Metropolitan Firearms Officers Resigning From The Role.

[Diasi]

I sincerely hope that that is the case.
Unlike the Americans and, incidentally, most of Europe, our police are almost unique in not routinely carrying firearms.
One benefit of that is that those who do are specially trained to probably a higher ability than many of those in foreign countries who all carry firearms.
On the other hand, I think it is important to maintain a suitable number of these experts so that they can be readily available just about anywhere (within reason) quickly.

I've spent numerous hours studying the parts of the criminal Act that covers crimes of violence & self-defence &  also the CPS guidance notes.

What both Cassandra & I have posted are what's contained in those documents.

What does bother me is the use of the term 'reasonable force' which is sloppy, & subjective & can mean a 100 different things to a 100 different people.

The Act should say that a householder can use whatever force they deem to be necessary.

That way a third party, who wasn't there, isn't involved in second guessing what happened & it would definitely make an offender think very long & hard before breaking into a house.

[dextrous63]

There's an old saying that one only knows one hasn't used sufficient reasonable force when one is dead!!

[Diasi]

There's an old saying that one only knows one hasn't used sufficient reasonable force when one is dead!!

Exactly.

[JBR]

I've spent numerous hours studying the parts of the criminal Act that covers crimes of violence & self-defence &  also the CPS guidance notes.

What does bother me is the use of the term 'reasonable force' which is sloppy, & subjective & can mean a 100 different things to a 100 different people.

I completely agree.  That wording is far too wishy-washy.

I think that the real priority should be in favour of the person being attacked or threatened.
If someone breaks into your house and you feel to be in danger of losing your possessions or even your life, there should be no restrictions.  In that respect, the Yanks have it 100% correct.

I was daydreaming earlier today, and my mind found itself thinking about how I could effectively defend myself without the availability of a firearm which could be used against an attacker without coming too close to become unsafe.

No firearms in our house (except for a bow, which would need stringing, and a few arrows!).
However I do have a cigarette lighter (though I don't smoke) and a can of gas for it.
The lighter in one hand and the gas canister in the other: a ready-made flame-thrower!
Both perfectly legal, and sufficient to effectively repel, at risk of burning their face and setting light to their hair, an attacker.  😨

[dextrous63]

Exactly.

Mind you, at least you'd die happy in the knowledge that the CPS won't be taking you to court and that the criminal will live to maim/steal/ terrorise/rape/kill and cost the taxpayer a shedload another day.

Every cloud has a tear-sodden coffin lining.

[Michael Rolls]

self-defence - now, at 86 with a gammy left arm and wobbly legs, I suppose I could always threaten an intruder with my walking stick and have him die laughing - or would that be excessive force?

[Cassandra]

Of course and the DPP would probably charge you with 'intended murder'.

[Michael Rolls]

wouldn't be surprised! Yesterday's paper carried an article by a retired firearms office and a readers' letter from another - both said that if still on the job they would have immediately hand in their firearms' authorization