Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

Anything shooting related including law and procedure questions.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Message
Author
User avatar
Sim G
Posts: 10752
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#21 Post by Sim G »

Remember, what ever fore used, "reasonable" will always be subjective. However, "justified" is objective. Whilst making your "plan" for a SHTF scenario, ensure you are conversant with the law....
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?

Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
User avatar
ovenpaa
Posts: 24689
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Årbjerg, Morsø DK
Contact:

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#22 Post by ovenpaa »

So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?
/d

Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...

Shed Journal
swampy

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#23 Post by swampy »

ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?
it might be reasonable.

offender is in your house, armed with a weapon capable of lethal force... a knife etc. you challenge him.. if you have time. he comes towards you threatenning.

a double tap to the forehead is reasonable and justified.

offender is in your house, threatening famiy member with a knife. you are to his side. you think that your child will be seriously harmed.

a double tap to the head is reasonable and justified.

offender is in your house, has your laptop in his hand, you challenge him he says "f*** you, I am out of here" and tries to make good his escape. no immediate threat to your life.

double tap = showers at the scrubs.

offender has been in your room. threatenned to kill you and your wife at knife point... then backs out of the room and runs down the hallway,

double tap = showers at the scrubs.

we don't really need this law. we already have it in common law.

What we do need is the bail disaster sorted out... all the people currently on police bail for any offence. including serious assaults... rapes.... manslaughter have been released from bail. this is a real disaster for us all. it must be the most perverse judgement ever

swampy
User avatar
Sim G
Posts: 10752
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#24 Post by Sim G »

ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?

Without doubt!
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?

Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Steve

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#25 Post by Steve »

ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?
eh?
Image
User avatar
pe4king
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Home club or Range: Lydd Rifle Club.
Location: Rainham, Kent.
Contact:

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#26 Post by pe4king »

Sim G wrote:
ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?

Without doubt!
centre of mass then ?. ;)
What is a Sapper? This versatile genius condenses the whole system of military engineering and all that is useful and practical. He is a man of all work of the Army and the public ready to do anything or go anywhere, in short, he is a Sapper.
barney57

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#27 Post by barney57 »

swampy wrote:
ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?
it might be reasonable.

offender is in your house, armed with a weapon capable of lethal force... a knife etc. you challenge him.. if you have time. he comes towards you threatenning.

a double tap to the forehead is reasonable and justified.

offender is in your house, threatening famiy member with a knife. you are to his side. you think that your child will be seriously harmed.

a double tap to the head is reasonable and justified.

offender is in your house, has your laptop in his hand, you challenge him he says "f*** you, I am out of here" and tries to make good his escape. no immediate threat to your life.

double tap = showers at the scrubs.

offender has been in your room. threatenned to kill you and your wife at knife point... then backs out of the room and runs down the hallway,

double tap = showers at the scrubs.

we don't really need this law. we already have it in common law.

What we do need is the bail disaster sorted out... all the people currently on police bail for any offence. including serious assaults... rapes.... manslaughter have been released from bail. this is a real disaster for us all. it must be the most perverse judgement ever

swampy

Spot on!!
Dougan

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#28 Post by Dougan »

Steve wrote:
ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?
eh?
Image
Brilliant :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Sim G
Posts: 10752
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#29 Post by Sim G »

pe4king wrote:
Sim G wrote:
ovenpaa wrote:So can we assume a double tap to the forehead is not 'reasonable' ?

Without doubt!
centre of mass then ?. ;)

Give that man a cigar!

Centermass....... then Mozambique!
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?

Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Porcupine

Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

#30 Post by Porcupine »

I think the problem is not so much that legitimate self-defence lands you in jail in this country - I have never heard of this happening. The problem is that if you do maim or kill an intruder (or an attacker outside the home) you will most likely be arrested and possibly put on trial. Trials are expensive, time consuming, and emotionally destructive. As is being arrested! And an arrest can really wreck someone's life - if you want to emigrate to some countries you must declare all arrests, not just convictions. "Arrested for murder" is not going to look good on a green card application!

Clearly a trial is sometimes necessary because the facts are genuinely and seriously in doubt. But it seems to me that the police should not be so quick to jump to arresting the apparent would-be victim. In the USA, certainly sometimes would-be victims are arrested or even tried. But when the circumstances point fairly clearly to a good shoot, they are at best congratulated by the cops and at worst left alone.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests