Old Bill have lost the plot here (Not TVP), Self defence Options

[gel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...with-knife.html

This is amazing; hopefully Old Bill will be corrected on this.
What I choose to wave about in my own house is up to me!
In some States in US she would have been legally allowed to shoot them;
believe they can do so through a closed door even; this must make visitors,
even legit ones nervous!.

[x2lls]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...with-knife.html

This is amazing; hopefully Old Bill will be corrected on this.
What I choose to wave about in my own house is up to me!
In some States in US she would have been legally allowed to shoot them;
believe they can do so through a closed door even; this must make visitors,
even legit ones nervous!.

Absolutely agree...

And with the weather as it is, what should she have done if they couldn't get there?
I say stuff the law, protect yourself, your family and property and worry about the bull****e later. It wouldn't take long before the whole country was behind you. If you violate someone else, I say you have forgone all civil liberty.

[lordtup]

It's the same old story , man's home his his castle , man defends said castle and gets hauled before the very system that is supposedly there to protect him ,when it is violated .
It is happening with such regularity that it is very doubtful that public opinion will carry any mandate for change. Only with great political will can the law be changed , and I see no sign of that happening this , or for that matter the other , side of a general election .

Having said all that I still keep a pick axe handle behind my front door and would have no hesitation at all in using it to it's full effect .

PS . Might be warmer in clink .

[JeffG]

In some States in US she would have been legally allowed to shoot them;

What, for being in the garden? Aren't you glad you don't live there?

Still, the police action in this case was a bit OTT. Maybe they were just getting back at her for her cringe-making New Year's programme.

[gel]

Cameron's lot promising to toughen up householder's rights:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8432678.stm

Predicatbaly current lot see nothing wrong with status quo, and presents scenarios such as this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6959161/Bu...even-write.html

On recent form, son of Peasemore Cameron, still fails to pass my Cuprinol test
ie he doesn't do what it says on tin, and is not a radical tory, and has recent track record
of not keeping his word*; so self defence law, may stay as now ie protecting villains, like
the Asian guy jailed near Reading who chased some intruders and gave em some summary justice;
he went to clink, intruder didn't.

*Now we sort of expect that from most MP's I guess, but I was just hoping!!!

[Andy1]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...?articleID=8598

[lordtup]

Cameron's lot promising to toughen up householder's rights:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8432678.stm

Predicatbaly current lot see nothing wrong with status quo, and presents scenarios such as this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6959161/Bu...even-write.html

On recent form, son of Peasemore Cameron, still fails to pass my Cuprinol test
ie he doesn't do what it says on tin, and is not a radical tory, and has recent track record
of not keeping his word*; so self defence law, may stay as now ie protecting villains, like
the Asian guy jailed near Reading who chased some intruders and gave em some summary justice;
he went to clink, intruder didn't.

*Now we sort of expect that from most MP's I guess, but I was just hoping!!!

Just when we thought the weather was as bad as it gets , we find ourselves rapidly approaching an either or situation with regards to who is going to control our lives for the next 4 or 5 years
I agree with you sentiments on Cameron ( I think he will be an unmitigated disaster ) but who with hand on heart can argue the merits of the present incumbents .
Lets all go of to the good old US of A , at least we get to shoot people.........yippee .

[Jeven]

If this is completely true then it seems rather ill thought out, though even the article says it was just advice and nothing more. However I suspect the story is somewhat one sided and exagerated to make it a better story. I'm sure it was more along the lines of, "Miss, in future please call the police first before presenting yourself to any intruders, if you really feel threatened then you have every right to defend yourself but please do not risk confronting them, doing so just puts you at greater risk."

[Strafin]

were you there then? I think chances are it happened pretty much as printed.

[Jeven]

were you there then? I think chances are it happened pretty much as printed.

Well I said that it may have happened as printed, however it seems convenient this is printed to support their little campaign. And these campaigns are one of the main ways papers are generating money these days so it doesn't seem beyond the scope of imagination that they might omit certain details, or simply chery pick their quotes in order to make it better suit their business needs.

Furthermore if it did happen as claimed then the Police officers involved need to be reminded of the law. To quote a quote from the article:

"Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. [...] "

The law does allow her to defend herself, as long as it is not grossly over the top. If the police genuinely advised her she couldn't defend herself in her own home then they should be put on a training course and dealt with appropriately.


So basically, I think they probably advised her that calling them and staying safely inside the house is a safer option than confronting the criminals with a knife because in all likelihood she could lose the knife and end up getting stabbed with it. Furthermore I wouldn't doubt that the Telegraph would write their article in such a way that supports their revenue stream (their campaign) rather than from a completely neutral point of view. Then again papers are not designed to be completely neutral, people read them for their bias and opinions. There are always two sides to a story, in this case we've heard the side that supports the Telegraphs campaign, I'd be interested in hearing the other, but we won't.


Edit: Of course I'm just speculating and presenting an alternative to the story told in the paper. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between.

[regor]

The whole debate seems to centre on the notion of reasonable force and use of a weapon.

The view of authority seems to be that the householder/victim must only confront the assailant with equal or less force or threat than is being presented by the intruder.

So when a six foot 18 stone thug attacks a five foot nothing 6 stone victim the victim is not allowed to use a lump of wood or anything else to even up the odds a bit. They are expected to abide (more or less) by the Queensbury rules.

and as for calling the police - how long is it reasonable to wait?

[Jeven]

The view of authority seems to be that the householder/victim must only confront the assailant with equal or less force or threat than is being presented by the intruder.

So when a six foot 18 stone thug attacks a five foot nothing 6 stone victim the victim is not allowed to use a lump of wood or anything else to even up the odds a bit. They are expected to abide (more or less) by the Queensbury rules.

Not true, that is misinformation that even the BBC pointed out, though I guess they have less reason to be sensationalist than most news sources. If you can reasonably justify the force you use then it is fine. If someone larger than me is walking towards me, in my home then I have every right to pick up whatever I can find and hit him until he is no longer a threat. If I keep hitting him then I have crossed the line. Once he's unconcious / tied up or whatever then I would call the police and an ambulance. That would be perfectly reasonable. Equally if the guy was smaller than me then it would still be reasonable because he isn't fleeing and he is in my home so I feel threatened, and how do I know if he has a weapon or not.

It is only unreasonable if the person is fleeing / the person has surrendered themselves / you continue hitting them after they are no longer a reasonable threat / you take a sword and then seek them out with the intent of injuring or killing them.

Obviously I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice but that is what the police have said in the past and what the BBC have reported. That is also what any reasonable jury would go by.

and as for calling the police - how long is it reasonable to wait?

If you're safe then as long as it takes for them to arrive, if you are not safe and they are threatening you then obviously you should defend yourself instantly. The key point here is not to seek out your own death or injury by confronting the intruders who are most likely far more capable for using a weapon than you. Property can be replaced limbs and lives cannot.

[JeffG]

... it seems convenient this is printed to support their little campaign ...

... Furthermore I wouldn't doubt that the Telegraph would write their article in such a way that supports their revenue stream (their campaign) ...

... we've heard the side that supports the Telegraphs campaign ...

Should I deduce from this that the Telegraph is running some sort of campaign?

[Strafin]

If you knocked out or tied someone up I think you would have a lot of justifying to do. You wouldn't get away with that.

[Jeven]

Should I deduce from this that the Telegraph is running some sort of campaign?

Not quite sure but they might be

If you knocked out or tied someone up I think you would have a lot of justifying to do. You wouldn't get away with that.

Depends on the situation. If you felt genuinely threatened knocking someone out could be justified. The average human does not handle that sort of situation well which is why there is some understanding that your reaction may not be entirely proportionate but it might be justified. Of course if you were a police officer you wouldn't be justified in doing it, but as a normal member of the public you could, if the situation was right.

Equally restraining someone (perhaps not with ropes admittedly) is quite understandable if you are fearing for the safety of your family.

Remember you can only justify this sort of force if you are in fear of physical harm to yourself or family, not if you are in fear of theft or damage to your home. Your reactions, to be justified, must not be premeditated and obviously you should try to avoid confrontation if possible (lock yourself in a room).


Edit: Of course discussing all this is all quite pointless as it is really a case by case thing, but the point is if you act in a reasonable manner in defending yourself you should be fine.

[Strafin]

But all recent evidence points to that not being the case.

[JeffG]

Assuming you were able to overpower an intruder, then tied them up to immobilise them until the police arrived, then apart from their dignity, I don't see what else has been hurt (providing the restraints themselves caused no physical harm). Why should you "not get away with" that?

[Darren]

Restraining someone is a rather dangerous place to get into.

Ask any police officer about Positional Asphyxia.

[Bloggo]

My home was broken into 18 months ago and my wife called the Police believing that the thief was still in the house when she returned home as the alarm was still going.
The Police arrived 90 minutes later.
If this is the support you can expect then I think you have little choice other than to be in a position to defend yourself as effectively as you can minimising the risks to yourself.
I would imagine that ahndy Baseball bat or two would be helpful.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Assuming you were able to overpower an intruder, then tied them up to immobilise them until the police arrived, then apart from their dignity, I don't see what else has been hurt (providing the restraints themselves caused no physical harm). Why should you "not get away with" that?

I think Myleene should have allowed the intruders access to her house. She should then have allowed them to ravage her and take all her possessions. I mean its only fair. It would have been against the intruders rights to stop them.