Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Riots in the UK...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank Drebin said:
Its a legal grey area. The main points are that you need to able to justify the force applied in direct relation to the personal risk and danger felt by the individual in that specific situation. Reasonable force can mean deadly force if you can justify your actions. Good luck with the justifiable beheading in court by the way.
Click to expand...

Its not a legal grey area - the law around self defence is actually crystal clear (despite what the papers would have you believe) and has been since R v Shannon. If someone has an honestly held belief that someone is threatening them or someone else serious harm (which is actually quite an easy thing to demonstrate, judging by extant caselaw and what gets to trial) then the use of force - including lethal force - in self defence is justified.

The beheading thing was a joke, albeit one intended to demonstrate what the law in essence would allow.
 
I think we are thinking along the same lines however fact the law in theory may be crystal clear however in practice it isnt. Trying to justify the level of force isnt simple when taking into account factors like "Did you have an opportunity to escape?" etc.
 

I use a lot of control and restraint in my line of work and have seen countless people dragged over the coals attempting to justify their force. A nurse I knew was getting strangled on a desk by a patient, she hit him over the head with the phone. When it came to the hearing the fact that she was heard screaming was held against her as she didnt have restricted breathing and was found guilty.
 
Frank Drebin said:
I think we are thinking along the same lines however fact the law in theory may be crystal clear however in practice it isnt. Trying to justify the level of force isnt simple when taking into account factors like "Did you have an opportunity to escape?" etc.
Click to expand...

That is a myth - there is no requirement to have an opportunity to withdraw (indeed in terms of protecting others, it doesnt make sense to have an opportunity to withdraw).
 
tsubaki said:
That is a myth - there is no requirement to have an opportunity to withdraw (indeed in terms of protecting others, it doesnt make sense to have an opportunity to withdraw).
Click to expand...
Its not a myth. And not talking in terms of protecting others, if you have an opportunity to withdraw but instead use offensive force then I assure you that it will be strongly held against you and the first question you will be asked is, "If you had a chance to withdraw and remove yourself from the threat, then why did you remain and use offensive force?"
 

Crimewatch special on the riots now, BBC1. Should be interesting

It's cut Traffic Cops down to half an hour though, FUME.
 
chicoazul said:
Buzzing off a lot of them getting paranoid now. Wasn't such a good idea was it? Some of the sentencing is gonna be superb. What goes around lids...
Click to expand...

i`m pretty much disgusted at those sentences doled out. its a deterent thing aint it, but those pigs in westminster doing the pre-meditated expences scam which is fraud/theft should also be given a deterent punishment, 100,000 signatures and questions could be asked as to why they got off lightly and also why the expences rules were altered so as to benefit the mps because the previous loop-holes were shut down. anyway - back on topic, lets ruin the lives of those thoughtless youths who got caught up in the heat of moment
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top