Question about reasonable force
Discussion
Hi PHers,
Another legal question I've been pondering.
We all know that if a burglar comes into your house, you have to be very careful with any force you use to defend yourself - namely 1 or two 2 big hits at most, and when they are down you stop. This is fine, I realise why the law is the way it is here.
The question I have is what if two guys are robbing your house? If I were to knock one down, would it be deemed reasonable to make *sure* he stays down, given that you have the issue of another unsavory who will also be after you. It would be pretty rubbish to floor one, turn around, and then be taken out by the guy you 'left' out of mercy.
I know this is a silly question to ask, and also realise you are much better not trying to physially tackle these types, but am just wondering really, are you allowed to use significantly more force in these situations?
My gut instinct in these situaions would be to make damn sure of the job, as I wouldnt want them being able to continue to fight me given I will have to turn away from them.
What do we think?
No I havent been robbed. No I havent done anything silly, just wonderin'
Ta,
Stu
Another legal question I've been pondering.
We all know that if a burglar comes into your house, you have to be very careful with any force you use to defend yourself - namely 1 or two 2 big hits at most, and when they are down you stop. This is fine, I realise why the law is the way it is here.
The question I have is what if two guys are robbing your house? If I were to knock one down, would it be deemed reasonable to make *sure* he stays down, given that you have the issue of another unsavory who will also be after you. It would be pretty rubbish to floor one, turn around, and then be taken out by the guy you 'left' out of mercy.
I know this is a silly question to ask, and also realise you are much better not trying to physially tackle these types, but am just wondering really, are you allowed to use significantly more force in these situations?
My gut instinct in these situaions would be to make damn sure of the job, as I wouldnt want them being able to continue to fight me given I will have to turn away from them.
What do we think?
No I havent been robbed. No I havent done anything silly, just wonderin'
Ta,
Stu
Can I buy a tazer Liebchen?
We were told we could not put an electrical charge through the gate or fence or through the windows.
We were also told that Swiss law which allows us to use a gun if threatened does not apply here in UK.
SO can I use a tazer to disarm them or should I stick to a well aimed kick to ensure falsetto voice-claim slef defence - und then get the labradors to lick him to death?
The Persian cat would probably use her claws. Entire family ist a bit scared of her to be honest - including me 
But the police tell us that our feisty feline would be in some bother it she hissed too fiercely 
We were told we could not put an electrical charge through the gate or fence or through the windows.
We were also told that Swiss law which allows us to use a gun if threatened does not apply here in UK.
SO can I use a tazer to disarm them or should I stick to a well aimed kick to ensure falsetto voice-claim slef defence - und then get the labradors to lick him to death?
The Persian cat would probably use her claws. Entire family ist a bit scared of her to be honest - including me But the police tell us that our feisty feline would be in some bother it she hissed too fiercely Judiciary tend to be quite open to quite a bit of reasonable force, unless you're a psycho hiding with a poisoned crossbow waiting for the buggers...
If it's dark and you're in your PJs, just woken up by a man in a mask, keep hitting until you and your family are able to escape safely. In my understanding reasonable force means enough to get you and your loved ones out.
If it's dark and you're in your PJs, just woken up by a man in a mask, keep hitting until you and your family are able to escape safely. In my understanding reasonable force means enough to get you and your loved ones out.
It isn't the judiciary who tend to make the decisions in cases such as these, "Reasonable Force" is determined by 12 Good Men and True (ignore the sexism please, that is how the maxim was written)...
The reason? Why, everyone charged in these situations is advised by their defence counsel to elect for trial by jury...... Strangely that is why most of them get off..
The exception is where it would be legally perverse and the jury is directed to return a guilty verdict, for example if you shot someone running away..........
What is reasonable, if there are two people, is fairly flexible. A marshall arts chaps had 3 break in, IIRC one made it out successfully (i.e with no life threatening injuries), one was in a coma for a few months, the third one was crippled for life. He was not jailed, the force he used was reasonable, as it is reasonable to take out someone hard and fast when there is more than one opponent. So overall, simply put, if you use your bare hands and do a LOT of damage to one person in your house, it is likely that the force used will be held to be reasonable, especially if there is another person you need to defend against.
The reason? Why, everyone charged in these situations is advised by their defence counsel to elect for trial by jury...... Strangely that is why most of them get off..
The exception is where it would be legally perverse and the jury is directed to return a guilty verdict, for example if you shot someone running away..........
What is reasonable, if there are two people, is fairly flexible. A marshall arts chaps had 3 break in, IIRC one made it out successfully (i.e with no life threatening injuries), one was in a coma for a few months, the third one was crippled for life. He was not jailed, the force he used was reasonable, as it is reasonable to take out someone hard and fast when there is more than one opponent. So overall, simply put, if you use your bare hands and do a LOT of damage to one person in your house, it is likely that the force used will be held to be reasonable, especially if there is another person you need to defend against.
To start ill make it perfectley clear that someone who is witness to an unlawful enterprise such as described by the o/p is entitled to come in aid of that other persons property, using reasonable force to bring halt to that crime.
The criteria omits the requirement of a duty to flee.
There is no sequence of events which must ensue, it matters not who throws the first punch. What matters is that all reasonable force must be taken in conjunciton wit all necessary force. To disable a person in combat, while fighting two persons bent on your demise to use an unnessesary amount of force to disable one who at that instant shows no danger and you do that in furtherance of your aim of quashing a criminal enterprise is not unlawful. The danger from these people exists until the quarrel is over. If both are giving a threat then that threat remains while they can reasonable be expected to act in furtherance of criminal behaviour.
What distinction can be drawn as to what i mentioned earlier is the reasonable force must be taken in conjuction with nesessary force. That is the force you require to exert in furtherance of your lawful aim. However any strike in malice is unjustafiable, Unlawful thus reprehensable. To fine a scale is not weighed, such it is very open what was within reason. However if you strike in anger with a wicked intention to do injury, harm or disfigurement then that is unlawful. Even though bodily harm may ensue from your lawful actions, the fact you done this during lawful acts means there is no evil intent.
That is the distinction
The criteria omits the requirement of a duty to flee.
There is no sequence of events which must ensue, it matters not who throws the first punch. What matters is that all reasonable force must be taken in conjunciton wit all necessary force. To disable a person in combat, while fighting two persons bent on your demise to use an unnessesary amount of force to disable one who at that instant shows no danger and you do that in furtherance of your aim of quashing a criminal enterprise is not unlawful. The danger from these people exists until the quarrel is over. If both are giving a threat then that threat remains while they can reasonable be expected to act in furtherance of criminal behaviour.
What distinction can be drawn as to what i mentioned earlier is the reasonable force must be taken in conjuction with nesessary force. That is the force you require to exert in furtherance of your lawful aim. However any strike in malice is unjustafiable, Unlawful thus reprehensable. To fine a scale is not weighed, such it is very open what was within reason. However if you strike in anger with a wicked intention to do injury, harm or disfigurement then that is unlawful. Even though bodily harm may ensue from your lawful actions, the fact you done this during lawful acts means there is no evil intent.
That is the distinction
It isn't possible in these circumstances to determine how many times you can hit someone, how hard and what damage you can cause.
The first test is subjective. What harm do you perceive to be in? Is your life in danger? Serious injury? Having established this others need to look at what you did and decide if they thought your actions reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the level of threat you perceived.
When a 3rd party is making this decision they can also take into account that in the heat of the moment your reaction may not be as considered as perhaps it might be but for the threat.
As stated above, in your own home there is no expectation for you to run away so making sure someone stays down may well be the best course of action.
It is worth noting that it is extremely rare for householders to be charged with assault, even with murder when taking on an intruder.
If you threaten further intruders with being shot and then shoot one in the back chances are you may have to defend yourself in court.....
The first test is subjective. What harm do you perceive to be in? Is your life in danger? Serious injury? Having established this others need to look at what you did and decide if they thought your actions reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind the level of threat you perceived.
When a 3rd party is making this decision they can also take into account that in the heat of the moment your reaction may not be as considered as perhaps it might be but for the threat.
As stated above, in your own home there is no expectation for you to run away so making sure someone stays down may well be the best course of action.
It is worth noting that it is extremely rare for householders to be charged with assault, even with murder when taking on an intruder.
If you threaten further intruders with being shot and then shoot one in the back chances are you may have to defend yourself in court.....
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff