pt.2 To find floral tributes being left for Harry Vincent offensive

[lostjanni]

We reached the post limit so if anyone wants to carry on the discussion...

I didn't give advice, I said my opinion about what I believe should be allowed.

So myself at 5 Foot 2 and 8 stone seeing an intruder coming towards me in my kitchen I could stab him first. Was told that by my local police officer over a cuppa after we were burgled

Doesn't matter what your local copper told you, if you killed him and he was unarmed and not a mark on you, you'd be in the shit.

PuttheChocEggDown, there are families of all races who are a real danger to society. The Krays and Richardsons, for instance, were not travellers. Why make that distinction?

I thought the law was amended in 2013 to include the allowance of disproportionate force as long as it wasn't 'grossly' disproportionate?

The issue is Bert that you were criticising those rushing to judgement in one direction whilst you did exactly the same thing in the other direction. How is saying he's a murderer who needs to go to trial any better than those saying he shouldn't be arrested and deserves a medal?

Given that Bertrand amended the term "murderer" to "killer" - and he undoubtedly killed someone - I struggle to understand how saying that the issue should be left to the decision of twelve people on a jury amounts to rushing to judgment.

Slievenamon
The article you posted is contradicting your point - Mr Gregory’s assertion that he was acting in self-defence could not be disproved and that he did nothing more than was necessary to protect himself and his sister from intruders. ‘Therefore, the evidential test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors was not met, meaning there was not a realistic prospect of conviction for murder or manslaughter.

He was sentenced for illegal possesion of a gun

Sorry that post was for Slievenamon who says the law hasn't changed in 16 years. I thought it had?

No you are wrong there. If you can prove you felt under threat of rape or desth you can. You can’t stab someone in the back or running away etc but you definatly can first strike if you can prove you felt under threat.

CPS Guidelines clearly state that householders in their own home can use disproportionate force to defend themselves or others (but not their property).

You can only use proportionate force to defend property, or people if not in your home.

You cannot use grossly disproportionate force.

You do not have to wait to be physically attacked before using force.

In all cases, the outcome - death - is not the key point. The key points are:
a) Whether the force was disproportionate or grossly disproportionate.
b) Whether the householder genuinely and reasonably believed their actions were not grossly disproportionate.

Good clarification by ChelleDawg.

Yes it was amended slivermon is quite wrong. And of course my local police officer knows a tiny bit more than her.

Sorry to introduce another police officer to the thread

Exactly Chelle

I think people need to be careful when referring to Romany Travellers My grandfather, for example, he's not as cosmopolitan or as educated as me and it can be embarrasing you know. He doesn't understand all the new trendy words - like he'll say "gypsies" instead of "travellers", "pikey thieving twats" instead of "Romanies", "tarmac laying bastards" instead of "contractor".

But yes I believe that you should be allowed to use deadly force against intruders in your home as you have no way of knowing what their intentions are.

That would be unbelievably dangerous. You can't just use deadly force because an intruder is in your house, or because you believe that to be the case. You have to have a genuine and reasonable belief that they constitute a threat., and their mere presence can't be enough to establish that on its own. Consider these scenarios:

1. Teenage son/lodger has forgotten his keys and finds a window at the back to get in by. House owner believes he in an intruder against whom he has the right to use deadly force and kills him.

1. Confused Alzheimer's sufferer thinks the house is his home and gets in. Consequences as above.

1. House owner wants to dispose of inconvenient person, lures them to the house, kills them, claims he genuinely thought inconvenient person was an intruder.

We can't have a generalised self-defence rule, can we?

... the new trendy words - .... "Romanies"

Romany isn't a 'new trendy word' though, it's been around for centuries

Well the mere presence of an intruder in my home would feel threatening to me. I do take your point though about those scenarios. I'm reasonably happy with the law as it stands, but I wasn't before the amendment. I think the allowance of disproportionate force better reflects the terrifying scenario of an intruder and how you might react in the heat of the moment.

Gnother

Don’t be utterly ridiculous. Read the cps guidelines above and get yourself a cuppa.

Yes I would obviously not recognise my teenage son and stab him.

My mum has altzimers and I worry she may break in and enter another house

and yes how many murders have been committed and passed off as a wood be burglar.

Here I have a box of grips please take one.

I don't care, if an intruder is going for me or my children, I will do what i can to get him away, if that means picking up the nearest object to hand and using that on them, to hurt him, so that he stops, so be it.

As an elderly man he may have felt his best option was to stab HV. A younger man may have chose to fight. Your options are limited when the person you are up against is fitter and stronger than you. He did what he had to.

I thought the law was amended in 2013 to include the allowance of disproportionate force as long as it wasn't 'grossly' disproportionate?

That was the law before 2013. The 2013 changes were merely a bit of political posturing by Cameron in reaction to a non-existent issue. For example, in Palmer in 1971 the court set out the following principles:

• A person who is being attacked should not be expected to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action".

• If the jury thought that in the heat of the moment the defendant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary then that would be strong evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

• A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence.

In Scarlett in 1994 the court said that juries should be directed that they should not convict unless satisfied that the degree of force used was plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as the accused believed them to be. Provided he genuinely believed the circumstances called for the degree of force used, he should not be convicted even if his belief was unreasonable.

How do you know, that they are not armed, and going to whip out a gun, knife or whatever. I will do whatever I can to protect my family and myself if we were under threat.

And again you are allowed to defend yourself or your family with any means you need even killing an intruder if you feel you or your family’s life is st risk It’s the law obviously every case is investigated but you can first strike.

“I don't care, if an intruder is going for me or my children, I will do what i can to get him away, if that means picking up the nearest object to hand and using that on them, to hurt him, so that he stops, so be it.”

And if the intruder was going for you or your children, then I don’t think anyone would disagree. If he was going for your television, however, it becomes less clear cut.

The law stated reasonable force before 2013 though. Posturing or not it is good to have clarity.

If he was looting stuff, I would probably shout at him to get out and get away, I am calling Police, if not and he changed tack, and started for me, than that's it, I will use what I have to disable him.