'Have-a-go heroes' get legal right to defend themselves

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by toemag, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

  2. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Don't you just get a tickle out of the subjective terms? "Reasonable" always lights my fuse whenever it shows up in criminal law.
  3. BigO01

    BigO01 Monkey+++ Founding Member

    The English have taken the first step back to the world of reality , hopefully they will continue the journey .
  4. toemag

    toemag Monkey++

    I'm sorry Sir, they have just taken a hooking big leap nearer to the edge of the abyss. Don't tell me that the New labour spin doctor PR has pulled the wool over your eyes too.

    They have now taken common law and changed it, and we all know how these pillocks can't stop once they have started.

    We always had the right to self-defence, this has just declared how far we are allowed to go, in our attempts to save our lives and our property..

    As to the use of a firearm, as we don't have hand guns in the UK and no CCW etc etc, if you have time to unlock your home office standard approved gun cabinet, take out a shotgun and load it, you also had enough time to get away and call the Police for help....

    <table class="quoteBox" border="0" width="92%"><tbody><tr><td class="textQuote" width="100%">
    <table class="quoteBox" border="0" width="92%"><tbody><tr><td class="textQuote" width="100%">"However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them. "

    Or to put it in other words "It was still right to prosecute Tony Martin" because these were exactly the grounds he was convicted on.

    NB: the Millennium Dome diamond robbery was stopped by police who did indeed indeed lie in ambush, armed with guns even though they outnumbered the thieves and the thieves were not themselves armed. If the police require guns even though in superior numbers, how are the rest of us meant to cope?</td></tr></tbody></table>
    </td></tr></tbody></table>This is just a waste of time and energy, costing tax payers real money, and at the end of the day they can turn round and say look we are doing something.....



  5. LondonCalling

    LondonCalling Monkey++

    Top find mate!!
    What i find interesting is the following:
    "Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable." (see below)
    " For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them." (100% agree)
    "However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them." (Why whats wrong with that)

    In theory very good, but any breif "worth his pants" (solicitor) would get some no good dirty theiving peice of scum off any charge if there was enough "legal-aid in it for them!

    Take the Tony Martin case mentioned in the report.
    This man acted as "any normal" person would, he simply defended "HIS CASTLE.....AN ENGLISMAN'S HOME IS HIS CASTLE"
    Brendon Fearon (29) and fred barras (16) two burglars illegally entered Bleak House (the home of Tony Martin), When confronted, they attempted to flee through a window, but were shot by Martin, Fearon in the leg, and Barras in the back. Barras died while trying to escape the house; he was later found dead in the grounds by a police dog, but Fearon was able to leave and reach aid?
    Fearon's applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained (what is this for the amount that he could have stole???)
    It has been claimed that Fearon's supporters have put a bounty on Martin's head of several tens of thousands of pounds (they were both gipsy backgrounds).

    Unless they take out R v Owino (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. 128 at 134: (English common law)
    Which includes "reasonable force" then this is NOT going to work, for this reason:
    Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence.

    But at least we are going to have a little something to get back at them with!
  6. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Solicitors love the word reasonable because it is undefined. They get to argue about what the definition of reasonable is in every case.
  7. LondonCalling

    LondonCalling Monkey++

    My point exaclty Clyde, you are 100% right there mate!
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary