Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Reasonable use of force.
So what do you guys consider to be reasonable use of force to protect your loved ones and/or property?
Personally, if somebody steps over my threshold uninvited, they are fair game: I have no idea whether they are armed or not, and so to protect my family I would use all the force available to me and if that means maiming or even death, then so be it.
A bit extreme? possibly, but who can honestly say they would not do the same to protect their kids (those that have kids).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flanker. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have always agreed that a person should be entitled to defned themselves, however, I give you the following to think about:
I don't like Mr X. Everyone knows that we do not get along. I invite him around to my house (without letting anyone else know) and as soon as he arrives I hit him as hard as I can. I then get a knife and stab him to death. I then call the police and say a person that I do not like broke into my home. I then stabbed him and claim self defense. Since he was in my house and cannot dispute whta I say (being dead and all), no one prosecutes me.
As I said, to be honest if someone broke into my house (even though I do not have kids but I do have a wife) I would try to hurt that person as much as possible if they were a threat, but I am not sure the law could be changed because of the issue above.
Reasonable use of force is a subjective term. If someone breaks into your house & runs away as soon as he sees you then any force used would not be reasonable as you no longer need to protect yourself. If he attacks you then as far as I'm concerned you do whatever you can to stop him. But, again, if he legs it after you fight back, any other force after that stops being reasonable.
My husband caught someone in our back yard, he asked him what the f*** he thought he was doing, and that he would be hurt phsically if he didnt leave right away, the guy came back with "if you touch me I'll have you for assault" and he was trespassing in our back yard!!! The worst thing is that if it had gone any further my hubby may have spent the night in the cells. It's all wrong!!
The whole point about the present law as it stands is that each action, and each situation, is different, so the judgement of what is "reasonable" has to be decided by the jury.
The law already says that flanker (or anybody else) is already allowed to use reasonable force to defend himself, his household or his family, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
flanker says "if somebody steps over my threshold uninvited, they are fair game". This is true, but that begs the question: fair game for what? The law says that they are fair game for being repelled or expelled, or fair game for being subjected to defensive measures; they are not fair game for being murdered or savagely beaten if such force is beyond what is necessary for self-defence. Are we to understand that flanker wants to be allowed to kill a weedy 14-year-old who is looking for money for drugs, who doesn't have a knife, and who is so drugged up that he is hardly even aware of what he is doing? I can honestly say that I would not use the sort of force being advocated by flanker.
(to be continued)
(continued)
The scenario described by Oneeyedvic is exactly what would happen if the law were changed to get rid of the requirement for reasonableness. Such things already happen in the USA, where householders occasionally shoot and kill their own children who happen to be raiding the fridge in the middle of the night.
In the case of Tony Martin, it was clearly shown that the force he used was not reasonable; he could easily have scared off the burglars by firing a warning shot into the ceiling, for example.
I find it bizarre that there are so many people who seem to think that the requirement for people to behave in a reasonable way should go out the window when responding to one type of crime but not others.
If householders are going to be allowed to use excessive and unreasonable force to defend themselves against burglars, are we also going to give carte blanche to allow
shopkeepers to shoot dead children nicking sweets?
commuters to murder beggars?
train passengers to garrotte buskers?
street wardens to strangle litter-droppers?
I hope not. I hope that I don't ever have
to live in a society where that sort
of thing is allowed to happen.
PTBALDG
i woke in the middle of the night only to find a woman drunk and asleep on my bathroom floor with a bloke standing over her trying to get her to move. I got pretty angry and thought about getting a knife but i shouted at the bloke until he got out, then i dragged the woman out by the ankles and called the police. The police didn't arrest them and it turned out that she had just moved into the flat next to mine. I think i used reasonable force. I'm relieved it ended without violence and i'm particularly glad i didn't get the knife.
jim
jim
cruthinboy's [Edited] right - if we all had his courage and vision there'd be no need for any wishy-washy liberal-minded criminal-loving police. or prisons come to that. hell, with people like him on the streets there'd be no crime anyway! now I feel I can sleep safely in my bed.
[Please don't descend to personal abuse. It's unworthy. - AB Editor]
Who said we have to have direct, personal experience of a topic before we can voice an opinion?
I think that people should deal with people who enter their house and threaten as they see fit: ff a lot of people here want to sit them down and empathise with the culprit over a nice cup of camomile, I'm not going to stop you!
