myleen klass

[maria_and_matt]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Myleene-Klass-Knife-Warning-Marks-And-Spencer-Model-Warned-Over-Waving-Kitchen-Knife-At-Teenagers/Article/201001215518164?lpos=Showbiz_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15518164_Myleene_Klass_Knife_Warning%3A_Marks_And_Spencer_Model_Warned_Over_Waving_Kitchen_Knife_At_Teenagers

so stupid that she was warned by police!

[bornatbirth]

intruders have rights too? :NoNo:

considersing that she was assaulted before by teens, imsurprised she hasn't got a loaded gun at home.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[maria_and_matt]

intruders have rights too? :NoNo:

considersing that she was assaulted before by teens, imsurprised she hasn't got a loaded gun at home.:xxgrinning--00xx3:

she was assaulted :O i didnt know that

[KeithD]

You need to hold the machete, and 1/2 a sliced carrot in the other, then it is not classed as a dangerous weapon :Erm: Without the carrot it is :doh

[bornatbirth]

You need to hold the machete, and 1/2 a sliced carrot in the other, then it is not classed as a dangerous weapon :Erm: Without the carrot it is :doh

or you dont tell no one :D

[les_taxi]

what is this country coming to!:censored:
If I was in power I would say that any intruder breaking into someones house forfits all their human rights.
Anything what happens to the intruder is tough luck and it would be illegal to bring any charges against the householder.
So the message would be ok we cant always stop you robbing *******s breaking in but once you have done so you have no human rights and any injurys you sustain you won't be booking an appointment with injury lawyers for us:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[KeithD]

or you dont tell no one :D
Bit difficult explaining it to no one with the guys head rolling around the kitchen floor :cwm24:

[triple5]

Spot on Les :xxgrinning--00xx3: Every person should have the right to defend their home however they see fit. Makes you wonder what these coppers are thinking when they dish out these warnings :Erm: I know they're just following rules, but I'd be cringing inside.

[joebloggs]

:icon_lol: only in the uk :Cuckoo:

had the cheeky :censored: gone to the police complaining that she waved a knife at them?, their trespassing on her property, peering thru her window at midnight :doh the cops should have arrested them :doh

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.

you can't even have a knife in your own kitchen any more, what are you going to wave at them, like scouser keith has said a carrot or stick of celery :icon_lol: :crazy:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:puYyaMOgsqnkhM:http://www.vancouverseedbank.ca/catalog/images/celery_tallthin.JPG

[johncar54]

English law permits a person to take the life of another to protect their, life or property or that of another. But the action taken must be considered reasonable in the circumstances.


The problem with highlighted cases where a person has been charge, Tony Martin the farmer and the recent case where the owner of a house and his brother chasing the intruders down the street, is that it was not reasonable in the circumstances.

Had Martin shot the intruder in defence of his life or property or had the other guy attacked the intruder whilst he was in his home, the result would have bean different.-

The law is there to prevent anyone unreasonably taking the law into their own hands, For example, If I see a guy on the street who broke into my home a week before, to attack him would be unlawful. There is also the problem of mistaken identity.


In this case, if the people outside had entered the house, the owner would have been justified in taking reasonable action, that might have included picking up the knife and even killing the intruders, but they were outside and she was in no immediate danger.

[South-east boy]

:icon_lol: only in the uk :Cuckoo:

had the cheeky :censored: gone to the police complaining that she waved a knife at them?, their trespassing on her property, peering thru her window at midnight :doh the cops should have arrested them :doh

Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal.

you can't even have a knife in your own kitchen any more, what are you going to wave at them, like scouser keith has said a carrot or stick of celery :icon_lol: :crazy:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:puYyaMOgsqnkhM:http://www.vancouverseedbank.ca/catalog/images/celery_tallthin.JPG

How much more ridiculous is this country going to get?! :Erm: Just crazy! :Cuckoo: :doh

[johncar54]

How much more ridiculous is this country going to get?! :Erm: Just crazy! :Cuckoo: :doh

Please see my post just before this one

And Joe trespassing on her property There is NO criminal offence of trespass in the UK.

If I walk into your house, (with no criminal intent) sit in your favourite chair and watch the TV which is on, I do not commit any offence in UK.

[joebloggs]

In this case, if the people outside had entered the house, the owner would have been justified in taking reasonable action, that might have included picking up the knife and even killing the intruders, but they were outside and she was in no immediate danger.

so a young woman alone at midnight apart from her 2yr old kid has to wait for someone to break in before she is in danger?

what would you do if scouser keith and his scouser mates were outside your window at midnight ?

john i understand what you said about the other case, like the farmer guy who shot the 2 kids in the back who had broke into his house, they were running away. but if he shot them from their front and they had a knife ?

so with the same reasoning those outside the window were in no immediate danger from mylenne. and how does she know those outside didn't have some sort of weapon ?

[Dedworth]

what is this country coming to!:censored:
If I was in power I would say that any intruder breaking into someones house forfits all their human rights.
Anything what happens to the intruder is tough luck and it would be illegal to bring any charges against the householder.
So the message would be ok we cant always stop you robbing *******s breaking in but once you have done so you have no human rights and any injurys you sustain you won't be booking an appointment with injury lawyers for us:xxgrinning--00xx3:

Whatever became of this hollow New Labour promise - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? :angry:

We need a return of the rope http://forums.netphoria.org/images/smilies/dead.gif, cane and longer deterrent jail sentences in prisons that put the fear of god into criminals. Also while we are at it bin the European Convention on Human Rights.

[johncar54]

so with the same reasoning those outside the window were in no immediate danger from mylenne. and how does she know those outside didn't have some sort of weapon ?


But for an offence of possessing a offensive weapon nobody needs to be threatened. It they were that would be yet another offence.

IF a person is stopped carrying anything and he says something to the effect that he will use it protect himself, then whatever it is becomes an offensive weapon.

[KeithD]

By the time the police turn up these days the stab wounds would have healed :doh

[bornatbirth]

In this case, if the people outside had entered the house, the owner would have been justified in taking reasonable action, that might have included picking up the knife and even killing the intruders, but they were outside and she was in no immediate danger.

john,you missed out the fact,that she already got assaulted before and wasn't going to take any chance's as she felt she was in danger? :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Ping]

Well, as what I said before if the law in this country is the same as in Singapore no one
tries to commit any crime.The problem is the the law in this country can be bend or in other words it,s pliant like a bamboo.

Or like in Davao city mayor Duterte will give warning all those muggers, addict and other criminals to go away or else if they were caught they will vanished on the face of earth without questions or in other place if the police can not do the job the vigilantes can.

[Dedworth]

Well, as what I said before if the law in this country is the same as in Singapore no one
tries to commit any crime.The problem is the the law in this country can be bend or in other words it,s pliant like a bamboo.

Or like in Davao city mayor Duterte will give warning all those muggers, addict and other criminals to go away or else if they were caught they will vanished on the face of earth without questions or in other place if the police can not do the job the vigilantes can.

Is Davao twinned with Maricopa Arizona ? - Sheriff Joe has some good methods of dealing with scum

http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=Home

Like you though I feel Singapore is the standard to aspire to

[KeithD]

Is Davao twinned with Maricopa Arizona ? - Sheriff Joe has some good methods of dealing with scum

http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=Home
He makes the prisoners wear pink underwear :D We hear a lot about him when we are in the area.

[johncar54]

Bornatbirth john,you missed out the fact,that she already got assaulted before and wasn't going to take any chance's as she felt she was in danger?

That is not relevant. According to the facts of this event (as understood by the police) she was not acting reasonably in the circumstances.

I got attacked and beaten up when I was 14, it did not give me the right to go out armed (for the rest of my life). If a Spaniard's rude to my wife it does not mean that I can be rude to every Spaniard as they maybe racists, and so on.

[KeithD]

That is not relevant. According to the facts of this event (as understood by the police) she was not acting reasonably in the circumstances.
So we have no right to self defense with regard to tolling ourselves up for protection..... I love this country :doh

Actually I know plenty of criminals who have had heads kicked in by the victim, been stabbed, shot, thrown in rivers, the police do sod all. :xxgrinning--00xx3: Eye for an eye, and they can't be bothered with the paperwork for scum.

[johncar54]

So we have no right to self defence with regard to tooling ourselves up for protection .

Exactly.

But as I have said, several times before, in English law one can use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or any other persons life or property and that can include taking the life of another person.

[aromulus]

Exactly.

But as I have said, several times before, in English law one can use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or any other persons life or property and that can include taking the life of another person.


And what may "reasonable force" be, if I may ask...?:Erm:

[KeithD]

And what may "reasonable force" be, if I may ask...?:Erm:


That my dear friend depends on the police officer involved, who reads the CPS case, and finally which judge you get..... Kind of a lucky dip really :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[les_taxi]

English law permits a person to take the life of another to protect their, life or property or that of another. But the action taken must be considered reasonable in the circumstances.


The problem with highlighted cases where a person has been charge, Tony Martin the farmer and the recent case where the owner of a house and his brother chasing the intruders down the street, is that it was not reasonable in the circumstances.

Had Martin shot the intruder in defence of his life or property or had the other guy attacked the intruder whilst he was in his home, the result would have bean different.-

The law is there to prevent anyone unreasonably taking the law into their own hands, For example, If I see a guy on the street who broke into my home a week before, to attack him would be unlawful. There is also the problem of mistaken identity.


In this case, if the people outside had entered the house, the owner would have been justified in taking reasonable action, that might have included picking up the knife and even killing the intruders, but they were outside and she was in no immediate danger.

Tony martin gets my vote:xxgrinning--00xx3:
So by if i see the ******* who raped my daughter a week later in the street dya think i'm gonna let him walk on:doh he would be dead meat .... the law.

also you say the people were outside and she was in no immediate danger-how do you know that?
Well the counter arguement would be she was inside so there was no immediate danger to them!
We are becoming a nation run by injury lawyers for you,common sense and disipline out of the window.
I say it once again dont commit the crime then we wont have this problem in the first place,if you do be prepaired to take the conscequences:D

[johncar54]

Tony martin gets my vote:xxgrinning--00xx3:
So by if i see the ******* who raped my daughter a week later in the street dya think i'm gonna let him walk on:doh he would be dead meat .... the law.

also you say the people were outside and she was in no immediate danger-how do you know that?
Well the counter arguement would be she was inside so there was no immediate danger to them!
We are becoming a nation run by injury lawyers for you,common sense and disipline out of the window.
I say it once again dont commit the crime then we wont have this problem in the first place,if you do be prepaired to take the conscequences:D

OK so in the first place, you would have put yourself in Tony Martin's position by saying you would kill the guy, thus you would be convicted of murder. That why he was convicted of murder, there was proof he intended to kill.

Offensive weapon possession has nothing to do with people being threatened, if they were that be another charge too. It is possession.

[les_taxi]

OK so in the first place, you would have put yourself in Tony Martin's position by saying you would kill the guy, thus you would be convicted of murder. That why he was convicted of murder, there was proof he intended to kill.

Offensive weapon possession has nothing to do with people being threatened, if they were that be another charge too. It is possession.

The charge was reduced to manslaughter.Since then Brendon Fearon, the other burglar has been convicted of other offences and don't forget to this low life scum never admitted to poilice he had a seriously wounded acomplice who was in need of urgent medical help.

Tony martin had had enough of being threatened and burgled and as far as i am concerened he was justified in his actions.

Like i said before if you threaten and terrorise and rob people then if you get nailed so be it. work for a living like the rest of us do.

[johncar54]

Tony Martin was convicted of murder on a 10 to 2 majority by the jury. They rejected the opportunity to find him guilty of manslaughter.

(Wikipedia) An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Lane. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in self defence were rejected by the appeal court. However, on this occasion the defence submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five year sentence, and his ten year sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently.

It was not because Fearon had previous convictions.

If Martin had not shouted his mouth off previously that he intended to kill anyone who burgled his farm, and of he had shot him in the front (coming towards him) he would probably never have been charged and for sure he would never have been convicted of murder.

[les_taxi]

Tony Martin was convicted of murder on a 10 to 2 majority by the jury. They rejected the opportunity to find him guilty of manslaughter.

(Wikipedia) An appeal was considered in October 2001 by three senior judges headed by Lord Lane. Submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in self defence were rejected by the appeal court. However, on this occasion the defence submitted evidence that Martin suffered paranoid personality disorder specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal and, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five year sentence, and his ten year sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced to three years. These sentences were to run concurrently.

It was not because Fearon had previous convictions.

If Martin had not shouted his mouth off previously that he intended to kill anyone who burgled his farm, and of he had shot him in the front (coming towards him) he would probably never have been charged and for sure he would never have been convicted of murder.

You not reading my post properly,I said the sentenced was reduced to manslaughter and i said since the offence fearon has commited further crimes.
nothing to do with the original offence.

[johncar54]

You not reading my post properly,I said the sentenced was reduced to manslaughter and i said since the offence fearon has commited further crimes.
nothing to do with the original offence.

I am sorry, I did mis read as I assummed you were mentioning Fearon as it had something to do with Martin's change of conviction on appeal.

That Fearon had convictions, and has since had more, had/has no connection whatsoever with the charge against Martin nor the result of his appeal.

[KeithD]

In the US if someone breaks into your house you can shoot the bugger, on the basis he shouldn't be there. Common sense. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

They used to say the US had crazy laws, eveyone sued everyone else, it's not like that, and never has been, this country is by far the worse.

[les_taxi]

We charge injured soldiers in hospital to watch tv yet its free for prisoners!
An elderly woman is jailed for non payment of council tax same day as a peodaphile is released back into community:doh

[johncar54]

In the US if someone breaks into your house you can shoot the bugger, on the basis he shouldn't be there. Common sense. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

They used to say the US had crazy laws, eveyone sued everyone else, it's not like that, and never has been, this country is by far the worse.

Not as simple as that. All the States have there own law on the subject. Like some have the death penalty and some don't.

Having travelled for 5 months, about 15,000 miles in USA, about 20 States, in a Motor-home, carrying a revolver, I was aware how very different the laws in one State are compared with another, as I was asking about the gun laws when I entered each State. In some sates Texas for example, you shoot dead a person for stealing someone else's hub caps. But Texas is extreme!

[KeithD]

Not as simple as that.
It is as it's written into the 5th Amendment (amending what??? :Erm:).

[aromulus]

In some sates Texas for example, you shoot dead a person for stealing someone else's hub caps. !

So that's why when Keith the scouser goes over to the States on vacation, he sticks with Arizona and Nevada.....:doh

If that law was adopted in the Uk, there would be no scousers and mancs left to moan about....:D

[johncar54]

It is as it's written into the 5th Amendment (amending what??? :Erm:).

Did you mean:-

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA:- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If so, I am not following your point.

[KeithD]

Sorry, 2nd Amendment :doh

[johncar54]

Sorry, 2nd Amendment :doh

Which is :

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to have a gun is not the right to kill people.

Sixteen States don't have the death penalty.

[KeithD]

Which is :

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to have a gun is not the right to kill people.

Sixteen States don't have the death penalty.
:Erm: You need to read the complete amendment and the court cases regarding self defence. What happens per state is irrelevant as it is overruled by the Supreme Courts support of the 2nd Amendment.

[johncar54]

:Erm: You need to read the complete amendment and the court cases regarding self defence. What happens per state is irrelevant as it is overruled by the Supreme Courts support of the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry I had not realised this thread was being extended to USA. I have no specialist knowledge of USA law thus I don't wish to comment on it.


I have through now read something about the Klass case.

If she was told by the police (as reported in a newspaper) she was not permitted to defend herself or her family, using reasonable means, then that was incorrect.

If the people whom she feared were in her enclosed back garden and looking through her windows, then I would have thought she was probably not acting unreasonably to wave a knife at them. I would doubt that if such circumstances were reported to the CPS they would approve any action against her.

One of the problems police generally have is that many forces do not have dedicated CID career detectives. Thus they are really little more than enthusiastic amateurs when it come to knowing the law in detail. That was why the Met Police used to have a professional Career CID, who could be relied upon to know the law. Unfortunately because of petty jealousies they were disbanded about 30 years ago and the ability of the CID to professionally investigate criminal cases was lost.

[pennybarry]

I don't understand the British Law sometimes! I am afraid that someday, the government will install CCTV in our house and see if we are holding knife.:omg:

In the Philippines you can always defend yourself especially if you are inside your own premises.

No Trespassing! (if you have deadly weapon):D

[johncar54]

I don't understand the British Law

In the Philippines you can always defend yourself especially if you are inside your own premises.

D

You can in UK too but the action must be 'reasonable.'

[aromulus]

You can in UK too but the action must be 'reasonable.'

It is the "reasonable" bit, I can't get to grips with.:Erm:

To me "reasonable" means that if anyone enters my home, with a view to steal, distress or harm any of my family or myself, by default loses any privileges or inferred legal rights and can expect the worst of whatever punishment I can mete out, if caught by yours truly.....:omg:

So they better kill me first.....

[Sophie]

In the US if someone breaks into your house you can shoot the bugger, on the basis he shouldn't be there. Common sense. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Same in the philippines :xxgrinning--00xx3: Makes more sense actually :)

[Sophie]

[SIZE=4]To me "reasonable" means that if anyone enters my home, with a view to steal, distress or harm any of my family or myself, by default loses any privileges or inferred legal rights and can expect the worst of whatever punishment I can mete out, if caught by yours truly.....:omg:

So they better kill me first.....

I totally agree :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[johncar54]

What is reasonable force ?


I have lifted this from the internet to save me a lot of time trying to explain.

There are no fixed answers. Each case must be assessed on the facts.

In some cases the amount of force used can easily be determined it was excessive. For example, to beat someone's brains out becuase you thought they might attack you. In many cases it is a difficult decision.

As a career detective I based my decisions on the law and my experience. Doubtful cases would be referred the the Met Police Solicitors branch (now CPS in which, if were still a copper, I would have less confidence).

The expressions made in general here would probably amount to far too much force to be considered by a court as 'reasonable.'

The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property:-

Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defence in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defence. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.



(Please note. I am trying to explain the law. What I say is not necessarily my own gut feeling. When I was copper on occasions I carried a firearm. I never had to use it but I was prepared to kill if the situation called for it.)

[Northerner]

I honestly do not know how far I would go if I found an intruder in my home. If it happens years from now and I had children, the intruder would be met by aggression they would never had imagined. Not that I am silly enough to declare how I would do this or do that, I could possibly be killed protecting my family! But then a persons first instinct is to protect their loved ones.. And I would not be letting some little :censored: take from me without a fight!

Who knows, if I sit by and allow them to do as they wish they could do far worse without me defending myself or my loved ones.

It is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six!

[joebloggs]

It is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six!

and be found not guilty :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[aromulus]

to be carried by six!

You lost weight, then...?:Erm:

[Dedworth]

I've got no interest in baseball but there's a Louisville Slugger under the bed

[KeithD]

I pay for guards around the house

http://www.jamiegaines.com/stuff/squirrel_with_machine_gun.jpg