Armed Robberies and Self Defence Laws
Discussion
Hypothetical scenario.
I'm sure we have all seen plenty of hollywood films where said hero walks into a bank being robbed. Wrestles a gun off a robber "steven segal" style and proceeds to brass the place up with full auto gunfire from an Uzi while the badguys return fire with AR15's before being gunned down by said hero in a blaze of stylistic gunfire.
Of course in the "united states of freedom" he would be praised by all as a hero.
Now turn to Good old blighty and we have the same situation. Ok slightly different, the robbers are wearing old tights, armed with some 60 year old rusty sawnoffs and the hero has a drilled out blank firer..........
Of course in reality youd get shot dead. But for the sake of this, you survive and managed to shoot dead all the robbers.
Of course in modern Britain youd be slaughtered by the press as a cold blooded killer of innocent victims of tory oppression who were just trying to feed thier family. Youd have to move house for fear of attack, the family would be crying at the funerals over the lovable rogue who never hurt no one. etc.
But what about the legal perspective?
In this country we have a right to use up to and including lethal force in self defence. Does that still apply when you have put yourself in harms way?
Correct me if im wrong but we have no legal obligation to run away (some countries do) but all force used has to be reasonable and proportionate.
Now if someone threatens your life with a firearm, you can use lethal force if necessary to defned yourself. And inmost simple one on one scenarios that would be the case.
However in this situation you have
a) escalated the situation (although it is legal to use force to stop serious crimes)
b) Used an illegal firearm as your weapon of choice
c) potentially forced the robbers to use force they may not have other wised done so had you laid on the floor like told.
Now I cant see any of that taking away ytour right to defend yourself, however would that call into question the reasonableness and the level of force used?
what would likely happen? murder charges for excessive use of force? Firearms offences?
I'm sure we have all seen plenty of hollywood films where said hero walks into a bank being robbed. Wrestles a gun off a robber "steven segal" style and proceeds to brass the place up with full auto gunfire from an Uzi while the badguys return fire with AR15's before being gunned down by said hero in a blaze of stylistic gunfire.
Of course in the "united states of freedom" he would be praised by all as a hero.
Now turn to Good old blighty and we have the same situation. Ok slightly different, the robbers are wearing old tights, armed with some 60 year old rusty sawnoffs and the hero has a drilled out blank firer..........
Of course in reality youd get shot dead. But for the sake of this, you survive and managed to shoot dead all the robbers.
Of course in modern Britain youd be slaughtered by the press as a cold blooded killer of innocent victims of tory oppression who were just trying to feed thier family. Youd have to move house for fear of attack, the family would be crying at the funerals over the lovable rogue who never hurt no one. etc.
But what about the legal perspective?
In this country we have a right to use up to and including lethal force in self defence. Does that still apply when you have put yourself in harms way?
Correct me if im wrong but we have no legal obligation to run away (some countries do) but all force used has to be reasonable and proportionate.
Now if someone threatens your life with a firearm, you can use lethal force if necessary to defned yourself. And inmost simple one on one scenarios that would be the case.
However in this situation you have
a) escalated the situation (although it is legal to use force to stop serious crimes)
b) Used an illegal firearm as your weapon of choice
c) potentially forced the robbers to use force they may not have other wised done so had you laid on the floor like told.
Now I cant see any of that taking away ytour right to defend yourself, however would that call into question the reasonableness and the level of force used?
what would likely happen? murder charges for excessive use of force? Firearms offences?
To my untrained legal mind, the court would have to consider what was reasonable I think.
- having a drilled out blank pistol wouldn't be defendable, no matter how laudable it's use was. If pre meditation was established the person would struggle to get off a murder charge I think
- I don't know if it's common for the CPS to prosecute for an array of crimes - usually just the most serious would go before the court, unless there was some negotiation involved.
To be honest, the scenario seems somewhat unlikely, and it would have to come down to how well the case for reasonableness was made.
- having a drilled out blank pistol wouldn't be defendable, no matter how laudable it's use was. If pre meditation was established the person would struggle to get off a murder charge I think
- I don't know if it's common for the CPS to prosecute for an array of crimes - usually just the most serious would go before the court, unless there was some negotiation involved.
To be honest, the scenario seems somewhat unlikely, and it would have to come down to how well the case for reasonableness was made.
I would like to think you would be seen as a "have a go hero".
As you say it would need to be appropriate and of a similar level. I.e. would it be possible to have wounded them, dis-armed them and held them as opposed to have gunned them down?
Personally I would use my car to block an escaping driver from the police. If there was a terrorist incident with an armed officer downed I would certainly pickup up the police weapon and use it, I have used many guns before and think I could do more good than harm although a Firearms policeman would not agree.
As you say it would need to be appropriate and of a similar level. I.e. would it be possible to have wounded them, dis-armed them and held them as opposed to have gunned them down?
Personally I would use my car to block an escaping driver from the police. If there was a terrorist incident with an armed officer downed I would certainly pickup up the police weapon and use it, I have used many guns before and think I could do more good than harm although a Firearms policeman would not agree.
Ian Geary said:
having a drilled out blank pistol wouldn't be defendable, no matter how laudable it's use was. If pre meditation was established the person would struggle to get off a murder charge I think
.
its not your gun. you took it off the first robber you encountered. assuming that matters in law.
Legally you are a murderer. Might be able to get away with manslaughter, but I doubt it. Shooting at people with a gun does sort of imply you intend to kill them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
Might be worth considering that not even the police go in guns-a-blazing. They will only fire if the robbers (in this case) have already started firing or the police believe they are about to. In this case the hero has turned what could have been a peacefully negotiated solution into a blood bath. However if our hero jumps in just as a hostage is about to be shot, that might be a different story.
Edited by Nampahc Niloc on Wednesday 14th October 08:48
wisbech said:
Legally you are a murderer. Might be able to get away with manslaughter, but I doubt it. Shooting at people with a gun does sort of imply you intend to kill them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
I'm not convinced that is strictly true, in my limited understanding the important factor is your genuinely held belief that you are about to suffer harm. If that is the case then any proportionate action you take to ensure your safety is legal. What defines proportionate depends on the threat you perceived.Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
In the specific scenario described I think you could be on a sticky wicket as a rational member of the public caught up in a bank robbery in the UK would not assume the perps intended to kill them, the best way to ensure your safety is to do what you're told and wait for the perps to leave. In a terrorist scenario I think there would be no danger of legal comeback as it would be immediately clear that fear for your life was valid and any level of force to prevent this was justified.
wisbech said:
Legally you are a murderer. Might be able to get away with manslaughter, but I doubt it. Shooting at people with a gun does sort of imply you intend to kill them.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
On the assumption the robbers drop their guns the second you raise yours. In reality they are likely to fire at you and thus constitute a threat to life. Which i kind of the point in self defence.Two wrongs don't make a right. Because someone is robbing a bank (pretty stupid thing to do, they don't have much cash that can be quickly accessed by a robber) doesn't give you the right to kill them.
I was under the impression if someone was a threat to your life, you can in theory use up to and including lethal force to defend yourself.
Its more the aspect of a robbery - ie does escalating the situation remove that right somehow? or does the fact its an illegal firearm versus say a vase on the desk, give you less right to defend your self or reduce the reasonableness of using lethal force in the first place?
paulwirral said:
Exactly , you can just imagine 3 guys in covid masks shouting " transfer the funds to this number " then escaping in a fully charged electric getaway car .
Bank robbery 2020
hahaha true.Bank robbery 2020
I wasn't thinking Deniro in "heat" robbing millions but a few hundred quid from Bargain Booze or someone raiding "cash converters" or some other scummy cash based institution.
TurboHatchback said:
I'm not convinced that is strictly true, in my limited understanding the important factor is your genuinely held belief that you are about to suffer harm. If that is the case then any proportionate action you take to ensure your safety is legal. What defines proportionate depends on the threat you perceived.
In the specific scenario described I think you could be on a sticky wicket as a rational member of the public caught up in a bank robbery in the UK would not assume the perps intended to kill them, the best way to ensure your safety is to do what you're told and wait for the perps to leave.
Thats the kind of area I was thinking could cause you problem.In the specific scenario described I think you could be on a sticky wicket as a rational member of the public caught up in a bank robbery in the UK would not assume the perps intended to kill them, the best way to ensure your safety is to do what you're told and wait for the perps to leave.
You have assaulted the first robber to get the gun off him. The other robbers then fire on you - does that constitute self defence on thier part or does being in the middle of a crime remove thier right to defend themselves?
Also as a citizen you have the right to use reasonable force to stop crimes in progress and/or detain criminals. Would the initial assault on the first robber be legitimate in that sense and then the fact the robbers chose to escalate the situation from there rather than drop their guns and surrender then put it on them further legitimising your use of force against a lethal threat?
I guess you could argue that the fact you just assaulted someone and pointed their gun at someone then makes you the instigator, and puts the other armed suspects in fear of their life, and then gives them the argument that they were in fear of their life and were acting in self defence.
I would imagine as said above, the fact that you decided to have a go and escalate the situation, would negate any argument of self defence, as the situation is unlikely to have been there had you not caused it.
I would imagine as said above, the fact that you decided to have a go and escalate the situation, would negate any argument of self defence, as the situation is unlikely to have been there had you not caused it.
OK I'm returning from Clays on Sunday and see a Terrorist lining Sunday School children up and Executing them outside a Church.
I get my Gun out of the boot and stop the Terrorist with a lethal head shot.
Thus saving the lives of half the children.
Am I a 'Have a go Hero'?
I'd certainly be a Saviour.
Would I get jailed?
I'd probably still do it either way.
I get my Gun out of the boot and stop the Terrorist with a lethal head shot.
Thus saving the lives of half the children.
Am I a 'Have a go Hero'?
I'd certainly be a Saviour.
Would I get jailed?
I'd probably still do it either way.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff