Legal Self defence in the home

[Manclife]

I think some of you are confusing different bits of legislation. Let's clear up some myths first. You do not need to have a a justified reason to have items around your home for self defence. Baseball bat behind the door? Fill your boots. Crossbow by the bed? Crack on. You can do this legally and openly say its for self defence and nothing else. However, do the same outside and your breaking the law.

Now the sticky area of self defence and proportionality. If a person is in your home and you fear for yours or another safety then you can use as much force as you see fit to protect yourself. What you can't do is chance after if they run away and continue to use that force on them.

Killing an intruder happens more than you might think and doesn't lead to prosecution

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 19046.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rists.html

Where there is a prosecution there is always an element of revenge or retaliation ie continued to use force after the threat had gone.

[Plymtom]

I think some of you are confusing different bits of legislation. Let's clear up some myths first. You do not need to have a a justified reason to have items around your home for self defence. Baseball bat behind the door? Fill your boots. Crossbow by the bed? Crack on. You can do this legally and openly say its for self defence and nothing else. However, do the same outside and your breaking the law.

You may be right it's a bit early, but frankly if you ask a police officer and they confirmed that you could do that, they would follow quickly on with advice, I believe you can actually ask for a visit for home security advice especially if you are in an area where they have experienced higher burglary rates,
I for example have a panic button in the porch, the Rottweiler behind the second door and a 4D Maglite behind her, only the panic button is security specific.
Crossbow well, we have several, one big one and four small ones, the big one 175lb is slow to load, but no doubt lethal, the bolts like my arrows locked away, perhaps not really essential now my youngest is more mature, but you cannot be sure about teenage guests (it's hung somewhere as apposed to beside the bed) the pistol crossbows are scattered around all 80lb ones but the first one I bought has a really stiff trigger and stirrup loading so it lives in the wardrobe, bolts locked in another room in a safe, similarly the (adult) children's ones whilst in their rooms have their supply of bolts locked in their own safes.
I may have implied that these items could come in handy if things went south so as my wife would endorse having them around but like airguns, archery, catapults, and firearms, they are activities that health permitting ( and for some of us it doesn't) which we all enjoy.

With that little bit of background information and in the same context as for instance, you want a pretty good bug out vehicle so buy an RV or a big 4WD and a camping trailer, would you be doing it merely as a prep... I doubt it seriously, there is a common trend amongst UK Preppers to combine an interest, a pleasurable pastime (or many) with things which may come in handy in a crisis, it separates us from the DD preppers, were more positive we take our coats out with us because it might rain, better than leaving it at home because it's not raining right now (sheeple) or refusing to take it off because it will start any minute (DD prepper)

[Manclife]

Firstly, what's a bit early?

Secondly I'm not suggesting for one minute that I recommend having weapons dotted about the house just incase but if you choose to then you should know its perfectly legal.

[Plymtom]

Firstly, what's a bit early?

Sorry for the confusion it was simply the time of day Manclife the time stamp says 9 but I'm sure it was lots earlier than that, my brain was not in gear (same now) and I was trying to remember those legal points, it's all in the interpretation, and defence in the home is better than it was, still not perfect, it's funny I consider myself as a person with good moral values and choose to try to stay as legal as is possible, but I have never completely understood why we allow people who blatantly break the law, operating in spite of it, ignoring it, not giving a rats arse about it, until that is they get caught and try and use it against their victims, to be so well protected by the very laws they have no respect or care for till they get caught.

The original idea of this thread was to try and ease the confusion somewhat, so it's a kind of devils advocate thing, when I put forward thoughts like how far is being prepared to defend oneself and family, mentally, physically, or materially ( with what we have made sure is to hand "just in case") down the road to having set premeditated traps for the poor unsuspecting villain?

I had always been sympathetic to Tony Martin ( the guy who shot a burglar) a man driven to distraction by repeated burglary and little help from the community going ( or driven) down the "Death Wish" route and then being punished, society failed him. Then I would hate to see folk who have never had a hint of trouble preparing their homes and get that wound up, paranoid if you like, it's almost as unhealthy as the danger itself.

Slightly off topic but thinking like this, I have and continue to learn skills which could be applied if TSHTF. How far down the road to paranoia does rehearsing bug out or home defence scenarios take someone? asides from one day testing how long it would take the family to grab stuff and evacuate, I don't intend too go far down that road, adding stress to the present is not too good an idea, and perhaps not as big a threat to survival as some scenarios, but yes it's a danger in itself, so I am constantly looking for balance.

[Manclife]

Ah, early on the morning!

I've over a decade of working in criminal law and know how it's applied and interpreted from police to CPS and the courts. If people spent a little time reading the details off a case rather than what the media churn out you would see that it's very rare the wrong conclusion is reached.

Take the Tony Martin case he had already shot a hole in a vehicle of somebody scrumping for apples which is hardly life threatening and had an illegal shot gun. Add into the the mix the burglar was running away at the time and some distance away it's not as clear cut at is would first seem. In addition his claims that he had been broken into several are though to be lies, though nobody doubts he had been burgled in the past, and his account was proved to be false by forensics.

A simple rule that you can't go wrong with is use enough force as you need end to gett them out the house and nothing more.

[Plymtom]

Take the Tony Martin case he had already shot a hole in a vehicle of somebody scrumping for apples which is hardly life threatening and had an illegal shot gun. Add into the the mix the burglar was running away at the time and some distance away it's not as clear cut at is would first seem. In addition his claims that he had been broken into several are though to be lies, though nobody doubts he had been burgled in the past, and his account was proved to be false by forensics.

A simple rule that you can't go wrong with is use enough force as you need end to gett them out the house and nothing more.

Those facts would alter my perspective, having an illegal shotgun alone speaks volumes about the type of person someone is, and bids a question, is it really easier to get an illegal firearm than get help if you are afraid of burglary? back then or now?

[dannytsg]

Take the Tony Martin case he had already shot a hole in a vehicle of somebody scrumping for apples which is hardly life threatening and had an illegal shot gun. Add into the the mix the burglar was running away at the time and some distance away it's not as clear cut at is would first seem. In addition his claims that he had been broken into several are though to be lies, though nobody doubts he had been burgled in the past, and his account was proved to be false by forensics.

A simple rule that you can't go wrong with is use enough force as you need end to gett them out the house and nothing more.

Those facts would alter my perspective, having an illegal shotgun alone speaks volumes about the type of person someone is, and bids a question, is it really easier to get an illegal firearm than get help if you are afraid of burglary? back then or now?

Sadly from more recent events it would appear that the only people being affected by the firearms legislation is those who wish to abide by the law. It would appear given recent events (Lee Rigby, PC's Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes) that people looking to get hold of illegal acquired weapons would be more than capable of doing so.

As to this topic itself I appear to be in the same boat as everyone else. I would only do enough to get an intruder away from my property rather than intending on hurting them.

Personally I believe that being preemptive is best which is why I have tried to focus on making my home less attractive to people willing to try and burgle/break in. CCTV, PIR's and spotlights plus house alarm, the dog and plenty of thorny bushes makes it hard to get to my property. If they endeavor to get past these defenses then I will do what is required to get them away.

[Gunny]

In the military our instructors like to keep things simple cos soldiers are, as everyone knows, as thick as two short planks!
That being said, I have always though the basic rule we get given to 'control' escalation works in most situations:

You can only match the level of force used against you.

i.e. If someone is shouting, you can shout back but chinning them is OTT.
If someone is hitting, you can hit back but shooting them is OTT.
If someone is trying to kill you, all bets are off and you can use any means at your disposal to ensure they go down first.

Of course, this is all based on your genuine belief at the time of the incident.

It can get complicated when you start getting into pre-emptive strikes, etc. but I've found it a very effective rule for reducing the number of grey areas that my soldiers can face in high stress situations. It works just as well in the real (civilian) world; if you only meet the forced offered you, you cannot be accused of being disproportionate.

[matthopkins]

Better to be tried in a court of law by 12 than carried by 6

after alls said and done its a perceived threat you are reacting towards.