary to defend themselves and their families and property!
He also says you should be able to do it without any fear of prosecution.
You could run for prime minister with a policy like that
I was just reading that story too. Nearly choked on my tea! Well said that chap, about bleeding time we had some common sense;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4067681.stm
Ironic that the political snake Stevens only has the balls to say something like this when his retirement is imminent, his pension's more or less in the bag and his boss, the Home secretary is too busy trying to establish whether his bit of fluff's child is his or his close protection officer's.
And given that he's retiring he has practically no influence on anybody. So a nice bit of hot air and posturing for a bright Saturday morning.
And given that he's retiring he has practically no influence on anybody. So a nice bit of hot air and posturing for a bright Saturday morning.
parasite said:
John Cooper, a leading criminal barrister and representative of the Bar Council, told the BBC the current law means "it is all down to 12 people on a jury deciding on the facts what is reasonable".
He said many lawyers shared his view that this works well.
What a surprise that this view comes from someone who stands to lose a valuable scource of income over such a policy and change in the law!
If people who defend themselves and their families are to be protected by the law instead of the law protecting the offender, they will have very few cases of this nature to cream off the legal aid system for all its worth!!
The only thing that bothers me about this is that if burglars realise that they are now subject of 'opene season' when they commit their crimes, they will be more pre disposed to carrying their own counter measures against an attack from a householder should they be caught in the act!
Generally, burglars are not armed and if compromised just want to escape without incident. A burglar who is suddenly under threat of serious injury or even death is likely to carry his own counter measures to avoid that situation!
Understand your point Gone but if they are going to tool themselves up in order to go burgling, then they should get done for attempted murder rather than burglary.
What is the law with dogs and burglars? If my (fictitous) dog were to kill a burglar/trespasser in my living room at 3:00am would I end up in prison?
What is the law with dogs and burglars? If my (fictitous) dog were to kill a burglar/trespasser in my living room at 3:00am would I end up in prison?
hedders said:
Understand your point Gone but if they are going to tool themselves up in order to go burgling, then they should get done for attempted murder rather than burglary.
What is the law with dogs and burglars? If my (fictitous) dog were to kill a burglar/trespasser in my living room at 3:00am would I end up in prison?
Sir,
You'd be on solid ground if the burglar had canine teeth marks on him.
However, if your dog had beaten him to death with a torch or truncheon for example, the hound might have some explaining to do in court.
John Cooper said
"A law change could lead to more Confusion"
Very true--but only amongst the Wigs and Frocks of the Judiciary.They are very confused in all aspects of law, unable to follow what is laid down on sentence terms , interpret without any logic, and People UK pay the price, sometimes with their life.
"A law change could lead to more Confusion"
Very true--but only amongst the Wigs and Frocks of the Judiciary.They are very confused in all aspects of law, unable to follow what is laid down on sentence terms , interpret without any logic, and People UK pay the price, sometimes with their life.
Although I agree with what the broad thrust of what the commissioner says ....there does need to be SOME balance though - in some areas of the US people have signs up saying "trespassers will be shot" - if you are a broken-down motorist and knock on someones door for help - you could be filled full of holes for no reason.......just 'cos some redneck thinks you are a "threat".
hedders said:Yep that might work, but IIRC the only caveat expressed by TopMetCop was that the farmer shot his prey with an illegally held shotgun. If it had been legally held Martin would've got his thumbs up I reckon
Time to go buy that illegal handgun me thinks..."He came at me with a gun, but I managed to take it off him and shoot him with it 14 times. Go ahead..ask him
Oh and the fatal shot was in the back wasn't it, not good form, maybe better to roll the scum over first... >> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 4th December 12:13
turbobloke said:
Oh and the fatal shot was in the back wasn't it, not good form, maybe better to roll the scum over first...
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 4th December 12:13
IIRC the "bandit" that Martin shot first in the property survived - the one that died was shot in the back from a good distance, obviously running away and posing no immediate danger - thats why Martin went to chokey.
No Discretion said:
Understand your point Gone but if they are going to tool themselves up in order to go burgling, then they should get done for attempted murder rather than burglary.
What is the law with dogs and burglars? If my (fictitous) dog were to kill a burglar/trespasser in my living room at 3:00am would I end up in prison?
Sir,
You'd be on solid ground if the burglar had canine teeth marks on him.
However, if your dog had beaten him to death with a torch or truncheon for example, the hound might have some explaining to do in court.
But would I have to put my 2 German Shepherds down as they were only doing their job of protecting my family and home? Or could I blame our Schitsu pup....
tubbystu said:
IIRC the "bandit" that Martin shot first in the property survived - the one that died was shot in the back from a good distance, obviously running away and posing no immediate danger - thats why Martin went to chokey.
and if i remember correctly, it was the fifth time he had been burgled and the two gypo's had something stupid like a hundred offences between them.
Mark in Ireland said:
But would I have to put my 2 German Shepherds down as they were only doing their job of protecting my family and home? Or could I blame our Schitsu pup....
Sir,
If your dogs acted in the circumstances that are described in the defence of you, there would be no case to answer....so rest assured.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff