I am not surprised at that Dedworth, but how many other people do you know who have done that ?Originally Posted by Dedworth
I am not surprised at that Dedworth, but how many other people do you know who have done that ?
But that's the thing. "Unreasonable force" is a subjective term that could mean anything or nothing. Unfortunately, when you're being attacked, you don't have time to sit down and list all the possible courses of action. So instead, the best course of action for many people would seem to be to just sit and be a victim.
Good for you. I was raised in a family that encouraged us to do the same. We've never shied away from talking to government officials if we had something important to say, and neither should anyone. They are public servants but they can't read minds.
What amounts to "Reasonable force" in law is well established and well defined by numerous findings.
It is not a nebulous thing which 'could mean anything or nothing' as you seem to think.
It is of course subjective, as each case is considered on its own merits (in the light of the law as established over maybe hundreds of years).
errrm possibly one
I always said the only thing Tony Martin did wrong was not finishing Brendon Fearon off and getting rid of the corpses,someone comes into your house uninvited they get what they deserve.
Sometimes you're flush and sometimes you're bust, and when you're up, it's never as good as it seems, and when you're down, you never think you'll be up again. But life goes on.
The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman is seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It's the passion that she shows to the outside world.
But Tony Martin got convicted of murder and was probably fortunate that it was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. He said before the event that he would kill burglars in future (thus he proved his pre-meditated intention to kill) and he shot the burglary in the back, so he was not being threatened. He also lied about the circumstances of the shooting.
Unless and until they make killing offenders lawful, the UK law has got it just about right.
Unfortunately people who have no legal training make unjustified assumptions based on dubious 'facts' which they read in the newspapers and others often believe what they say. Not great grounds for changing the law !
I haven't found any clear, well-established definition of "reasonable force", not even on the CPS website. I understand it means that I can subdue someone, but it's all subjective anyway. I mean, that article about the burglar getting stabbed and dying says the homeowner and his family were arrested. It clearly adds doubt to the dead man's part in the whole thing by calling him a suspected "burglar", but elsewhere, it's reported that the man's accomplices fled as the police were approaching, so they were identified as burglars. At this point, what's the point of arresting everyone in the household? If it's because of the investigation on whether the dead man was running away as he was stabbed, why not just arrest the one who stabbed the dead man?
If your homeowners don't know what "reasonable force" is, then your government has not done a good enough job of telling the public what the "well-defined, well-established over hundreds of years" meaning of the term is. The CPS website gives examples and I think it does try to explain it as clearly as it can without listing specific courses of action, but if my definition of subduing an intruder is breaking his knees so he can't overpower a small woman like me and smashing the hand that's holding a gun and breaking all of his fingers in the process, and the jury's definition happens to be just to kick the gun out of his hand so it's out of reach, it's pretty obvious things are subjective, as we've already established. Even the CPS website says to just do what you feel is instinctively right. But people don't all have the same level of fear or feel the same level of threat in identical situations.
You have obviously never been in a situation where you feared for your life. I have. I already had the police officer on duty's number on speed dial and they arrived 4 minutes after I called, but by that time, my neighbor had already pulled out his gun and scared off the stalker who was trying to get in my apartment, a man I didn't know who found me after seeing me at the laundrette. That man had been coming to my apartment in the middle of the night and knocking on my bedroom window, sometimes staying until 2am and saying he "just wanted to be friends." Don't tell me my fear is more than what you deem "reasonable." If I'm afraid enough to use a kitchen knife on someone who's terrorising me, that fear is very real. If my neighbor had shot the man and he had been arrested, I'd have lobbied until death to free him. Good thing it happened in the US, where guns are legal and people can protect their life, loved ones and property with as much force as they have on hand.
As for Mr. Martin, I agree with the murder charge. The burglars were running away and he could've made a citizen's arrest instead, but he chose to shoot them. Besides, it was an illegal weapon.
Dontpushme.
I want to keep going on about this. But suffice to say in 30 years as a CID officer in London, I never had much of a problem deciding what reasonable force amounted to. Neither did the barristers who were supervising cases where that was a factor. But then I am speaking from experience not surmising what might be in hypothetical situations.
Fortunately guilt or innocence is not left for police officers or barristers to decide, that is the job of Magistrates and Jurors, and laws are made by elected members of parliament.
As responsible adult voters with wide experience of life, the members of this forum are perfectly at liberty to debate this subject too.
You are of course entitled to disagree with some of the opinions expressed.
In my day whether to charge a person with an offence was the decision of the Detective in charge of the investigation. The continuance thereafter and further or amended charges was the decision of the police solicitors dept, the barrister i/c the case and maybe the DPP.
As you correctly say the decision whether to find a person guilty or not guilty is that of the jury, as directed by the trial judge.
The law as it affects reasonable force is not a matter of statue law as decided by parliament but case law as decided by president in earlier cases.
i wish you guys would get the full facts about tony martin and the house which was broken into
i think john is trying to you to lie toif someone breaks into your home...dont tell the police that used the bat which you keep at the side of your bed...tell them that it was dark and you picked something up and lashed out at a stranger in your house tried to hit you
i have learnt to do what my wife says!
These politicians need to get a grip.
If a person gets confronted by an intruder in his own home how does he know he doesn't have a gun or a knife or any other sort of weapon? He doesn't, but more than likely the intruder has some kind of weapon or tool. The occupant might have his kids in the house, so he's going to protect them at all costs. He can't be sure this intruder won't hurt/kill them or himself so he's going to do whatever he can to immobilise him. If it means a crack around the head with a baseball bat then so be it. If the intruder dies, tough luck! He shouldn't be there in the first place!
My mate was burgled but he slept right through it. The copper told him if he had woken up and confronted them he would have probably been stabbed. Says it all really!
Mp's I'm afraid represent themselves and they decide which way to vote irrespective of the public's wishes.
Best example is capital punishment, over the years often it has been concluded that most of the public would like to see it brought back for certain heinous crimes.
But the Mp's have decided not to vote for it so clearly a case of mp's not doing what the majority of the public want
Re-guarding vigilante groups I'm not totally for it but not totally against it either.
If you had a persistent troublemaker and nothing was being done and peoples lives were a misery and you could sort it out yourselves why not?
Also how about pedophiles? If a known pedophile moved in next to my daughter and grand-daughter I would not hesitate in making sure the community knew about him.
Sorry Les I disagree with you. MPs are elected by us to represent us. If a substantial majority of the people in their constituency express a particular view to their MP, and also tell their MP that if he/she does not support their wishes that they will not vote for them next time, I believe there would be very few MPs who would not do as their electorate want.
The big problem with the way MP's vote is that very few of their electorate ever contact them expressing their views.
You mentioned capital punishment. In I believe the 60's there was a free vote on capital punishment. I contacted my MP to ensure that he knew I wanted him to vote in favour of retaining it. In the conversation he said I was the third person who had contacted him, out of around 100,000 in his constituency, regarding the vote; It was the day of the vote in Parliament ! I have no reason to believe that is not an average figure for 'peoples involvement.' Later that day, my MP voted the way I wanted.
The reason why minorities often get the laws they want is because they are vociferous. The silent majority is ignored. I do not see that as a fault of the MPs nor the system but of us the ordinary voters, who say 'we can't change anything' and we just complain to our friends when things go against what we would like.
As for vigilante groups. If one could be sure they would always get it right, that 'might' be an argument in support but even the legal system (police, barristers, courts etc) with all there checks and balances get it wrong sometimes. What chance would a mob have of doing so? What we need in an efficient system of policing and prosecuting which ensure protection of the individual, up-holds the legitimate rights of all and justice win (the guilty get convicted, innocent never get charged). However, whilst we have a majority of solicitors and barristers in Parliament (ensuring that new laws do not interfere with their lifestyle and ability to get paid for arguing lost causes) that is not going to happen.
The utopian solution: Voters get a lot more directly involved with the way their elected representatives do their job, maybe with a panel of unpaid local people questioning their every move on a daily basis. But don't hold your breath, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon !
How easy is it exactly to contact your MPs? Are people generally encouraged to tell them their opinions?
Very easy phone (to their office), post, email
http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/
Face to face at their regular consituency "surgeries"
Good bit here from Littlejohn
The Left-wing criminal justice establishment will fight this every inch of the way. If there’s one thing they hate, it’s those they accuse of ‘taking the law into their own hands’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz1QBQuJkCU
The grub who died was out on Police bail over another "suspected" burglary. Justice has been done
A burglar stabbed to death after an attempted break-in was on police bail for another burglary, it has emerged.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1QDgOV5vn
Yep....serves theright.
do you feel you've wasted your time
I think he's been chatting her up.
no wonder why she looks so miserableI think he's been chatting her up.
Guess who I was lucky enough to go to school with.
Ann Widdecombe.
Guess who I was lucky enough to go to school with.
Ann Widdecombe.
lucky guy graham
Good for you DedI'm sure she appreciates your eloquent sarcasm and humour. She's probably added you to her blocked senders list now
Good for you Ded
maybe its a super injunction but no one can tell you about it
Your probably right again Joemaybe its a super injunction but no one can tell you about it
i wonder who would come out worse, if a burglar did break into your home and you tried to confront him
Yeah, FEMALES.... coming in...grabbing your bits.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
