In my opinion and it is an informed opinion( I had to study UK law and that in S. Africa) to qualify in Close Protection. Reason if you are going to use force to defend yourself or a client even pre-emptive force you need to know your rights.....
UK law is leaning unfortunately on the side of the nasty people, they can twist laws meant to protect innocents to suit there agenda's. The problem is that a judge or sherrif will most of the time follow the guidelines or the rule of law which in other countries Judges will apply common sense or moral sense to a situation.......this doesn't happen except on occasion and even then their decision is overturned by some higher court because of Human rights etc....
If you are attacked in S.Africa by a man with a knife you take the knife of him and the man is injured or even killed, the fact that he attacked you in the first place will put him in the category of the one at fault....obviously minimum force is the term but you can justify the deadly force and you are clear...in the UK let's just say....9 times out of 10 if you hit someone and they get injured/ killed even if they attacked you first....your fecked and will be treated like a criminal...
Kids today, the really bad to the bone ones know the law and will have you locked up for doing anything even if they have a long record of juvenile offences...the law always blames you even if you are defending yourself as they are minors..... Wrong but hey we vote in the lawmakers....
But guys and gals, if you do use any form of physical intervention, your statement should always read....I feared someone else or Myself would have been severly injured or killed if I hadn't used the 'minimum' force necessary to stop or restrain that person.....remember what you see is minimum force may be different from a person at a desk in the CPO so you have to show why you used the level of force you did, justify it, as in "they kept attacking, he was reaching for a weapon, if I hadn't I was in fear for my life as he/ she was so much bigger than me" etc....... The key words are always "Minimum force necessary"
There is a universal law, which is enshrined in the un human rights and is universally adopted by nearly all countries that is the right to "Self Defence" even military rules/ police rules or engagement do not take priority over this..... Anyone has the right to defend them selves if not to do so would put themselves at risk of serious injury or death!
some years ago my house was broke into 3 times in 4 months the last time was 3 weeks before xmas. took all the kids xmas presents. its not the stuff they take it can be replaced its someone has been in your home in your personal space and things. a few months later i moved away.
i know what i would have done if i found them no dobt about it.
Shouldve borrowed her last Sat when some evil so and so broke into mine scaring the girls !! Ive got a hockey stick waiting...apparently it wouldnt be classed as a weapon!!
i reckon thats very good advice from Johnny and if anyone ever has the misfortune to be in that situation reading it and heeding it might save you some prison time.
About 4 years ago reported in our local paper that a burglar fell thro conservatory roof of house he was breaking into,he SUCCESSFULLY sued homeowners for his broken leg!
@ loner - that reminds me of years ago when a Primary school I taught at then was sued by the feckless parents of their even more feckless offspring.
When, after climbing up onto the school roof (obviously ignoring the 'do not ' signs due to illiteracy - probably also schools fault!) their kids fell through the skylights. The parents said it was the schools fault for having them there in the first place!!!!
The skylights then had to be taken out and covered over (costing the school money. This made the corridors very dark and lights had to be on all day - costing even more money, thus less materials and equipment could be bought for the rest of the pupils!!!!
Agree with most of what's been said here, i think its probably inline with the majority of the population thinks too!!
Just a couple of points i would like to raise:
First, here comes the conspiracy theory; the powers that be (tptb) don't want us munchkins to have that level of control over our lives, and constantly keep harping on about the rule of "law". So the real victims get punished by the "law" and the scumbags get away with it or get slapped on the wrist and do community service.
Which brings me on to the second point, which is that our English Common Law has been around for about a thousand years, and is enshrined in documents such as Magna Carta. This is the real and ONLY law of this country as it has come from decisions made by juries in courts for the last 800 years or so. That is, juries of ordinary, average common folk like you and I.
What comes out of parliament is not actually LAW. Ever wondered why its called the Road Traffic ACT and not the Road Traffic LAW?
Coming back on topic, it has ALWAYS been the case that every one of us has ALWAYS had the right to self defence. Quite simple really, no-one should ever be in trouble for exercising their right to defend themselves and their property.
This also includes defending ourselves against a tyrannical monarch. Hence the English Civil War in the 17th century.
You see, people in general including me, get mixed up between legal and lawful. Legal is the world of barristers and politicians-lawful is our world of good old common sense (which is where we should put our faith imo)
There is a lot of different laws and acts as has been rightly pointed out and when you are arrested it is your right to be told what you are being arrested for...it is also your right if you are to be questioned wether or not under caution to have legal council present...if the officer/s do not follow this they are breaching the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and accompanying codes of practice. Which basically means if they don't follow it when arresting or questioning you it won't stand up in court......
But regardless the right to self defence of yourself or others stands above all else including preemptive respondent...you just have to show in a reasonable way that you acted in self defence and used no more force than you 'perceived necessary at the time' and that most would perceive it as minimum force necessary to stop that threat. Including lethal force.
I have read about a lot of these cases where burglars have got compensation.....you have to remember we had 12 or 13 years of crazy labour guidelines and health and safety bollocks....it allowed the system to be corrupted...remember labour were going to give convicts the right to vote and also phased laws so they could take the authorities to court over not being allowed TV's....we had to front the lawyers bills......crazy crazy stuff and the most part all of this crap was hidden from the public because of the hell that break loose if we knew it all....it got out of control...to many tree hugging do gooders in positions of power......the give them a second chance brigade......the it's not their fault their mummies didn't hug them enough when they were children bollocks.....awwww they were poor.....well news flash a lot of people grew up poor but you don't see them mugging old ladies or selling drugs or robbing houses......scum are scum and the only way to deal with them is hard and fast with remorse, give them a sentence and hard prison time so they do not want to go back inside....some of those places are like fecking holiday homes...state of the art gyms and IT facilities...in better condition than the armed forces barracks including married estates.....
End rant!
Sorry jonny but you miss my point. i agree with what you say about the last labour bunch and about how cushy they seem to have it in prison etc, but there IS a difference between a Law and an Act.
Law = common law that has been around for 800+ years and has evolved through the jury court system.
Acts = statutes defined as "rules of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed" (Blacks Law Dictionary). which means they are NOT laws at all; just rules.
As for the police following procedure-ask any of the youngsters that i work with if they are ever given a S&S slip by the cops (which they are sposed to give) after a stop and search on the grounds that they were wearing hoodies. and ask them how many times they have been beaten up by the cops and how many cops have been caught and prosecuted??
call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want but i know what these kids are going through-and its not their fault but they probably WILL turn into thugs and muggers.
Anyway, my point in my 1st post was about the right to self defence which is enshrined in our traditional laws i.e. english common law as well as other inalienable rights which we seem to have forgotten about.
"call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want but i know what these kids are going through-and its not their fault but they probably WILL turn into thugs and muggers."
Ok you bleeding heart liberal...
Ok 2 different laws criminal law and civil law. Different laws between Scottish law and English law mainly definition and procedures.
As for your comments about " these nice kids who become muggers and worse" well mate, your gonna have a hard time convincing me and a lot of others as you have no idea of where I or others came from and the life's we had to grow up in!
There are cases where police have been out of line and yes they should be punished, but some of these reprobates should have been disciplined from their parents along time before plod cuffs their ear...99 times out of 100 the little oxygen thiefs deserve a good slap but it is illegal....but the shit and vandalism, threatening behaviour etc is their own choice. I have worked all over the world mate and served in some of the worst shit holes in my military days.....take it from me these deprived and ( abused by the police) individuals don't know how lucky they are because in nearly any other country they would have been either locked up, shot up of seriously fecked up.....
Our country is about the lightest and easiest going on juvies in all of the world and our little angels get away with it all because they damage your car abuse you or your family damage your house or swing at you and you touch em ....you will get done no questions asked..
If you don't think so look it up it's everywhere I the papers in your own neighbourhood if you live in those area's like plenty of us do!
At the end of the day where you are from and if you are poor or anything else does not make you a criminal, you choose wether or not you mug or steal or rob....there isn't an excuse! That's the problem in this country....
DukeZ, just because something is a rule and not a law does that make it any less binding on people to abide by it, you seem to think so the way you are going on about it, so lets look at another ACT which directly relates to this topic.
Sec 3 of the Criminal Law ACT 1967 "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the LAWFUL arrest of offenders, suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large"
this is an "any person" power so you don't have to be a "cop" (as you seem so fond of referring to them) in order to rely on it when you encounter Billy Burglar in your home or Ronnie Robber on the street, mm let me see, that looks just like good old common LAW right of self defence to me.
The bit that trips people up is that there is still a misconception amongst a lot of people that you can just shout 'self defence' when the police turn up and expect to be tucked up in bed again 10 minutes after the moron you've just shot/battered/stabbed whatever is in the back of a police van/ambulance off to whichever hospital/nick they are going to. not going to happen people. If you've done someone a major bit of damage you are going to have to explain yourself because you might have over stepped the mark with what you are allowed to do to defend yourself, your nearest and dearest and your home.
'Reasonable force in the circumstances' - there are inumarable examples that can be given as to what might or might not be reasonable force in the circumstances, but the only way you are likely to be spending the next few hours is being interviewed at the local nick having been arrested and cautioned for some level of assault, this is how the police are REQUIRED to INVESTIGATE what has happened, once the investigation is complete, you will have hopefully given a sufficiently compelling account as to how granddad's WW2 Bren gun happened to have a full magazine in it and was the only means available to you to defend your family, wife, kids, lover, scalextric set from being beaten, robbed whatever by this intruder.
If on the other hand you haven't been quite so compelling with your account of having to behead someone with a martial arts sword as they are legging it out the door with your PS3 (thereby posing no or minimal threat to you or your family) you will most likely find yourself in court gripping the rail in the dock while a jury decides your fate, Under the European convention of human rights, everyone has the right to life, yes even scumbag criminals. Incidentally its not the Police who decide who goes to court in the vast majority of cases, its the CPS, and its the courts that decide innocence or guilt and the sentencing for the guilty, not the Police.
Sandi, everyone has an opinion on the use of force, mine happens to be that criminals use the threat of force and actual force to pacify a victim and enable them to commit their crime, personally I used sufficient force to effectively neutralise the threat. look back to the old lady who took on a whole gang of HOODIE'd up yobs on scooters trying to rob a jeweller's a year or so back, OAP 1 - Cowardly Hoodie yobs 0 Its a judgement call for the individual, thieves aren't brave, they are cowards praying on people's fears and those they perceive to be able to intimidate into submission, if someone is confident enough, stick it to 'em in return, just don't over do it, repel the attack (pre emptive strike if you can justify it, you don't have to wait for someone to attack you in order to defend yourself) but having repelled the attack, don't go on the offensive, however tempting it might be because you'll definitely land yourself in the cack if you do.
Go back to the definition of the act "effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders" does that sound like a good old fashioned common law citizen's arrest to anyone ? sure as hell does to me, but how can that be right ? its just an ACT, not a LAW ! And DukeZ, if the TPTB didn't want 'us munchkins' to know all this stuff you'd never have heard of Blacks Law Dictionary, much less had the chance to read it.
So in summary people, there's plenty of LEGISLATION out there that outlines how you can protect yourselves, your family and your property, hopefully you'll never need to use it or the force that goes with it, but if you do at least you can do it from a position of at least a bit of knowledge on the subject. Keep safe people.
If people have misconstrued or misunderstood my points, then it is probably my fault. In which case let me say this:
To johnnytb-
I wasn't making any excuses for the bad behaviour of some young people, on the contrary i was agreeing that being poor doesn't make you into a criminal. what seems to matter more is if the parents of todays yoof are not keeping their kids in line, then we see the results in the state of our present society. My Dad kept me in line, and being in the army gave me more in terms of discipline.
Consequently i have brought up my children to believe in being good members of society and not to go around being a yob, during which time i was earning less than half the national salary and i come from a council house background, so i do know what being poor means.
But there is a point where i do look for a reason for criminal activity, particularly amongst young people; and i still say that if, as a child, you grew up in an environment where, violence, laziness, unemployment, drug use and various forms of abuse are the norms of your family life; would you think that a well-balanced, productive, law-abiding member of society will be forthcoming?
No, neither do I.
To Helmet
The points i raised were an attempt to open up the debate on people's understanding of the law. So yes, there is a difference between a law and a rule, but what i was alluding to was that we, the people, have always had the right to self defence; whether you call that a rule or a law i don't really care! And if its a case of abiding by a law that protects us all and disobeying a rule that protects only some-then the former overrules the latter for me. BTW english common law takes precedence over all other "law".
Want to know why? Because its in our constitution, that's why!
As you point out, in the Criminal Law Act 1967 is clearly stated that you can indeed use self defence and even to arrest someone, in certain cases and following all the handy tips you gave in your long exposition.
However, what I mean to say is this: we have always had that RIGHT but when it is turned into an Act of Parliament, then it becomes a PRIVILEGE (because the next parliament can withdraw or revoke the act in whole or in part).
My overall point is that if you cause no harm, injury or loss to another human being, then you should be able to live your life in peace. OFC this depends on everybody doing the same.
Finally, and this is to all readers, TPTB didn't want us to know the truth about Hillsborough did they? They kept the truth hidden for 23 years didn't they? Did they gladly and willingly give up this information? well.....did they?
And then what about all those governments since Thatcher saying " we will never deal with terrorists". OK, thats what they told us but then sometimes things just slip out like............. how the Bank of England (on instruction from the government) laundered IRA money!!!!
Bet you don't believe that, do you helmet hair? nah, its just conspiracy theory stuff from some bunch of loony left nutters i bet your saying.
You see, thats originally what i was saying about TPTB not wanting us to have that level of control over our own lives.
But thanks for that information HH, about people being cautious about what ppl can and can't do to burglars etc. i think some ppl did get carried away a bit.
Wes pu hal
btw the evidence.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCT7L3-WsVE&feature=...re=related and go to time 06.50
and its also recorded in Hansard if you think the video is fake!
KG, good point, well made, forgot to cover that bit.
DukeZ - conspiracy theories I dont have time for, 1 the moon landings not taking place, 2 the attacks on the WTC being a state sponsored act by the US Govt'. I am in no doubt that there are dark forces at work in the world be they state sponsored or 'private enterprises' Some might actually be there for good but I expect most are there for a self serving elite few, so while there are in deed a number of loony lefty conspiracy theorists out there, there are others with a good handle on the subject, sorting the wheat from the chaff is the trick. So I would ask you not to presume to know where I sit on one subject or another based on a single interaction on here, just a polite request that one.
I do find the Bank of England/IRA scenario interesting, if you you knew me better you'd understand why, but that's for another discussion, maybe another time, a very big maybe. I am interested enough to start doing my own reading on the matter where I am able to and will will draw my own conclusions from that.
I wonder how close to a possible reality Ian Flemming was when he created the character Ernst Stavro Blofeld, stroking his pet cat as he oversee's reports from the agents of his SPECTRE organisation as he attempts to take over the world ?
Bugger it, went well off topic with the last one, right back to the thrust of the thread, sort of.
DukeZ
To Helmet
The points i raised were an attempt to open up the debate on people's understanding of the law. So yes, there is a difference between a law and a rule, but what i was alluding to was that we, the people, have always had the right to self defence; whether you call that a rule or a law i don't really care! And if its a case of abiding by a law that protects us all and disobeying a rule that protects only some-then the former overrules the latter for me. BTW english common law takes precedence over all other "law".
your argument in this paragraph makes no sense to me, looking specifically at S3 Criminal Law Act, its an any person power, how can that be " a rule that only protects some" ? please explain ?
![Burglars in your home, what would you do? (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Burglars in your home, what would you do? (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
