- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
Which is irrelevant on this occasion.
Which is relevant on this occasion.
It is the relevant law, if the driver is to be believed.
Bus driver sacked OMG
- Thread starter pete01
- Start date
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
What do you mean hence 'self defence wrong law'? Self defence is not a 'law', nor have I mentioned it. Please explain?
I will say again - 'reasonable force' however is applied and defined across UK law in general, and is what I have been arguing about since you got it all wrong in the last thread.
Here is a reminder of why you shouldn't pursue someone with a weapon, after a threat has passed........
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
do you think that was staged?
OMG, poor pickpocket
Not sure do you think it was?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
What is a common law? Make some sense.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
why would someone be filming?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
law established through decided cases and custom, rather than specified in statute. The statute in question specifically states the common law rights are replaced. That is because at the time, common law had not established the right to strike first in self defence, making it difficult to use force to stop a crime.
And? It is just a meaningless statement
This however...
Here is a reminder of why you shouldn't pursue someone with a weapon, after a threat has passed........
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
True, people fim all sorts of crap these days.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
for likes, clicks and follows.. instagram is full of similarly staged "hero moments".
Waffling again. Reasonable force rules are defined and applied across the board, common law statute or otherwise...
Reasonable force' guidance has been tested against and applies to:
Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3)*
Common Law
Children Act 1989 & 2004
Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93)
Use of Reasonable Force in Schools – DfE Guidance
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Sections 5–6)
Human Rights Act 1998
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Equality Act 2010
YOU quoted the CLA 1967. Have you changed your mind on that now?
Of course. That goes without saying.
A jury in a criminal trial would have to decide whether the 'honest belief' was genuinely held.
But once the jury has established that the 'honest belief' is genuinely held, they use that as the basis for determining whether the force was reasonable. Even if the defendant was mistaken in his honest belief
