Now this didn't exactly ring true at the time with me, because even the dimmest officer knows that you can't be arrested for possession of an offensive weapon in your house, unless you're stupid enough to admit having a "made one" which you had in public before it reached your house. I think that the CPS would call that a weak case and in most circumstances decline a charge. Now this all came out at the launch of a new TV show that Myleene was promoting so call me a cynic ............ but why aren't Hertfordshire police putting up more of a rebuttal? Maybe if we rolled out our own fitty press person we could get some coverage.
Myleene has back tracked somewhat and it's spun as a defence of property thing as Herts deny any warning was made to her. As long as Myleene doesn't chase her burglars away and stab them she could in certain circumstances use a knife to defend herself. People just need to know where they stand with this. It's pretty clear in law but again what is reasonable in the circumstances rears it's head.
Now all own up. Who keeps something handy just in case you are confronted in your own house by felons? I've got a lovely little wooden ornament that somebody brought back from holiday for me. I keep it behind my bed and if need be could use it effectively and correctly. I wouldn't hit somebody around the head with it unless the threat to me warranted it. I am in effect trained to use it and more importantly trained to justify it's use. My old man prefers a length of 2 be 2 hard wood and I have heard of people who sleep with a knife nearby just in case.
My personal opinion is that anybody in your house unlawfully who stands their ground offering aggression and gets whacked should lose their rights to protection from the law. The law should favour the householder who did nothing to bring about the confrontation. Of course shooting them in the back as they flee is hardly self defence, but the law needs to understand the flight or fight process. You would have to be pretty centred as a MOP to avoid a little bit of retribution.
So for any MOP out there here is the law:
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
A person who is attacked or who believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself or another. In this situation a person is acting in lawful self defence. What does acting in lawful self defence mean? The law is that a person only acts in lawful self defence if in the circumstances he believes that it is necessary for him to defend himself or another and the amount of force which he uses in doing so is reasonable. Two questions arise. Firstly, did the person believe, or may he honestly have believed that it was necessary to defend himself. If the person did not believe that it was necessary to defend himself, then self defence simply does not arise. The second question is, taking the circumstances, as the person believed them to be, was the amount of force which he used reasonable? The law is that force used in self defence is unreasonable and unlawful if it is out of proportion to the nature of the attack or if it is in excess of what is really required of the person to defend himself.
I don't know how to word out the thieving slag deserved it in the above but I'm sure some legal eagle could try.