Is reasonable force reasonable?

[scoop]

Is it just me that finds this ridiculus?

 

I believe the legislation was brought about to protect postmen and the like from injuring themselves when on private property, but the legislation was written in such a way that slimy lawyers have managed to use it to prosecute those who have been unfortunate enough to have a tresspasser injured on their property.

[Grahame]

Restraining someone is a lot easier said then done, especially when the person has a lot to lose if they don't get away, especially when it may be a considerable time before anyone comes to your assistance, especially if you are having to call for assistance at the same time as restraining them and, most of all, if assistance comes to their aid before it comes to yours.

 

Will you check your facts before talking out of the top of your head.

 

Read the article scoop posted. Here is an extract.

 

"The right to use reasonable force has evolved through case law and there is no single answer as to what is reasonable - it will always depend on the prevailing circumstances. However, you are not entitled to assault or harm a trespasser in any way."

[Greybeard]

Will you check your facts before talking out of the top of your head.

 

Read the article scoop posted. Here is an extract.

 

"The right to use reasonable force has evolved through case law and there is no single answer as to what is reasonable - it will always depend on the prevailing circumstances. However, you are not entitled to assault or harm a trespasser in any way."

 

Grahame - if somebody forces their way into your home and it's obvious you are 'in' then it's a little more than trespassing. In these circumstances I would say it's safe to assume the intruder is prepared to offer violence so pre-emptive violence to defend both yourself and other occupants is entirely 'reasonable'.

 

Case law isn't a great deal of use to you if you're lying dead or seriously injured on your living room carpet.

[Grahame]

Grahame - if somebody forces their way into your home and it's obvious you are 'in' then it's a little more than trespassing. In these circumstances I would say it's safe to assume the intruder is prepared to offer violence so pre-emptive violence to defend both yourself and other occupants is entirely 'reasonable'.

 

Case law isn't a great deal of use to you if you're lying dead or seriously injured on your living room carpet.

 

The expression is "Reasonable force." [To defend yourself]

[scoop]

Grahame - if somebody forces their way into your home and it's obvious you are 'in' then it's a little more than trespassing. In these circumstances I would say it's safe to assume the intruder is prepared to offer violence so pre-emptive violence to defend both yourself and other occupants is entirely 'reasonable'.

Case law isn't a great deal of use to you if you're lying dead or seriously injured on your living room carpet.

 

The problem is (in law) that you can't make that assumption, so the pre emptive volence thing would not be considered as a defence.

 

Basicly, you have to wait for the intruder to assault you, before you can do anything back.

[Cyclone]

The expression is "Reasonable force." [To defend yourself]

 

Or your property. Breaking and entering and burglarly are completely different crimes to trespassing.

You are actually entitled to use force to remove a trespaser if they refuse to leave your property when instructed to do so.

 

Scoop, I'll see what I can find, but I've talked to several police officers about this as I train in and teach martial arts and this is relevant to self defence, none of them have ever advised that you cannot legally go to investigate a noise you hear if you think it might be an intruder. The entire suggestion strikes me as ludicrous. Presumably were it true, security guards would all have to 'think they heard a cat' when responding to intruders on private property.

[Cyclone]

The problem is (in law) that you can't make that assumption, so the pre emptive volence thing would not be considered as a defence.

 

Basicly, you have to wait for the intruder to assault you, before you can do anything back.

 

That's not correct.

Self defence does not have to be in response to violence. You can pre-empt someone if you believe they are about to offer violence. The only problem will be explaining it in court.

The only thing you need to prove in court is that you 'honestly believed there was a certain level of threat' and that your response 'was commensurate with the perceived threat'.

[Greybeard]

The problem is (in law) that you can't make that assumption, so the pre emptive volence thing would not be considered as a defence.

 

Basicly, you have to wait for the intruder to assault you, before you can do anything back.

 

So...if this intruder has smashed his way through two locked doors and is coming at me waving a hammer I have to wait until he has buried in my head before I can retalliate

[Cyclone]

http://www.planetjitsu.com/viewtopic.php?p=190554&highlight=#190554

 

This is a comment by a police officer from lancaster who holds a 2nd dan in the same style I train in.

He's a firearms officer, SO19 and also a firearms police instructor and a police instructor in restraint techniques.

I give his opinion a lot of weight, obviously how much you credit it is up to you.

[willman]

That's not correct.

Self defence does not have to be in response to violence. You can pre-empt someone if you believe they are about to offer violence. The only problem will be explaining it in court.

The only thing you need to prove in court is that you 'honestly believed there was a certain level of threat' and that your response 'was commensurate with the perceived threat'.

 

so all you martial artists are well and truly up the creek without a paddle.

 

"so mR Kung Fu man (joke) with all your expertise in unarmed combat you were seriously intimidated by the 14 year old hoodie who weighs 6 stone wet through, and as such decided to pre empt his attack and smack him."