have a go jack

I have a mate whos a copper and his suggestion even under the old laws was to buy a knife wearing gloves, keep it cleaned and wrapped in a plastic bag under the bed next to a baseball bat

If someone breaks in beat the living daylights out of them with the bat making sure theyre REALLY going to need some long term hospitalisation and then, again wearing the gloves, place the knife in their hand

A knife in the eyes of the law is seen as a far more dangerous weapon than a baseball bat, so using a baseball bat against an intruder wielding a knife is considered reasonable until they drop the knife, so if theyre found unconcious still holding the knife the defendant is never classed as being the one with the upper hand and most lethal intent so charges are highly unlikely as its acceptable levels of self defence because of the knife

Oh yeah, his other opinion on the scenario was that if rather than a good jolly walloping the householder decided to lift the scumbag slightly and then drop them onto the knife whilst still in the burglars hand claiming they fell on it when they went down that not only would it remove the claims they didnt have a knife, but would in most cases return a verdict of accidental death rather than even manslaughter due to the person who died having done so at the blade of a knife they themselves were using threateningly AND whilst in the perpetration of a criminal act with menaces

Dont ya just luv the piggies sometimes? :lol: :lol: :lol:

@johnboy25 wrote:

Probably not, for the simple reason that the law (Jack Straw’s law that most cops who would happily see a mugger/thief get what they deserve must enforce) still might protect the guilty. I heard about this on Sky News a while ago and it was as clear as mud – seemingly you have to wait for them to attack you before you can do anything. Under those circumstances, you can use reasonable force. That’s the impression I got.

So if someone tried to mug me, and I lashed out and told them to f**k off but they refused to back off, just how far can I go before it’s deemed that I’ve went beyond ‘reasonable force’ to defend myself? I wind up in court and the scumbag – most probably a drug addict and a career criminal – gets to play the victim.

I think we need a clearer definition of “reasonable force”, my personal favourite would be “when youre REASONABLY sure the amount of FORCE used has caused them to stop breathing”

Works for me :lol: :lol: :lol:

@johnboy25 wrote:

I think a definition of the circumstances where you can use force would come in handy as well. Preferrably one that isn’t going to chop and change or be ‘up for review’ whenever somone gets seriously hurt.

I think it would be a good start if anyone being uninvitedly within your property gave cause for the use of force as I can think of quite a few people I could then invite over and deny having invited over during the inquest :lol: :lol: :lol:

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

anyone who breaks into someone elses home deserves all they get in my opinion

Dvd’s, camcorders, cameras, cash, mobile phones, I-Pods, games consoles etc etc etc etc

:lol: