The Justice Secretary has said householders will be able to stab burglars without fear of prosecution under new legislation guaranteeing their right to defend themselves. Ken Clarke was speaking ahead of the Justice Bill being debated in the Commons today. He said an act of Parliament will be used to "clarify" the existing legal right to use "reasonable force" against intruders. Mr Clarke said: "We will make it quite clear you can hit a burglar with a poker if he's in your house and you have a perfect defence when you do so. "If an old lady finds she's got an 18-year-old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him, she has not committed a criminal offence, and we will make that clear." Prime Minister David Cameron has promised that the new Justice Bill would "put beyond doubt that homeowners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted". Mr Clarke accepted that the defence of reasonable force already exists, but said: "Given that doubts are expressed, we are going to clarify that. "It is quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes. "What they are not entitled to do is go running down the road chasing them or shooting them in the back when they are running away or to get their friends together and go and beat them up. "We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force. "Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes these steps." Mr Cameron's official spokesman said: "The objective is to put beyond doubt the fact that home-owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to protect themselves or their property should be able to do that without being prosecuted."
Good stuff.... they need to clear this up in America.... i want to use bear traps next to my windows...
Yeah I read this on Evening standard (newspaper), so cool but this isn't definate though. Still planning. I thought in America you can shotgun intruders o_0
I would rather put bars on my window, IMHO... As for self defense and how it's seen in the US, the degree of force varies from state to state, and is dependent upon the political climate at the time. Here's a great 2006 article from the New York Times where it is the subject of much debate and discussion: A UK analogous equivalent to the US discussion would be if every county in the UK would have its own individual "right of self defense" laws and or statutes (since the county is the first subnational divisional unit; in the US, it is the state).
^ bars on ya windows...??...they dun actually do anything...=/ my friends student house got broken into and they had bars...but the burgars just pried the window open and pulled one of the bars out...the bars are built within the window frame too....veddy old school ones....
I understand your dismissive attitude, but there are bars, and then there are IIIII-BARS-IIIII . So, it's all a matter of what kind you have and how they're installed. But with any defensive devices, they have to be in layers and mutually supporting. Say, have the barred window be very well lit, with an alarm, and a motion sensor, and video camera. BTW, one of the best deterrents to illegal entry? Get a few spent shell casings from a 9MM and place them on your window sill in plain sight. Any burglar looking into your window will get the implicit message that the occupant has a gun, and had left those used shell casings there as an explicit warning that they will kill anyone trying to get in.
What are you talking about? You guys already have the right to own firearms, some of ridiculous caliber, and to defend your homes with them...
Even if we do.... we can't use excessive force.... some guys was trying to burglarize this person's house and the other person chased him down the stairs.. the burglar fell down the stairs and the guy beat him while he was down..... or something along those lines... and the burglar turned around and sued the "victim" now that is some bullshit.
I thought stabbing had always been a "reasonable force" to stop burglary?! Unless I have totally wasted my time on studying Law for the past 3 years and that I must be totally missing the whole point. I know this is useful information for homeowners and what not but advertising this out doesn't mean you will necessarily become to have "reasonable force". I mean now that people know that we can do that, people are more likely to stab theif than to knock them out with a baseball bat, golf club or something that you can knock someone out with. Both ways of stopping the theif can have it's dangerous pre-cautions but being knocked out with the risk of concussion or even little brain damage seems to be a lot better than to stab someone with a deep wound or even kill them at that instance by too much bleeding or stabbing at the wrong place. Cameron (UK's PM) seems to have underestimated the phrase "reasonable force" as every circumstances is different, like Akki had said just now, it is based on the "circumstances" from the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and no one can name every single different typeo f circumstances that will arise. This articlehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1475141/Definition-of-reasonable-force-is-calculated-in-each-individual-case.html questions the phrase. The UK Parliament is a crap anyway at deciding what legal issues should be amended and what not anyways... BTW I'm not against people using knives to protect themselves, just not when those people claiming for self defence already had the intention to stab the theif when they could have used other methods to prevent death/heavy harm
^ Well they say you can, rather than you should. I wouldnt stab anyone because i cant bring myself to pierce another human being and i think most UK citizens would be the same. but a baseball bat or other blunt weapons is all good. but in the heat of the moment anyting can happen, and at the end of the day, nobody told the thief to break into someones house, the possible death could have been prevented if the thief decided to not break in. imo what they are saying is if you accidentally kill someone, you wont get done for it, because using a knife will in most cases result in death, so if you whack someone over the head with a bat you will be OK and rightly so. The casing idea is very good, would get us in big trouble in the UK though >_< the bars would protect but that sounds way to much like a prison to me. i dont think i would let thieves push me to the point where i have to fortify my house to such an extent. If it was that bad i would sell up and move. for me good windows, reinforced door and decent alarm is as far as i would go, a dog too,
^ more like get LOTS of stinging nettles or rose bushes surrounding the house also the allowing of stabbing for self defence puts ideas into people's minds. Some people do just pre-plan what to do like Tony Martin who shotgunned a young kid just because him ando ther people were trying to rob the house. Tony could have rung the police without anyone of them noticing but because they have been there before he was just sitting there and waiting for them to come! Can be the same story with a knife instead
That's a smart way to scare burglars but the problem these days is that it's easy to get hold of a gun, even kids as young as 14 can get hold of one (illegally obviously). So it's really difficult to say. Some may bluff that they have a gun but you won't know until you see it and even if you do, one may not necessarily shoot because they are 'green' (never used a gun or dare to use one). I think it depends. Hmm, I remember there was this famous uk singer (maybe actor) or something and she protected her kids because there was some youth outside her window and she was worried so she pulled out a knife from the kitchen and threaten them to move away (she was inside the kitchen and holding up the knife threating to attack the bunch of youth). She was fined for that even to try and protect her kids.
yeah good hedges are a must. But there will always be cases where people abuse the rights given to them. This is why the police still investigate after these things happen to make sure something like that didn't happen.
^ Problem is though intention is a very hard thing to prove by, which just cancels out the whole self defence objective.... BTW self defence doesn't mean you don't get anything against your record if you have accidentally killed someone. It will still be involuntary manslaughter. Yes yes it all depends on situation and heat of the moment, like I said I don't disagree on people using knives if they had no other choice, but if people decide to use knives at first instance before the burglar even realises you were there, it seems pretty wrong.
Not any more in certain states. There's a general misunderstanding regarding use of force and the degree of force allowed. Prior to the new stated laws (based on Florida's), it was considered a permitted use of force only if a citizen felt endangered, and could not retreat. But, as pointed out in that Time's article that I'd quoted, several states now have laws that allow people to protect property. In essence, if someone broke into my house, and was fleeing with my property, I have the right (in those states) to shoot him, even if he was fleeing and I shot him in the back to kill him. The fact that he had broken into my house automatically gives me the right to kill him. Further, if I had chosen to do so, he and or his survivors cannot sue me either. Of course, this raises the potential scenario of a burglar on his knees begging for his life while a homeowner then shoots him execution style; all perfectly legal in those states. -shock Something to think about, eh?
