Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why is the right to self-defence being eroded?

Scroll to see replies

Defending ones home doesn't appear to be an issue in the UK, however on public land, unless you are a kung fu master there isn't a lot you can do unless an array of weapons suddenly appears near you.

Reply 21

silverbolt

Original post by an_atheist

You can use force in self defence, as long as it is not preparatory or excessive. If you assualt me, and i shoot you, that is excessive. If you break into my house and i have a skillet under my bed in case, that is preparatory and is therefreo excessive. If i have a baseball bat on display in my room, and i hit you with it when you break in, that is fine, because reasons.
All in all, the right to self defence is not being eroded, wha is being eroded it the leeway given to what you can do within reason.

so its illegal to prepare yourself against a home invasion?

Wait wut?

Original post by mojojojo101

If you lose control in the heat of the moment then that's your fault, I doesn't absolve you of the wrongs you may have done.

Actually, yes to a degree it does in some situations. If for instance you have a total moment of blind panic/terror/rage and lash out against a burglar and accidentally kill him, the law does take that into account.

Original post by Captain Haddock

Self defence laws in this country are very reasonable. It's very rare for anybody to be convicted for defending themselves against intruders, and when they are it's because they do stupid **** like the guy who threw a home invader into a pit and set him on fire.

This is true but thanks to certain media like the Daily Mail it has given parts of the populace this theory that if a burglar breaks into thier home it is the homeowner who is going to prison whilst the criminal can sue for emotional damages. The law does not work that way. If you wallop some scrote whos trying to make off with a DVD player a little bit too hard in the heat of the moment then the police will not push into too much detail.

However if you take said scrote, tie him to a chair and start cutting bits off him then yes the police will quite reasonably take action.

Original post by otester

Defending ones home doesn't appear to be an issue in the UK, however on public land, unless you are a kung fu master there isn't a lot you can do unless an array of weapons suddenly appears near you.

Which is i keep quite a few next to me by the bed, as well as two dogs on the bed with me :biggrin:

I should also point out that i live in an area where if i left my car running while i spent the night asleep the worst that someone will turn the engine off so i dont run out of diesal

Reply 22

Studentus-anonymous

Shooting a guy in the face for punching you isn't proportional force.

Plus you would probably get nicked for the illegal firearm and possession as much as the murder you just committed.

But at least you are allowed to defend yourself (and frankly I would regardless of the law. Better to be alive and dealing with the elgal system then just flat out dead or hospitalized/maimed/disabled).

Reply 23

The_Mighty_Bush

Because governments don't want their subjects to be unreliant on their monopoly of violence to protect themselves because then they might question why we need such a monopoly or whether it should be as overbearing as it currently is.

Reply 24

RF_PineMarten

Original post by mojojojo101

Firstly; of course the State has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, that's how States work.

As for the.issue at hand I think you can act I self.defence, however any action above and beyond.the absolute bare minimum to protect yourself from.harm is no longer justified.

Bare minimum? In a situation like that you may not don't know enough to be able to do that - there could be more of them nearby, they could have a weapon you can't see. If someone attacks you, it is often 100% reasonable to use the maximum force you can, just to be on the safe side. Most people probably wouldn't go overboard if they ever had to defend themselves but they certainly would not be aiming for the "bare minimum".