What’s your opinion on the self-defence laws, and do you think they should be changed?

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

I’d be keen for ‘castle laws’ similar to some in the US. If someone breaks into your house, you should be immune from prosecution if that intruder is injured or killed by you

I’d also support pepper spray being legalised for self defence

[-]

This. If someone breaks into my house, I want maximum advantage when dealing with them. I don't want to be worry whether picking up a carving knife is proportional force. I don't see why I should legally take the slightest risk when it is the other person doing the breaking and entering.

[-]

Made_Up_Name_1@reddit

If an intruder enters your property while you are there you are more likely to end up dead if you attempt to tackle them than if you do not. If you attempt to "deal with them" you don't have an advantage, you have a disadvantage. You increase your risk buy dumbly going down the self defence route.

Here in the UK the most likely outcome is that as soon as they realise someone is in the property they've entered they will scarper through the nearest exit, the last thing they want is confrontation, block their exit or attempt to stop them and you remove their options. In the US intruders are usually armed, so given the slightest perceived threat they shoot first then run.

[-]

Chicken_shish@reddit

I’ll make that call. I’d like the law to be on my side when I do it.

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

Is killing someone who broke into your shed an appropriate response though?

[-]

diyguitarist@reddit

Yes.

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

Go live in the US please

[-]

diyguitarist@reddit

No?

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

Bad faith argument. They said, your home.

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

I guess you can easily get into semantics on this one, but unless said home intruder is threatening your or your families lives, I’m not sure killing them is an appropriate response.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

This is an idealistic suggestion and admirable. No-one, at least none of us here now, wants to bring more suffering into the world. But the potential reality is that you have no idea what someone's intent is when they break into your house. They are almost certainly armed with the tool they used to break in. There are incidents where the intruder has boiled a kettle of water for their own defence.

It should not be up to you to figure out what is "reasonable and proportional" force in the middle of the night with a stranger who has broken into your home. Magnify this concept a thousandfold for a woman.

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

Which is why I think our laws work pretty well as is. If you hit a burglar you found in your bedroom with something typically found in a bedroom, you wouldn’t be prosecuted, even if they died, provided you didn’t do something like pin them down and hit them repeatedly.

The issue with the American interpretation is that you could be awoken to the sound of a burglar in your kitchen while your family are upstairs. You could then go and grab whatever weapon to hand, go to your kitchen and attack said burglar until they died. It would be quite hard in that 2nd scenario to claim you genuinely feared for you or your families life.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

Yes, but it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be your responsibility to figure out what is proportionate. Especially with your family in the house.

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

A lot of people in this sub would use that boiled kettle to make the intruder a cup of tea and a biscuit

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

Lol, perfect.

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

Shed, no I don’t think so. Into my house, yes

[-]

Winkered@reddit

Obviously no one would ever use that legal pepper spray to rob someone. Great idea 👍

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

Don’t understand this argument. You could get pepper spray online today and use it to rob someone tomorrow? How does legalising it for self-defence change that?

[-]

Winkered@reddit

It would be more available. Lots of people would carry it without repercussions regardless of whether they had it for protection or more nefarious reasons.

There is a certain nation out there who allows people to own almost any firearm. Have a wee squint at their murder rate.

[-]

Harrry-Otter@reddit

It also makes altercations more dangerous.

If I’m a mugger and I know my target is unarmed, I will probably just scare them into giving up their phone. If I know they’re armed, it makes more sense to incapacitate them first before they go for their weapon so I can rob them.

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

As far as I’m aware violent muggings with weapons (including pepper spray) are not more common in the many European countries that legalise pepper spray for use in self-defence

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

I’m not talking about legalising guns. In many European countries pepper spray is legal for use in self-defence

[-]

Winkered@reddit

That was just an example of (if you like) the arm race that I believe it would start.

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

Which then means that if they break in they might as well kill you first to remove the risk. Home invasions in the us are way more deadly than in the uk.

God luck with the pepper spray too, I can't wait to see the video of someone uses it in their house

[-]

Jay_CD@reddit

Our self-defence laws are fine...

They allow individuals to use a reasonable and proportionate amount of force to protect themselves, others and property. That force though must be reasonable and proportionate and be used only against imminent threats.

This is so well established that it's a common law defence - although it has been backed up by the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

[-]

Useful-Risk-4340@reddit

And how do women and children do that?

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

Are you suggesting arming children?

[-]

Useful-Risk-4340@reddit

Pepper spray. At least something that can disrupt an attack. It needs to be at a distance. Women and children can't restrain a male attacker.

[-]

ChrisRR@reddit

What could possibly go wrong with giving a bunch of kids pepper spray

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

I'm not sure how you can declare them as "fine". We've had cases of people defending themselves in their own homes who've ended up going through a very significant legal trauma until finally the state let's them go.

A question to ask yourself, is how many hours of experienced lawyer time can you afford with your savings?

[-]

MrD-88@reddit

In your own home anything should be fair game. Someone comes through the door where your kids are sleeping to steal the stuff you've worked to pay for, then they suffer the consequences.

Woman kills a would be rapist in public, same goes.

Someone tries to rob me with a knife and I stab them, what have I done wrong?

The banning of things when they're used in crimes is ridiculous too, won't even be able to buy a crossbow soon, samurai swords are illegal, and owning a gun as a hobbyist is pretty much impossible.

We should be able to defend ourselves without fear of prosecution.

[-]

gazchap@reddit

What is pretty much impossible about owning a gun as a hobbyist?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require gun owners to be members of an approved club, with a history of attendance, solid background checks with no criminal history and having a secure place to store any guns they own.

[-]

MrD-88@reddit

A lot of criteria have to be met, which a lot of people can't.

History of mental illness and a criminal are bars to gun ownership too, even if your previous doesn't include violence. 3 year sentence for insurance fraud? Lifetime ban.

[-]

gazchap@reddit

Mental illness is not an automatic disqualification from being granted a firearms certificate. Yes, of course it's taken into consideration by the firearms officer dealing with your application, but unless they think you pose a current or future risk to yourself or other people it's unlikely to be the reason that you're refused.

And, people could... you know, just not commit crimes. It's not hard.

As far as your original comment goes, if you stab someone that has come at you with a knife, you almost certainly won't have done anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

We can defend ourselves without fear of prosecution, lethally if such force is necessary and you believe your life is in danger. You can't commit other crimes in the process though.

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

So the rapist scenario and the robbing with a knife would come under self defence. You would be investigated but I would be surprised if any charges came from them

[-]

RenderSlaver@reddit

Why would you give a shit what a bunch gun toting Americans think? They literally walk into schools and murder children. Our laws have worked fine for a very long time, there's nothing broken about them so why would you change them?

The only Brits I've seen even talking about this are people I know on the far right, they are best off ignored.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

No, people who have actually seen violence and its effects may talk about it as well. That has nothing to do with one's politics.

[-]

RenderSlaver@reddit

I can only speak from my point of view and haven't seen anyone outside of the right talk this way. Your experience may differ

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

Yes, because my experience is based in the real world, not just online discussion.

[-]

RenderSlaver@reddit

You simply have a different opinion to me based on your experience, it has nothing to do with what's online. I like you also live in the real word and we obviously experience that differntly as we are different individuals.

To be clear I have no problem with you having a different opinion to me, that's ok and I really dont mind.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

That's just digging your heels in and not accepting that your limited experience might be just that, and that there is more to the picture than you have seen.

So the only people who are promoting a particular point of view are far right. Have you met them, talked to them? Have you met and talked to martial artists and self defence teachers and women's advocates? If you haven't, don't tell me that you "live in the real world" because you obviously don't, and your "I don't mind that you have a different opinion" is just mealy-mouthed passive aggressive bs.

[-]

RenderSlaver@reddit

You've made some good points but then followed them up by telling me I don't live in the real world and calling my civility passive aggressive. That kind of undermines your argument that this isn't a political/emotional issue for you.

If you don't feel I live in the real world then feel free to not reply, I really don't mind.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

That wasn't "civility", don't bs me.

[-]

RenderSlaver@reddit

Ok, you have a nice day.

[-]

smellyfeet25@reddit

I would rather live under our law than theirs.ss

[-]

Temporary-Zebra97@reddit

The need to defend my castle has never arisen, well I was burgled but my dog found him before I woke up. Tbh skinny smack head vs dog hadn't gone well for smack head, so I didn't feel the need to give him a shoeing on top of getting munched.

It was enough of a shock that my crisp loving chonk of a chocolate lab discovered her inner guard dog. Previously her talents were limited to being cute and producing farts that could strip paint.

[-]

Ambitious-Elk-3350@reddit

Brits are very stupid about our self defence laws. You're allowed to do all the things you want to do to burglars who are in your home. Go nuts.

You're not allowed to shoot them in the back as they run away.

You're not allowed to hunt them down days later and murder them.

You're not allowed to lay violent traps for them.

What act would you like to commit that you think you can't do in the UK?

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

No you are not allow to "do all the things you want to do". There's going to be a test of proportionality and someone who wasn't there is going to judge you and wear you down for hours under questioning about a decision you made in a split second.

[-]

Ambitious-Elk-3350@reddit

Yeah, tying them to a chair and going nuts for a few hours isn't self defence.

It still isn't difficult.

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

Except it is "difficult" as cases over the years have had home owners subject to a serious legal ordeal when there's been no doubt that those they 'attacked' where criminals inside their home.

Even where the CPS drops a case, the home owners might well have spent a fortune on lawyers plus been held in a cell or because they were arrested subject to mandatory fingerprinting and DNA processing. Being on bail might even result in you losing your job, whilst your name going out into the media following arrest can hammer your employment prospects years later.

Change to a system whereby the home owner is never subject to prosecution when the person in their home is there to commit a criminal act and the burden shifts much more to the state. You don't have to justify where you upstairs or downstairs or whether the criminal might or might now have had a weapon or do you strike them too many times vs in cold light of day when X numbers of blows was enough.

[-]

Ambitious-Elk-3350@reddit

Of course there's an investigation. Are you asking for no investigation?

Brilliant, the domestic home becomes a legal murder zone so long as you pop a balaclava on the victim.

Of course they're arrested and investigated. Then they're let off. Name one case where they were prosecuted. One.

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

You just ignored by comment to post a challenge I answered in the text you just ignored.

[-]

seriousrikk@reddit

Our self defence laws are just fine.

It is legal to defend yourself to the point where the attacker is no longer a threat.

It is not legal to carry on ‘defending yourself’ when the attacker is no longer a threat to ’teach them a lesson’

Not sure what the issue is. Which part of our self defence laws do these Americans think needs changing?

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

And therein lies the problem.

In the case of defending yourself in your home it leads to an arduous process where the police or the prosecution go after the home owner because "no longer a threat" ends up with after the fact justifications about whether the attackers were trying to get into your bedroom or were coming up the stairs or were they on the ground floor. Did you have an exit or could you have stopped hitting them X blows beforehand.

My suggestion is that we bring back a version of the castle doctrine that we gave the yanks. In essence if someone is in your home to commit a crime then by default you have no case to answer, the authorities could only bring charges if someone was using it as cover for their own crime (like luring someone into your home or some relative you've a history with or whatever). There could be no case for arguing that you went too far or how much of a threat an intruder was if you were say upstairs and they were downstairs.

The Welby farm case worked out well for the homeowners despite shooting one of the burglars, but that still needed the CPS to decide not to prosecute and in the past they've not always been so reasonable.

This is about degrees along a scale rather than UK vs America. We can move more towards the yank legal status in that the homeowner is in the right more than now without being towards the far end of the scale where someone knocking on your door is at risk.

[-]

seriousrikk@reddit

But how much of a problem is it in the grander scheme of things?

In the past they have indeed prosecuted a homeowner who shot an intruder. The intruder was already leaving and got shot in the back.

That’s not OK even if the intruder was an absolute scumbag. Americans castle doctrine would say that is OK but here in the uk we’re quite simply better than that.

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

This must be a joke.

[-]

bars_and_plates@reddit

I don't think that the self defence laws need to change but I think that they were designed in an era with more visible and proactive police presence.

The appropriate change is to fix the police force and restore confidence that low level crime will be tackled.

[-]

Conscious-Rope7515@reddit

How do you know they're Brits who are agreeing?

[-]

Lonely-Job484@reddit

I think the written laws are broadly fine. What are the supposed deficiencies or proposed changes?

[-]

xav1or@reddit

We're not allowed self defense "weapons" of any kind, so females are at a major disadvantage against male attackers for a start.

[-]

Useful-Risk-4340@reddit

Thank you. Pepper spray is legal in many European countries. Women do not abuse it. It's just not an issue, so why would it be for us?

[-]

xav1or@reddit

People think that the attacker would just use pepper spray, but they already carry knives, at least if both victim and attacker have pepper spray the playing field is levelled.

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

I'm not sure that assumption holds water. I doubt we could find any evidence showing that the rate of attacking women is lower due to pepper spray being available in those countries who allow its sale.

[-]

Useful-Risk-4340@reddit

I agree. Pepper sprays at least provide some form of protection and it's an agreed upon form of defence and that empowers victims. They do not cause lasting harm. If people gave it some thought, they'd realise how preferable this is. Currently, women have to strike assailants with a random object, introducing all sorts of repercussions. They have to factor in the risk of being prosecuted.

It's clear most people replying are men who haven't given it a lot of thought. The law seriously disadvantages women. We can't restrain a man, especially an aggressive one intent on hurting us.

[-]

cheandbis@reddit

Point me to a few stories where the outcome in court seems wrong and I'll judge.

On the face of it, our laws are fair and proportionate so it seems a non-issue.

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

You don't have to go to court to have your life ruined.

If you get arrested and have to phone your employer to tell them that you cannot come into work then you could well be unemployed, if you are subject to bail conditions then that chance increases. If you are sensible then you get good legal advice and a decent solicitor is going to be draining your savings fast. Work out how long your savings would last if you had to pay out (and only a fool relies on the free legal advice at the station). If nothing else you could find yourself in a cell having been fingerprinted and had your DNA taken are a traumatic event and now you get to lie there in fear about what might happen.

If you defend yourself against the wrong person then you can end up having to move or go into hiding (see the case with the travellers that harassed a home owner as the police did very little). Your name could well be out there, so good luck with future job hunting or being able to volunteer.

[-]

FornyHucker22@reddit

We should be allowed pepper sprays and I’d recommend women going out have some

[-]

Valleyman1982@reddit

Are we allowed to defend ourselves and our property? Yes.

Can we even use lethal means if we are genuinely in danger? Yes, as long as intent is protection or reducing threat. It has to be proportionate. Not as “punishment”. And there is significant leeway in this point for split second decision making and using excessive force if acting in genuine fear.

Can we act as judge, jury and executioner when people are fleeing, have their hands up, or there is no immediate threat? No.

Honestly seems to work.

[-]

Codydoc4@reddit

I don't care what Americans think about us or our laws. And to answer your question, they are fine as they are.

[-]

Hopeful_Salad_7464@reddit

Don't let American online discourse affect you.

If it wasn't obvious, their culture is nuts.

[-]

AnxiousTerminator@reddit

I cannot see a single part of the American legal system or society which is functioning in a way I would ever want to emulate here. Sorry but if there are any Brits who reckon the American way is better I would encourage them to move there and leave us to our much lower homicide rates.

[-]

TheEnglishNorwegian@reddit

Why give a shit about what Americans thing or say?

To answer the question, reasonable defense only after all reasonable options for avoiding the situation have been exhausted makes sense to me. If you can avoid the need for violence, you should.

[-]

BestGirlNat@reddit

Women should definitely be allowed to carry something to protect themselves. Just allow us pepper spray.

[-]

Walkerno5@reddit

Allowing the legal sale of pepper spray for self defence makes its use for attacking people inevitable. You are not going to be using yours when you’re already choking and disabled by someone else’s.

[-]

Affectionate-Fish681@reddit

Many European countries legalise pepper spray for self-defence and don’t have this issue

[-]

BiscuitBarrel179@reddit

If it is on general sale and is easily available you can guarantee that some nefarious type will be buying it to use it against you. Also no would be attacker is going to wait for a women to rummage around in the bottomless carry-all that is a handbag to get their pepper spray out.

[-]

Leader_Bee@reddit

We certainly shouldn't be allowed guns, if that's what you're asking, but not being allowed to have a taser or pepper spray is just a bit silly.

[-]

terahurts@reddit

Anything like that made available for defence can also be used for offence though. Not sure I want any of the little shits on the estate being able to buy and use pepper spray or a taser when mugging people.

[-]

Leader_Bee@reddit

I see what you're getting at but they could just as easily have a knife; My point is that those things are both non-lethal and melee ranged.

Guns not so much.

[-]

GeneratorQueen@reddit

Speaking as a woman, I’m happy with the current laws.

[-]

WhalingSmithers00@reddit

I don't think most people realise how strict the restrictions are on self defense objects. You can't have anything that's purpose is for self defense even completely legal objects like bats are illegal if intended for self defense.

I don't think it's unreasonable for vulnerable people to have access to pepper spray. It might make fleeing more realistic.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

The problem with "reasonable and proportionate" is that it doesn't take into account the reality of the potential of violence to end up with somebody dead from for example hitting their head on the floor. Which happens often. There was a case in the news just last week.

And generally the people who promote our law as adequate don't have any sense of what violence is like. They've never seen anyone get glassed in a club or have their head stamped on in the street. Mostly they have some flaky idea that the bad guy might punch you on the nose and leave you alone and you walk away going, "you rotter!"

It takes experience to read a situation and the last drunk guy who had a go at me was a bit crap and I let him walk away. But in many situations the threat of life changing or life ending events is real. And in those circumstances immediate and overwhelming force is needed to keep you alive. That should be understood as being reasonable and proportionat, but my concern is that it isn't, because most people lead very sheltered lives and don't understand the reality of violence.

[-]

Aerosenin@reddit

Americans think a fully automatic assault rifle is the perfect response to someone trespassing so why would you listen to Americans

[-]

frosting_the_bowl@reddit

Full autos arent legal in the USA.

[-]

Djinjja-Ninja@reddit

Some are.

It's not illegal to possess (in most states) a fully automatic firearm as long as it was produced prior to May 19, 1986 and it's registered under the NFA.

They are however extremely expensive due to th limited legal stock, and you also need to be federally registered.

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

With a bump stock there is basically no difference. You are splitting hairs

[-]

frosting_the_bowl@reddit

There is a big difference. One is full auto, one is not.

[-]

Aerosenin@reddit

Any gun is too much for anything no one should be allowed guns it’s actually silly to revere guns like you guys do

[-]

scrotalsac69@reddit

Still aplitting hairs and at what point did I say you were wrong?

[-]

Walkerno5@reddit

You absolutely can, it’s not straight forward but you can own your very own machine gun legally.

[-]

frosting_the_bowl@reddit

Redditors will disagree because the left sympathise with criminals, especially if they arent white.

[-]

Winkered@reddit

No I don’t. Just like the Right don’t really want to gas certain ethnicities.

[-]

BiscuitBarrel179@reddit

Americans saying how stupid some of our laws are, now that is amusing.

[-]

girlsunderpressure@reddit

Can you be a bit more specific...? What's so allegedly stupid about the current law (and implicitly "smarter" in the US)?

[-]

Educational_Worth906@reddit

It’s a deflection. Instead of looking at what’s wrong with their own country, some Americans are choosing to say “Oh, look how bad it is in country X”. Damn it, I’ve just done the same thing.

[-]

Made_Up_Name_1@reddit

You are 4 times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the US than in the UK. Violent crime across the board is higher in the US than the UK.

Americans have a situation they won't fix and are merely hunting round for "issues" to deflect from actually fixing their own societal problems.

[-]

WorcsBloke@reddit

They're about right. Every so often there's a story which genuinely comes across as unreasonable, but the idea that we can have systems and laws that perfectly protect all good people and perfectly target all bad people is, whatever social media may say, completely unrealistic. People are too varied for that. Do injustices happen? Yes. Would this change stop that? No.

I also think in more general terms we in Britain need to stop looking at the US all the time as the primary comparator on crime issues. We do that in far too many areas where their gun laws are (even in the less extreme states) so different from other advanced countries as to massively skew the starting point. What do Germany, Canada, Australia, Italy have to say about this subject?

[-]

scuderia91@reddit

I see no issue with allowing response to genuine threats with proportionate force. I don’t think we should be allowed to kill people in self defence if your life isn’t genuinely in danger.

[-]

NotSayingAliensBut@reddit

The problem with people promoting this idea is that they often have no realistic idea of when your life is in danger when you are facing violence. Just last week a 70 year old cyclist was killed by one punch from a kid who had dropped a branch off a bridge.

Anyone, within reason, who instigates violence against you is a potential threat to your life.

[-]

boredathome1962@reddit

Basically it's the reasonableness test. You can defend yourself or others to the extent that an ordinary person would think is reasonable. So it's a bit fuzzy, but generally sensible.

[-]

peppermint_aero@reddit

I don't see what authority Americans have to comment on another country's laws. Particularly those on social media, which is where I assume you heard this

[-]

PolarLocalCallingSvc@reddit

To the credit, they probably have a lot more experience of requiring self defence.

After all, how is a teacher going to defend their class from a school shooter if they're not allowed to carry an AR15 assault rifle?

[-]

Winkered@reddit

Better than whatever 💣 else they may want to do.

[-]

PolarLocalCallingSvc@reddit

Given the murder and manslaughter rate differences between the UK and the US, I probably wouldn't read too much into what random Americans say online about self defence laws.

Ours are fine in my view. They generally produce the just result. I'm sure there's the odd story about someone being sued for stabbing a burglar or something but the same outlier stories exist in any western country. The difference is that in the US the result is usually fatal.

[-]

When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.