Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'

Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'

www.bbc.co.uk

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.

David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".

Mr Clarke has also said he is committed to axing indeterminate prison sentences despite opposition from many Tory MPs.

Mr Clarke has come under attack over proposed changes to sentencing policy but has denied making a series of U-t

(visit the link for the full news article)

We've been waiting for the law to be clarified for a long time now.

Whether this will stop Police arresting householders, then referring the case to the CPS is another matter.

There have been numerous cases of people performing what they believe is a "citizens arrest" only to be arrested themselves for unlawfully detaining someone, and in some cases, kidnapping.

Now I am NOT advocating vigilante justice, but surely, protecting your home is a basic and fundamental right of the homeowner or occupant (in the case of rented properties.

Interestingly, this news comes hot on te heels of news that Police have been breaking into peoples homes to "raise awareness" about securing homes and protecting them against burglars, by making sure windows etc are secured, in this thread


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by budski


Good Luck to you!! It is really a shame that your legislators have worked so hard to limit your ability to defend your family and home in the event of a violent intrusion or any unlawful intrusion for that matter. Too bad the crooks don't follow the same set of laws. You should be protected if you whack an intruder over the head with a cricket bat or ring his bell with a 9 iron.

My state of Ohio and many others have adopted the Castle Doctrine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his "castle"), and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state though not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine law. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to a line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day." It is sometimes considered derogatory as it may be used to imply that those who assert the Castle Doctrine defense want to have to shoot their assailant. More pejorative is the term "Shoot The Milkman Law", sometimes used by anti-gun activists to illustrate the potential abuses of the law in cases involving mistake of fact as to the identity or intentions of the person shot.

en.wikipedia.org...

Defend your family, yourself and your home with whatever means necessary.

reply to post by jibeho


The thing is that the law has become so confused over the years, from Common Law, that the Police rarely have an idea if a person should be prosecuted, so they arrest the homeowner (to be on the safe side) then refer the case to the CPS (Crown prosecution Service) where it is invariably thrown out, except in cases where it is felt "excessive" force is used.

The law becomes even muddier in the case of what consitutes "reasonable" force - for instance, if a burgalr was unarmed, and posed little risk to the homeowners or occupants, then clubbing them with a bat into unconciousness would probably be considered "excessive" force.

Under the law, you have a right to defend yourself or your property by using reasonable force, however, the Police rarely get involved in the decision as to what is reasonable, which is why they refer it to the CPS - which in turn is little comfort to those who have been arrested and locked up, interviewed and charged, and THEN told it would be referred to the CPS.

There so many amendments, and laws which conflict that I believe it is time for a radical overhaul of the judicial system - for instance, the UK constitution and common law gives us certain rights, which are then denied under another law which takes precedence due to the nature of the legislation.

New laws are supposed to run concurrent and alongside existing common laws, and some European law (such as the Human Rights Act) but invariably they conflict, and then need to be clarified at great expense, which is why I believe an overhaul of the justice system is needed.

There is still a law on the books which says I need to practise the longbow every day for a certain amount of time...

You'd think self-defense of your person and/or home would be a given all over. I do understand the initial investigation if one used deadly force to confirm it was out of self-defense. Same goes with pets. If an intruder is attacked by a victim's dog or whatever and it is proven that the injured was infact an intruder and not someone the owner knows and is claiming otherwise just to avoid legal trouble, that dog should not be taken away or put to sleep. Especially if the dog had no history whatsoever of being aggressive. If I was being attacked by some rapist and my dog saved me by biting off the dude's wang, I'd praise my dog. Not be afraid that once he tastes blood he is suddenly going to turn into a vicious killing K9.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

It's a disgusting shame that this has to be "clarified".

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's a disgusting shame that this has to be "clarified".

It's what happens when the law becomes so bloated by successive governments each with their own agenda.

Laws are hardly ever repealed, they are just left on the books, and new contradictory laws come in which take precedence for political reasons.

No wonder the police get confused - even lawyers don't know the law half the time.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's a disgusting shame that this has to be "clarified".

Thats because of the police wanting to convict the householder whos the victim. The law would be perfectly fine if the police werent so stupid and used the smallest bit of common sense.

The clarification is perfect, you can do whatever you can while theyre in the house but you cant chase them down once they flee.

Now all we have to do is get rid of the law that allows them to sue if they hurt themselves on your property.

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's a disgusting shame that this has to be "clarified".

Thats because of the police wanting to convict the householder whos the victim. The law would be perfectly fine if the police werent so stupid and used the smallest bit of common sense.

It's the fear of being sued that makes the police act as they do.

Much easier to arrest all concerned and then refer it to the CPS, which is what happens now, where the case against the homeowner or occupant is invariably thrown out.

The Police do NOT convict anyone - it's the CPS that takes people to court, except for some minor offences, and even then if you choose to go to crown court it has to be referred to the CPS.

The same type of things happen here in the US with our legislator by constantly adding new laws and adding new rules on top of any and all existing legislation and regulations. It keeps them relevant and keeps the red tape ridden bureaucracy alive. It also just happens to enure that lawyers will always have work to interpret these complicated laws and regulation for us peons. It really is an amazing scam and overhaul for both of our nation's would be quite refreshing.

I won't hold my breath.

reply to post by budski


Arent the Police showing, by breaking into peoples houses, that they must be overstaffed if they have the resources to spare to break into houses instead of doing what they should?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by budski

 

Arent the Police showing, by breaking into peoples houses, that they must be overstaffed if they have the resources to spare to break into houses instead of doing what they should?

I'm sorry...this is very very funny...not because or to make levity out of it..but because it is so common sense.

Common sense is becoming a rarity today..particularly in lieu of "government job security."

Your question is right on the mark.

What is happening in the UK is a government which no longer represents the interests of the people..but the interests of the government.

This is also the template which someone is trying to bring here to the USA...dependency on government.

The problem that government is running up against here in the USA is that Americans are not a controllable in thinking as are the Brits. However...another generation of public school education financed by government should do it and make us into Englishmen in just about everything.

England is making a train wreck out of their next generations through public education and laws which follow this public education template of government dependency. This is particularly acute in the inner cities and is also being kept hidden from us here in the USA. Our MSM is complicit in hiding this train wreck from us.

Be Warned about this.

I am however gratified to hear that someone in the UK can still think this through. I do not however put much stock in this law passing nation wide...because someone out there ...not seen and not known but very influential needs peoples to be dependent on government. They are deeply entrenched in government Bureaucracy.

Thanks,
Orangetom

What good is the right to self-defence when you're not even allowed to carry anything to defend yourself? Anything you have with you, even a toothpick is illegal if it is carried for self-defence in the UK.


armbritain.com...




Reform firearms law - legalize pepper spray!

reply to post by budski


If this goes through it will be about bloody time!!!

Now the over-draconian gun controls need to be overhauled and radically revamped along with the 1953 'offensive' weapon act.

I hope it goes through but on the back of my mind I have my doubts, the tory coalition have caved in before and done u-turns on 'tough' policy's like this...

Just be glad you aren't in the US dealing with the issue. Burglar broke into a house, falls and breaks his leg. Guess who got sued? The home owner. And guess who won? The burglar. Disgusting right?

reply to post by TheDarkTurnip


And before you know it we'll be just like the US with a huge murder rate, thinly disguised by a so-called "right"

Guns and weapons are not the answer - more effective policing is.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by TheDarkTurnip

 

And before you know it we'll be just like the US with a huge murder rate, thinly disguised by a so-called "right"

Guns and weapons are not the answer - more effective policing is.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!

I'm glad I gave up on a movie/television/public education.

There you have it ...no forest for the trees. Astonishing!!

Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


Laugh as much as you like, but on this side of the atlantic we don't NEED guns to defend ourselves, thanks to the gun laws.

No burglars here use guns - only bank robbers use them.

In fact it's a very small group of hardcore criminals, NOT burglars who use or even have access to weapons.

So you can scoff all you like - I am safe in the knowledge that no-one will shoot me in my sleep, because they fear that I might have a gun myself.

Like I said, getting the police to actually do their job instead of being drowned in red tape is the answer, along with prison and rehabilitation for all except the worst offenders.

reply to post by budski


budski,

more effective policing is.

Like I said, getting the police to actually do their job instead of being drowned in red tape is the answer, along with prison and rehabilitation for all except the worst offenders.

Exactly what it was about which I was laughing. The police are hamstrung by your political leadership.

There are areas in England where people are living in terror of the gangs and violent individuals running around in the streets. These peoples and their belongings are being held hostage to your sorry leadership and PC thinking.
There is no hope for this kind of system without a major overhaul or revolution.
The leadership is as bad as the thugs on the streets. No difference. You have a non represenative government.

This is precisely the type of government our socially incompetant leadership want to bring here to the states. A non represenative government where people are dependent on government for everything...including their security. This does not even make good nonsense to thinking peoples.

You may not have gun crime and death but you have many other types of crime and death ...including Darwin Awards type death on the weekends.

Nonetheless when people are not secure in their homes and posessions...you are in a non represenative government.

I am not inpressed with what is going on in the UK. And I am also aware that someone plans this same template for here in America.

Thanks,
Orangetom