Fluffco Zen Pillow [Complete Review]:...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
Self protection
I was a little disturbed by some remarks in a question below that suggested that if you are attacked by someone and protect yourself by fighting back, you can get into trouble. Is this true? So if I am attacked, I should just let them hurt me? That seems very silly to me. If there is a such a thing as a "god given right", it is surely the right to protect yourself.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by newtron. 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 haven't read the question you refer to, but regarding yours, Yes, unfortunately, in this country today, if you defend yourself, you are the one likely to get arrested, and regardless of your injuries, if the antagonist whishes to press charges, the likelihood of his being taken over yours is very good.
But thats Blairs Britain, (Oh dear, i've said it again, and yes, I read the Daily Mail, so it can't be true, can it)?.
Yes you can defend yourself (and others) and to a lesser extent your property. The force you use, whether in defence or as a pre-emptived strike though, must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Your powers come from primarily two sources. 1) Common Law and 2) Section 3 of the Criminal Law act. read this for a more imformative article.
As a rule (NOT CPS) you can go one stage more than the attacker which will constitute "reasonable" defence. That is, if your attacker confronts you, you may push him away. If he is coming for you with fists, you may kick him away. If he is coming for you with a weapon you may pick up whatever is at hane and whack him over the head as hard as you can to "stop" him.
If you are arrested by the police it will be down to you, and you only, to show you were in such fear that your actions were reasonable inthe circumstanes. The police are covered by exactly the same laws as you (with the exception of a few PACE ones) and remember they baton people, pepper-spray people at at times even kill people.
A lot of people (like Lonnie) choose to believe that if you are defending yourself, the criminal has the right to sue you. This falicy came about after Tony Martin was convicted (please try to bear in mind that he was carrying an illegal firearm).
After this case received press coverage, much was made about the 'fact' that you couldn't defend yourself in your own home. In fact, there have only been 5 prosecutions in a similar vein to Tony Martin - one of which included chasing the burglar out of his house, catching him, tying him up and then setting fire to the bloke. That is slightly more than 'defending yourself'.
After this case received press coverage, much was made about the 'fact' that you couldn't defend yourself in your own home. In fact, there have only been 5 prosecutions in a similar vein to Tony Martin - one of which included chasing the burglar out of his house, catching him, tying him up and then setting fire to the bloke. That is slightly more than 'defending yourself'.
To add a little Ward-Minterism, Tony Martin should be made a knight. He did not murder. Murder is reserved for human beings. He killed a pikey scum burglar who at only 16 years old had caused more misery to other families than you can shake a stick.
Further did you remember his pikey mum at the court case. She could hardly string a sentence together in coherent english let alone qualify to be a caring mother. Mourn for the loss of 16 year old lad, who had his whole future ahead of him? Err methinks not. I just wish he suffered when the shot entered his spine.
Rise Sir Tony.
I think it depends on the police who are attending to your case. If they are politically correct power hungry chaps, then you have not got a hope! If they are true and honest policemen then you will be classified as having defending yourself considering the circumstances. Not many of those around nowdays!But then of course comes the judge, he says to the criminal, "you are free to go"!
The point is you can defend yourself.
Belting somebody who is attacking you is defending yourself.
Belting someone and then putting the boot in while he's squirming on the floor is not defending yourself it's assault.
It's not difficult.
Tony Martin shot someone in the back with a firearm of a type that had been illeagal since Hungerford as he was trying to escape.
You decide which category that fits into!
Incidently wasn't TM later arrested for having a load of dodgy number plates in the back of his car?
If that's the criteria for Knighthood maybe Ronnie Biggs should get get ready for a call from the palace!
Tony Martin lived in a remote farmhouse on his own. this was not the first time he had been under attack from burglars.It had happened several times before. Imagine yourself alone, miles from anyone else and for the umpteenth time, you hear intruders in your house in the middle of the night.Go on, think about it, how scared would you be???? That man must have been terrified and as any right minded thinking person will understand, we do things when we're scared that we wouldn't normally do as rational human beings. The fact is, this theif should NOT have been in another mans home! Put yourself in his shoes. No one should have to suffer such a terifying ordeal in their home, or anywhere else for that matter.If the thief hadn't been there, he wouldn't be dead. Come on, he was hardly a golden boy, No, he didn't deserve to die, but the choice to go into someones home to steal from them was his own and no one elses! Tough! As the old saying goes, an Englishmans home is his castle. What about the bloody victims of crime, i get sick to the back teeth of hearing about the "poor old villians"
"That man must have been terrified and as any right minded thinking person will understand, we do things when we're scared that we wouldn't normally do as rational human beings."
Agree 100% with you - and if he had grabbed the nearest thing to him and beaten the kid to death I would whole heartedly agree with you (and I doubt he would have been prosecuted).
Fact of the matter is that he didn't. He went out in the cold light of day and purchased an illegal weapon. He then chose to shoot someone with this weapon. Please do not confuse this with self defense or being frightened.
Agree 100% with you - and if he had grabbed the nearest thing to him and beaten the kid to death I would whole heartedly agree with you (and I doubt he would have been prosecuted).
Fact of the matter is that he didn't. He went out in the cold light of day and purchased an illegal weapon. He then chose to shoot someone with this weapon. Please do not confuse this with self defense or being frightened.
No, he chose to protect himself from a life of fear. I wouldn't hesitate to do the same. There is too much scum who get away with with making ordinary, decent peoples lives a misery! He obviously felt frightened enough to purchase a gun! oh, and maybe the fact that he was a farmer might have had something to do with him having a gun, legal or not. Sorry, but when i see real murderers and peadophilles serving very little, if any time in prison but people like Tony Martin being branded in the same vein, then i get very angry.Why do people always stick up for the bad guys, not decent people who are just victims of crime. This was bound to happen in the end. I have seen too many news reports where the victims are just ignored but we have to bow down to bloody criminals! The police don't give enough help to those in need, so what the hell are you meant to do when you or your family are under threat? Like i said before, if he wasn't on someone elses land, in someone elses property then he wouldn't have been shot. To me its that simple.
So jules what about the guy who tied up the burglar and threw him in an inspection pit and set fire to him?
Do you think that was justified?
Is there any limits to your vengence or do you think we should be allowed to do anything to any criminal we catch?
How about the criminals who drive through my village at breakneck speed endangering members of the public should I be allowed to take them out with a shot gun?
Where do you draw the line?
'so what the hell are you meant to do when you or your family are under threat?' - defend yourself, not attack people. The distinction has already been made but seems hard for most to comprehend.
'if he wasn't on someone elses land, in someone elses property then he wouldn't have been shot. To me its that simple' - true, but if an illegal firearm didn't shoot him he wouldn't be dead. Two wrongs do not make a right no matter how much people jump up and down. Noone should be above receiving the basic rights we accord all members of our society, even those who transgress our laws. That is, if we are a civilised society.
'if he wasn't on someone elses land, in someone elses property then he wouldn't have been shot. To me its that simple' - true, but if an illegal firearm didn't shoot him he wouldn't be dead. Two wrongs do not make a right no matter how much people jump up and down. Noone should be above receiving the basic rights we accord all members of our society, even those who transgress our laws. That is, if we are a civilised society.
I am unsure as to how you claim "Why do people always stick up for the bad guys, not decent people who are just victims of crime.", when I said in my previous answer "and if he had grabbed the nearest thing to him and beaten the kid to death I would whole heartedly agree with you"
"Like i said before, if he wasn't on someone elses land, in someone elses property then he wouldn't have been shot. To me its that simple."
Just curious - I assume that you drive, and that like most people you have gone over the speed limit (35mph in a 30zone etc - I know I have and I have never met anyone who can claim that they have never speeded). Since you are breaking the law, and since you are no doubt aware that people are killed on the roads every day due to exceessive speed, I assume that you wouldn't have a problem if I murdered you in cold blood since you have broken the law?
"Like i said before, if he wasn't on someone elses land, in someone elses property then he wouldn't have been shot. To me its that simple."
Just curious - I assume that you drive, and that like most people you have gone over the speed limit (35mph in a 30zone etc - I know I have and I have never met anyone who can claim that they have never speeded). Since you are breaking the law, and since you are no doubt aware that people are killed on the roads every day due to exceessive speed, I assume that you wouldn't have a problem if I murdered you in cold blood since you have broken the law?
well, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The man was terrorised by these people. I still maintain that what he did, he did because he was terrified at that particular time. I am NOT condoning shooting anyone but i can understand why he did what he did that night.I know if anyone broke into my home where my children were, i wouldn't hesitate to defend them or myself, whatever the outcome.I suppose i'd be the villain then though wouldn't i? I can't really see this as a similar situation to speeding cars, and no, i don't drive.My thinking is that Tony Martin was treated harshly considering his situation. Yes, i know his firearm was illegal, but i doubt he ever wanted it to be used for anything other than as a deterrant but was pushed too far! He didn't shoot at the boy as far as i know, with any intention to kill him, it was pitch black and all he knew was that there were intruders in his house. I am referring to the Tony Martin case and of course you can't just go round killing people willy nilly.This was an unusual situation where he had endured months of torment. I just know how i would feel if i had been in his situation. I hope you never are or anyone else for that matter.
