SD on 20/9/2006 at 12:35
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Of course, the big question is how much do current laws match up to Chimpy's Ideal as layed out there? I mean, the tabloids (and Phydeaux) would have me think I'm not allowed to do any more than hide under my bed. Which probably isn't the case. I'm pretty certain I'm allowed to strike out with a heroic frying pan if threatened. I'm just wondering if I should have to wait to be actively threatened before doing that.
I would say current laws are pretty close to "Chimpy's Ideal". If a burglar is coming at you with a knife, you'd be within your rights to strike him with a cricket bat until he stopped attacking you. Where you would cross a line is if you then proceeded to beat his brains out with said cricket bat while he lay unconscious.
What certain tabloids (particularly those bastions of reason, the Mail and the Express) would prefer would be a situation where bashing the burglar's head in was expressly permitted, or at least, not punished in any meaningful way. Remember, these "newspapers" made a hero out of Tony Martin, a man who explicitly stated that he would shoot and kill any burglars in his home, and then proceeded to do just that (shooting him in the back for good measure). Obviously such a thing goes way past what is reasonable, and he was convicted of manslaughter. And even then he only served three years in prison.
Myoldnamebroke on 20/9/2006 at 12:40
Also, if they're in your house you're allowed to strike first, but hey that gets in the way of the OUTRAGE so we'll ignore what the law actually says and just consult the Daily Mail as our source.
Paz on 20/9/2006 at 12:47
Edit: I took too long and lots of this was already said, WOE IS ME :(
I'm unaware of any "householder vs intruder GRAND SLAM!" cases which have ended massively unsatisfactorily for the home team. There's an awful lot of talk about how shocking and awful and horrible the current laws are, but ... they actually seem to work pretty well in practise at the moment?
Of course Tony Martin comes up a lot, but this was a rather extraordinary case. I happen to think that one went the right way too, based on the circumstances - yet even if you think that was a fuck-up, it was SIX YEARS AGO. Not a bad record by the standards of any legal system.
I'm more than willing to be enlightened about more recent cases where the valiant white knight gave the evil troll a slap with his cricket bat and ended up in prison, though. Assuming it's a full case summary and not just THE SUN SEZ.
Basically, I think the picture is a lot rosier than it's made out to be by certain organs and individuals who have rather unpleasant agendas. Not perfect either, but also nowhere near the kind of written hyperbole which pops up on the subject.
Phydeaux on 20/9/2006 at 12:51
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Of course, the big question is how much do current laws match up to Chimpy's Ideal as layed out there? I mean, the tabloids (and Phydeaux) would have me think I'm not allowed to do any more than hide under my bed. Which probably isn't the case. I'm pretty certain I'm allowed to strike out with a heroic frying pan if threatened. I'm just wondering if I should have to wait to be actively threatened before doing that.
You carry a frying pan with you?
I was refering to outside, away from home, public encounters. Not home invasions or burgleries. AFAIK, the British government isn't putting CCTVs with loudspeakers in peoples homes (yet). Defense inside your house is a completely different matter, because all sorts of various things are available. You can't have pistols, but you might have a double barreled shotgun for hunting. Or a kitchen knife, frying pan, cricket bat (everybody in England has a cricket bat, right?), etc.
I'm not sure what the laws regarding home defense are in England; most of my knowledge on this vague subject is about what's legal to carry outside the house. If only "equal force" is allowed though, that's pretty grim, because that means you'd be in equal danger of harm yourself.
Way to get off topic, btw.
Chimpy Chompy on 20/9/2006 at 12:55
Okay, allowed to strike first, I get that.
However I do think I should be allowed to use that cricket bat whether or not the intruder appears to be armed. As in even if he comes at me with his fists. Fuck, I'm a wimp, a cricket bat is just giving me a chance, not some horrible disproportionate weapon!
As for Martin shooting criminals... I dunno. If it's legal to own (ie, Gun Control is a separate question I don't want to go into here), shouldn't I be able to use it? Tho obviously, yeah, shooting someone in the back is pretty wrong.
Myoldnamebroke on 20/9/2006 at 13:54
The guidelines from the CPS say people 'are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment...the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence'
Basically, the courts tend to decide that as long as you honestly believed your actions were necessary you're OK (obviously tempered slightly - if it only seems reasonable to you because you're a nutter or high or something you're probably in a bit more trouble :P). What you can't do is stuff like knock them unconscious and continue to beat them, or do anything that's vengeful rather than defensive.
jay pettitt on 20/9/2006 at 20:19
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
As for Martin shooting criminals... I dunno. If it's legal to own (ie, Gun Control is a separate question I don't want to go into here), shouldn't I be able to use it? Tho obviously, yeah, shooting someone in the back is pretty wrong.
For what it's worth Tony Martin's gun wasn't held legally.
Contrary to popular belief Tony Martin's case is the exception rather than the rule. The circumstances around the case were truly exceptional - so much so that a court found he was guilty of murder. His life sentence and murder charge were reduced on grounds that Tony Martin suffers paranoic episodes rather than because there was any doubt that he carried out a brutal and meditated killing. Yay for care in the community.
If, on the other hand, a shotgun is what you happen to have at hand and you fear for your self or your property then you can rightly expect a court to be sympathetic - witness one Peter Lamb, who shot dead a kid who tried to hold up his gun shop in Colchester with an imitation firearm (duh) and the subsequent verdict of lawfull killing (and subsequent subsequent employment by Essex police as a firearms investigative officer).
Only thing worse than the political correctness brigade is the anti political correctness brigade.
Paz on 20/9/2006 at 20:41
I wish that phrase had never been invented, it's abused more than an ex-England football manager :(
Bring back the 80's where it simply meant "fuck off racist comedians", I say.
ps: where are these brigades, I want to set dogs on them
Ultraviolet on 21/9/2006 at 05:51
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
Basically, the courts tend to decide that as long as you honestly believed your actions were necessary
As long as THEY believe, perhaps. What the defendant believes can't truly be verified.
