Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 10-1-2010 @ 05:58 PM by CX

I often read stories that push my faith in our system further and further down the toilet, but this one just takes the biscuit for me. I swear that as long as i live, i will NEVER vote for a party that is happy to keep these sort of pathetic laws in use.

The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.

Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.

Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders

I applaud the actions of Miss Klass.

She did what any decent parent would have done, she protected her kid from a potential threat.

In fact, her actions probably saved someone being injured that night, and saved the police a lot of paperwork for a more serious incident. They should be thanking her, not warning her.

I can almost hear our US members laughing at our laws, and i don't blame you at all. It's disgusting.

I am actualy concerned that i would go to jail and miss out on my kids if this had been me instead of Miss Klass. That saddens me because i am probably one of the most lawabiding people you will ever meet.

However I will also defend my property and my family with everything i have, and if that goes against the laws of this country, then so be it.

I don't wish harm on anyone unless they try to harm me or my family, but i would love to see how fast the laws were changed about home defence if a politician had their family threatened or worse inside their own home.

I say again, and please listen to this Gordon Brown, David Cameron or ANYONE who wants my vote in an election....i will NEVER EVER vote for a party that is happy to keep these laws the way they are.

Never!

CX.

[edit on 10/1/10 by CX]

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:01 PM by smyleegrl

So are you saying that in your country you are not allowed to defend your property?

I don't understand that at all. I'm not a violent person, but if someone comes onto my property with the intent to harm....I'm breaking out the guns. And I won't be shooting to wound, either.

Seems like the laws actually hinder the citizens more than they do the criminals!

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:06 PM by blupblup

Originally posted by smyleegrl
So are you saying that in your country you are not allowed to defend your property?

I don't understand that at all. I'm not a violent person, but if someone comes onto my property with the intent to harm....I'm breaking out the guns. And I won't be shooting to wound, either.

Seems like the laws actually hinder the citizens more than they do the criminals!

We can defend our property and use reasonable force... however, the case of Tony Martin is a stark reminder that if you kill or severely wound someone, it is YOU who will be facing jail time.

When that happened there was outrage in this country.

There are discussions at the moment about being able to use deadly or whatever force necessary to defend your property... and i think most people would anyway.

Just because we are supposed to restrain and use minimal force and wait for police, doesn't mean we would.
I would personally be breaking bones, and maybe more if someone broke into my house.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:08 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by smyleegrl
So are you saying that in your country you are not allowed to defend your property?

I don't understand that at all. I'm not a violent person, but if someone comes onto my property with the intent to harm....I'm breaking out the guns. And I won't be shooting to wound, either.

Seems like the laws actually hinder the citizens more than they do the criminals!

If you live in the U.S. you better be real careful who you shoot and why. I live in the states and if someone walks in here and takes my television in front of me and walks out. I can have him arrested for robbery. If I kill him as he is attempting to take my tv and not obviously trying to kill me, there is a real good chance of me doing time for manslaughter. The U.S. is not much better in some states.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:12 PM by CX

Originally posted by smyleegrl
So are you saying that in your country you are not allowed to defend your property?

Apparently the law states you can use reasonable force if someone intrudes, threatens or assaults you on your property, but what the law says and what actualy happens is another thing.

I think Myleene Klass was in the right using a threatening gesture to see of a possible threat against herself and her daughter, many others wouldn't have stopped there.

Seems like the laws actually hinder the citizens more than they do the criminals!

Spot on, and i know of no other person in this country that would say different.

CX.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:15 PM by bigyin

When I hear of these cases I just pray that the numpties who push these stupid laws are themselves confronted by the neds, just to see how they react.

I'm pretty sure they would swiftly change their mind if anything bad was to happen to them.

Personally I think if you have a clean record the UK government should issue you with a gun and a licence to shoot anybody that threatens you.

That would soon put an end to mindless thugs hitting on innocent bystanders.

I'm basing my arguement on the theory that if the thugs have got knives and guns then we should have them as well.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:19 PM by The_Archangel

A bill was passed some time ago through the House of Lords which was supposed to defend the general public from prosecution in responce to the Tony Martin case.

Tony Martin Case

After the recent trial of Mr. Munir Hussain, who was jailled having escaped a knife wielding burglar tied up him and his family and beat the man with a cricket bat, it shows that the public is more susceptible to criminal convictions that violent offenders.

Daily Mail Report on Mr Hussain

No longer is 'a house an Englishmans castle' even if you are a celebrity.

Feral youths, violent street crime and warring international drug gangs on UK streets will be a major issue for the political parties to tackle in this upcoming election year according to most voters.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:22 PM by Grumble

The U.S. is not much better in some states.

In my state the presumption is that I am always defending myself in my own home.

So be really, really nice to me when you are over for dinner.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:23 PM by smyleegrl

reply to post by Lillydale

You are very correct. I know that in the states (where I live) deadly force is only deemed 'appropriate' if you are actually physically attacked. I think there might be some gray areas, with regards to how the prosecuting attorney in your area chooses to pursue the case, but just because they are on your property doesn't give you carte blanche to light 'em up.

But still, if someone comes on my property and is threatening my son or my family with bodily harm, then I'm going to defend him with force. Deadly force, if need be.

Thanks for the response!

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:23 PM by blupblup

reply to post by The_Archangel

Exactly... NOTHING has changed.
I remember them saying that people should be allowed to defend their homes and how another Tony Martin shold never happen.

The Tories are proposing it at the moment... to change the law that is.

Link]

Who knows though

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:23 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by CX
Apparently the law states you can use reasonable force if someone intrudes, threatens or assaults you on your property, but what the law says and what actualy happens is another thing.

Do they define property differently? Maybe the word "threat?" Perhaps she would have been ok if she had waited until they broke in and harmed her or her child? That is the problem here (where I live), it is all about interpretation. All lawyers being equal, it all boils down to what the definition of "is" is. I am not sticking up for it or trying to justify it either.

It would be nice to see common sense over rule here and have these interlopers really learn what a dangerous thing presenting yourself as a threat to a mother and child is. Maybe some time with bear cubs and mommy in the woods would help. Even if what she did was somehow wrong, to really admonish her for carrying a weapon in her own home? Carrying it?! How is she supposed to use it to cook with if it is illegal to wield it even in her own home. Anyway, the fact is the message was sent to the public that it is not as wrong to be a peeping tom as it is to carry your own knife in your own home. It sucks that it happened and I think it sucks even more that this message comes out of it.

This stuff really irritates me. Unfortunately, there is no party here to choose from that does not support a further convolution of the laws passing rights from victims to perpetrators in the meantime.

[edit on 1/10/10 by Lillydale]

[edit on 1/10/10 by Lillydale]

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:25 PM by intrepid

Something stinks of "politics" here. Just reading the source. This isn't an unknown person that was warned. Warned? What the hell is that tbw? She knocks on a window with a knife? At peeping kids? How did this become known to the police? Stinky.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:26 PM by CX

Originally posted by blupblup

The Tories are proposing it at the moment... to change the law that is.

Link]

Who knows though

For me, within reason, this would be a real vote getter.

Unfortunately we all know, both in the UK and in the US how much a politician will say just to get in office.

CX.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:29 PM by bigyin

Originally posted by intrepid
Something stinks of "politics" here. Just reading the source. This isn't an unknown person that was warned. Warned? What the hell is that tbw? She knocks on a window with a knife? At peeping kids? How did this become known to the police? Stinky.

I don't see the problem. i've had it myself when teenagers have been hanging about giving lip. Itook a couple of pictures on my phone and called the cops. When I told the cops i had pictures they advised me to get rid of them and not to take pictures as I might land in trouble.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:30 PM by blupblup

Originally posted by CX

For me, within reason, this would be a real vote getter.

Unfortunately we all know, both in the UK and in the US how much a politician will say just to get in office.

CX.

Well exactly.

Look at labour and their "Referendum on Europe" bollocks..
These snakes will say whatever they can to get into power.

However as you say, if this is the real deal then i hope that at last, it will become law, or the home-owner will be given more leniency or rights to defend themselves and their property.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:31 PM by Lillydale

Originally posted by intrepid
Something stinks of "politics" here. Just reading the source. This isn't an unknown person that was warned. Warned? What the hell is that tbw? She knocks on a window with a knife? At peeping kids? How did this become known to the police? Stinky.

I just assumed, I know that is bad - that she called the police to report the incident and as a result of that reporting she was given a warning about the knife. This made her mad so she used her platform to get word out about it. That is why they should only abuse people no one might interview.

A spokeswoman for Hertfordshire police said no reference was made in the Klass incident report about a weapon. She said the incident was being treated as trespass and "words of advice were given in relation to ensuring suspicious behaviour is reported immediately".

I just took that to mean that she actually filed a report which would mean that she reported the incident to police. I would have most certainly called the police immediately afterward, if anything so that the kids saw the flashing lights in the driveway long enough to get bored and go away. I could be wrong.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:32 PM by blupblup

Originally posted by intrepid
Something stinks of "politics" here. Just reading the source. This isn't an unknown person that was warned. Warned? What the hell is that tbw? She knocks on a window with a knife? At peeping kids? How did this become known to the police? Stinky.

Perhaps the kids told their parents?

Perhaps Myleene called the police and told them she was waving a knife around and threatened the kids and then the police warned her?

And warned means just that.... it's one step below a caution i guess.
No legal action was taken and she was basically told "don't do it again"

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:33 PM by intrepid

reply to post by bigyin

My point is that the focus in the article was a "known" person. And how did the coppers know that she did this? Would peeping Toms call the police and dime themselves out? Just doesn't make sense. Btw, I'm not American, Canadian.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:36 PM by CX

Originally posted by intrepid
Something stinks of "politics" here. Just reading the source. This isn't an unknown person that was warned. Warned? What the hell is that tbw? She knocks on a window with a knife? At peeping kids? How did this become known to the police? Stinky.

According to this article from a music site, she called the police herself after the event, sounds fair enough.

Klass rushed downstairs and grabbed a knife, opening the door to scare off the pair - who were peering through her windows - by waving the weapon and screaming.

She then called police and told the attending officers of her actions - only to get a warning that her behaviour was illegal.

MYLEENE KLASS - KLASS RECEIVES POLICE WARNING FOR SCARING OFF INTRUDERS

A warning is kind of the first level of justice from our police. I think it goes onto your record though.

CX.

reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 06:37 PM by intrepid

reply to post by Lillydale

Cool. That makes sense. Possible. However, why did this "warning" get into the news at this time? When there's important legislation being proposed at this time that is related? How many "warnings" are given out in a day? Why did this one make the news?