Is Self Defense Illegal in the U.K.?

[Kaikou]

so basically whether you go to jail or not, for doing the same thing, it is only a matter where he falls. something you have no control over. and than he'll sue you for punching him, if he survives, or his family will sue you, if he dies, yet the fact that he punched others , and initiated attack, has no relavance.

I should have been more clear there, The fact that he initiated the attack can potentially work in your favor, But it's not set in stone.

To be honest it's a mess. It changes from a situation of right vs wrong to a roll of the dice. Who do you like more?

We can't even fence our properties with deterrents in case intruders sue us for injuries.

This is a slightly different topic but shows how messed up our law is:

A news story was covered in our local paper last year about a drug dealer who was involved in an car accident.

He had to be cut free from the wreckage, during which a football size block of cannabis fell out of his coat.

He's out walking the streets and stands to receive close to one million pounds in compensation. Apparently, the police are powerless to stop it.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kaikou

[+OverSword]

Self defense is illegal nowhere, what is illegal in many places (including the UK) is to respond with unnecessary violence. For example a guy comes at you with a knife and you get a 50 mm howitzer and shoot him. Those cases end up in court.

Bull. Someone breaks into your house in my state you can shoot them as long as they're in your house. Period.

[aztek]

yea it is a mess, and sounds like a haven for criminals.

[+OverSword]

So, who do you want to decide what reasonable force is if not the courts? The guy who just nuked his neighbors because "the music was hurting his ears"?

Boy, that's a stupid example. If someone breaks into your home should you politely ask if they intend on killing you or just maiming you? Hell no, you should just use every bit of force at your disposal.

[+OverSword]

not in every state, in fact some states are considered "Stand Your Ground" states while in reality all they have is a "reasonable force" provision (i.e. Iowa and Washington)

Wrong. In Washington you can shoot intruders.

[+OverSword]

You are referring to the Martin case?

Afaik, he was unable to prove in court that his use of a shotgun amounted to 'reasonable force' - he could not prove his life was at risk therefore his use of lethal force was not warranted. He was not convicted for exercising his right to self-defence, but that he was ott in doing so.

As to whether using the shotgun, and killing an intruder, was 'unreasonable force' is subjective, of course, and you might not agree with the decision of the court. However, that we have a legal standard is better for all of us.

Yeah, he should have waited until the guy killed him before he shot him. Stupid, stupid law.

[questionmark]

Boy, that's a stupid example. If someone breaks into your home should you politely ask if they intend on killing you or just maiming you? Hell no, you should just use every bit of force at your disposal.

If somebody breaks into my home and I can move my butt out of harms way I do that and then call the police. The rest can be handled by the insurance. Now If I have a justified feeling that this person is there to attack me I'll make sure that he forgets that idea real fast....with moderate violence.

[questionmark]

Wrong. In Washington you can shoot intruders.

Reasonable force does not preclude that, it just means that it will be investigated whether you have justifiably shot the intruder, Stand your Ground does not require that.

Source

[+OverSword]

Reasonable force does not preclude that, it just means that it will be investigated whether you have justifiably shot the intruder, Stand your Ground does not require that.

Source

My uncle, the cop, told me if I ever shoot anyone half in and half out of my house to just drag them the rest of the way in. Doesn't sound like he expects them to investigate the slaying of an intruder too closely.

[questionmark]

My uncle, the cop, told me if I ever shoot anyone half in and half out of my house to just drag them the rest of the way in. Doesn't sound like he expects them to investigate the slaying of an intruder too closely.

Well, that is a myth. Now, I don't know how seriously your uncle takes his oath of office, and especially you don't "drag" them because that leaves marks.

[aztek]

Reasonable force does not preclude that, it just means that it will be investigated whether you have justifiably shot the intruder, Stand your Ground does not require that.

Source

yes, god bless Stand your ground. and castle doctrine. it cleans the world of scumbags that brake in and rob. while your resonable force attitude allowes them to walk and rob again, or more than rob, criminals usually progress if not stopped.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[KariW]

KariW

Forgive me if I have stirred unpleasant memories. I completely respect your views and understand (although I couldn't possibly appreciate the depth) your anger. As a children's social worker I have been faced many times with the depravity of our fellow humans.

I hope you are able to find peace. In whatever form that may take.

Grey Area, There is nothing to forgive! PLEASE do not blame yourself for stirring up horrifying memories. It's NOT you at all, but the memories are something I am forced to live with everyday of my life, and not because of anything you have said - but because in my case, true justice has not been forthcoming. Let me explain why. My attacker was convicted of much lesser charges than what actually occurred. I cannot speak for the other girl's, but my attack was violent, and I ended up with a couple of broken ribs, and several large bruises. Those are just the physical scars, the psychological scars will be with me for the rest of my life. At the time, I told my parents that I was standing up front in the horse trailer, tugging on the lead when the horse bolted into the trailer, reared up, lost its balance, crushing me against the inside panels. The attack happened on the way home from a horse show, and I never went back to the ranch. A couple years later, I was relieved to hear that some of his other students came forth to validate my experiences. I kept silent, because he was a well respected superstar on the horse show circuit, & I didn't think anyone would believe me. If anyone's interested, here is a link which summarizes his trial, and a link showing how he continues to live as a celebrity.

http://www.recordnet..._NEWS/304169976

http://www.ranchesof...nnersCircle.htm

I think the reason I have not been able to put this past me, and what really upsets me is the fact that after this monster got out of prison, he easily picked up his life, and went back to winning National Championships with access to children, even though he is a registered Sex Offender (boggles the mind). He is still in the international spotlight as one of the top Cutting Horse Trainers in the world, holding seminars with a long list of prestigious clients. I have a real hard time understanding why people still want to employ him as a riding coach for their daughters.

He destroyed several young lives, but his social status on the Arabian Horse Show Circuit has not been tarnished in the least. Sorry for the rant, but I just want people to understand the psychological torture that occurs on a daily basis when violent criminals are allowed to walk around free. As a victim's advocate, there is something to be said in allowing victim's to feel good about "settling up" with those who have essentially destroyed their lives. I know it sure would have mad me feel a whole lot better!

Unfortunately, some victims mouth's are "gagged" shut, and they have very little say when it come's to sentencing, which IMO, denies them true justice. That too, causes psychological scars, that are far worse, IMO, than the psychological scars of taking another human being's life with a gun. If I had had a gun, he would be dead, and I could look back on the incident knowing that he could no longer hurt anyone, and at least I could feel "Good" about getting a little justice for what he did to me and so many others. Keep in mind, that some of his students, were as young as 8 year's old..............

The main reason I posted this and the links was to give a little insight into those actions that actually FOSTER the continued suffering and phychological torture of some victim's that are denied real input on what happen's to those who have stolen their innocence, and savagely murdered their souls. One last thing, Nurse's are taught that "a patient's pain is what they say it is", and no one has the right to try to trivialize the reality of their experiences. IMO, The same applies to victim's who are experiencing Psychological pain. If they say that killing their attacker would make them "feel" better, then that is their reality, and as victim's they have every right to do whatever it takes to find peace.

I really do understand where you're coming from, and respect your opinions too. I truly believe that your heart is in a good place. I wished we lived in a perfect world, where there would be no need for weapons of any type, but we don't.

Edited June 3, 2015 by KariW

[+OverSword]

and especially you don't "drag" them because that leaves marks.

That's what I said. He said if they're armed nobody cares. Having known police my entire life I believe him.

Edited June 3, 2015 by OverSword

[questionmark]

That's what I said. He said if they're armed nobody cares. Having known police my entire life I believe him.

Then just run a quick google search about people who got busted for shooting somebody breaking and/or entering their propery. You will be shocked how many ended up getting at least probation for involuntary manslaughter. Even in Castle law states you can wind up in court. And in select cases even in Stand your Ground States (most famously George Zimmerman).

[aztek]

Then just run a quick google search about people who got busted for shooting somebody breaking and/or entering their propery. You will be shocked how many ended up getting at least probation for involuntary manslaughter. Even in Castle law states you can wind up in court. And in select cases even in Stand your Ground States (most famously George Zimmerman).

that is because they were unarmed, if intruder is armed, you have every right to shoot them. even in states that have duty to retreat, actually GZ is a great example, he was not inintially charged because he had a reason to fear for his life, even thou the kid was unarmed, he commited no crime by shooting him, and you know perfectly well, if he did not shoot a black guy, no one would know it happened, it was perfect example of racism, madia circus , well it failed. why grasp for straws?? no better argument?? sure seems that way.

[questionmark]

that is because they were unarmed, if intruder is armed, you have every right to shoot them. even in states that have duty to retreat, actually GZ is a great example, he was not inintially charged because he had a reason to fear for his life, even thou the kid was unarmed, he commited no crime by shooting him, and you know perfectly well, if he did not shoot a black guy, no one would know it happened, it was perfect example of racism, madia circus , well it failed. why grasp for straws?? no better argument?? sure seems that way.

Zimmerman saved his ar$e by the skin of his teeth, if the kid he shot would not have a shady past but a honor student he would be serving 5-20 by now instead of getting booked every other month.

[KariW]

why should i feel anything for him?? he broke into my house, i'm not taking a chance, i have no way of knowing whether he just wants to steal my tv, or rape my daughter while he is in there, and kill her so she can't id him, it has happened, it is pretty simple, you brake into my house on purpose, you ain't walking out. it was your choice to brake in, you will suffer the consiqenses, and if it is your son, "made few mistakes" it is his and your problem, and you are partially at fault for this too, your attitude is the problem. no, braking into someones house is not a mistake, that is intentions action, it is a crime, and puts people in the house in danger, if he hangs with wrong crowd he is one of them.

may be you should rase your son, so barking into someone house is not a mistake but a crime, and if he hangs with wrong crowd, he is one of them, may be than he wont meet me in my house and get shot. this is how i rase mine.

Aztek, I agree with this post whole-heartedly.

I don't have any children, but being someone who abhors nepotism, ie favoritism based on kinship. If I did have a child who committed a crime, I would want them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just to teach them a lesson they will never forget! I also agree that breaking and entering is not a mistake, like "oops, I tripped over the dog", but a conscious decision on their part.

And if a criminal chooses to perpetrate evil actions instead of good, they deserve anything that happens to them on account of their actions. If my son or daughter dies during the commission of a robbery, or through some violent actions solely on their part, I wouldn't blame the homeowner (victims). I would place the blame where it belongs (on the criminals), unless the homeowner actually dragged them into the home, and invited them to steal what they want.

[aztek]

Zimmerman saved his ar$e by the skin of his teeth, if the kid he shot would not have a shady past but a honor student he would be serving 5-20 by now instead of getting booked every other month.

bull, his past has nothing to do with the verdict, in fact jurors were not allowed to consider it. keep grasping for straws.

[questionmark]

bull, his past has nothing to do with the verdict, in fact jurors were not allowed to consider it. keep grasping for straws.

and you are the one constantly telling us that the system is corrupt?

[aztek]

and you are the one constantly telling us that the system is corrupt?

sure they are all corrupt, by defenition, but how does it matter, in regards to bull you said about GZ trial? it does not. you have no valid arguments here. so you switched to personal remarks, lamo.

i actually somewhat agree with you, his personal past should have been considered, than there would be no trial. TM had his hand on a door knob yet he turned around and went looking for troubble, well he found it. clear case of thug mentality

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[questionmark]

sure they are all corrupt, by defenition, but how does it matter, in regards to bull you said about GZ trial? it does not. you have no valid arguments here. so you switched to personal remarks, lamo.

i actually somewhat agree with you, his personal past should have been considered, than there would be no trial. TM had his hand on a door knob yet he turned around and went looking for troubble, well he found it. clear case of thug mentality

Because once it was mentioned, whether instructed or not, the image of a hoodlum was in the jurors mind. And that made the difference.

[aztek]

Because once it was mentioned, whether instructed or not, the image of a hoodlum was in the jurors mind. And that made the difference.

same with white hispanic. same with his picures all over media where he was 12, media was on TM side from the start. and you saying GZ won the case because of that??BULL, he won the case despite all of that,

actually it made 0 difference, as far as hoodlum goes, he was banging GZ head on the sidewalk, that is enough, hoolum or not. GZ should have pulled the gun sooner, i have no doubt TM would run, and still be alive.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[+OverSword]

Then just run a quick google search about people who got busted for shooting somebody breaking and/or entering their propery. You will be shocked how many ended up getting at least probation for involuntary manslaughter. Even in Castle law states you can wind up in court. And in select cases even in Stand your Ground States (most famously George Zimmerman).

George Zimmerman was not in his house and neither was Trayvon so not a good example. Also George was exonerated. Edited June 3, 2015 by OverSword

[Wickian]

George Zimmerman was not in his house and neither was Trayvon so not a good example. Also George was exonerated.

Being accused of racism(if you don't look like a minority) is starting to make you look worse in the eyes of the media than being accused of murder...

[Grey Area]

I really do understand where you're coming from, and respect your opinions too. I truly believe that your heart is in a good place. I wished we lived in a perfect world, where there would be no need for weapons of any type, but we don't.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. I am not going to comment further about your individual circumstances, I am unqualified to comment, other than to say as far as I am concerned the person in question deserves to be punished for his crime, and it sounds like that punishment is still pending.

I will admit to feeling a little lost after the responses I have seen to this thread, with such an overwhelming sense of the lack of value people seem to place on a life. I also feel I am being somehow mis-represented here. I am not some head in the clouds pacifist that advocates peace above all else, and I can assure you that my feet are planted firmly on the ground. I also know that we will never live in that 'perfect world' you seem to think I am preaching.

I have already told you I am ex forces, I lived by the gun for a significant portion of my life, hell, I am a massive supporter of our Nuclear deterrent, and I believe that guns have their place. But I also know first hand the dangers of even simply possessing a weapon. More than this though, I know the difference between looking down a sight at a cardboard target, and looking down a sight at a person, and they are two completely different things, and that is even before you pull that trigger. If you pull that trigger what happens next will change your life. The common perception is generally based on movies and video games where people get shot, there may be a bit of blood but they will either nice and neatly close their eyes or even simply ignore the wound and run off. It doesn't work like that. 99.9 times out of 100 a gunshot will drop a person, I don't care who they are, or where they have been shot, anything hitting a person at the velocity of a bullet is going to stop them dead in their tracks. Unlike the movies, people generally don't die from trauma in a nice quick and clean fashion, they have tendencies to bleed out, scream, cry and beg for their parents, beg for forgiveness or if the bullet is somewhere particularly critical make very guttural truly horrific noises that alone will cause sleepless nights for years. They also tend to soil themselves and will generally reveal them for the sack of meat and liquid that we all are.

As a Social Worker I worked with one lad who burgled 3 houses in one day before he was caught by Police. By the reckoning of pretty much all those who have replied to this thread if he had been in the States he likely would have been shot and no one here cares much if he had been killed. However this lad had been living in a family environment of abuse and domestic violence. His Dad had given him a shopping list of items, then proceeded to beat his Mother to a pulp and threatened to kill his little Sister unless he delivered these items. It took 4 officers to restrain him and he did not calm down until he had seen his Sister. This is how he came to my attention.

Is it right to kill that lad, he was 14? Certainly he should have gone to the Police instead of Burgling, but he felt isolated and scared, and that he had no choice but to deliver this shopping list. This lad was a Burgler, he was a criminal and was convicted as a consequence. He was also a victim. My point is, you don't know the circumstances behind a person or their motives. By all means defend yourself and those you love, but deadly force must always be a last resort, there are generally reasons people commit criminal acts (excluding the majority of sexual crimes), and contrary to popular belief, they are rarely out of greed or even to hurt the victim. In the UK, there is now a reasonably controversial scheme called restorative justice, I am sure you have something similar in the states, if the perpetrator hasn't been shot dead, where the victims confront the criminal. This is about seeing the humanity and reasoning behind the act and helping the victim come to terms with what they went through. It doesn't always work, some people are just wired differently, but it is all about seeing people and not instantly defining them by their actions, because we are defined by our experiences and our environment, and we are all responsible for the environment we live in.