Reasonable force, burgary etc.

[KeithD]

The question should be, what is the definition of 'reasonable' from the viewpoint of the person confronted by a burglar, and not the meaning of it with hindsight which is what the law seems to use.

What is wrong with chasing after someone who broke into your house to make a 'citizens arrest', and you need a weapon as you don't know these days if he has a gun or a knife, and he WILL resist you you've got to subdue the bugger so he don't move. That's real life, not the fantasy world the judges and law live in.

[keithAngel]

The question should be, what is the definition of 'reasonable' from the viewpoint of the person confronted by a burglar, and not the meaning of it with hindsight which is what the law seems to use.

What is wrong with chasing after someone who broke into your house to make a 'citizens arrest', and you need a weapon as you don't know these days if he has a gun or a knife, and he WILL resist you you've got to subdue the bugger so he don't move. That's real life, not the fantasy world the judges and law live in.

The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and propety loosing your silver is not considered giving reason to kill

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable.

All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defense

[johncar54]

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable. All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defence

I would go along more or less with what you say, but there was an interesting case on the 1960's when one Saturday afternoon a butcher named Bridger was going to a night save to deposit the days takings. He took with him a large knife 'to protect his money.'

He was attacked by 4 people, one of whom died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the butcher.

On the advice of the Metropolitan Police solicitors branch, New Scotland Yard, he was not charged with anything. At the subsequent coroners court a verdict of 'Justifiable homicide' was recorded.

The three surviving robbers were subsequently convicted of robbery at the Central Criminal Court.

[IainBusby]

The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and propety loosing your silver is not considered giving reason to kill

Nothing wrong with chasing a burglar to make an arrest but at that point you are required to use minimum force and you can not claim self defence except in responce to what is actualy happening in the moment.

If for example you were carrying your trusty mag-light as it was dark and the arrestee attempted to use a weapon to resist you then on the principle of "instant arming" you could use the torch as a defensive weapon going equipped with a cricket bat might however allow the perp to claim self defence and you would leave yourself open to prosecution.

Reasonable force also depends on the relative differences between the parties so a small women might use a weapon against a large man wereas a large guy trying to defend against a 16 year old would have a different level that might be deemed reasonable.

All escalations need to be proportionate is the key and being angry is not of its self a defense

Cameron is just trying to grab a headline, as you say in your first paragraph The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and property or in legal terms “unreasonable force” and Cameron want's to "limit prosecutions to cases involving grossly disproportionate violence".

Cases like the recent one of Munir Hussain who chased the burglar,attacked him with a cricket bat and brain damaged him and the case of Tony Martin who shot the burglar when he was running away would both still fall outside the law and would still result in prosecutions if you used the yardstick grossly disproportionate violence instead of unreasonable force.
Iain.

[Dedworth]

Cameron is just trying to grab a headline, as you say in your first paragraph The test is generaly what is reasonable to protect your life and property or in legal terms “unreasonable force” and Cameron want's to "limit prosecutions to cases involving grossly disproportionate violence".

Cases like the recent one of Munir Hussain who chased the burglar,attacked him with a cricket bat and brain damaged him and the case of Tony Martin who shot the burglar when he was running away would both still fall outside the law and would still result in prosecutions if you used the yardstick grossly disproportionate violence instead of unreasonable force.
Iain.

Well done Hussain and Martin - these men should be honoured. It is a shame the damage they inflicted wasn't a bit more severe - Salem's brain damage didn't stop him re-offending, and Brendon Fearon carried on with his life of crime despite getting a taste of Tony Martins 12 bore It's a pity the Government (remember Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime) doesn't do anything to protect Joe Public from these scum.

[IainBusby]

Well done Hussain and Martin - these men should be honoured. It is a shame the damage they inflicted wasn't a bit more severe - Salem's brain damage didn't stop him re-offending, and Brendon Fearon carried on with his life of crime despite getting a taste of Tony Martins 12 bore It's a pity the Government (remember Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime) doesn't do anything to protect Joe Public from these scum.

I totally agree with you, it is a pity the government won't or in most cases can't do enough protect the public, but unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that David Cameron will fix this problem, where in reality he is only using this as another one of his bandwagons and if and when he gets into power he won't do a damn thing about it.

[keithAngel]

I would go along more or less with what you say, but there was an interesting case on the 1960's when one Saturday afternoon a butcher named Bridger was going to a night save to deposit the days takings. He took with him a large knife 'to protect his money.'

He was attacked by 4 people, one of whom died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the butcher.

On the advice of the Metropolitan Police solicitors branch, New Scotland Yard, he was not charged with anything. At the subsequent coroners court a verdict of 'Justifiable homicide' was recorded.

The three surviving robbers were subsequently convicted of robbery at the Central Criminal Court.

Of courseJohn if he had been stop and searched befor the incident he could have been charged with possesion of an offensive weapon (although perhaps as a butcher he might have reasonable excuse if he said he was taking "his tool" home to sharpen for example but if he said it was for "self defence"instant nick)its only the police who can carry weapons although there is no statute that "allows" this only an unwritten agreement Ive had my guys asked so is that 3 cell maglight in case you get attacked "no officer its a torch"

[johncar54]

Of courseJohn if he had been stop and searched befor the incident he could have been charged with possesion of an offensive weapon (although perhaps as a butcher he might have reasonable excuse if he said he was taking "his tool" home to sharpen for example but if he said it was for "self defence"instant nick)its only the police who can carry weapons although there is no statute that "allows" this only an unwritten agreement Ive had my guys asked so is that 3 cell maglight in case you get attacked "no officer its a torch"

He said he was carrying the knife to protect his money and stuck to that even though there were 'suggestions' made to him that he might have been, 'taking it home to get it sharpened' etc. That was why we spoke to Solicitors branch as we could see no alternative to charging offensive weapon at the very least.

The point established was that under Common Law one can even take life to 'protected' their life, another's life, ones own property or that of another.

The problem with the Tony Martin and the 'cricket bat' man cases was that they were not 'protesting' at the time they attacked.

The UK law will never condone attacking to 'punish' or arrest people for crime. Which some people here think it shout. That is what the criminal justice system is there for. If people consider that is inadequacy then it's up to them to lobby their MPs to get the law change.