Having a go, new act now in place

#1
Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

* If fearful for your own life, you can stab or shoot a burglar if they confront you

* Overpower a burglar or a mugger and use their weapon to attack them – whether it is a knife, a gun or a baseball bat.
Shoot an armed robber in the "heat of the moment" using a shotgun stored in your home if threatened by them

* Fight, punch and beat a mugger in the street threatening you or a bystander

* Tackle a fleeing burglar to the ground and hold them in a headlock until police arrive

WHAT YOU CANNOT DO

* Attack a fleeing burglar with a cricket bat, a golf club, a knife or any other weapon

* Lay in wait for a burglar and ambush them, or shoot them from behind

* Launch any premidated or prolongued attack - such as tying up, torturing or burning a burglar or mugger.

* Shoot or attack a trespasser on private land if they are challenged and run away

Buit I have to add:

Any licenced gun owner (be that a rifle or shotgun) is required to keep it in a secure place. This is often interpreted by firearms officers as being in a secure gun cabinet or gun safe.

So, if one is obeying the security obligations, upon the discovery of an intruder, it would be necessary to locate the keys, open the safe, load the gun (note that ammunition will be kept seperately from the gun) and then use it to "deter" said intruder. This stikes me as "premeditation" which should, rightly in my view, result in a murder charge.

On the other hand, if the gun was being kept, loaded, under the bed, then the owner would not be keeping the gun securely. Result - revocation of his/her firearms licence/shotgun certificate, at the very least.

No firearm (or knife, for that matter) can be held for "defensive purposes" It instantly becomes an offensive weapon
 
#2
Where did you 'cut and paste' this from?
 
#3
Surely this is not a new law - the common law of self defence has been in place for eons.
 
#5
dropshortjock said:
Surely this is not a new law - the common law of self defence has been in place for eons.
No, its just saying if you bash said chav with HIS baseball bat and not YOUR old wooden night stick (held in your old MFO box from your NI days) you MIGHT not get time, but you will still get lifted.
 
#6
theoriginalphantom said:
Where did you 'cut and paste' this from?
From here I believe. :) CLICKY

Dam these bratty fingers, Must type faster. :wink:
 
#7
emptyeye said:
[... ]Overpower a burglar or a mugger and use their weapon to attack them –whether it is a knife, a gun or a baseball bat.

[...]Attack a fleeing burglar with a cricket bat, a golf club, a knife or any other weapon
Are those the specified means by which I might visit violence upon them?

Where would I stand if I used a cast iron frying pan?
 
#8
strut_jack said:
emptyeye said:
[... ]Overpower a burglar or a mugger and use their weapon to attack them –whether it is a knife, a gun or a baseball bat.

[...]Attack a fleeing burglar with a cricket bat, a golf club, a knife or any other weapon
Are those the specified means by which I might visit violence upon them?

Where would I stand if I used a cast iron frying pan?
Behind them would be good. :twisted:
 
#10
strut_jack said:
emptyeye said:
[... ]Overpower a burglar or a mugger and use their weapon to attack them –whether it is a knife, a gun or a baseball bat.

[...]Attack a fleeing burglar with a cricket bat, a golf club, a knife or any other weapon
Are those the specified means by which I might visit violence upon them?

Where would I stand if I used a cast iron frying pan?
Ok heres the scenario, you are making a egg banjo in said cast iron frying pan, in pops chav with knife and says to you, geez that egg banjo or im going to slice ya...

Your faster, BOING..1 dead chav (no egg banjo either I have to add)..old bill comes along...ah yes Mr Strut Jack, why did you have frying pan in your hand in such a dangerous postion..but... but... says you..no buts..CLANG, watch your fingers
 
#11
#12
shortarms said:
strut_jack said:
emptyeye said:
[... ]Overpower a burglar or a mugger and use their weapon to attack them –whether it is a knife, a gun or a baseball bat.

[...]Attack a fleeing burglar with a cricket bat, a golf club, a knife or any other weapon
Are those the specified means by which I might visit violence upon them?

Where would I stand if I used a cast iron frying pan?
Behind them would be good. :twisted:
I thought perhaps in front and slightly to one side in order to make use of my tennis backhand....
 
#13
emptyeye said:
Ok heres the scenario, you are making a egg banjo in said cast iron frying pan, in pops chav with knife and says to you, geez that egg banjo or im going to slice ya...

Your faster, BOING..1 dead chav (no egg banjo either I have to add)..old bill comes along...ah yes Mr Strut Jack, why did you have frying pan in your hand in such a dangerous postion..but... but... says you..no buts..CLANG, watch your fingers
He's a Mexican chav?
 
#14
Just claim that the chav attacked you with the cast iron frying pan, and wait for the government to ban them.
 
#15
emptyeye said:
Any licenced gun owner (be that a rifle or shotgun) is required to keep it in a secure place. This is often interpreted by firearms officers as being in a secure gun cabinet or gun safe.

So, if one is obeying the security obligations, upon the discovery of an intruder, it would be necessary to locate the keys, open the safe, load the gun (note that ammunition will be kept seperately from the gun) and then use it to "deter" said intruder. This stikes me as "premeditation" which should, rightly in my view, result in a murder charge.

On the other hand, if the gun was being kept, loaded, under the bed, then the owner would not be keeping the gun securely. Result - revocation of his/her firearms licence/shotgun certificate, at the very least.

No firearm (or knife, for that matter) can be held for "defensive purposes" It instantly becomes an offensive weapon
Have you ever used a rifle safe, it's not as if we all keep our guns triple locked you know, I mean it would be a bit of a problem if you use a bore lock, trigger lock and the safe, and even then you could have it out and loaded within a minute, quicker if you have a combination safe instead of a key locked one.
 
#16
A jewller in London, just before Dunblane, shot two robbers with his legally held 9mm. Apparently the pile of woeful pish he told the cops to explain why he had it loaded at work............but they wrote it up as best as they could and he got away with it. My pal was one of the local cops and their attitude was "Outstanding and good shooting, that man!!"
 
#17
This is the 'new law' straight from the gubment web site:

"76 Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.

(1) This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—

(a) an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and

(b) the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) The defences are—

(a) the common law defence of self-defence; and

(b) the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).

(3) The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4) If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—

(a) the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but

(b) if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—

(i) it was mistaken, or

(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

(5) But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.

(6) The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and

(b) that evidence of a person’s having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

(8) Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).

(9) This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).

(10) In this section—

(a) “legitimate purpose” means—

(i) the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or

(ii) the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);

(b) references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and

(c) references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.


In essence, it only clarifies the existing law of self-defence as jock drop short rightly says. Some of the sections have been lifted directly from existing case law. As the article says, people rarely get charged/prosecuted for using force against criminals, except where the force was either unnecessary or excessive. In the Tony Martin case, he shot the pikey/honest romany traveling gentleman in the back as he was running away.

Sermon over...
 
#18
"A person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If...in a moment of unexpected anguish a person had only dones what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

All existing law. What else does this new law add?
 
#19
So, can I pour drain cleaner acid down a funnel into a burglars throat?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top