Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense, where does it leave things and what could it lead to?

 

With his statement that ''People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary, to protect themselves and there homes''

 

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''

 

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???

 

 

Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13959093

[NoEntry]

With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense, where does it leave things and what could it lead to?

 

With his statement that ''People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary, to protect themselves and there homes''

 

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''

 

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???

 

 

Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13959093

 

Yeh, but its Ken Clark, he will change his mind in a couple of days. LOL

 

Mike

[TonyH]

With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense..........''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''.....Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???...

 

Well, let's hope so - on the assumption that you mean Americans, on the whole, are less likely to find themselves in legal hot water should they presume to use robust or lethal violence in defending themselves against an attacker. Of course, the anti-gun crowd always cite "America" as the villain of the piece where guns are concerned, since they are massively ignorant about the very wide variation in firearms legislation between the various States: they probably never knew that until we lost practically all our handguns, it was no easier to own one legally in NYC than in the UK, thanks to the Sullivan Act of 1911...

If any Brit politician had announced some populist gesture toward reassuring ordinary citizens (i.e. voters), to do with clarifying our deeply contradictory laws on the subject, I'd be deeply suspicious, and say let's wait and see what changes are actually made; but where that politician is Clarke I am doubly wary. He's not exactly an icon of rugged individualism - he's the most Left-wing Tory member of the Cabinet.

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there [sic] home'' - did he really say this? This is a very absolute statement! I guarantee that whatever changes (if any) are made, what transpires will NOT reflect any recognition of an "absolute right" and just as at present, if a householder takes on a burglar (say) and injures or kills him, that householder will end up in court accused of assault, manslaughter or whatever, on exactly the same basis as some career criminal, with no guarantee that he won't end up in prison.

Tony

[kent]

Retroric, there will be no actual change in the law. Indeed why? self defence is clear and reasonable force also has a measure of balance of the level of force offered by the attacker. How can you clarify something that is clear? you can only repete it and claim brownie points

[brown dog]

Retroric, there will be no actual change in the law. Indeed why? self defence is clear and reasonable force also has a measure of balance of the level of force offered by the attacker. How can you clarify something that is clear? you can only repete it and claim brownie points

 

Whilst that's true, the change required here relates to the interpretation of offensive weapons.

 

Right now, if you hear something downstairs and pick up -say- a poker to go and investigate, plod will see you as low-hanging fruit for his stats and do you for possessing an offensive weapon - he would demand that you march towards the noise wholly unarmed.

 

The only defence (and you'll have been arrested and be discussing this in court) is one of 'instant arming' that is, "I was so panicked that I picked up what was to hand and lashed out" in real terms that means that whatever you arm yourself with must have happened to have been lying nearby at the point at which you felt the need to act in self defence - and you grasped it.

 

That's the part that needs to be changed. 'Reasonable Force' -yes; but there needs to be a presumption in Law that an on-your-property intruder is there to do you harm.

 

Will they do it? Our crop of honourless career politicians? I'll be surprised.

[Andrew]

Whilst that's true, the change required here relates to the interpretation of offensive weapons.

 

Right now, if you hear something downstairs and pick up -say- a poker to go and investigate, plod will see you as low-hanging fruit for his stats and do you for possessing an offensive weapon - he would demand that you march towards the noise wholly unarmed.

 

The only defence (and you'll have been arrested and be discussing this in court) is one of 'instant arming' that is, "I was so panicked that I picked up what was to hand and lashed out" in real terms that means that whatever you arm yourself with must have happened to have been lying nearby at the point at which you felt the need to act in self defence - and you grasped it.

 

That's the part that needs to be changed. 'Reasonable Force' -yes; but there needs to be a presumption in Law that an on-your-property intruder is there to do you harm.

 

Will they do it? Our crop of honourless career politicians? I'll be surprised.

 

Just for clarity, in many parts of the US you are required to leave the house by another route if a bad-guy comes in. Texas has the "castle law" which goes so far as to extend your right to defend to the neighborhood, let alone your own house. The almost universal rule here is that you must be "in fear for your life" to use deadly force. You won't get away with shooting someone because they are on your property. Here in Montana a man was sentenced to life in prison for shooting his neighbor who was brandishing a weed-whacker. The man went into his house, brought out a 45-70 and ordered the man off of his property. When the man didn't budge he killed him from 20 paces away. The jury didn't buy self defense.~Andrew

[Finman]

A little known fact for Greece (unless of course things have changed since I was living there) is that you can protect your home and family with force, proportionate to the threat. In other words, you could do to the intruder what you wished, short of killing them, so long as they were in your property and you could prove there was threat to you or your family or your property. Mind you, I would not be at all surprised to find out that the nambi pambi caftan wearing treehuggers have wormed their way into that system as well and changed for the worse claiming some 'human rights' bullshit.

 

That said, there was a very celebrated case of a 17yr old who shot dead two Albanian burglers who had tied him and his family up and then went to get their 'lorry' to load up the loot. He managed to get untied and, good boy that he was, instead of untying the rest of the family, went and took the shotgun and ambushed the two 'saints' promptly dispatching them both when they re-entered the house. The public support was of such magnitude, the police did not touch him.... Ah...sometimes the pigeon, sometimes the statue eh?

 

best regards

 

Finman