The fair and reasonable force element causes issues though. Shooting someone in the back from 30 yards as they legged it down the street would be OTT imo, but beating the **** out of some scrote who you catch red handed trying to lift your gear inside your house is fair game imo. **** ‘em.
There's no specific definition of reasonable force, so it's dependent on the situation. You don't have to wait to be attacked in your own home before you can use force, so if somebody is lifting your gear and trying to make off with it, then you can use force to stop them. What you can't do is then beat them to a ****ing pulp after you've stopped them. Unless they attack back of course.
I see where you are going with this but I prefer to err on the side of caution. If someone's smashed into your house then you can be damn sure they are more likely to be dangerous too you than a homeless person looking for a place to stay. I'm doing the pre emptive strike in that case (after checking if it's friend or foe)
You can then arrest them, and use whatever force is necessary to detain them whilst you wait for plod to arrive, If they happen to ‘resist arrest’ and end up getting the **** kicked out em..well, ‘he was resisting arrest, your worship’
I'm not sure if you misread my post I was supporting the old boy. I used the context of weapon or no weapon because it was clearly stated he was threatened with a screw driver, so there was no doubt over the situation.
I would do the same. And the law would support you too. If somebody breaks into your house and you believe your personal safety is being threatened then you have every right to use force. What you can't do though is plunge a knife into them though, just to make sure like.
Was he though ? Or did the Burglar have a screw driver as part of his tool kit to break in ? It looks to me what's happened is that the burglar has tried to flee and the old boy has chased him down and stabbed him in the heart with the screwdriver.
I've no fooking idea...i was going on the principle that what the posters said was correct. If the old boy killed someone and they was not armed or in danger then he will rightly face the consequences of the law.
The dead man was found halfway down the street, so it suggests that the old boy chased him down and attacked him. You can understand why he did it, but in the eyes of the law he would have used excessive force and he'll probably go down for murder or at least manslaughter.
Must be a canny fit78 year old, to chase, catch, then over power a 30ish year old. He must do pilates.
Or, like my old grandad, he just doesn’t take any **** and is more than happy to wade in. I had to watch him if we went drinking. He was up and ready to have a row with a bloke who’d upset him somehow, and that’s when he was in his 80’s.
That’s an assumption he could have easily have stabbed him and the fella has escaped and staggered down the street before the tear to his heart has caused a mass bleed and then heart failure.
Perhaps the burglar was a right fat **** and waddled off whilst being chased down? Would explain the screwdriver as well as he had to get the hinges off the door to break in
