Question for police re: offensive weapon & using phone
Discussion
Check out the attached link, www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
In which a new leaflet Householders and the use of force against intruders, compiled and issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and Association of Chief Police Officers.
In which it clearly states:-
'Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.'
Therefore as i said i would use anything as a weapon, to defend myself and family in my own home against an intruder.( in the heat of the moment) This seems to be backed up by your bosses,Bib, so who is right?
Not a well known leaflet as YET, but i do hope more householders are made aware of it and get to know their rights and that all 'scrotts' think twice about burglary etc especially if there's a BIG chance that the homeowners may use force to protect themselves.- as long as they don't shoot them in the back of course!
In which a new leaflet Householders and the use of force against intruders, compiled and issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and Association of Chief Police Officers.
In which it clearly states:-
'Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.'
Therefore as i said i would use anything as a weapon, to defend myself and family in my own home against an intruder.( in the heat of the moment) This seems to be backed up by your bosses,Bib, so who is right?
Not a well known leaflet as YET, but i do hope more householders are made aware of it and get to know their rights and that all 'scrotts' think twice about burglary etc especially if there's a BIG chance that the homeowners may use force to protect themselves.- as long as they don't shoot them in the back of course!
gilberninvader said:
Therefore as i said i would use anything as a weapon, to defend myself and family in my own home against an intruder.( in the heat of the moment) This seems to be backed up by your bosses,Bib, so who is right?
They are quoting Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967! That is what I have been explaining.
You have a right to defend yourself but it must be proportionate to the circumstances of the attack and only enough to achieve the objective to stop the attack. You may use as much force is as necessary to make a lawful arrest or to capture someone who is unlawfully at large. You can even kill them if that is the only way to stop the attack but you must have the evidence to be able to justify your actions and thoughts at the time.
The courts have the ultimate decision on whether the force you used on an intruder was appropriate or necessary.
In the case of Tony Martin, he may even have got away with shooting the traveller who died at his farm if he had not shot him in the back, had not been in sole possession of a weapon that he was disqualified from holding and had summonsed immediate help from emergency services after he had done so.
Another well known stated case was that of a soldier in Northern Ireland at the start of the troubles who was under attack with a colleague at his side. Out of the corner of the soldiers eye the soldier saw a person holding an iron bar above his head about to bring it crashing down over the head of his colleague. He turned instinctively and fired a baton round at point blank range hitting the attacker in the head and killing him instantly. The iron bar truned out to be a furled umberella! The Soldier was tried for Murder and acquitted by the court under his defence of Section 3 Criminal Law Act. The defence was that he had an honest held belief in the instant heat of the moment that his colleague was in mortal danger and fired the weapon to protect his colleague from a potentially fatal blow.
You may well be justified in certain circumstances of defeding your castle with your weapon of choice. You have to be able to convince a court that the action you took was reasonable in the circumstances, justifiable in the circumstances and only achieved the objective to stop the attack!
Creeping up on someone who is in your house in the middle of the night and braining them with a bat before giving them an opportunity to explain themselves or to remove themselves thereby reducing your need to brain them in the first place will be the prosecutions first line of attack in having you convicted for a serious assault. If it happens to be in the circumstances where you or your family have been careless and left a window open for our burglar to enter and leave, then become noticed by the milkman who informs the police and you brain the local beat officer who is creeping into your house to catch the burglar he does not know has left already, you may well have a lot of explaining to do
. gilberninvader said:
Not a well known leaflet as YET, but i do hope more householders are made aware of it and get to know their rights and that all 'scrotts' think twice about burglary etc especially if there's a BIG chance that the homeowners may use force to protect themselves.
They always have been able to. They were just unaware of how far they can go between what is defence and what becomes punishment! That is now being made more clear by this leaflet.
gilberninvader said:
- as long as they don't shoot them in the back of course!
Youve said it!
>> Edited by mg6b on Saturday 29th April 14:11
mg6b said,
'You have a right to defend yourself but it must be proportionate to the circumstances of the attack and only enough to achieve the objective to stop the attack.'
I don't fully agree to this statement though, where did your extra phrase 'stop the attack' come from mg.
Your BiB bosses simply state in the guide mentioned in my last post the following :-
'Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.'
Here's the scenario then Mg6b, picture yourself upstairs in your house, without any alternative means of escape, you put the lights on and the attacker is coming up the stairs at you with a carving knife, he shouts at you that he wants to kill you, rape your wife then you and take all your money.....he tells you to put down your baseball bat,or golf club or vase or truncheon, or whatever, and to tell him where the valuables are. You have one chance to stop this attack, do you choose to 'knock him on the head'with enough force, rather than to knock the knife out of his hands.( in the heat of the moment M'lud)
Answer a)
If you had chosen to, in your words,'just stop the attack' by hitting the knife, then you will then have a full fight on your hands, who knows he may also have a gun too.
Isn't it better (when you know that you have a definite intruder in your house who hasn't identified themselves as friendly, to use enough reasonable effective force to render the attacker unconscious, etc
Answer b)It just so happens that you did choose to hit him on the head and he also fell down the stairs and died from your single blow.... what a shame, i think most courts would acquit you. Don't you agree mg?
So i hope you also agree that the shoe is beginning to be on the other foot now ,and that any burglar intending to commit a felony by trespassing into your home, will be dealt with accordingly, and with reasonable force to stop dead the attack!!
They should start to believe that there is now even more chance that householders are more prepared to fight back.
How would you have dealt with this situation a) or b) or another!
'You have a right to defend yourself but it must be proportionate to the circumstances of the attack and only enough to achieve the objective to stop the attack.'
I don't fully agree to this statement though, where did your extra phrase 'stop the attack' come from mg.
Your BiB bosses simply state in the guide mentioned in my last post the following :-
'Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.'
Here's the scenario then Mg6b, picture yourself upstairs in your house, without any alternative means of escape, you put the lights on and the attacker is coming up the stairs at you with a carving knife, he shouts at you that he wants to kill you, rape your wife then you and take all your money.....he tells you to put down your baseball bat,or golf club or vase or truncheon, or whatever, and to tell him where the valuables are. You have one chance to stop this attack, do you choose to 'knock him on the head'with enough force, rather than to knock the knife out of his hands.( in the heat of the moment M'lud)
Answer a)
If you had chosen to, in your words,'just stop the attack' by hitting the knife, then you will then have a full fight on your hands, who knows he may also have a gun too.
Isn't it better (when you know that you have a definite intruder in your house who hasn't identified themselves as friendly, to use enough reasonable effective force to render the attacker unconscious, etc
Answer b)It just so happens that you did choose to hit him on the head and he also fell down the stairs and died from your single blow.... what a shame, i think most courts would acquit you. Don't you agree mg?
So i hope you also agree that the shoe is beginning to be on the other foot now ,and that any burglar intending to commit a felony by trespassing into your home, will be dealt with accordingly, and with reasonable force to stop dead the attack!!
They should start to believe that there is now even more chance that householders are more prepared to fight back.
How would you have dealt with this situation a) or b) or another!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff