What is reasonable force ????

"Reasonable force"...Here this quite a lot.....Apparently If someone breaks into your house putting your family and yourself at risk and even worse attempting to steal your Peter North collection.....You are supposed to use reasonable force !!

Not that anybody can tell you what it is ..

You're awoken from a slumber by a noise downstairs (Your Son hasn't finally figured out how to work the kettle!!) You go down there see a guy with a stocking over his head and what ??....Are you supposed to debate for a minute with him what you are allowed to do to him and If you can't agree ask for a 50/50...Or phone a friend...??

In a life and death struggle should you be thinking I better not do this as someone isn't going to like it...??

Reasonable force ?????....In extraordinary circumstances how can you have reasonable force ??...

Meaningless words because each situation is different..

My friend asked a police officer this question (getting some grief from neighbours) and was told if he felt under threat of physical violence he could hit someone on his property with a baseball bat - once.

Reasonable force would roughly defined as being sufficient enough to render an assailant incapable of further attack, giving you time to get to safety/call for help or using enough force to remove them safely from your property (without them being dead or excessively injured)

If they exit your property, you chase after them and are found two streets away repeatedly stamping on their 'nads when the Police turn up (three days later) your "reasonable force" argument may not work

Apparently you have to have a tennis ball in your house or a baseball to get away with that !!..........If not the authorities can decide you have the bat for other less honest purposes..

You can always ask the robber If he has one handy I suppose !!

However, I don't expect the legal technicalities will be at the forefront of your mind if you're ever in that situation and you'll do what you can.

Remember, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Apparently you have to have a tennis ball in your house or a baseball to get away with that !!..........If not the authorities can decide you have the bat for other less honest purposes..

You can always ask the robber If he has one handy I suppose !!

Just tell them you hit the ball into a neighbour's garden and haven't had chance to buy another. You wanted to go round and ask for it back but were afraid he might use "reasonable force" when informing you that it was a case of "finders keepers"

DAVE667 wrote:However, I don't expect the legal technicalities will be at the forefront of your mind if you're ever in that situation and you'll do what you can.

Remember, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

Exactly.....

Each situation is different and each assailant I imagine carries a different capability of threat..

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Apparently you have to have a tennis ball in your house or a baseball to get away with that !!..........If not the authorities can decide you have the bat for other less honest purposes..

You can always ask the robber If he has one handy I suppose !!

Just tell them you hit the ball into a neighbour's garden and haven't had chance to buy another. You wanted to go round and ask for it back but were afraid he might use "reasonable force" when informing you that it was a case of "finders keepers"

Could always go downstairs and put Titanic on..........Probably get me a three year stretch but it would stop me putting a dent in my baseball bat !!

Some guidance from the courts on this, based off acquittals and prosections of people using that defence.

Couple of asian guys had their house broken into and as well as handing out a short beating there, then chased the burglars down the street and hospitalised them with bats.

Courts held that was unreasonable, and the judge specifically said if they'd detained them at their home or let them leave, that beating would have been allowed, but defence went to offence when they pursued them.

The Norfolk farmer was convicted because he shot the burglars in the back as they were running away. And again when defenceless on the ground.

Equally an old friend got attacked by a chav with a crow bar and, despite being 6'5" and 20+ stone versus the chav's typically scrawny figure, the police officer whom attended him practically coached him through his statement to say the chav 'kept reaching for his pocket' therefore my friend has reason to be concerne he/it was reaching for a knife and therefore my friend was perfectly within his rights the sit on his chest and beat him unconscious.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Some guidance from the courts on this, based off acquittals and prosections of people using that defence.

Couple of asian guys had their house broken into and as well as handing out a short beating there, then chased the burglars down the street and hospitalised them with bats.

Courts held that was unreasonable, and the judge specifically said if they'd detained them at their home or let them leave, that beating would have been allowed, but defence went to offence when they pursued them.

The Norfolk farmer was convicted because he shot the burglars in the back as they were running away. And again when defenceless on the ground.

Equally an old friend got attacked by a chav with a crow bar and, despite being 6'5" and 20+ stone versus the chav's typically scrawny figure, the police officer whom attended him practically coached him through his statement to say the chav 'kept reaching for his pocket' therefore my friend has reason to be concerne he/it was reaching for a knife and therefore my friend was perfectly within his rights the sit on his chest and beat him unconscious.

Is that relevant?

Anyway, as per your BIG FRIEND you can be proactive and "get your retaliation" in first if you reasonably believed by words or actions that the intruder intended you harm. It is of course open to abuse.

Tony Martin was advised by his brief that when he fired the shots he may have been disorientated and due to a fluke in the acoustics in his house, mistakenly believed the intruders to be well away from the area into which he fired his shotgun. Martin basically said, "No , I knew exactly where they were and fired with the firm intention of doing them harm" No helping some people.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Equally an old friend got attacked by a chav with a crow bar and, despite being 6'5" and 20+ stone .

Twin brother ??

Joking aside interesting post Toppy...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Equally an old friend got attacked by a chav with a crow bar and, despite being 6'5" and 20+ stone .

Twin brother ??

Joking aside interesting post Toppy...

Lol nah, he was taller than me

DAVE667 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Some guidance from the courts on this, based off acquittals and prosections of people using that defence.

Couple of asian guys had their house broken into and as well as handing out a short beating there, then chased the burglars down the street and hospitalised them with bats.

Courts held that was unreasonable, and the judge specifically said if they'd detained them at their home or let them leave, that beating would have been allowed, but defence went to offence when they pursued them.

The Norfolk farmer was convicted because he shot the burglars in the back as they were running away. And again when defenceless on the ground.

Equally an old friend got attacked by a chav with a crow bar and, despite being 6'5" and 20+ stone versus the chav's typically scrawny figure, the police officer whom attended him practically coached him through his statement to say the chav 'kept reaching for his pocket' therefore my friend has reason to be concerne he/it was reaching for a knife and therefore my friend was perfectly within his rights the sit on his chest and beat him unconscious.

Is that relevant?

Anyway, as per your BIG FRIEND you can be proactive and "get your retaliation" in first if you reasonably believed by words or actions that the intruder intended you harm. It is of course open to abuse.

Tony Martin was advised by his brief that when he fired the shots he may have been disorientated and due to a fluke in the acoustics in his house, mistakenly believed the intruders to be well away from the area into which he fired his shotgun. Martin basically said, "No , I knew exactly where they were and fired with the firm intention of doing them harm" No helping some people.

About as relevant as the farmer being from Norfolk. So not really a feature of the case, just a fact.

Good job this Tony Martin guy never went to any Johnny Nelson fights !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too bad this Tony Martin guy never went to any Johnny Nelson fights !!

Fixed that for ya

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too bad this Tony Martin guy never went to any Johnny Nelson fights !!

Fixed that for ya

Yes it's an improvement..

Why thank you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853176/Common-sense-judge-blasts-burglar-beaten-homeowner-telling-attack-inevitable-fault.html

I believe you can use more 'reasonable' force if said intruder(s) are upstairs/coming up the stairs as you would (quite rightly) see that as a threat to not just your personal posessions but your actual family.

Have a vague recollection of being told that by one of the local coppers when we was having trouble some years back.