UK election called for May 5th - Page 7

**DudeMan** · 04-11-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

I'm not insulting your country. I just want to make sure that you don't try to apply UK thinking in reference to the USA, like you have done in the past.

BS, the fact i had said nothing to the point meant you said to for one of two reasons, you believe it and dont care whoyou insult... or you particularily wanted to insult my culture.

you cant go off and say.... your a prat... oh just saying that because i know you were thinking the same... thats not right.

anyhow arm yourself with whatever you need to feel safe, i just dont need a gun to feel safe, i am not making any comment on the USA but with this aparent rise in crime cing is always talking about, i dont feel unsafe in the slightest.

i am pissed off with the reasonable force bollocks the government are saying we can use to defend our homes if broken into, (and will ignore it should i need to) but again, i doubt i will have to any tme soon...

**TheFeniX** · 04-12-2005, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

::snip::

Fine, then we'll drop it.

Quote:

i am pissed off with the reasonable force bollocks the government are saying we can use to defend our homes if broken into, (and will ignore it should i need to) but again, i doubt i will have to any tme soon...

Wait.... your mad because the government said you can defend you home? Or you're mad because they set limits on how you defend your home?

**DudeMan** · 04-12-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Fine, then we'll drop it.

Wait.... your mad because the government said you can defend you home? Or you're mad because they set limits on how you defend your home?

no i dont agree with the vague terms that go with, "reasonable force"

**TheFeniX** · 04-12-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

no i dont agree with the vague terms that go with, "reasonable force"

As in it's to restrictive and doesn't give a person enough power to defend themselves?

Or it's to encompassing and gives a person defending their home to much power?

Root · 04-12-2005, 10:56 AM

Under English law, reasonable force means you can use *any* amount of force, as long as you can convince the court that the level of force you used was sufficient to defend yourself.

If someone punches you, killing them isn't unreasonable. If someone pulls a knife on you, then killing them is possibly reasonable. Of course that's not entirely true. The person that punches you could beat you to death with their bare hands, in which case breaking their arm would be reasonable to most people. The person who pulls the knife could just cut your hand and run off.

This is precisely why the law on reasonable force is written in such a vague way. Even the new laws on dealing with intruders in your home isn't very specific, again for the same reason.

Root

**CingularDuality** · 04-12-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookietester

Under English law, reasonable force means you can use *any* amount of force, as long as you can convince the court that the level of force you used was sufficient to defend yourself.

Isn't that the whole reason for having courts? If everything was black and white, we could just hire Judge Dredd to police our streets...

Root · 04-12-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Isn't that the whole reason for having courts? If everything was black and white, we could just hire Judge Dredd to police our streets...

Ummm....yes.

Root

**DudeMan** · 04-12-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

As in it's to restrictive and doesn't give a person enough power to defend themselves?

Or it's to encompassing and gives a person defending their home to much power?

well thats just it, answer that question and there is no problem, there needs to be a little more descriptive than reasonable,

the problem is unless someone elaborates you will not know, i dont agree with deadly force unless your life is in serious danger, but whos to say when someone who does agree with deadly force can use it.

it just needs elaborating.

**DudeMan** · 04-12-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Isn't that the whole reason for having courts? If everything was black and white, we could just hire Judge Dredd to police our streets...

oh and isnt unreasonable means its reasonable,

so to clarify, if someone punches you, killing them is not reasonable force. it is unreasonable,

but it goes deeper than that, laws are made by parliament, and whilst when they made this law they fully intended for you to defend yourself as you needed with the level of danger you are in. the courts have no guidence, all they have and all a jury has is the terms reasonable force.

this has led to someone beig convicted of using unreasonable force because he struck an intruder first with a candlestick, and the intruder was unarmed.

now thats not right, if someone breaks in, knock them out and keep them down till the police arrived, but the courts have no guidence so they go on the rle of parliament which isnt specific enough.

so parliament need to clarify this,

**TheFeniX** · 04-12-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookietester

Under English law, reasonable force means you can use *any* amount of force, as long as you can convince the court that the level of force you used was sufficient to defend yourself.

We've got the same thing. Something along the lines of "It's a defense to prosecution to use deadly force if a reasonable person in that situation would use deadly force." Legalese FTW!

Quote:

If someone punches you, killing them isn't unreasonable.

Depends on how big he is and who he's hitting. Two guys my size square off: it's a brawl. Someone the same size hits a 110 lbs woman......

Quote:

If someone pulls a knife on you, then killing them is possibly reasonable.

I'd say it's reasonable 100% of the time if you know hostile action is imminent. People die from being stabbed a lot more on average then Gun shot victims. Knives are extremely deadly when used correctly. You don't even really have to aim, just thrust a bunch of time at close range.

In Texas, there's a 20-foot law in effect for CHL holders. You pull a knife with intent to attack them: you'd better hope your faster than his gun.

Quote:

Of course that's not entirely true. The person that punches you could beat you to death with their bare hands, in which case breaking their arm would be reasonable to most people. The person who pulls the knife could just cut your hand and run off.

The variables are the problem, that's why you have to react by what's reasonable. If the guy is unarmed: run. What? You have to much pride to turn tail from a fight? I sure don't. My high-school days are behind me.

That said, I would never turn my back on a man who had any kind of weapon. That's just asking for trouble. But if running's all you got......

Quote:

This is precisely why the law on reasonable force is written in such a vague way. Even the new laws on dealing with intruders in your home isn't very specific, again for the same reason.

Woe be to the unfortunate man who stumbles into a Texan's home. There not a whole lot you can't get away with doing to an intruder. My home is my castle.

Besides, you can always claim you thought he had a gun. It's dark, you're tired and scared, you saw something in his hand.... next thing you know you've been beating his unmoving body with a baseball bat for the past 15 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Isn't that the whole reason for having courts? If everything was black and white, we could just hire Judge Dredd to police our streets...

"I am the LAAAW!"

IceCold · 04-12-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

In Texas, there's a 20-foot law in effect for CHL holders. You pull a knife with intent to attack them: you'd better hope your faster than his gun.

Could you give me the statute that includes this 20 ft law? I was under the impression that it was often used in deadly force trials, but that it wasn't recognized statutorily as an affirmitive defense anywhere in the US. And if it is, that's bad, because situations vary so much that having some arbitrary distance used as a measuring stick for self defense can really screw some people over...

**TheFeniX** · 04-12-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

Could you give me the statute that includes this 20 ft law? I was under the impression that it was often used in deadly force trials, but that it wasn't recognized statutorily as an affirmitive defense anywhere in the US.

Good point. Court cases usually end up setting precedents. I do remember that police conducted a study of the mentioned situation and concluded that even from 20 feet away, an attacker with a knife could get to the officer and stab him at least once before the officer could return the attack with gunfire.

All my CHL related stuff was crammed into a box when I moved. When I refile later on this week, I'll see if I can dig up the info from there. I can almost bet that's it not a hard law because I've read the statutes on this front to back numerous times. But my instructor and two police officers I've talked to said that it's held up as reasonable defense in court. Guess it's time to ask a lawyer.

Quote:

And if it is, that's bad, because situations vary so much that having some arbitrary distance used as a measuring stick for self defense can really screw some people over...

It's not really a hard line though. From what I've garnered, it's that 20 feet would be considered a reasonable distance. And then you can just tell the jury that by the time you drew your gun, he was much closer than that anyways.

**CingularDuality** · 04-13-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Court cases usually end up setting precedents. I do remember that police conducted a study of the mentioned situation and concluded that even from 20 feet away, an attacker with a knife could get to the officer and stab him at least once before the officer could return the attack with gunfire.

Actually, I believe that a gentleman by the name of Massad Ayoob was the first expert witness to demonstrate that almost any healthy person can travel 21 feet and stab someone before the average person is able to react, draw and fire a gun. His testimony has since been repeated in quite a few justifiable homicides involving edged weapons. This type of testimony wouldn't establish any caselaw, it just doesn't challenge or clarify the laws involved, but it's probably known well enough now that most lawyers will stipulate to the facts without a demonstration during the trial...

**TheFeniX** · 04-13-2005, 02:27 PM

Granted, but I do specifically remember watching a demonstration on this where a man gets out of his car after being pulled over and bum rushes the officer. Of course, they played it like it was a real situation, but they always do that "Thankfully, this was only a demonstration" tid-bit at the end of it. The officer only knew that it was a demo and not a real traffic stop. Damn, I'll need to look for that video.

But using those court cases, you could make a very decent defense for jusitifiable homicide.

**CingularDuality** · 04-13-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

But using those court cases, you could make a very decent defense for jusitifiable homicide.

Oh yeah. If someone's threatening me with a knife and I don't have anything at all in between him and me, I'm drawing my gun. If he takes a single step towards me after I've told him that I'll shoot him if he does, that indicates to me that he doesn't value his life and that he has nothing to lose, he's going to try to kill me and I'll put him down before he even gets that chance.

04-12-2005, 10:56 AM	#95 (permalink)
Root Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: South east england Posts: 8,839	Re: UK election called for May 5th Under English law, reasonable force means you can use any amount of force, as long as you can convince the court that the level of force you used was sufficient to defend yourself. If someone punches you, killing them isn't unreasonable. If someone pulls a knife on you, then killing them is possibly reasonable. Of course that's not entirely true. The person that punches you could beat you to death with their bare hands, in which case breaking their arm would be reasonable to most people. The person who pulls the knife could just cut your hand and run off. This is precisely why the law on reasonable force is written in such a vague way. Even the new laws on dealing with intruders in your home isn't very specific, again for the same reason. Root __________________ BFCL TF2 league admin

04-13-2005, 02:27 PM	#104 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,478	Re: UK election called for May 5th Granted, but I do specifically remember watching a demonstration on this where a man gets out of his car after being pulled over and bum rushes the officer. Of course, they played it like it was a real situation, but they always do that "Thankfully, this was only a demonstration" tid-bit at the end of it. The officer only knew that it was a demo and not a real traffic stop. Damn, I'll need to look for that video. But using those court cases, you could make a very decent defense for jusitifiable homicide. __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same	leejo	The Sandbox	15	10-28-2006 06:31 PM
Commander election time reduced?	MileHighAko	Battlefield 2 - Ranked Vanilla	4	07-17-2005 12:28 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links