Question for UK police people

As the title suggest I'm not one but am intrigued by what's "reasonable" force for me and what is not.
Personally I tend toward avoiding confrontation (no problem legging it if I can- my ego can handle that). However, if forced to I would tend towards a "knock them out and leave them out"
The two basic possible encounters are the outside the chippy/pub etc etc mugging or encounter with idiot who wants a fight OR intruder in the house.

I have to say that if an intruder got upstairs in my house all reasonableness would go out the window as my wife and kids would be sleeping there. I'll treat replies with a little sceptiscism this being an internet forum but I'd be interested to hear some views from the genuine LEO's on her.

Thanks

I'm not an LEO but this is an area of interest of mine.

As far as I'm aware LEOs are there to enforce the law, not interpret it. They gather the relevant evidence and present it.

In the UK there are a number of non-fatal offences against the person (CF Offences against the persons act). They are generally seperated by the level of injury sustained and the relative intent behind that injury. For instance your "knock them out and leave them out" could constitute actual bodily harm (ABH), depending if there were any other injuries inflicted.

I would recommend researching the various laws (as I can't be bothered to type them all right now). Remember there are no hard and fast rules about how much force should be used in a particular situation. How much force you use is dependent on your judgement in comparrison to 12 others should it go to court. The problem here is that you may also have to prove that you truely believed that you were being assualted.

[This message has been edited by judderman (edited 06-23-2004).]

Intruder in the house, that's where my wife and kids sleep, sorry anything goes. Just make sure they fall inside the house and not outside the door.

This is the message from a few uk police forces to their officers; If you fear for your life then you are justified in using any method at hand to protect yourself and those around you! Looking at this it seems that the main factor is "Fearing for your safetylife". I dont think it would actually cover pogo jumping on an unconcious assailant after the event though [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG] I know that you could probably quote me on recent events like the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who was jailed for shooting a burglar but let me quote Geoff Thompson who said "Its better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". I like to think that in a life threatening situation the Geoff Thompson philosophy would prevail.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kaliman:
I know that you could probably quote me on recent events like the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who was jailed for shooting a burglar but let me quote Geoff Thompson who said "Its better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". I like to think that in a life threatening situation the Geoff Thompson philosophy would prevail.[/QUOTE]

The reason for Tony Martin's conviction was that his shotgun was held illegally, the burglars were running away, and off his property, and he shot them in the back. Then he went back inside and didn't phone the police, so the kid died.

Ken
As an English LEO I can offer this advice for what its worth.
There are two pieces of law that goven use of force. These are Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act and Common Law. Without boring you too much, Common Law says that you can defend yourself against attack using force as is reasonable in the circumstances . Now here's the grey area. Reasonable force is not defined in law.
However what I tend to rely on, is if you are attacked by someone intent on doing you harm and you knock them out, I would tend to suggest that is fairly reasonable in the circumstances. If you then proceed to give him a good kicking whilst he is on the ground and out of it, just to teach him a lesson you are way beyond reasonable. (My personal opinions aside). I have had to arrest and charge people using this reasoning and found it to have worked well.
Hope I didn't bore you too much.
Regards Lea

Hi Lea good to have you here. Mike says hi too
Sharon

Pretty much the answer Lea gave goes for the U.S. to.
I believe the determining factors are the immediacy(sp?) of the danger and the perceived danger.

Then again, here in Texas it was a justifiable defense to homicide to state and prove,"He needed killing."

I've a;ways admired those Texans for the pure simplicity of their approach to this.
An entire investigative philosophy in one question. "Did he need killin?" K-

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kman:
I've a;ways admired those Texans for the pure simplicity of their approach to this.
An entire investigative philosophy in one question. "Did he need killin?" K-[/QUOTE]

Saves on paperwork, overtime, keeps courts uncluttered, reduces stress. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

What's not to love? [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

[This message has been edited by nekogami13 V2.0 (edited 09-27-2004).]