Re: New right to attack burglars.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:16 pm
The whole thing seems illogical - Burglary is a real possibility, and to me it would seem reasonable that if you ever did have to defend yourself, then it would be best to be prepared - A burglar could well have a screwdriver or such on him, or have picked up a knife in the kitchen...so you would be stupid to confront a burglar un-prepared.....and you don't have to use force if you don't need to...shugie wrote:The problem seems to be that having a weapon close to hand and ready for use shows some pre-meditated intent to use it. A smart barrister would possibly use this to show you were a psychotic maniac and hence attempt to weaken any claim you may be making to have acted solely in self-defence. Burglars may steal your stuff, but barristers will cheerfully steal your honour, which is why so many politicians used to be barristers, it's an excellent school in which to learn economical use of the truth and manipulation of facts, especially the inconvenient ones.Dougan wrote:Yes it's still very ambiguous - It'd be nice to have some clear guidance with examples of circumstances...AHPP wrote:The reporting I've heard has been fairly inconsistent. What I gather is that the lawyers will now be arguing about the word, "proportionate," as opposed to arguing about the word, "reasonable."
I think the new wording is more dangerous than the old. Where defending yourself with something you had to hand used to be reasonable (you already had it with you) it is now not proportional to the much less armed invader (even if it is reasonable because you already had it with you).
Can someone clear something up please...Is it lawful to have some kind of defensive weapon in your home (bat, club etc.), on the assumption that it wouldn't be used if not necessary?