So it seems that, having banned all civilian handfun ownership and making long gun and shotgun ownership somewhat..er.. restricted..., the Brits may be about to formally codify Castle Doctrine.

 

Reference BBC News Webpage

 

Quoting the BBC News article:

 

"Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England. He told the BBC people were entitled to use 'whatever force necessary' to protect themselves and their homes. David Cameron recently said the issue should be put 'beyond doubt'." {David Cameron is the current "Conservative" British Prime Minster }

 

"On people's rights to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was 'constant doubt' about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this 'much clearer'. Under the terms of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, homeowners who use 'reasonable force' to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted, providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary."

 

" 'It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes,' Mr Clarke said. Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: 'If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear.' "

 

It'll be interesting to see what the legislation actually ends up like, but ironic that the country where the term "An Englishman's (sic) home is his castle", is only now moving the concept from common law into statute.

 

G

Reasonable should never be used as a standard because it's subjective. What seems entirely reasonable at the time may look entirely unreasonable when viewed under a second by second microscope.

 

"Yes, it seemed reasonable to stab the guy in the windpipe, then the eyeball because it happened in under a second"

 

Turns into

 

"So, you went over to the counter and grabbed a knife?"

Right

"Then you turned to face the decedent, and raised the knife in a threatening fashion"

Right

"Now the defended crossed the 10 feet in under a second you claim"

Right

"So, you were holding the knife in front of you when you say the knife went into his neck"

Right

"did you push it hard, with a stabbing motion, or slash it sideways"

Just held it and he slid on to it

"You're saying the decedent saw the knife and kept coming and you just held it, then he went ahead and let it go into his neck? *rolls eyes for the jury*

That's right.

"Then he recoils back?"

Correct

"and you say that he now plunged the knife into his eyeball, by accident"

No, when he ran at me his legs hit mine and threw me off balance and I fell on him

"But just a moment ago he recoiled back as according to your sworn testimony. If he recoiled back, how is it that your knife ended up impaled into his face? If he is recoiling, you would have to be striking wouldn't you?"

No, I wasn't striking I just had the knife up there and we fell and it went in his eye

"So was it recoiling or falling?"

Recoiling then falling

"So your story is that the decedent saw your knife, ran into it, recoiled, and the knife 'accidentally' just magically ended up in his eye as you, completely unbalanced, fell onto him" *rolls eyes again for the jury* "and this all happened in 2 seconds?"

Right.

"No further questions"

This is why you should have two knives.

This is why you should have two knives.

I believe those have been outlawed as well due to a documented increase of slashing and stabbings especially in immigrant enclaves and {surprise!} sporting events.

Oh come the hell on! That's like giving infinite sex to a guy with no penis!