Another piece of posturing from the Tories this week, the homeowners right to defend their home. Or carte blanche to beat up anyone you don't like the look of.
There is a terrible myth machine around the law in this country (the UK) and the rights you have to defend yourself.
Everyone carps on about reasonable force, actually when someone uses a physical intervention on someone else there are three criteria.
Necessary - could they have done something else, like run away.
Reasonable - taking into account all the circumstances was what they did a sensible thing to do.
Proportionate - was it in proportion to the threat and not excessive.
There are 4 circumstances in which Physical Intervention is lawful:
Self defence.
To protect another person from assault.
To prevent crime or detain a suspected criminal.
To protect property.
So basically the law is currently fit for purpose, the only reason the Tories might have for changing it is to raise the defensive stakes when say, someone believes their property is being raided by persons they do not know to be armed so decides to shoot them in the back as they are running away.
That of course was one of the cases the government is referring too as the right to defend property. Obviously their gated communities will need armed guards with the right to shoot the proles on sight.
R
There is a terrible myth machine around the law in this country (the UK) and the rights you have to defend yourself.
Everyone carps on about reasonable force, actually when someone uses a physical intervention on someone else there are three criteria.
Necessary - could they have done something else, like run away.
Reasonable - taking into account all the circumstances was what they did a sensible thing to do.
Proportionate - was it in proportion to the threat and not excessive.
There are 4 circumstances in which Physical Intervention is lawful:
Self defence.
To protect another person from assault.
To prevent crime or detain a suspected criminal.
To protect property.
So basically the law is currently fit for purpose, the only reason the Tories might have for changing it is to raise the defensive stakes when say, someone believes their property is being raided by persons they do not know to be armed so decides to shoot them in the back as they are running away.
That of course was one of the cases the government is referring too as the right to defend property. Obviously their gated communities will need armed guards with the right to shoot the proles on sight.
R
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment