'Have-a-go heroes' get legal right to defend themselves

\

www.telegraph. co.uk

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-7-2008 by Corum]

A modicum of common sense from the U.K government, at last. We needed this change in the law.

The article states ''However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them'' so it seems that you can stop a thief who is running away using your bare hands but you can't crack them on the nut with that tin of beans you just bought, okay, fair enough, I can live with that. I've no idea why they decided against no ambushing though, I see no problem with it.

www.telegraph. co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

A step in the right direction but sadly only a small one.

Alas, reason for hope, maybe, one day the welfare of the victim will be considered more important than that of the perp. That would help to reduce crimerates.

erm, sorry to break this news, but by law we've ALWAYS had the right to use reasonable force to protect our person or our properties.

See the wiki page here

The question most often asked has been what has constituted reasonable force.

There have also been cases where police have had to err on the side of caution, so as not to be left open to litigation.

BUT, any householder, or a person being mugged or robbed has always had the right under english law to protect themselves, providing only reasonable force is used - this law is only to take into account the evel of force used and whether it was justified.

reply to post by Corum


shame we cant just shoot them
ok thats over the top.

but seriously what can one do when a crook breaks into their home and threatens them?

bring out the Knife? bat?

Originally posted by budski
BUT, any householder, or a person being mugged or robbed has always had the right under english law to protect themselves, providing only reasonable force is used - this law is only to take into account the evel of force used and whether it was justified.

True enough, reasonable force has always been allowed in order to protect oneself or others. This is different though, in those life or death situations you may not remain calm and collective enough to use just 'reasonable' force, you might panic and accidently use 'unreasonable' force, this law protects you from the 'unreasonable force' charge, and so it should in my opinion.

reply to post by Corum


Exactly. The court has to take into account the circumstances you found yourself in when you were being attacked. I imagine whether the law is on your side or not isn't the first thing that springs into your mind when you're faced with a burglar in your home. But any sensible judge would do that automatically.

The Justice Secretary himself, Jack Straw, has been a 'have-a-go hero' on a couple of occasions so it makes sense for him to support this

[edit on 16/7/08 by Ste2652]

Excellent. Now if only the rest of the commonwealth countries can get on board.

I don't know about that part that says you can't wait and ambush a criminal who is breaking in. If you've seen him breaking in, and he hasn't seen you, what are you supposed to do (other than call the police)... pretend you didn't see him, and wait for another noise so you can pretend to be taken by surprise?

Originally posted by johnsky
Excellent. Now if only the rest of the commonwealth countries can get on board.

I don't know about that part that says you can't wait and ambush a criminal who is breaking in. If you've seen him breaking in, and he hasn't seen you, what are you supposed to do (other than call the police)... pretend you didn't see him, and wait for another noise so you can pretend to be taken by surprise?

Shout "hey!" microseconds before you swing for his arm or leg, I suppose!