Using weapons in the home...

[Halski]

I know that this may have been discussed in passing previously.

As I understand the situation, if I am woken up at night and go downstairs, picking up along the way, say a golf club with which to defend myself, and I subsequently aprehend an intruder, who in the process is injured by being whacked then I am now in hot legal water, not so much because they were injured but because I have armed myself (I am familiar with the required element of what's 'reasonable') unless I can prove that the club was 'reduced' to my possession, i.e. that I grabbed it say, during a struggle when at risk of being overpowered - i.e. if I pick up a sword or truncheon on the way downstairs for the same reason thats a serious offence - is it so that law required me in the first instance to investigate the circumstances first without arming myself? what if someone keeps a made/adapted weapon under the bed for this very purpose i.e. that in the event they hear someone at night downstairs etc etc etc.....

Halski

[stuart30]

Be intrested to see what the powers that be say...Only last night i heard someone/something outside my bedroom window (are house is very secluded and outside is pitch black) the first thing i grabbed was my bat before going outside to look around....sorry but why wait until your in a no win situation,arm yourself first and bloody use it if you need to.:evil:

[XDC]

Another huge subject! In view of a couple of high profile cases including the rich git who was killed in his home in a smart London address *cynical old me * CPS have stated that they are looking at these cases now and taking the view that it's OK for the householder to take a more pro-active role. In other words they'll give you a lot more leeway before they conclude you've gone OTT.

Very generally speaking, it comes down to whatever action you take being reasonable in the particular circumstances. If chummy points a gun at you and you shoot him dead that would be entirely reasonable. As long as your response is reasonable to the ferocity of the attack, and you don't kick 7 bells out of the guy once he's on the floor and out of the game, you have little to worry about. Also you need to be in danger of a direct threat to yourself, your family and your property - you can't shoot the guy when he's climbing out of the window with the Halski family silver.

With regard to picking up weapons, I wouldn't be too defensive about this, but I'd avoid things like samurai swords and rice flails which might make you look like some nutter lurking in the dark waiting for someone to make your day when the defence have finished with their account. Articles normally lying around the house like golf clubs would be pretty reasonable - I'd use one if I played that silly game.

As I said CPS are relaxing their view on this and as they're the ones who bring the prosecutions it can only be good, and it's not before time. Let's hope they're as good as their word.

Hope that helps mate - the general rule is keeping your response reasonable to the intruder's degree of violence - or threat of it.

[Halski]

It does help - I'm certainly not one of those twitchy-eyed, pump action shotgun-cradling rednecks but I have always wondered what the best approach might be if one was to be confronted by this type of unenviable situation....

[XDC]

I suppose the textbook answer is request that they leave (LOL) and if they don't you're entitled to use such force as is reasonable to eject them. If they get stroppy then you're supposed to temper your degree of force to what is reasonable in that particular circumstance. You can kill the sods as long as you can answer the questions later and show you acted reasonably.

Burglars vary from scared kids who'll leg it straight away, pro burglars who'll avoid confrontation if they can, and druggies and crackheads who are capable of anything. The last thing you want is these scumbags upstairs where the missus and kids are. Bear in mind also that it's a lot easier for your missus to replace the video than it is to replace you. ;)

Whether I'd take my own advice of course is another matter.

[noyourrights]

it is good that the cps have changed the way they look at these cases but in a situation like this are you really expected to consider what is reasonable
lets face it you are going to hit him or her until they go down and dont get up

[18wheeler]

good topic this,i suppose we'd all react differently.

i'd certainly have a go!
well after i'd sent the girlfriend down 1st:rolleyes:

she is often in possesion,of a deadly weapon,a forked tongue:D

[Meridian]

Actually little has changed: the press love to report stories of householders being charged after a burglar has been beaten/killed etc, but somehow never seem to be there when the charges are dropped two months later, as they nearly always are. I believe only about three people have gone to prison for what they did to burglars and all involved vastly over-powered force (IIRC one guy tied the burglar up, doused him in petrol and set fire to him).


M

[noyourrights]

now he needed locking up for waisting petrol at today,s prices

[sh4rkie]

My trusty torch (6d cell maglite) is always used to go investigate noises in my house / garden ;)

[jamesedga]

Aye i have one of those to lite my way if i hear a strange noise.

[nocturnal]

I just send my girlfriend with her stupid mud mask on that scares the hell out of most people especially me all you can see is this bright green face

[sirius]

it is good that the cps have changed the way they look at these cases but in a situation like this are you really expected to consider what is reasonable
lets face it you are going to hit him or her until they go down and dont get up

This is how I feel that I would react; I would not feel safe enough to call the police until I could KNOW that he wouldn't get up while my back was turned.

However, I would be shitting myself at this point.

If I was able to consider the issue rationally at the time, I would be attempting to give disabling blows to the kness, hands, elbows and sholders, to prevent the possiblities of him a) being mobile, and b) being able to use a weapon.

How would the courts/police/cps be likely to view this sort of action? Would that be considered resonable in the circumstances?

[7db]

"Honey, get the gun" yelled at full volume

[oldcodger]

How would the courts/police/cps be likely to view this sort of action? Would that be considered resonable in the circumstances?
If the police decide its serious enough to take it to the CPS

AND

if the CPS think its in the public interest to proceed

the courts will rely on this:-

"It is permissible to use force not merely to counter an actual attack but to ward off an attack honestly believed to be imminent. The reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is only relevant in ascertaining whether he actually held the belief or not" Beckford v The Queen 1987

[oldcodger]

oops - hit wrong button

add this to previous post


and this

"A man who attacked can defend himself but can only do what is reasonably neccessary to effect such defence. However, when a person, in a moment of unexpected anguish, does only what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that is most potent evidence that a reasonable defensive action had been taken." R v Whyte 1987


There is a lot more but its not very different.

[7db]

Does that all mean that you can do whatever you honestly believe to be reasonable at the time? (and if you have just been awoken from a really nasty nightmare, that might be different from if you are calmly awake sipping a cup of tea)

[oldcodger]

Only if you can convince the jury that you honestly believed the postman you just killed was a monster from outer space/hannibal lecter/bugs bunny/a dalek/wazza/the fugitive/ creature from the black lagoon etc.

[noyourrights]

i would not like to be in a position of trying to judge what someone believed or thought was going to happen theres only one person who knows the truth

even the defendant might think his force was unreasonable months down the line when he's stood in court

[7db]

Only if you can convince the jury that you honestly believed the postman you just killed was a monster from outer space/hannibal lecter/bugs bunny/a dalek/wazza/the fugitive/ creature from the black lagoon etc.

If you're having dreams about wazza, then you need more help than just the jury...

[oldcodger]

i would not like to be in a position of trying to judge what someone believed or thought was going to happen theres only one person who knows the truth

even the defendant might think his force was unreasonable months down the line when he's stood in courtIts not as difficult as you might think. Its the state of mind and/or what he believed at the time that matters.

As far as judging it goes, the defendant only needs to prove it on the balance of probabilities ie more likely that he is telling the truth than not.
The defence would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[XDC]

A couple of actual cases which spring to mind..

(1) Householder caught burglar in living room in the wee small hours, phoned police, and while awaiting their arrival thought it would be a good idea to severely thrash the offender who was 13 yrs old, about 7 stone and offering no resistance. Householder was a 15 stone martial arts exponent. The householder was done for assault and IIRC served a fairly short prison sentence, despite the lad having quite serious injuries.

(2) Two brothers sleeping in an off-licence shop they were in the process of decorating when the offender broke in, and there was a fairly epic struggle in the dark which resulted in one brother hitting the offender with a hammer and breaking both his arms. No action was taken on the assault.

It really is a matter of common sense - I just don't see the difficulty with this. As OC says it's down to a jury to decide. When the jury have heard all the arguments from both sides, the judge will explain to them exactly what the letter of the law says before he sends them out and it's that on which they'll decide, tempered with their own common sense approach I'm sure.

[Meridian]

The defence would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.


Prosecution shurely?


M

[oldcodger]

Prosecution shurely?


M You are right.
I am having a bad day.
Have already this evening sent two PMs to the same person - sent one, forgot i sent it, sent another. Both in reply to the same PM to me. Sad thing is they were within 5 mins of each other and different.:(


Only excuse is that I spent the morning (ALL MORNING) doing the local council court.

THREE hours, and every single case was dog fouling the pavement.

Its a glamorous life as aJP:D

[Meridian]

THREE hours, and every single case was dog fouling the pavement.




Are you allowed to sentance dog owners to have their noses rubbed in it? I suspect not, sadly. I was walking past a neighbour's house a few days ago when I spotted a dog dumping in the middle of his lawn. Almost the moment I spotted it, the animal ran off to join the owner who was a few yards down the path waiting for it to finish. Needless to say, he didn't make any attempt to clear up, but just walked on. I was too surprised to beat the old *** like he deserved.


M

[noyourrights]

THREE hours, and every single case was dog fouling the pavement.


crappy job but some ones got to do it:D :D :D

[Burratha]

how much is the average dog-poo fine then? ....... but back to the original question

[stuart30]

Serious question for the Feds....if your attacked and lets say you feel it necessary to use your flick stick (sorry cant remember the correct name) are you trained to aim this at a specific area of the attackers body to disable them.?

[Halski]

Serious question for the Feds....if your attacked and lets say you feel it necessary to use your flick stick (sorry cant remember the correct name) are you trained to aim this at a specific area of the attackers body to disable them.?
knees elbows and collarbone IIRC - lots of painful tendons/ligaments - very disabling but rarely permanent or fatal......

[oldcodger]

how much is the average dog-poo fine then?£60 for a guilty plea and £125ish plus costs after the dog warden has given graphic evidence about just exactly what he saw emerging from the rear end of the offending dog.
We usually get lunch from the chippy around the corner from the court, funny how nobody wants sausages on dog court days...............



....... but back to the original questionStrange how we are all willing to talk about inflicting serious violence on another human being, but mention dog turds.................... :eek::eek:

[Shobhna]

Wazza normally sends me off to go investigate strange noises in the nightand no.......I do not have strange face masks on nor do I have a forked tongue (yet !) :D :) :)

Seriously though, if anyone was to get in the house whilst Wazza man was away keeping the peace elsewhere, I would, without doubt, use reasonable force, even offer the intruder a cup of tea after I have beaten the crap out of him.......:mad: no, I don't think so..... :mad:
I would react like most normal people, be scared witless, scream the place down and start hitting the intruder with whatever I can lay my hands on, I would certainly not be thinking lucidly, specially if I have just been woken up out of my sleep.

Would this not be very difficult to explain in court later when the little toerag then says that that I broke his arm/leg/neck etc.

I am toying with the idea of taking up golf though, they say it is a good way to exercise and get soem fresh air plus I would have to store the gold clubs in the house becasue it would be too expensive to store them in the garage.:)
Hockey sounds like a good sport to take up as well:D

There again, if I did have a hockey stick in the house but did not play hockey,which the courts could prove, then this would obviously count as me being armed to cause maximum damage to an intruder, would it not?

[noyourrights]

crikey:eek: remind me never to upset you;)

i stopped a guy from pinching a mountain bike from my neighbours garden one night as he road down the path just before he got to the gate i pulled it shut we have a 6" fence between our gardens and being dark he had no idea i was there there was an awful crash and parts af his anatomy came into contact with the handle bars :sob:
we waited for the police to arrive before we untangled him from the wreckage didnt want to disturb the evidence8)
and they very kindly called an ambulance for him :)
so you could say the gate was my weapon (not that i actually told the police i had shut it):oops:

[firefly]

When someone enters your house with the intention to take what is not theirs, then they relinquish certain rights that hitherto they had.

When I was around 8-years old I was going back to my house after a successful night's Halloween-ing. About 50-yards from my house I had all my goodies nicked by some older @rse, who ran off laughing. I've never forgotten it, but thankfully it's the only time I've been the victim of any crime. God alone knows how someone must feel when they get their house broken into and valuables removed.

I'm almost certain that my version of "reasonable force" would not be the same as the court's if I caught someone in my house.

[stuart30]

Well personally i think the law should be that anyone who unlawfully enters someones work place or there home should have zero rights,they know they should not be there so let them deal with the consequences....!

[Shobhna]

Well personally i think the law should be that anyone who unlawfully enters someones work place or there home should have zero rights,they know they should not be there so let them deal with the consequences....!

my sentiments entirely.

[7db]

Does that include a policeman with an improperly served warrant?

[Shobhna]

specially if he is not in Uniform and breaks into your property ????????

and then tries to serve you a warrant (improperly)

I is confused now.:woot:

[XDC]

Does that include a policeman with an improperly served warrant?
Presumably that would be either a Search Warrant or an Arrest Warrant. Warrants are written authorites signed by a magistrate and don't have to be served on anyone. In the case of an arrest warrant it doesn't even have to be in the officer's possession, it's sufficient for him to know that there is one in existance. A search warrant has to be in possession of the officer. In practice it's usual to show it to the householder if asked, but that's as far as it goes. Warrants are in fact returned to the issuing court endorsed to the effect that they have been executed. (the warrants not the householders :eek: )

Smiting the officer hip and thigh would definitely not be recommended. :D

[7db]

It was - more than anything - just a f'rinstance to show that losing all rights for people entering illegally is not necessarily a good idea.

I mean what if OC has a senior moment when signing the warrant and gets it all wrong. The officer's entry would be illegal, and his right to life waived...:eek:

[XDC]

Ah.. I see where you're coming from 7db, fair point then.

I can't really subscribe to the "They abandon all rights" point of view anyway, although I quite understand the righteous indignation that people feel when they take this viewpoint. The fact is that in my view the law has always been perfectly adequate to protect people acting reasonably in this situation and they have nothing to fear from any court in the land - in fact I'm sure they'd get a fair bit of leeway.

The "They abandon all rights" idea is verging on vengeful vigilante action, which has never been a good idea, and surely there comes a point at which you're no better than them?

[oldcodger]

I mean what if OC has a senior moment when signing the warrant and gets it all wrong.I have lots of those

[noyourrights]

i think the reason alot of people feel the that human or legal rights protect the the criminal more than the victim is due to the unbalanced reporting in the press when we here of extreem cases like that guy who shot those kids for breaking into his house and ended up in prison people assume anyone defending thier property will be treated this way:rolleyes:

its similar to people rioting little coverage is given to injured police officers but if one of the rioters should get injured and claim police brutality its all over the front page :confused:

7db it sounded like you were talking from experiance:eek:

[XDC]

i think the reason alot of people feel the that human or legal rights protect the the criminal more than the victim is due to the unbalanced reporting in the press when we here of extreem cases like that guy who shot those kids for breaking into his house and ended up in prison people assume anyone defending thier property will be treated this way:rolleyes:


A agree. That case is a good example of a man who did everything wrong!

[7db]

Nope - I can safely say that I've never experienced an Old Codger senior moment.

[stuart30]

It was - more than anything - just a f'rinstance to show that losing all rights for people entering illegally is not necessarily a good idea.

I mean what if OC has a senior moment when signing the warrant and gets it all wrong. The officer's entry would be illegal, and his right to life waived...:eek:

Hmm kinda splitting hairs....im sure you understand what i meant,Mr lowlife scum breaks in has no rights not a Police officer or similar.:p

[7db]

Hmm kinda splitting hairs....im sure you understand what i meant,Mr lowlife scum breaks in has no rights not a Police officer or similar.:p

But that is the point of the law - to define where on the spectrum the balance lies and line is drawn.

So the mad murdering rapist may be at a different end of the spectrum from the uniformed policeman with a technically invalid warrant, but there are any number of cases in between.

It might be ok to shoot a man who bashes down your door with an axe, but not if he's a fireman... What about the man who breaks in in the honestly (drunken) mistaken belief it is his house (don't laugh, it happened to a friend of mine). What about your neightbour coming in to retrieve his lawnmower, you borrowed in 1994? The bailiffs over-enthusiastically collecting your TV? The hungry pauper looking for food. The mentally ill man who thinks you're his mother. Do they all deserve to have no rights and be subjected to death at your whim?

The law as written and held does a very nice job in allowing you to use reasonable force against the intruder, but whilst maintaining a balance against your use of unreasonable force.

You should treat an intruder like you would a fire. Fight only if obviously possible and safe to do so - otherwise get out and dial 999. If you are cornered by a fire, use whatever means come to hand to get yourself out, not necessarily to put the fire out.

[Hoon Devil]

Nice analogy 7db

[stuart30]

7db I get the distinct impression your ****ing up my back and telling me its raining....:rolleyes:

[Halski]

7db I get the distinct impression your ****ing up my back and telling me its raining....:rolleyes:

surely he would be ****ing down your back in that case?

[7db]

Stuart - that is certainly not my intention.

My intention, if I need to make it clear, is to refute / clarify / modify - on reasonable grounds - your earlier post holding that:-

"anyone who unlawfully enters someones work place or there home should have zero rights,they know they should not be there so let them deal with the consequences....!"

I think the law as it stands is finely balanced, without needing the extra boost you suggest. I am more than happy to debate it with you, however. We're all grown-ups and we may disagree. (But I'd like a chance to change your mind)

[stuart30]

Stuart - that is certainly not my intention.

My intention, if I need to make it clear, is to refute / clarify / modify - on reasonable grounds - your earlier post holding that:-

"anyone who unlawfully enters someones work place or there home should have zero rights,they know they should not be there so let them deal with the consequences....!"

I think the law as it stands is finely balanced, without needing the extra boost you suggest. I am more than happy to debate it with you, however. We're all grown-ups and we may disagree. (But I'd like a chance to change your mind)

Maybe its my fault for not stating my opinion clearly enough....i was referring to Billy the burglar or Toe rag tony the tea leaf entering my place of work or my home with the sole intention of doing naughty unlawfull things.
Its only my opinion of course but i do feel that i deserve the right to choose to use what ever means i feel nessacary to protect myself or my property.....ive been put into two situations so far where all ive done is simply try to protect family from a savage assualt and the second time to protect the property of the company i was looking after,the first resulted in being arrested and charged and the second a stiff talking to and left in no doubt if i had defended myself i would be the one in cells.....so this rubbish about the law being finely balanced is complete hog wash,twice ive tried to do the right thing and both times the law has favoured the guilty party...Now if you can justify that im more than happy to listen.

Halski....Its ""up"" and not down,its just a light hearted saying by the way.;)

[7db]

I understand your intention.

But how do you know it's Billy or Tony when they come in - not the others. Since the guild of theives did away with the stripy shirt, mask and swag bag, it's got a lot harder to tell the confused from the criminal.

And since the maximum penalties for breaking and entering are hardly huge these days, should we allow the householder to dispense greater penalties than the judge?

Could I arrange ot act as vigilante and dispose of the local crims by hiding in the dark with a shotgun, and leaving it posted on an internet forum that my house was full of jewels and ripe for the picking?


Furthermore, consider the consequences of a shift in the law towards being able to use maximum force on intruders. If my intention is then to intrude, I should surely arm myself. And if I meet someone in the home, then I must strike first and strike quickly. That is my incentive - or i might die.

Removing rights from the intruder, also removes responsibilities - and I don't want to have irresponsible intruders in my home.

[stuart30]

I understand your intention.

But how do you know it's Billy or Tony when they come in - not the others. Since the guild of thieves did away with the stripy shirt, mask and swag bag, it's got a lot harder to tell the confused from the criminal.

And since the maximum penalties for breaking and entering are hardly huge these days, should we allow the householder to dispense greater penalties than the judge?

Could I arrange ot act as vigilante and dispose of the local crims by hiding in the dark with a shotgun, and leaving it posted on an internet forum that my house was full of jewels and ripe for the picking?


Furthermore, consider the consequences of a shift in the law towards being able to use maximum force on intruders. If my intention is then to intrude, I should surely arm myself. And if I meet someone in the home, then I must strike first and strike quickly. That is my incentive - or i might die.

Removing rights from the intruder, also removes responsibilities - and I don't want to have irresponsible intruders in my home.

So i take it if a person breaks into your house,your going to calmly ask them there intentions,and assuming by this time they have not beaten the living daylights out of you..your going to ask them to politely leave.:eek:

Ok...im afraid i would not have the courage to do that,im sorry but if someone intentionally breaks into my house or my work place I'm going for them with everything i have at my disposal....if they end up getting hurt then maybe they should think about a new career.
My extended family in the Philippines have the right idea....you break into our home we shoot you,you run away and we will shoot you again and continue shooting until you cant run away.
Oddly enough our home in Dumlog has never been broken into.....;)

[7db]

So i take it if a person breaks into your house,your going to calmly ask them there intentions,and assuming by this time they have not beaten the living daylights out of you..your going to ask them to politely leave.:eek:

No - it will depend on the circumstances. If I believe that violence is likely, then I'm going to use whatever force I need to get distance between me and him. My future is worth more to me tha his lack of future, so I'll not trade, thanks.

If I endup cornered, then I'll use what I can to get past him.



My extended family in the Philippines have the right idea....you break into our home we shoot you,you run away and we will shoot you again and continue shooting until you cant run away.
Oddly enough our home in Dumlog has never been broken into.....;)

Should my life descend to the stage where I am both in the Phillippines and pursuing a life of crime, I will make sure to come armed to the teeth and hope that I am more accurate than they are.

[stuart30]

No - it will depend on the circumstances. If I believe that violence is likely, then I'm going to use whatever force I need to get distance between me and him. My future is worth more to me tha his lack of future, so I'll not trade, thanks.

If I endup cornered, then I'll use what I can to get past him.



Should my life descend to the stage where I am both in the Philippines and pursuing a life of crime, I will make sure to come armed to the teeth and hope that I am more accurate than they are.

OK well i can understand your point of view....if someone breaks in run like the wind,thats fine but what happens to the wife and kids.?

Descend....Philippines.....:eek: A vist would enrich your life no end.;)

So we are agreed that i believe its right to stand up for yourself...and you believe in ""run away like a Jessie"" Phew glad that's cleared that up.:D

[7db]

OK well i can understand your point of view....if someone breaks in run like the wind,thats fine but what happens to the wife and kids.?


Not married. Don't have kids.

"If I believe that violence is likely, then I'm going to use whatever force I need to get distance between me and him"

Notice this doesn't necessitate my leaving the house - it could be him that does the leaving. But if he won't do the leaving, then I will.

I hope the vicar describes you as a have-a-go-hero at your funeral. I would prefer to stick around to attend court to see them deal with my intruder.

[7db]

Descend....Philippines.....:eek: A vist would enrich your life no end.;)


No plans to go there - and certainly not for a life of crime - at this stage of my life.

[stuart30]

I hope the vicar describes you as a have-a-go-hero at your funeral. I would prefer to stick around to attend court to see them deal with my intruder.

Id rather be 6 foot under than have to listen at the court case how the ""poor chap came from a broken home and was simply doing it to fuel his habit"" and get off with a slap on the wrists.:eek:

[Halski]

But how do you know it's Billy or Tony when they come in - not the others. Since the guild of theives did away with the stripy shirt, mask and swag bag, it's got a lot harder to tell the confused from the criminal.

mate - thread to one side - can you do 10 minutes of stand-up at the Magic Show - I bet you'd be funnier than Jack Dee.....:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflm ao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

[7db]

Thanks Hal - As the mopedist found the other day, under pressure my wit can evaporate, so I think I'll decline the stand-up offer but I'll happily light the blue touch-paper on the experiments, though. :)

[Halski]

So the one question which hasn't really been answered is that of the type of weapon - XDC mentioned golf clubs, and its of course conceivable that on the way to confront your intruder you pick up a golf club making it an 'intended' off weapon, which, interestingly, up to that point hadn't been any sort of a weapon at all.

But suppose I happen to keep under my bed, say an item whose name is the only word in the English language (UIAVMM) which amusingly rhymes with 'luncheon' - what then - would I be in any (more) trouble because I had made some provision for having a 'made' offensive weapon to hand for just such an occurence? I know that the Off Weaps Act doesn't apply because its private etc.....

[XDC]

Anything can be an offensive weapon if it is intended to be used as such but the 'intended' bit implies a degree of forethought, planning or premeditation. It's generally accepted that any article picked up on the spur of the moment is not classed as an offensive weapon but as you quite rightly say, those considerations only apply to a public place. Whilst no specific charge relating to an offensive weapon would therefore be brought in the situation we're discussing,the type of implement used would have a significant bearing on how CPS viewed the case overall if there was any danger whatsoever of assault charges being brought against you. Also in font of a jury the defence could make a great deal of headway in painting you as some sort of vigilante just waiting for an excuse to do a Rambo, if you use something which is clearly a weapon by it's very nature - rice flails, truncheons, swords, etc.

Picking up a household article or something normally kept in the house though, would be a pefectly normal and acceptable thing for someone to do suspecting intruders in their home or actually being attacked, and it would be far more difficult for anyone to put a different connotation on your actions.

It's difficult to draw firm lines for you as it will always come down to what is reasonable in the particular circumstances.

[Halski]

Thanks for the detailed, informative and excellent reply

Hal

[7db]

In other words, you should take up an interest in baseball and equip your house accordingly...

[stuart30]

In other words, you should take up an interest in baseball and equip your house accordingly...

Does the same apply if i carry my baseball bat in my car,i assume if i have a ball with me then im doing no wrong.???

[XDC]

Does the same apply if i carry my baseball bat in my car,i assume if i have a ball with me then im doing no wrong.???

If you could show that you play baseball and regularly travel to games, then it would be perfectly reasonable to keep it in the car. If not, then obviously a different spin can be put on your reasons for carrying it. Talking of spin - cricket is a popular game. :D

There are lots of things people would be expected to carry in ther car as a matter of course though, tools, jack handles, krooklocks, torches... ;)

[7db]

I am a chef, and I think it is reasonable that I often travel with a 10" knife. In fact a whole set.

[Halski]

I am a chef, and I think it is reasonable that I often travel with a 10" knife. In fact a whole set.

You big fibber 7db - you told me you were something other than a chef :D or is that only part-time?:p

[jamesedga]

rounders would be much more suible for the car. The bat is a lot shorter and you'll have room to use it.

A big dog seems to put people off even comming near the car. :)

[7db]

You big fibber 7db - you told me you were something other than a chef :D or is that only part-time?:p

I am in fact a qualified Leiths Cook (Advanced = allowed to handle onions and sharp knives) - but you are right, I'm not actually a chef as my job. I have been known to carry my full set of knives on the tube - but always to a cooking assignment, and always in their leather sheath.

I've wondered what would happen if I was running late and needed to get a bit of last minute sharpening done on the way...

[Funkster]

The problem with weapons is they can be taken off you and used against you...in a struggle it tends to come down to who is the most aggressive and who is willing to go furthest. It's all very well thinking that you can give someone a sharp smack in the face and they'll run away with their tail between their legs but it doesn't often happen that way. People who may attack you have probably done it in the past, will have experience in it and will likely know quick and effective ways of hurting you. Swinging a bat at someone may sound like it'll work but it's actually pretty easy to defend against, and while you're swinging away wildly, they have both hands free to do with as they wish. Once they hit you, they won't stop until you're no longer a threat or worse!

[XDC]

Some good points from Funkster there. Most of us are far more civilized than we think we are, and tend to be at a disadvantage faced with some sociopath who isn't going to be thinking twice about violence which comes naturally to him anyway.

[7db]

Advice from a barrister about what to do in a fight go in dirty and hard early on - make sure the other guy knows who is going to be doing the losing.

Which is probably why you shouldn't start anything in Temple on a Saturday night...

The last fight I got into, I was attacked with a pool cue. It was all too easy to take it off the other guy. I then lobbed it over a fence and took off up the hill when the knife came out.

[Funkster]

Advice from a barrister about what to do in a fight go in dirty and hard early on - make sure the other guy knows who is going to be doing the losing.

Indeed, don't wait for the other guy to make a move! Most people have no idea how to defend themselves. We can all swing a punch or a kick, but how many people know how to hit properly and effectively without losing balance or compromising their defence? If you swing and miss, it's open season for your opponent and you probably won't get another chance.

I was taught to hit throats and stamp on knees etc. it's easy to say, but how many of us would actually do that to another human being? I question whether I would and I know how! It's part of what makes us decent people.


The last fight I got into, I was attacked with a pool cue. It was all too easy to take it off the other guy. I then lobbed it over a fence and took off up the hill when the knife came out.

Eek, nasty mate! Remind me not to go out where you do!

[Piippy]

I agree totally, however would 'going in dirty' first not been seen as attacking and get you in trouble if it went to court? Anyway, I agree totally and if it was a case of 'them' or me I would fight all the way...... however that leads onto my next point.....

I'm probably going to get some serious flack for this, however a man's strength IS considerably more than that of woman's and I'm thinking of your average woman, not your specially trained policewoman etc. If it were my mother or even I confronting an intruder I would'nt fancy my chances so would defo fight dirty all the way. I totally agree with the hazard of having your assailant turn your weapon back on you! Very scarey!! :(

I remember seeing a BBC news article where 2 old ladies battered their intruder with their walking sticks when confronted with him... he scarpered penniless with a sore head!!! Excellent :banana:

[7db]

I think it comes down to the fire analogy again. You are only going to have this fight if you are clear that you have no other alternative to fighting. When that is clear, then go in hard and give it all you have, until such time as you need no longer fight.

Fighting is basically not very clever - you stand a good chance of a nasty injury, no matter who "wins". Avoiding conflict is a sensible thing to do.

Funkster - the scary thing about the pool cue incident was that it was outside the pub at the end of the road where I grew up. Went back there to meet some old friends and that happened. Was a bit shaken as it's a really nice neighbourhood.

[Erica]

Most of us are far more civilized than we think we are, and tend to be at a disadvantage faced with some sociopath who isn't going to be thinking twice about violence which comes naturally to him anyway.

You've met my ex then. :D

He did a lot of door work (actually, he was approximately the same shape as a door :rolleyes: ). I got a call from him one night, when he told me to "bring yer biggest 'andbag with you and hurry up."

An unsavoury chap with a grudge had turned up looking for my ex with a very large kitchen knife. Which my ex had no problem in removing from the guy before being made into a pincushion. I've still got the knife - and very useful it is too - but I had to get rid of the boyfriend. Waaaaaaay too much hard work. :rolleyes:

[stuart30]

The thing Ive found is carrying a bat or pick axe handle (Hickory of course lol) is a deterrent......I'm sure a 6ft very well built bloke with a large and solid object in his hand would make most chancers think twice.

[noyourrights]

I'm sure a 6ft very well built bloke with a large and solid object in his hand would make most chancers think twice.

:oops: are you boasting stuart :oops:

[stuart30]

:oops: are you boasting stuart :oops:

Me god no..just making the point that a large person with said large object makes MOST people think twice about doing silly things,Example how many short skinny door staff do you see ? Not saying you dont get them but lets face it most are big...Makes you think twice doesnt it if there big.

[redvanman]

i know for sure that if someone came into my house and tried to hurt my family i'd be more than ready to go to prison to protect them, golf club (yes i do play...well badly but i have shoes too), half a CD or a curtain pole he/she'd cop it hard, and the court could scapegoat me because in my head i'd know i'd dome my part to protect my family, sorry to sound like a nutter but I dont have much time for all that broken home, hard childhood, no money to feed/clothe himself stuff, whats mine is mine and all earned, paid for....and its staying put unless i say so :D

Right, pack the soapbox away again....

Richy

[bobt]

A mates son at 18 confronted two burglars with a cricket bat, broke ones leg and was arrested for assault,
moral dont report it to the police?

[bobt]

A mates son at 18 confronted two burglars with a cricket bat, broke ones leg and was arrested for assault,
moral dont report it to the police?

[camerafodder]

£60 for a guilty plea and £125ish plus costs after the dog warden has given graphic evidence about just exactly what he saw emerging from the rear end of the offending dog.
We usually get lunch from the chippy around the corner from the court, funny how nobody wants sausages on dog court days...............



Are your expenses paid at 'time and a turd' for this?:)
Sorry...couldn't pass up the chance for such and awful joke:banana:

[camerafodder]

In other words, you should take up an interest in baseball and equip your house accordingly...

I have a healthy interest in clay pigeon shooting:)

[bobt]

I asked a friendly bobby bout that too, he said as long as the neighbours swear you fired a warning shot and the one that killed him, whichever order they are fired....


not sure I want to test the thory tho.

[Meridian]

A mates son at 18 confronted two burglars with a cricket bat, broke ones leg and was arrested for assault,
moral dont report it to the police?

The police have to establish what exactly happened, and they are used to people lying to them, so I'd expect nothing less. This is all pretty meaningless (if not much fun for your mate's son); what is more important is whether he was convicted? I doubt it got any further than the police investigation (especially if the victims had previous).


M

[Halski]

The police have to establish what exactly happened, and they are used to people lying to them, so I'd expect nothing less. This is all pretty meaningless (if not much fun for your mate's son); what is more important is whether he was convicted? I doubt it got any further than the police investigation (especially if the victims had previous).


M

exactly - they could do almost nothing BUT arrest him, which is merely a way of getting him to the police station so that he can be appropraitely interviewed.....

[bobt]

he got a six month suspension, the ned whos leg he broke claimed loss of earnings WTF?
a month later his car was torched.

[The Enforcer]

Having something like this to call upon...is a welcome addition to any security....

http://policedogsrus.co.uk/newspics/big43a012a333fe5.jpg

[noyourrights]

just the job:D

cute puppy:eek:

[Halski]

nawwww - want one of THESE:

http://www.sosabowski.com/dog.jpg

[Hoon Devil]

I couldn't eat a whole one.

[noyourrights]

wish we had sound could hear what he was singing:D

[Hoon Devil]

It's probably Bach.



(sorry)

[The Enforcer]

Rottweilers are great..

However, getting a protective one..is a difficult.....and getting a protective one that will react the same one day as it did the day before is something again..

Stubborn is not the word...

In my experience..

[The Enforcer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/protectionk9/omahd.jpg

This is me and my 'buddy'...

[bobt]

they had an english bull terrier, but it was away on holiday with my mate and his missus.

[18wheeler]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/protectionk9/omahd.jpg

This is me and my 'buddy'...


are you on the left or the right????:D

[The Enforcer]

depends whether or not you are in front or behind us...;)

[18wheeler]

:D
depends whether or not you are in front or behind us...;)

:D :D :D

listen,left or right,i most certainly wouldn't want either of ya chasing me:D

i can't run that bloody fast anyway:D

[jamesedga]

So providing you do fire a warning shot then its semi-legal to use your clay pigeon shoy gun as defence.

And anyway who said you had to fire the warning shot first :)

[XDC]

Firing a warning shot is not required at all - what about the decorating! :D The only consideration would be whether your use of the shotgun was reasonable and justified in the particular circumstances. Obviously, if you're going to blow someone away with a 12 bore shotgun, you'd better be in a position to answer the inevitable questions afterwards, and show that your action was justified with regard to the severity of the attack or threat, but essentially it would be no different to using any other weapon or implement.

[Meridian]

The two things to remember are:

1) Shoot them in the front, not the back - that way it actually looks like self-defence rather than vindictiveness.

2) Call the police as soon as the incident is over, rather than going next door for a cup of tea, then spending the night elsewhere.


M

[XDC]

LOL.

Don't shoot 'em lying on the floor and say you were being attacked - the angle of the shot and blood spatter on the carpet will be a dead give away to the git in the lab who does the forensic examination. :D

[Halski]

and if you do, give Meridain soime reputation points and hope he's one the case....:D

[Meridian]

I'm not a cheap as you, you tart.....:D


I need beer for more effective bribery.


M

[cyd]

Oy I'm the tart round here matey ;) :D

[Halski]

Oy I'm the tart round here matey ;) :D
Oi - wind your neck in - if Meridian says that I'm a tart - THEN TART I AM!:D

[cyd]

yehbutnobutyehbutnooooooooooo

[7db]

Both a right pair of bakewells...

[Halski]

I'm not a cheap as you, you tart.....:D

I need beer for more effective bribery.

M

There you go - five beers and even someone to drink them for you....

:chug::chug::chug::chug::chug:

[Meridian]

Oi - demarkation, brother: drinking is MY job. That and forensic science. My two jobs are drinking and forensic science and training. My three jobs are....


M