Cable Forum - View Single Post - Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?

MovedGoalPosts · 25-03-2004, 19:50

I dont know the specifics of the case that started off this thread. For what it's worth some of my own thoughts to throw into the melting put.

There is no such thing as "reasonable force". By it's very nature force implies there is control. When you lose control it is no longer force.

There is nothing in law that says that if you feel threatened you have to wait for voilence to occur before you can strike. You can strike first so long as the reasonable person would agree with your analysis that the there was a risk of your sufferring voilence. However the method of your first strike needs to be proportional to the threat. Once the threat recedes, your response to that threat must be lowered.

An example: You find a burglar in your house. He sees you and turn to run away. You may try and hold onto him by and if necessary push him to the ground in order to detain him if he doesn't stop (as burglary is an offence which carries a maximum sentence of over 5 years imprisonment you can excercise a right of "citizen's arrest"). If the burglar makes no attempt to hit you, but simply stuggles to escape, your hitting him might in this situation be assault. If however the burglar on seeing you starts to march towards you with arms raised, you are likely to believe you would be hit, and thus you could hit first. NB the worst place in most houses to have any form of conflict is the kithcen because of all the sharp knives!

Finally, many of the powers for use of force come from the following:
Section 3 (1) 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.
I have italicised the bits considered critical (according to the text I am reading)

You also have common law powers of Self Defence (which includes defending others), to prevent a breach of the peace, and to Save Life.

Together all of these powers for the use of force are quite far reaching, and allow for quite a level of measures to be applied, without over reaction. These powers should be enough.

25-03-2004, 19:50	#33
MovedGoalPosts Inactive Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 127.0.0.1 Age: 62 Posts: 15,868	Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property? I dont know the specifics of the case that started off this thread. For what it's worth some of my own thoughts to throw into the melting put. There is no such thing as "reasonable force". By it's very nature force implies there is control. When you lose control it is no longer force. There is nothing in law that says that if you feel threatened you have to wait for voilence to occur before you can strike. You can strike first so long as the reasonable person would agree with your analysis that the there was a risk of your sufferring voilence. However the method of your first strike needs to be proportional to the threat. Once the threat recedes, your response to that threat must be lowered. An example: You find a burglar in your house. He sees you and turn to run away. You may try and hold onto him by and if necessary push him to the ground in order to detain him if he doesn't stop (as burglary is an offence which carries a maximum sentence of over 5 years imprisonment you can excercise a right of "citizen's arrest"). If the burglar makes no attempt to hit you, but simply stuggles to escape, your hitting him might in this situation be assault. If however the burglar on seeing you starts to march towards you with arms raised, you are likely to believe you would be hit, and thus you could hit first. NB the worst place in most houses to have any form of conflict is the kithcen because of all the sharp knives! Finally, many of the powers for use of force come from the following: Section 3 (1) 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. I have italicised the bits considered critical (according to the text I am reading) You also have common law powers of Self Defence (which includes defending others), to prevent a breach of the peace, and to Save Life. Together all of these powers for the use of force are quite far reaching, and allow for quite a level of measures to be applied, without over reaction. These powers should be enough.