Home Defence

[sikamalc]

Dates matter a lot , Laws change ( frequently) ! Otherwise nobody would be shooting deer with NV , the whole self defence thing has changed many times , just like any law even the crazy one that is driving on hard shoulders of the motorways . use of firearms has been what it termed an "absolute offence" for a goodly length of time , the sentencing could be " say sorry and don't do it again" or far greater .
I did have to study law around this kind of thing in a previous profession

That's as maybe, however there are people on this site that still work in the law and would know far more than the general membership. I know for a fact, as I have met and stalked with a number of them.
Laws do change, I am not saying they don't, but if you are going to quote the law on an open forum, you had better be right on the money! Either way, I do not want it turning into another name calling argument between people.

At days end any such event where we defend ourselves, whether it is in our homes or outside, actions taken, whether with a weapon or not, would be down to the CPS and a court with a Jury. Not anyone on here, or anywhere else.

 

[Bowland blades]

That's as maybe, however there are people on this site that still work in the law and would know far more than the general membership. I know for a fact, as I have met and stalked with a number of them.
Laws do change, I am not saying they don't, but if you are going to quote the law on an open forum, you had better be right on the money! Either way, I do not want it turning into another name calling argument between people.

Yes it could well have changed back , as I had no interests any longer in that field for a goodly period of time .

 

[AlexD]

Remember though, Bowland thinks the UK is classed as a terrorist nation by the USA!!

Pay it no mind.

The US government appear think all non-Americans are subhuman, evidenced by even their immigration / customs forms which call us Aliens, and they way they are going after Assange.

Fortunately most American people are more reasonable.

 

[JTO]

Times change! Nowadays it is likely that an intruder has been taking something that make them more dangerous than might have been expected some decades ago.
Read up on Exited Dilerium.
Not much would scare them!
A late neighbour, who had done 9 years for armed robbery, reckoned a squeezy lemon aimed at the eyes would slow people up.
I think some petrol in a Jif lemon in one hand, and a gas lighter in the other might get some attention.

 

[VSS]

Times change! Nowadays it is likely that an intruder has been taking something that make them more dangerous than might have been expected some decades ago.
Read up on Exited Dilerium.
Not much would scare them!
A late neighbour, who had done 9 years for armed robbery, reckoned a squeezy lemon aimed at the eyes would slow people up.
I think some petrol in a Jif lemon in one hand, and a gas lighter in the other might get some attention.

And probably burn your house down too, which would be kind off counterproductive under the circumstances of trying to protect your property.....

 

[Ronin]

Some interesting perspectives and answers

Having worked in the enforcement arena for 27 yrs it’s thought provoking to read

I guess turn a blind eye no matter what is presented is some peoples views

Not sure many here would be able to consolidate that view post incident

Find out at court eh - well that’s one unamusing view despite the laughing comments - demonstrates the” let someone else step in and deal” attitude

Not in my back yard ,,,,,,,is that how this is described ?

Good job there are folk like Darryn Frost on this planet

 

[bk]

Donate to #freethefarmer. Rob Lomas, organized by Joshua Lomas

Hi We are raising much needed funds to support my father, Rob Lomas, through this very diff… Joshua Lomas needs your support for #freethefarmer. Rob Lomas

gofund.me

 

[Dalua]

To use a firearm in England , Scotland and Wales in self defence is what they term " an absolute offence " ...

Have you a reference for this?

 

[Selous]

Firearms are correctly not permitted in a self defence plea and even if a case was allowed for the use of one its would need to be an aggressor who was attacking with the same weapon as self defence has to be proportional to the threat faced in English law .
Run and hide / take cover would be the better option

Horlicks !!

 

[topscots1]

I have mentioned NI in my post this morning . However you are wrong about this , anyone who ever does use a firearm will if proved face the conviction . Just about what that sentence given is . Research it , its why self defence can not used as good reason to acquire.

Ok let’s look at your assumption, in this case 100% falsely.

No one will be convicted if they can prove any use of force is both reasonable and proportionate to the threat presented. Wither that force is a tin of beans, a car, or a firearm. No where in law does it say using a firearm in self defence is an automatic conviction. Hence both the Police and armed forces use firearms on U.K. soil. Both are covered by U.K. legislation with no exemption to start shooting people.

As for if proved will face conviction, that statement reenforces my point. If the force is proven to be neither reasonable or proportionate conviction should continue me, that act is no longer self defence if not proportionate. A lethal threat met with reasonable and proportionate force which may be lethal is justifiable.

Self defence may an also not a good reason to own a hammer, rolling pin or any other objects they can all be see in self defence. They can all also be classified as offensive weapons. As can a tin of baked beans in a t shirt.

Self defence not being a good reason to acquire does nothing to remove an individuals legal right to use whatever means necessary to act in the defence of themselves or others. If someone points a firearm at a person and that person shoots the threat that is still self defence.

As for research, perhaps well in fact I have. Where as it appears you are quoting misguided factually incorrect opinion.

 

[Scuffy]

I was at school with Rob, a really decent bloke.
He and his family will need all the financial help they can get.
Please donate to the freethefarmer gofund me page.

Donate to #freethefarmer. Rob Lomas, organized by Joshua Lomas

Hi We are raising much needed funds to support my father, Rob Lomas, through this very diff… Joshua Lomas needs your support for #freethefarmer. Rob Lomas

gofund.me

 

[shakey jake]

Have you a reference for this?

i doubt it

 

[topscots1]

Have you a reference for this?

I believe he is a little confused with the absolute offence that exists in possessing a firearms without a certificate.

Other than that I think he is a little lost in his line of argument. However I’m sure he will cite a decent reference shortly.

 

[Bowland blades]

Ok let’s look at your assumption, in this case 100% falsely.

No one will be convicted if they can prove any use of force is both reasonable and proportionate to the threat presented. Wither that force is a tin of beans, a car, or a firearm. No where in law does it say using a firearm in self defence is an automatic conviction. Hence both the Police and armed forces use firearms on U.K. soil. Both are covered by U.K. legislation with no exemption to start shooting people.

As for if proved will face conviction, that statement reenforces my point. If the force is proven to be neither reasonable or proportionate conviction should continue me, that act is no longer self defence if not proportionate. A lethal threat met with reasonable and proportionate force which may be lethal is justifiable.

Self defence may an also not a good reason to own a hammer, rolling pin or any other objects they can all be see in self defence. They can all also be classified as offensive weapons. As can a tin of baked beans in a t shirt.

Self defence not being a good reason to acquire does nothing to remove an individuals legal right to use whatever means necessary to act in the defence of themselves or others. If someone points a firearm at a person and that person shoots the threat that is still self defence.

As for research, perhaps well in fact I have. Where as it appears you are quoting misguided factually incorrect opinion.

Ok let’s look at your assumption, in this case 100% falsely.

No one will be convicted if they can prove any use of force is both reasonable and proportionate to the threat presented. Wither that force is a tin of beans, a car, or a firearm. No where in law does it say using a firearm in self defence is an automatic conviction. Hence both the Police and armed forces use firearms on U.K. soil. Both are covered by U.K. legislation with no exemption to start shooting people.

As for if proved will face conviction, that statement reenforces my point. If the force is proven to be neither reasonable or proportionate conviction should continue me, that act is no longer self defence if not proportionate. A lethal threat met with reasonable and proportionate force which may be lethal is justifiable.

Self defence may an also not a good reason to own a hammer, rolling pin or any other objects they can all be see in self defence. They can all also be classified as offensive weapons. As can a tin of baked beans in a t shirt.

Self defence not being a good reason to acquire does nothing to remove an individuals legal right to use whatever means necessary to act in the defence of themselves or others. If someone points a firearm at a person and that person shoots the threat that is still self defence.

As for research, perhaps well in fact I have. Where as it appears you are quoting misguided factually incorrect opinion.

A firearm is NOT acceptable in law in self defence by a civilian in the UK end of . Indeed the act of getting it would land you in big time bother .

 

[topscots1]

A firearm is NOT acceptable in law in self defence by a civilian in the UK end of . Indeed the act of getting it would land you in big time bother .

I’m going to clarify it for you.

The act of possessing a firearm without a certificate or other lawful reason, more than just a certificate. Is an absolute offence.

The act of using a legally possessed firearm in self defence is not an absolute offence, in fact not only is it not an absolute offence if proven to be reasonable and proportionate force it is entirely justifiable under the self defence provision.

No matter how many times you repeat the same thing you are indeed wrong. Perhaps the multitude of people pointing that out may be a give away.

Perhaps the widespread experience of those individuals may inform you that you are wrong. Yet you continue to double down on being wrong.

Can you cite the legislation which states that a lawfully owned firearm can not be used by a civilian in self defence if reasonable, proportionate and used to preserve the life of the individual or others. I’ll be clear, you won’t and can’t because that legislation does in fact not exist. You repeating it does not make it fact.

As for differentiating between Police/ Military and civilians. As you allude do, all are covered by U.K. law no exemption to self defence legislation exists for either the police or the military. That includes the use of firearms. What does exist is an exemption from the firearms act to possess firearms whilst on duty much like the exemption to the prohibited weapons and blades articles legislation.

 

[Pedro]

Rules for posting on this thread:

1. Quote what you think the law is, despite absolutely no learning or experience. Ensure it is wildly inaccurate.
2. Take the example of a historic case and twist it to show your "interpretation" of the law is correct.
3. Doggedly stick to your view despite quotes posted showing the actual law and real knowledge of actual cases.
4. Get a bucket, fill it with sand, then bury your head in it.

Yes, except in Northern Ireland you will not be granted a certificate for any firearm for self defence purposes. But that doesn't mean, if you have one (for some other good reason) and you use it to protect yourself in an incident whereby you are threatened with imminent injury or death, you are necessarily in the wrong.

Shoot someone with a gun and the likelihood is that you'll end up at a police station, whatever the circumstances. They'll want to interview you, there are forensic tests they'll do and the like. But that's very different from being charged and appearing at court. The devil is always in the detail.

So to say "A firearm is NOT acceptable in law in self defence by a civilian in the UK end of" is at best a blatant generalisation and at worst simply wrong. And putting "end of" after it simply means you aren't going to listen to anyone that might or might not know the law better. (AKA LALALALA).

 

[Dunwaters]

Ok let’s look at your assumption, in this case 100% falsely.

No one will be convicted if they can prove any use of force is both reasonable and proportionate to the threat presented. Wither that force is a tin of beans, a car, or a firearm. No where in law does it say using a firearm in self defence is an automatic conviction. Hence both the Police and armed forces use firearms on U.K. soil. Both are covered by U.K. legislation with no exemption to start shooting people.

As for if proved will face conviction, that statement reenforces my point. If the force is proven to be neither reasonable or proportionate conviction should continue me, that act is no longer self defence if not proportionate. A lethal threat met with reasonable and proportionate force which may be lethal is justifiable.

Self defence may an also not a good reason to own a hammer, rolling pin or any other objects they can all be see in self defence. They can all also be classified as offensive weapons. As can a tin of baked beans in a t shirt.

Self defence not being a good reason to acquire does nothing to remove an individuals legal right to use whatever means necessary to act in the defence of themselves or others. If someone points a firearm at a person and that person shoots the threat that is still self defence.

As for research, perhaps well in fact I have. Where as it appears you are quoting misguided factually incorrect opinion.

Have a look at the decisions in the Lee Clegg case.
He was a serving soldier acting under orders.
Your courts took a very very limited view of what constitutes self defence.

 

[topscots1]

Have a look at the decisions in the Lee Clegg case.
He was a serving soldier acting under orders.
Your courts took a very very limited view of what constitutes self defence.

I have looked at the Lee Corey case in detail.

He was not acting under orders, you can not be ordered to shoot at anyone each soldier has a moral decision to make.

He was also as proven not acting in self defence, the vehicle had sped through the checkpoint whilst he continued firing.

He was released by the Home Secretary whilst murderers and horrific individuals weee also being released for killing innocents by the bomb.

Interestingly while teaching Judgemental shooting in the U.K. this case was a prime example of poor decisions.

These poor decisions can be explained in retrospect, I would struggle to justify 18 rounds at a fleeing vehicle unless utilising very specific ROE.


However at no stage did the ROE in Northern Ireland as far as I am aware justify engaging a fleeing vehicle ( perhaps specific specialist operations)

I would argue engaging the vehicle whilst driving at you with no alternate means of escape would be justifiable.

Interestingly and of relevance to this thread the same self defence legislation taught to Soldiers and Police both in NI and the mainland applies to Bob in Tescos equally.

 

[Rake Aboot]

A firearm is NOT acceptable in law in self defence by a civilian in the UK end of . Indeed the act of getting it would land you in big time bother .

Can you please quote me asking the following question and answer it for me please.

Do you accept that you are wrong and are repeatedly wrong in what you are saying in this thread?

 

[enfieldspares]

A firearm is NOT acceptable in law in self defence by a civilian in the UK end of . Indeed the act of getting it would land you in big time bother .

Total rubbish. I've kept out of this thread yet there comes time to say enough of the same nonsense being repeated needs rebuttal. There was indeed a case in Loughborough in 2012 where a licensed shotgun shooting was used.

Farm Shooting: Burglars Jailed For Four Years

Two burglars shot by a homeowner who was later arrested are each jailed for four years.

news.sky.com

'Being shot is a chance you take if you're a burglar': Judge shows no leniency to raider blasted by shotgun

Joshua O’Gorman begged for a reduced sentence after being blasted with a shotgun during a raid on a cottage

www.mirror.co.uk