Car jacking defence U.K.

[Feanor]

Not sure describing it as "more reasonable," is all that accurate TBH. Leaving that much room for discretion on the part of LEO's and prosecutors or solicitors can also cut the other way too, in that someone did commit violence can be effectively given a pass. Either by refusing to take action, or else slow walking efforts. I will not travel to Kenosha WI for this reason among others, as I do not trust the law enforcement and prosecutors offices (state and Federal) to fairly and impartially uphold the laws.

Is there something specific about Kenosha that makes this the case? Is this in reference to Kyle Rittenhouse? I'm a little confused, the jury found him not guilty, and I believe correctly.

Leaving someone at the mercy of discretion is what I'm complaining about. It's not that the US is perfect, it's just that it seems to me a better legal framework then what the UK has.

If the text is not for you, perhaps try watching this Tom Jones mini-series adaptation. Interesting historical footnote, he and his younger half-brother (also a magistrate) helped found the Bow Street Runners, a precursor to London's modern Metropolitan Police Service.

I got through it but didn't enjoy it aside from a few funny parts. I think Fielding has aged poorly. I understood parts that were supposed to be funny but they often weren't. With a to-be-read pile in the triple digits and the wishlist in quadruple digits, I'm probably not going to come back to him. I like classic English literature, but Fielding is not for me.

 

[spoz]

The problem with overbroad and under-enforced law is that you're at the mercy of said enforcement. I don't want a police officer or a prosecutor getting to decide whether I am "being a dickhead". I want a law that I can follow and that allows for reasonable self defense without overly burdensome regulations. And remember even reasonable people can differ. Unless I am mistaken, the prosecutor is not required to apply a "reasonableness" discount to people carrying weapons. They can enforce the law as written.

In Australia (and I presume still the UK - or rather England as the other constituents of the UK have a variety of variant laws) a prosecutor is indeed required to apply a reasonableness test before proceeding with a prosecution. That is particularly so where, as in this case, there is a ‘reasonableness” defence available. The courts do not look favourably on frivolous prosecutions; and the definition of that includes where there is no “reasonable” prospect of obtaining a conviction. The fact that when a case is stupidly prosecuted and then collapses spectacularly, as does occasionally happen, the media have a field day is also a deterrent.

 

[StobieWan]

I don't think you could draft a law that would cover all situations, and still be readable - using key phrases like "reasonable person" seems sensible to me. We have at least one case where a police officer was stabbed to death in someone's back yard and the jury acquitted the attacker, as the believed the defence presented.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think you could draft a law that would cover all situations, and still be readable - using key phrases like "reasonable person" seems sensible to me. We have at least one case where a police officer was stabbed to death in someone's back yard and the jury acquitted the attacker, as the believed the defence presented.

So there is more than one OJ jury!

 

[StobieWan]

So there is more than one OJ jury!

This one was way worse. Copper was in the back yard of the property trying to do close target recce of a location believed to have been involved in smelting the brinks mat silver.

Hilariously I've stayed at the property so I now understand how big that yard is.

 

[swerve]

The problem with overbroad and under-enforced law is that you're at the mercy of said enforcement. I don't want a police officer or a prosecutor getting to decide whether I am "being a dickhead". I want a law that I can follow and that allows for reasonable self defense without overly burdensome regulations. And remember even reasonable people can differ. Unless I am mistaken, the prosecutor is not required to apply a "reasonableness" discount to people carrying weapons. They can enforce the law as written.

The law as written has a reasonableness provision built in.

You can carry just about any sharp object you like, as long as you have a good reason. Those words - "a good reason" - are in the law. So the prosecutor is required to take into account reasonableness. A defendant's lawyer, & the judge or magistrates, will be aware of that, & if it's a jury trial, the defence will remind the members of the jury.

 

[Feanor]

The law as written has a reasonableness provision built in.

You can carry just about any sharp object you like, as long as you have a good reason. Those words - "a good reason" - are in the law. So the prosecutor is required to take into account reasonableness. A defendant's lawyer, & the judge or magistrates, will be aware of that, & if it's a jury trial, the defence will remind the members of the jury.

I think I understand, a few people have pointed this out above. I will say that I don't think my idea of what constitutes a good reason for carrying a sharp object, and that of a UK prosecutor, probably won't be the same. In general I don't think there should be a problem with a person carrying a relatively small foldable knife with no specific reason. Iirc here in California it's up to 4" and it can be a locking blade.