lost labour vote's?

[Newt]

corydoras:

BTW would your scenario still hold if you shot someone breaking into you house with a firearm you did not have a permit for?

"Permit" doesn't apply in my case. Where I live, you need a permit only if you intend to carry a concealed hand gun.

 

There are a few places over here where you need permission to have a long gun (rifles only though - no place that I know of has gone crazy enough to disallow shotguns) or hand gun that you don't want to carry concealed on your person when out of the house. I won't live in any of those places.

[Alan Stubbs]

After being mugged last June, I asked the police their definition of 'reasonable force' - The sergeant's reply was 'Enough to keep the little f**ker on the ground!'

 

 

I was too shaken to as whether that meant permanently!

[waterman1013]

Personally it seems to me that if someone is on your property illegally then they should have no protection under the law and no case against the property owner for damages the invader might sustain.

 

Mike

[Ian FG]

Criminal Law Act 1967

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

 

Sounds good on paper but personally, I prefer Newt's system.

[argyll]

I have a swordstick under the bed. If anyone broke into my house carrying a cutlass , foil or epee, they'd really be in trouble.

Seriously I'd have no problems about using it. I have a short fuse, even shorter when it comes to low lifes and I know how I'd react. Went through the scenario in my head, particularly after the Tony Martin affair. Had they returned a verdict of 'innocent' I bet the petty crime figures would have tumbled overnight. Another typical Bliar response to the need for firm, if in some quarters unpopular, action. Tony Martin in that respect was an easy target and the government bottled it big time (as they say). I know that toughening up the law relating to meeting violence with violence would not have got Tony Martin completely off the hook , but it sure as hell would have made some difference.

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

I have a swordstick under the bed. If anyone broke into my house carrying a cutlass , foil or epee, they'd really be in trouble.    

Seriously I'd have no problems about using it. I have a short fuse, even shorter when it comes to low lifes and I know how I'd react. Went through the scenario in my head, particularly after the Tony Martin affair. Had they returned a verdict of 'innocent' I bet the petty crime figures would have tumbled overnight. Another typical Bliar response to the need for firm, if in some quarters unpopular, action. Tony Martin in that respect was an easy target and the government bottled it big time (as they say).  I know that toughening up the law relating to meeting violence with violence would not have got Tony Martin completely off the hook , but it sure as hell would have made some difference.

The problem with the Tony martin issue was that he shot the little b*****d in the back when he was on the way out.... so it wasn't self defence in any sense. It doesn't mean I didn't sympathise with the guy though.

[A Worm OOE]

"The problem with the Tony Martin issue was that he shot the little b*****d in the back when he was on the way out.... so it wasn't self defence in any sense."

 

As I see it the argument should not be about wether it was self defence or not. To my mind the argument is about cause and effect. If someone were to come into my house scare me witless, gets me more angry than I would ever normaly be, fills my body with more afdrenalin than it knows what to do with and as a result causes me to do something irational. Is it my fault?

This is not mr angry speeking by nature I am very much the oposite. I just think that if something like this were to hapen then my reaction might be more extreme than I would like.

[*Ant*]

I'm very much with you mr. worm.

 

I have two children of 9 and 2, it is a natural reaction to protect them at all costs if one senses a risk to their well being. Could a case of diminished responsability be justified if I killed an intruder whilst under the instinct of protecting my family?

[kleinboet]

I agree with all these postings.

I actually had a word with the chief constable in my area and asked him to define "reasonable force" and told him that I am disabled and if I hit him with my crutch (medical that is!) would that be reasonable. He just grinned at me!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Ian FG]

kleinboet,

It is not for the Chief Constable of your police force to define what is reasonable force(in the circumstances) that job goes to the judge and jury. He was probably too busy thinking about how he can get to his retirement without dropping the ball to give you a straight answer.