Not More Knife Law

[santaman2000]

Not quite, a car is not a place. It is private property (as opposed to on it), technically, it's a private possession which can be in a public place such as on the highway, or in a private place such as your garage. When you are in yourt car on the highway, you are in a public place, when you are in your car in your garage, you are in a private place. Think of your car as a suitcase on wheels. Anything in your car in a public place, is in public - just like it would be in your suitcase.

Lets muddy this just a bit. Suppose it's not an ordinary car but rather a self contained RV (or a Gypsy wagon) parked in a public (commercial or otherwise) campground. The public is allowed access to the campground true, but is the RV still considered a "public place" since in essence you are using it as your home for the period? If so then how is it different from a flat in a "public" complex?

 

[Martyn]

You've missed the point mate, a car (or RV) is not considered a place - the place, is where the car or RV is parked (or moving). You dont need to let the public in because it's private property, any more than you need to let the public have access to your suitcase - or your pockets, even though the RV, the suitcase and your pockets might be in a place where the public have a right of access.

So stuff you keep in your car, or your RV, or your suitcase, or your pockets are considered to be in a public place, when any of those things are in a public place. You could have an offensive weapon in your pocket standing in the centre of town, and would be guilty of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, even though you dont let the public into your pockets. Get it?

 

[santaman2000]

No i didn't miss the point. I was curious to know how far the castle doctrine extends. Does an RV (or a hotel room, or any other temporary residence) qualify as your home would. I'm trying to get a comparison to the views here. In some states (but not all) the castle doctrine extends to your car; in MOST states it extends to temporary residences.

 

[Martyn]

We dont have the castle doctrine in UK law (though many would like to have it, including me), ....but if you were drunk in the back of your RV in an RV park, you could in theory be charged with being drunk in a public place.

 

[Mesquite]

We dont have the castle doctrine in UK law (though many would like to have it, including me), ....but if you were drunk in the back of your RV in an RV park, you could in theory be charged with being drunk in a public place.

You could also be in theory charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle as well...

 

[ateallthepies]

Watched a British Police show last night and they stopped this young lad in Birmingham for no insurance and M.O.T. Everything went fairly well and the lad seemed nice until one of the cops spotted a baseball bat on the back seat.

They asked the lad why it was there and why he had it. I sat there saying to myself 'don't say it, don't say it' and low and behold he said ' I guess it's for self defence'

The cops were still cool and apologetic but now had no choice but to nick him for an offensive weapon. The lad was gutted obviously even if he never really intended to use it for protection but the fact he said those words and admitting guilt and not some other story got him in serious bother.

On a point raised earlier, is it our right to get legal council before accepting or refusing a caution?

Steve.

 

[gliderrider]

wht use a baseball bat when a wheel lock is more hefty, and you cant get nicked for having one in your car.

 

[Samon]

I was curious to know how far the castle doctrine extends. Does an RV (or a hotel room, or any other temporary residence) qualify as your home would. I'm trying to get a comparison to the views here. In some states (but not all) the castle doctrine extends to your car; in MOST states it extends to temporary residences.

As has been said already, we have no castle law. we can barely remove a burgular from our homes without being arrested for assult. Alot of cases have proved even when the burgular hurts him/herself upon breaking into your house you are held liable to any inujuries they may have recieve. hence why barbed wire isn't allowed and why we can't fight a burgular away to protect our families unless he/she is trying to kill you i.e 'reasonable force' however this is also down to interpretation and thus confusion.


A conversation with a policeman after an incident at a property that was broken into and robbed the friendly copper told me 'if the burgular waves a big stick at you, you can wave a big one at him' meaning you can only do to them what they are trying to do to you otherwise it can be deemed excessive or unnecessary force i.e 'assualt'.

We should be given more rights to protect ourselves and our families in our own homes but that's a discussion for another thread..

wht use a baseball bat when a wheel lock is more hefty, and you cant get nicked for having one in your car.

because a wheel lock is just as illegal if you say 'it's for self defence'. We are not legally allowed to carry anything on us or in our car to use a weapon since the 50's. use the wheel lock as a wheel lock unless you genuinely believe your life is in danger from an attacker, otherwise you're going to be in trouble.

 

[Martyn]

As has been said already, we have no castle law. we can barely remove a burgular from our homes without being arrested for assult. Alot of cases have proved even when the burgular hurts him/herself upon breaking into your house you are held liable to any inujuries they may have recieve. hence why barbed wire isn't allowed and why we can't fight a burgular away to protect our families unless he/she is trying to kill you i.e 'reasonable force' however this is also down to interpretation and thus confusion.


A conversation with a policeman after an incident at a property that was broken into and robbed the friendly copper told me 'if the burgular waves a big stick at you, you can wave a big one at him' meaning you can only do to them what they are trying to do to you otherwise it can be deemed excessive or unnecessary force i.e 'assualt'.

I'm sorry but a lot of what you say here is just not true. The media is responsible, particularly the Daily Mail, for this kind of spin on reporting of incidents which has created something of an urban myth. Of course you can use force to defend yourself, your property and other people and it can be lethal if necessary. What you cant do is shoot somebody in the back when they are running away (Tony Martin), or chase a burglar down the street with a Cricket bat, corner them and then beat them to the point of brain damage (the brothers Munir and Tokeer Hussain). On the subject of man-traps, they have been illegal for about 300 years.

On the subject of how much force you can use, this is worth reading....

(a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76

What that basically says ....written into parliamentary statute ...is that it's very difficult in the heat of the moment to precisely judge reasonable force, so some latitude should be given ...and that so long as the jury is convinced you were acting instinctively with what you believe to be the right measure of force to deal with the situation, that should be sufficient evidence of reasonable force.

There is a great deal of latitude there in support of the home owner. It doesnt go as far as a castle doctrine, or as far as I would personally like, but it's no where near as bad as the Daily Mail would have us believe. You cant shoot a burglar in the back when they are running away and you cant chase one down the street and beat his brains to mush with a cricket bat, but you can take whatever reasonable measures you feel you need to, in order to defend yourself, your family, your property and other people.

The Crown Prosecution Service legal guidelines on self defence is worth a read...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

 

[Samon]

So the cases in the paper are made up?

I'm one of the confused when it comes to the legal quotes of home protection/self defence so excuse my use of paper articles.

The section you quoted seems pretty clear, from that I'd say my assumption is a bit off.

Can you confront a burgular with a weapon and use it to try and protect your wife and children if you believe they have intentions to harm you and them?

 

[British Red]

Absolutely - you can use lethal force in defense of yourself (or another person) if you believe that life is in jeopardy

 

[Samon]

That is reasuring, not that I'd ever want to hurt someone but knowing I can protect my family is good to know. I was genuinely under the impression we can't confront them phisically without some form of charge being made against me.

A member made a thread regarding the legality of barbed wire on his fences to keep out a returning thief from snatching his canoe but the police advised against it due to the thieves welfare being your responsibility..

Is this the man trap law coming into place?

 

[ateallthepies]

Can you confront a burgular with a weapon and use it to try and protect your wife and children if you believe they have intentions to harm you and them?

I really am unsure on this one Samon? If say a group of drunken youths were outside my property or even within it, and I felt threatened, could I brandish my loaded shotgun and when could I discharge it without fear of legal reprisals? When they are in pack mode and egging me on, when advancing with or without visible weapons, when they are kicking seven bells out of me or my family with no fear of the law or maybe I can come back from the dead and haunt the scum?



Steve.

 

[ateallthepies]

Who decides how you felt, merited the action Red?

Steve.

 

[Martyn]

Can you confront a burgular with a weapon and use it to try and protect your wife and children if you believe they have intentions to harm you and them?

Yes, absolutely you can.

 

[Martyn]

Who decides how you felt, merited the action Red?

Steve.

Five posts up....

The CPS ...or possibly the jury decide, but they will be guided by this....

(a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76

 

[Martyn]

I really am unsure on this one Samon? If say a group of drunken youths were outside my property or even within it, and I felt threatened, could I brandish my loaded shotgun and when could I discharge it without fear of legal reprisals? When they are in pack mode and egging me on, when advancing with or without visible weapons, when they are kicking seven bells out of me or my family with no fear of the law or maybe I can come back from the dead and haunt the scum(obviously with a government sanctioned permit for hauntings, £299.99 plus VAT)?

I despair at this countries defence laws, too in favour of the filth IMO.

Steve.

Only you can decide at what point that level of response is reasonable, then a jury will decide whether or not you were right. But at some point in your example, it does become reasonable.

 

[ateallthepies]

I believe that a jury is supposed to be made up of peers, but what if you get a bunch of people who believe the scum need a hug instead of jail? Can this happen? Is this what the appeals court was made for?

Steve.

 

[ateallthepies]

I think in my example that when they are advancing with menace/weapons viable that is the time to act. But I along with many may hesitate with fear of repercussions until it is too late to act and you are actually being attacked?



Steve.

 

[Kepis]

I believe that a jury is supposed to be made up of peers, but what if you get a bunch of lefty idiots who believe the scum need a hug instead of jail? Can this happen? Is this what the appeals court was made for?

Steve.

I'll think you will find the defendant and their legal team has the right to reject any member of the Jury or the entire jury if they have reasonable grounds to do so, also the jury is made up from a randomly selected cross section of society, when i did my Jury service a couple of years back, we had people from all sections of the community just as it should be, so the the chances of getting an entire jury made up from 'lefties' as you put it, is so remote as to be not worth considering, but if it came to it i would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.