| Author |
Topic |
|
NAZZ
Barsoom
United Kingdom
179 Posts |
 Posted - 27/09/2007 : 17:03:24
|
About time.
People should be allowed to defend their home,loved ones and to assist
others who are a target of crime without penalty.
Using reasonnable force,if situation nessecitates it, of course!!
A review is being launched into the law in England and Wales protecting those who intervene in criminal situations.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has been a "have-a-go hero" four times, said he wanted to clarify "that the law is on the side of the citizen".
He said self-defence laws work "much better than most people think, but not as well as it could or should".
The Conservatives said they had long called for a change in self-defence laws and called this "long overdue".
Mr Straw said he wants to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.
'Good citizens'
He made the announcement as Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth drew to a close with the party's traditional send-off, delivered by deputy leader Harriet Harman.
Mr Straw said he knew "from personal experience that you have all of a millisecond to make the judgement about whether to intervene" in a crime.
You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force
Justice Secretary Jack Straw on being a "have-a-go hero"
"The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens but also be seen to work on their side."
Of the four times when Mr Straw has intervened to stop criminals, he managed to detain the offender on three occasions.
In 1980 he overheard a burglar breaking into a members club in his Blackburn constituency, chased him down the street and detained him until police arrived.
HAVE YOUR SAY
As soon as you commit a crime you lose any rights that you may have had
Adrian Mugridge, Chester
Send us your comments
In the mid 1980s at Oval Tube station in south London he came across an 11-year-old boy who had just been robbed by a man and detained the offender.
He chased a man who had attacked a woman at the same underground station in the early 1990s, but did not catch him.
Then in 1996 he chased a man who had robbed a member of the public and detained the suspect until police arrived.
Public 'anxiety'
"I was presented, just by chance, with being a witness to criminal behaviour and thought I should intervene," Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Nick Clegg
My concern, frankly, is the government appears to be a bit confused
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman
"You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force."
He went on: "No-one knows whether you're going to intervene until it happens.
"Those that do intervene in this situation face the anxiety that they'll be the subject of a police investigation.
"Too many unnecessary police investigations take place. I want to make the law clearer."
Mr Straw wants people to be aware that the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows them to use reasonable force to apprehend suspects, but was not advocating recklessness, his spokesman said.
Home secretary's speech
Shadow Secretary for Justice Nick Herbert said that Mr Straw and Labour MPs had repeatedly rejected Conservative calls for the law to be changed to allow people to defend their homes against burglars.
He added: "The last time the Government cynically signalled a change on this they reneged just months later. People will rightly question the motive and substance of this latest review."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said the law did not need to be changed as it was "already very, very clear" that "proportionate, reasonable force" could be used.
No-one believes violent crime is down and her own department says it has doubled
Shadow home secretary David Davis responds to Jacqui Smith
In full: Jacqui Smith's speech
"My concern, frankly, is the government appears to be a bit confused," he told BBC Radio Five Live.
"On the one hand, Straw seems to be saying the law is working better than people think.
"On the other hand he seems to be stoking up public fear, if you like, by saying 'I'm going to review it', but not really saying in what way it's going to be reviewed."
The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service, judges and other government ministers are expected to be consulted during the review.
Meanwhile Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's speech covered, among other issues, Labour's commitment to give local people more information about the performance of local police, and tougher checks on people travelling to the UK.
She rejected Conservative claims there was "anarchy in the UK" and said it was irresponsible to stoke up people's fear of crime.
But shadow home secretary David Davis later rejected that suggestion.
He said: "The Home Secretary is in denial about the problems we face, which makes her part of the problem. No-one believes violent crime is down and her own department says it has doubled."
|
 |
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5851 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 17:28:05
|
To an extent I must agree with Jacqui Smith. Though I do not necessarily hold that an undertaking to review the 'Self Defence' laws (which seemingly also cover the defence of others) is stoking up public fear. I do hold though that a bland statement such as,[I] want to clarify "that the law is on the side of the citizen". and 'to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.' without stating how he proposes to do so is rather lame.
I do not think that we necessarily need more information about Police performance. I think most of us would be much happier with more physical presence rather then paper reassurance when it comes to policing in this country. If it is a case of they can either spend their time filling in target related paperwork or they can be out there on the street answering calls ... answer the call dear officer would be most people's answer. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
 |
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 20:24:55
|
Agree with Nazz it is about time.
If someone breaks the law by breaking in they deserve no protection from the law.
You need to act swift and positively as you do not know if the are armed or intent on harm.
Shoot first ask questions later in these cases. |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6771 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 20:38:56
|
Yes Nazz
New Labour
are in a Mess about this.
Yes Daveb,
Swift.
|
|
|
|
nightowl
Barsoom
261 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 20:42:51
|
The law is very woolly here "to use reasonable force" is not very clear what you can do or not.
I think its reasonable for someone to use a night stick or truncheon to stop burglars and the like after prior warnings to stop and leave.
The use of any other weapon must be illegal, just look at what happened to Tony Martin who responded over and above what was needed.
Any criminal who uses force in the pursuit of a crime must lose all basic protection the law gives the rest of us law abiding citizens.
Lets not reward unacceptable behaviour...... |
Edited by - nightowl on 27/09/2007 20:45:24 |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2007 : 20:45:10
|
I would not wish to wait to see how reasonable someone who has forced entry into a home is!
Tony Martin lived on a remote farm. No chance of help or knowing what he confronted. He may not have needed to use the weapon but we were not there and the people in his home were not exactly angels.
I may have done the same thing in his situation.
He would have been alone and scared. |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
Edited by - Daveb on 27/09/2007 22:13:51 |
|
|
|
Denise
Barsoom
129 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 10:29:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I do hold though that a bland statement such as,[I] want to clarify "that the law is on the side of the citizen". and 'to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.' without stating how he proposes to do so is rather lame.
Quite so. This does seem to indicate that ten years of meaningless waffle did not end with Blair (as if we ever thought it would).
Jack Straw knows very well that the problem isn't with the law but with how it is interpreted, which - presumably - is what he intends to "clarify" through written guidelines that must of necessity be non-binding and therefore alter nothing (except the public's perception of Jack Straw).
For every case (some deservedly so) of "have a go" heroes finding themselves before the courts and at the centre of a sensation, there are very many more that never go so far due to common-sense police and CPS decisions, and of those that do a good number are dismissed at magistrate level or by judges further down the line.
What we have isn't perfect, but for the most part it does work, as attested by the fact that the number of these cases arising every year is so tiny as to inflame the outrage of the public and the media. |
Voice of Reason / Norfolk Unity |
|
|
|
Dingo
Barsoom
United Kingdom
281 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 11:59:17
|
nightowl, you cannot use any weapon that you keep ready for such use as it implies premeditation to assault somebody. A nightstick by the front door that was used could result in the owner being prosecuted.
Denise, sadly police officers rarely exercise common sense in this target driven culture, they have it in spades but it is not allowed so much. This was spoken of by the review recently completed by Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/flanagan-interim-report
I cannot see that any review will sort this mess out. I lean towards the American approach where any force is justified if someone breaks in or attacks you in or on your own property.
|
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 19:27:40
|
So the answer is to use excessive force and kill any intruder.
Kill any witnesses and dispose of any bodies! |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
No Expert
Barsoom
430 Posts |
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 19:36:13
|
A bit tame really.
I was expecting something more N E |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
nightowl
Barsoom
261 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 20:02:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dingo
nightowl, you cannot use any weapon that you keep ready for such use as it implies premeditation to assault somebody. A nightstick by the front door that was used could result in the owner being prosecuted.
Denise, sadly police officers rarely exercise common sense in this target driven culture, they have it in spades but it is not allowed so much. This was spoken of by the review recently completed by Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/flanagan-interim-report
I cannot see that any review will sort this mess out. I lean towards the American approach where any force is justified if someone breaks in or attacks you in or on your own property.
A walking stick then, whats a rose by any other name... |
|
|
|
Dingo
Barsoom
United Kingdom
281 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 22:26:37
|
| Spot on |
|
|
|
Fluffy Sheep
Discworld
1186 Posts |
Posted - 29/09/2007 : 23:29:38
|
| That `bedside table` effort posted by No Expert - we have as household decor, hung from picture rails, a few of those small circular shields, (we call them `bucklers`) decorated with Celtic knotwork, part of the family`s old re-enactment kit. The `buckler`, unlike the big round shields, was used as much as a weapon as a defense on re-enactment battlefields. You could manoeuver it, aim it and smack people very effectively with the edges of it like you couldn`t do with a proper-sized shield. Of course, one would briefly attempt to reason with them first... |
Row faster, slaves! Caesar wants to waterski! |
|
|
|
Hambag
Barsoom
140 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 13:17:20
|
The laws do not need reviewing.
What some of you Charles Bronson wannabes don't appreciate is that by allowing everyone to use unlimited force in their house, it ups the ante. Burglars and intruders are liable to use more force and become armed where previously they didn't. This will cause an escalation effect. This may be fine for you, if you are mega hard, but think of poor old Doris - the random old dear next door. Not good if she gets pistol whipped or knifed by a jumpy burglar when previously she might not have.
Reasonable force is just that. You can actually kill someone using reasonable force with self defence. What is not reasonable is incapacitating an intruder then slitting their throat, which some of you seem to think is quite acceptable by definition of what you have said. |
|
|
|
thedelboy
Discworld
United Kingdom
1404 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 13:48:07
|
most european countries give thier citizens the right to protect thier property,as well as themselves!Protecting yourself and your property is already well defined in British law;sadly the cps and some individual police forces do not seem to have read the said laws,I get very annoyed at the so called discretionary powers of the police and the cps(cps should have RA inserted into thier initials)the law should be plain so everyone understands it in its entirity;If a police officer has a target to reach he will err into filling the target rather than using common sense( as most of us would in the work place)just watch how many people will get done for smoking at the wheel in the next couple of months.I was nearly pushed of the road on saturday by a pillock driving a van with foriegn plates (LT154 something) he then questioned my driving skills!!right little wanker.I politly told him it is illegal in the uk to drive and use a mobile phone to whit he called me a tosser |
keep on smiling |
|
|
|
NAZZ
Barsoom
United Kingdom
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 14:24:36
|
Bronson wannabe maybe,but hambag you gonna sit there and let some geezer threaten you and ransack your house?
Case in point may or june on a sat night at 2am a guy got in my home,daughter came screaming upstairs to wake me.
First thing you feel is scared,not knowing what you are facing,then adrenalin kicks in,protect wife kds,material stuff don't matter.
He was almost at the top of stairs when i came out of the bedroom.He had taken his trousers off for some reason.
Anyhoo managed to get him out of the house via the kitchen,where he tried to grab a serrated knife,got that away from him.
got him out of the house,fence panel smashed cos he went through it,and f**ked him off up the road.
There was no way i was going to sit about like a lemon and let him do whatever he wanted to.
Did not call the police,prob not got to my place till monday,plus they might have arrested me for unnessaccery force on the intruder.I used no weapon just justifiable,in my case,persuasion.
Could not get back to sleep afterwoods as the slightest noise from outside made you sit up real quick.
I'd do it again to protect my family,even if I was injured or worse.
No fucker is going to threaten me or mine!!!!!! |
|
Edited by - NAZZ on 01/10/2007 14:26:36 |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5851 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 15:32:38
|
| Good on you Nazz! |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 17:32:19
|
| Got to agree. |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5851 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 17:46:18
|
| On the other hand ... I can see what Hambag is driving at. The difference is in unlimited as opposed to reasonable force. I don't think that the right to unlimited force is something most of us want to see in place. Admittedly the term reasonable can be rather open to interpretation and that seems to be the sticking point in a profession that delights itself on exacts ... facts and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Trouble is that what is one person's truth may not necessarily be another person's truth when it comes to bearing witness and by the same token what is reasonable force for one is not necessarily reasonable force for another. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 19:57:51
|
There is no resonable answer to why did you break in to my property.
There is no reason to suspect if you challange an intruder you will get a reasonable response.
There is no reason to hold back as you may only get one chance.
Reason will leave the building if you are protecting your family.
|
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5851 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:05:24
|
We are talking about reasonable force ... that would, I assume, mean enough force to stop the intruder and no more. Now, admittedly it is well nigh impossible to sit here in the comfort of my room, secure in the knowledge that no one is going to enter uninvited, to fully enter into the state of mind that I might find myself in were I confronted by an intruder. It is also difficult to know how I would react were I faced with that contingency.
However I think Hambag put it quite nicely when he said that it is one thing to stop an intruder in his/her tracks and another to slit his/her throat once you have done so ... |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
Edited by - Miriam Binder on 02/10/2007 10:04:14 |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:15:07
|
| If there is a lull after any initial confrontation, then you may stop short of cutting throats but as Nazz pointed out the intruder may have gone for a weapon and your initial rection may have stopped the intruder. Do you give them a second chance while the police decide if they are going to turn up? |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6771 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:22:21
|
Since The UK Police
now have Tasers,
why not let The Public,
once passed a test on how to use it,
buy one.
It would be very handy for anyone who is unable
to tackle a Intruder. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5851 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 20:35:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
If there is a lull after any initial confrontation, then you may stop short of cutting throats but as Nazz pointed out the intruder may have gone for a weapon and your initial rection may have stopped the intruder. Do you give them a second chance while the police decide if they are going to turn up?
If they are not stopped in their tracks then you have not exercised suffcient force.
Look, I realise that all this is rather arbitrary. At best we can hope for a working solution ... |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
thedelboy
Discworld
United Kingdom
1404 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 09:33:56
|
| I have in the past defended myself (and my home)from miscreants,And ended up in the crap with the local constabulary,thankfully I have a very good family who paid for my legal expenses (Which I claimed back)the charge excess use of force!! scuzzzze me I reacted on the spurr of the moment,and do not know if I would react in the same way if it ever happened again |
keep on smiling |
|
|
|
Hambag
Barsoom
140 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:10:12
|
The two words of contention are "reasonable" and "defence". Where it becomes unlawful is where you are defending with unreasonable force or you actually on the offence when you are in no clear danger. Naturally it is a grey area, but some issues are clearer. You are not allowed to execute people or exact retribution because someone has violated you home.
As much as can be argued we live under the rule of law. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law, It is for a jury to arbitrate guilt and a judge to pass sentence. It's a process which is blatantly not perfect and there are many injustices but it is the hallmark of a civilised society. If you let the public dispense "justice" you will get murdered paediatricians because illiterate vigilantes can't tell the difference from paedophiles. If this concept with it's flaws is to hard to grasp, ask yourself, would you prefer to live in a place like Somalia with feudal warlords and complete lawlessness.
|
Edited by - Hambag on 02/10/2007 10:22:00 |
|
|
|
Hambag
Barsoom
140 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:16:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by NAZZ
Bronson wannabe maybe,but hambag you gonna sit there and let some geezer threaten you and ransack your house?
Case in point may or june on a sat night at 2am a guy got in my home,daughter came screaming upstairs to wake me.
First thing you feel is scared,not knowing what you are facing,then adrenalin kicks in,protect wife kds,material stuff don't matter.
He was almost at the top of stairs when i came out of the bedroom.He had taken his trousers off for some reason.
Anyhoo managed to get him out of the house via the kitchen,where he tried to grab a serrated knife,got that away from him.
got him out of the house,fence panel smashed cos he went through it,and f**ked him off up the road.
There was no way i was going to sit about like a lemon and let him do whatever he wanted to.
Did not call the police,prob not got to my place till monday,plus they might have arrested me for unnessaccery force on the intruder.I used no weapon just justifiable,in my case,persuasion.
Could not get back to sleep afterwoods as the slightest noise from outside made you sit up real quick.
I'd do it again to protect my family,even if I was injured or worse.
No fucker is going to threaten me or mine!!!!!!
Of course not you plum. I didn't say sit there. Defend yourself by all means, which is what you did.
You should have called the police as well. There was a man with no trousers in your house, with who knows what intention who is now free to do it to someone else, and may get "lucky". |
|
|
|
Hambag
Barsoom
140 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 10:20:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
Since The UK Police
now have Tasers,
why not let The Public,
once passed a test on how to use it,
buy one.
It would be very handy for anyone who is unable
to tackle a Intruder.
It would also be a perfect tool for a rapist or for your tramp noshing hobby.
The public is not allowed to bare* arms for good reason.
*I meant bear  - and not the fuzzy kind either |
Edited by - Hambag on 02/10/2007 12:14:17 |
|
|
|
Horseman7
Barsoom
United Kingdom
160 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 12:02:24
|
I bare my arms throughout the summer.
|
 |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2259 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2007 : 13:24:23
|
Perhaps the legal deterrent to burglary should be higher?
Ten years minimum.
That would not be unreasonable.
|
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Self defence law to be reviewed