h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In a life-or-death situation, if an intruder had got into your house, what would you use to fend them off with?
I know that in many cases, knives end up being used against the people originally having them, so I would avoid them.

What could you keep to hand, which would not be illegal, but which could be used for self defence in such cases?

Dirty nappies

My husband's and sons' worn socks.

This post has been removed.

I think we should all print that out and stick it to the fridge.

Remember to discard it of course, when the police arrive.

I'm really not sure that's going to last long, so I'll just copy it.

I was going to say 'the dog', but I don't think she'd know how. I'm trying to train her to growl and look menacing, but she just keeps wanting to be cuddled.

Pity it's gone, couldn't people see the joke in it?

It was an pertinent contribution to a relevant grown-up discussion. I guess we're not going to have the opportunity to discuss its merits now.

Thank you Mr Yikeser

My large hiking stick with a point at one end and big knobbly bit at the other would probably come in handy, one feels.

Indeed, whenever I think about becoming a 'name' again rather than just a 'researcher' we get relevant, if controversial, posts removed and I remain name-less.

Defending yourselves against intruders and how YOU can be the one getting arrested is a good example of the law being an ass and where the intruder seems to get more rights than the home-owner.

You could pretty much use anything. Just get your statement worked out which basically says it was spur of the moment, something to hand, feared for your life etc. Make it look like it was not a premediated defensive set-up and you will be fine.

However, when one is always told to have an emergency escape plan etc for when your house is on fire I see no rason why one cannot have an emergency plan for when some one breaks into your house.

If it's OK for MP's etc to have security people to protect them and such plans in place I do not see why we should not be afforded the same rights.

Wow, that didn't last long, did it? I'm keen to see why it's been removed. Wonder if I'll get an email telling me? They didn't bother the last time...

SoRB

"Postings to BBC messageboards will be removed if they:

* Break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity"

Fair cop. I did definitely condone unlawful activity.

SoRB

I had a post removed yesterday and didn't get an email. How are we expected to know what was wrong if nobody tells us so?

You didn't really. You just wrote it in a provocative style to make a serious point.

So, now an attempt at a repost...

Nothing. Any implement you used against an intruder roughly your size and gender - even if they were armed - could land you in jail as "unreasonable force", assuming they survive and sue you or complain to the police.

There is of course an easily deduced corollary to this - only intruders who survive can
(a) sue you and
(b) suggest you used unreasonable force.

It is therefore LOGICALLY in the interests of the homeowner to ensure any intruder to their home is killed in a way which looks like the homeowner had no choice, and that the force used was therefore "reasonable".

NOTE THAT THE ABOVE IS A LOGICAL DEDUCTION ONLY AND THE AUTHOR DOES NOT ENCOURAGE OR CONDONE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

A knife remains the best means of SELF DEFENCE for the homeowner in the UK. It is safe, legal, requires little skill to use and is devastatingly effective even against a larger more powerful attacker. However, it does require complete commitment on the part of the user. Any hesitation will probably result in the intruder taking it from you and using it on you. (The same goes for handguns if you're reading this in the US). If you doubt at all your ability and more importantly *willingness* to kill IN SELF DEFENCE another
human face to face with a single blow from a knife to the throat, base of the skull, chest or inner thigh, you should not engage at all. THINK CAREFULLY AND WEIGH UP WHETHER YOU REALISTICALL THINK YOU COULD DO THIS. IF NOT, instead make a loud, fast exit from your house by the route you would use in the event of a
fire. (You do have a prepared escape route for fire, right?)

If you think you could do the killing, speed, aggression and surprise are paramount. You are not there to make a point, to use "reasonable force", to stop, disable, hurt or slow down your opponent. You are most especially not there to "fight". You are there to kill them as quickly as possible with a straight line, stabbing blow to a vital area. If at all possible, surprise them.
Hit them hard and fast and deep then get away out of range of any possible return blows. If necessary, if your killing blow didn't work as well as you need it to, you may then resort to something like a baseball bat - but swinging a bat in the confines of an ordinary house is difficult.

THE AUTHOR IS NOT ENCOURAGING OR CONDONING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. ACT ONLY IN SELF DEFENCE.

Once the intruder(s) is down, you must immediately consider how the scene will look to the police. It should BE CLEAR that you had no choice but to act as you did, and that you grabbed the nearest thing to defend yourself with, rather than killing a man from behind with a knife you keep under your pillow.

ACT ONLY IN SELF DEFENCE.

If your intruder is alive but disabled and bleeding to death, let him.

THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY OF CARE REQUIRING YOU TO CALL AN AMBULANCE FOR AN INJURED INTRUDER. NOR ARE YOU OBLIGED LEGALLY TO PERFORM FIRST AID.

A PERSON WHOSE FEMORAL ARTERY IS CUT WILL BLEED TO DEATH QUICKLY, SO IF DURING YOUR STRUGGLE YOU HIT THEM HARD IN THE INNER THIGH, YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO WAIT AS LONG.

DO NOT call for emergency help until he is dead or very nearly so. When making the call, sound exhausted. This will probably not be hard. Sound dazed - you will need to explain why you waited ten or twenty minutes before calling. Call an ambulance first, not the
police. You need to get yourself checked out in case you are injured. Let the ambulance service call the police. At all times, you need to convey the TRUE image of an innocent householder, surprised by an armed intruder.

The worst mistake people make is not having the commitment. I repeat - if you doubt for a moment that you couldn't stick a knife deep into the skull of another human - get out, run, and keep running. Bear in mind that whatever they're doing in your house, it's just stuff, which ultimately is replaceable.

But if you think you could kill a man - DO IT FAST AND ONLY SELF DEFENCE. Do it right and you'll be a hero, and there'll be one less worthless piece of scum on this lovely planet. THIS LATTER COMMENT DOES NOT CONDONE OR ENCOURAGE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. ACT ONLY IN SELF DEFENCE.

SoRB

No, I think advising someone to plant a knife (both in a burglar, then another one in his hand) is definitely unlawful. As is murder.

Doesn't mean it's necessarily the wrong thing to do, but it *is* definitely illegal.

Aah, simulpost. Although I can't see that one lasting 5 minutes either.

I would say that SoRB's advice is not advising someone to plant a knive in anyone. What he is doing is describing a theoretical situation based on hazard, risk and what is the BEST course of action for reducing the risk and eliminating the hazard - from a purely academic perspective.

It is a theoretical discussion based on, say cutting your veg in the kitchen for dinner, hearing a noise, walking into the lounge and seeing an intruder who then lunges for you.

You are allowed to defend yourself and subconsciously knowing where to strike to defend yourself with the least effort and quickly is certainly not premediated. If anyone has sparred in martial arts they will know that you arms and legs can be blocking or striking without you even consciously moving them. (It can be perturbing when your left leg suddenly appears on your apponents cheek without you knowing it was going to do it.)

>>It is a theoretical discussion based on, say cutting your veg in the kitchen for dinner, hearing a noise, walking into the lounge and seeing an intruder who then lunges for you.<<

For the record, could I state that I suffer from a obsessive compulsive disorder, which means I chop veg 24 hours a day?

Let's be clear about this.

In the UK there is a legal right of self-defence, even when using lethal force. If a reasonable person (i.e. a jury, or the CPS lawyers) finds that on the basis of the evidence that the force used was reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat, then there will be no punishment.

Everyone remembers the Tony Martin case where a *jury* found that the force he used was not reasonable, but excessive. But who remembers the case of John Lambert who stabbed a burglar NINE TIMES and killed him. This did not go to trial, and an inquest recorded a verdict of lawful killing because the force used was proportional to the perceived threat. The second intruder went to prison. So it's wrong and dangerously misleading to claim that there is no right of self defence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm