Legal Self defence in the home

[Plymtom]

Steveo you are aware I knew where you were coming from weren't you? yes we are talking self defence and I was trying to make sure others were aware that so were you, not first choice but last resort,

The original post states weapons legal to deal with an attacker in the home not a burglar an atacker. Which to means if you have the right setup security wise not your normal burglar as they will run a mile when the alarm and dog is going nuts. My gun safe sits inside a wardrobe next to the bed and the solid wood door at the bottom of the stairs locks from our side. If an attacker worked his way through all this purely to get to me and my family then and only then would I have a legal right to protect my family with a shotgun. Please bare in mind legally you can only protect human life with a shotgun not property just human life. Although things are changing more towards the victims side.
One last point from me
This discussion is normal times not shtf
All the bull crap about searching in the dark for an intruder with hand weapons etc etc. why risk your life. Come on is it worth it really how can you prep in prison, hospital or 6ft under.
This site is about preparing so prepare, get an alarm, install security. Burglars are not as stupid as some of the people they rob. 99.99% of burglars will run away at the sound of an alarm. Have a look at your property from the boundaries and imagine your a burglar, how would he/she evaluate your house security wise.

I wish I could always put things so clearly in so few words thank you, I have digressed a little in order to try and illustrate both how to tell the difference between break in, break in turning bad/confrontational, and all out attack, lets assume that attack was the trigger for self defence or clear intent of inflicting harm leaving you no choice than to reach for whatever you have in place, and to think about whether what you have in place can be used against you too easily or whether like a long bat in a narrow passageway is not fit for purpose.

On a side note I think we should be talking legal deterrence too so I'll start that subject separately.

[Steveo82]

The point i was trying to make was the only time i should need to confront an intruder/attacker is if our lives were at risk.I will not confront anyone trying and defiantly not chase them away as there is too many examples of the victim losing there life. I will not need to choose between hair spray, golf club,sword or crow bar as i will be sat in a secure room with my children and partner and in my opinion, the only choice a shotgun, Yes some people will same grow some, but life is too precious, even the intruders. There are already too many people defending themselves with weapons and people dying, how long before the intruders start to come armed and ready to fight you for your possessions.

just 2 cases of which there are many, which are true plus scare the crap out of me. They are related to this discussion and my home defence security decisions.

Why i don't keep weapons behind the door
Dept collector currently serving life in prison after knocking at a door in hull to collect his money, he was attacked with an axe handle. He took the handle off the client and killed him instantly with one blow to the head. All over £200.

Why i don't confront/chase intruders
Tony Martin- The guy who started it all off with regards to shooting and killing burglars. We all know what he did but not how he got away with it. He has lost everything and at one point he had a bounty of £50k on his head. Yes I might be able to shoot them with no legal consequences but there could be other even worst consequences.

To be honest the whole subject scares the crap out of me. People, criminals & some victims risk so much for so little.

[Plymtom]

To be honest the whole subject scares the crap out of me. People, criminals & some victims risk so much for so little

Here here Steveo, and for those without shotguns, would a crossbow or compound bow do? and be legal in the same scenario? Probably I think, and on the here and now insuring your contents after taking as many precautions as you can, and having a room to congregate and defend yourselves in until the police get there would be a sensible way, perhaps the only way most could endorse.

[Steveo82]

If you had taken every precaution and verbally told the attacker you are armed and will kill them if they enter the room (whilst on the phone with the police)you can use any weapon you want. Its a bit of a joke to be honest.
10 years ago if you killed someone protecting your property in your home you would go to prison. Not for murder but most likely man slaughter now you can get away with it. Even shooting at people to protect your ilegal cannabis farm with an illegal firearm seems to fine nowadays.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-he ... r-25219767
What a joke
One thing that did shock me was the burglars got 11 and 13 years for this.

[junmist]

For those of you who were talking walking sticks there is some very useful videos on you tube about using them to protect yourself. Walking stick self defence was introduced in Norfolk after a spat of older people were being robbed coming out of the post office and classes have slowly spread across the country.
As to someone breaking into my home I will lock/barracked the bedroom door call 999 and tell the person that the police are on the way if they force there way in then and only then will I use reasonable force to protect myself perfume, aftershave and deodorant all work sprayed in the eyes for us lady's stiletto shoes are lethal. There are a couple of other things I can think of but I am not sure how legal they are so would not like to put them out there on a public forum

[munchh]

OAP's, oh blimey,

no i was thinking about the gentlemans art of Bartitsu or the french La Canne, which you can find both of on you tube, when i read about them a while back it was said that it all came about when carrying a sword was outlawed, but a gentlemans cane works just like a sabre, so these came about to help fend off muggers.

Bartitsu was what you could call the first 'mixed martial art' it was part Boxing, Savate (French foot fighting) and Singlestick, it is what Sherlock Holmes supposedly did.

Singlestick was even in the Olyimpics and training was brought back in 1980 in the Navy, it seems to be getting popular again (first time ive looked on line about it for a few years and there is alot now.) There are companies like Blackswift sticks who are producing 'Self defence' walking sticks!

It was for gentlemen, so not fully fit or physical people, just like us internet junkies sitting down alot, this was more a mind set than an physical art, outsmarting your attacker, not overpowering him.

Anyone who watches Elementary, will have seen him at it.

Anyway, good reason to have a nice umbrella with you as your walking around.

[XMaramena]

As far as I'm aware, the laws changed somewhat fairly recently, allowing homeowners more "freedom" in the defence of their own home (I believe it was after someone was sent to prison for beating an intruder with a cricket bat?).

Sadly, it's still the grey area of "reasonable force". However, we trust that as long as we make a rational action upon an intruder, the judge will agree with us. Shooting them through the eye with a high powered air rifle? You'll get yourself banged up. Knocking them out nice and quick with a sharp slap to the side of the head before restraining them until police arrive - no permanent injury, broken bones or such like, just a headache for a day or two - I'd deem to be perfectly acceptable.

I'd also regard the use of an air rifle/pistol as acceptable as a deterrant, however discharging it at them directly may be taking things too far. There's nothing to say that if you have a very convincing air pistol you can't keep them drawn down until police arrive. Of course, shooting them would cross the line. Then again, if for example they had a knife and ran at you while you had said gun aimed at them, then I would expect that would then be deemed "self defence" (for the assault against you, not the break in). All this being said, you'll have to be able to prove that they did in fact charge at you whilst armed, and that you also had no intention of shooting them had they stayed put.

The UK legal system has always been very weak on this topic and it very much comes down to the judge at the end of the day. When all is said and done, the best defence is prevention - alarms with strobes, dogs etc.

If someone were to come into my home, I'd have my air pistol and chavvy hoody out in seconds. I wouldn't expect anyone to try something against that. I just need to remember not to talk - my innocent posh accent wouldn't really help the whole image!

[Malthouse]

The UK law on self defence is immoral, but it is (currently) the law so you have to work within it.

I encounter this regularly in training door staff and event security stewards. In order to stay out of the grey area you must not make any preparations. Hard to do when everything in your life is about prep!

Anything that shows you were planning to hurt someone will get you in the doo doo! Any defence must be in proportion to the threat, if it is a pre-prepared defence then it cannot possibly be in proportion - so the law says.

[Plymtom]

It's about balance though Malthouse isn't it ? for example is not having security staff/doormen a pre prepared defence in itself... of course it is, just like having a large dog? you are the perfect person for the thread, one who trains people to be on the right side of the law

[Malthouse]

Thanks Plymtom

It is indeed about balance, but sadly the fulcrum us shrouded in grey mist!

Doormen are a deffence, not a weapon. Not that all see it that way lol