Thread: Baseball bat or knife?
1/02/2012 2:54pm, #11
I would say bat. I would rather not stab somone in my own house.
I also thought I would do a check to see if people were getting away with it.
1/02/2012 3:34pm, #12
Bullshit, you can't even reliably stop someone when going full force. Go watch that Boston Chinatown video.
Now you're waffling.
I clearly gave the local law caveat.
If you'd like to quote a law resource that supports your assertion, i'd appreciate it.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
I could brandish the knife.
Further, the pain of the bat won't necessarily stop someone.
That said a broken skull can kill you, as can many blunt force traumas.
That is why it is lumped in with deadly force.
It's irrelevant whether or not the pain of a bat could reliably stop someone, stop moving goalposts. The only question is one of whether a bat allows for 'safer' self-defence on the basis of resulting injury and legal ramifications.
You are splitting hairs between two really poor responses, and are using poor logic that does not extrapolate to US law to do so.
(IANAL, any attorneys who'd like to interject, please do.)
That was my point."The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero projects his fear onto his opponent while the coward runs. 'Fear'. It's the same thing, but it's what you do with it that matters". - Cus D'Amato
1/02/2012 4:05pm, #13
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Durham NC
Like most of the people here I would shave to go with the bat. I am not much one for getting an accidental murder charge for stabbing someone in the wrong spot during a scuffle. The bat gives reach. Now that being said if I am alone in the house I will be more than happy to grab my cellphone and just climb out a window. No need for me to start a confrontation over just stuff. If a loved one was in the house with me I would just move furniture in the way of the door.
1/02/2012 4:56pm, #14
From a UK source:
For a homeowner it is legal to stab a burglar and within the law MP Ken Clarke has confirmed that reasonable force can include weapons such as a knife cricket bat or baseball bat and they may be used in self defence of yourself and your family if you were confronted by a criminal in your own home, or if you are on the streets, you may be able to reasonably use a nearby item to defend yourself.
"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.
"We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”
Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."
It appears your premise is incorrect, and you should note how all of those weapons are categorized together.
Last edited by ChenPengFi; 1/02/2012 5:03pm at . Reason: added quote
1/02/2012 5:44pm, #15
Deadly force in the UK:
deadly force as defined by Geller and Scott (23) pertains to the force reasonably capable of causing death or bodily harm.
1/02/2012 5:46pm, #16
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
if you there's enough space, bat.
if it's too narrow to swing, knife.
also if you have carpet, bat.
1/02/2012 5:52pm, #17
Ok last one, GBH under UK law:
Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is really serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to really serious harm include:
* injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement;
* broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull, compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
* serious psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury
In accordance with the recommendation in R v McCready (1978) 1 WLR 1376, if there is any reliable evidence that a sufficiently serious wound has been inflicted, then the charge under section 20 should be of unlawful wounding, rather than of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which part of section 20 more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence.
The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter  1 A.C 699).
Note broken bones and psychiatric injury apply as well.
Further, as an unlawful act, this would not apply to self defense.
Know your local laws!
1/02/2012 6:13pm, #18
As for the definitions of GBH you've posted, in practice a broken cheekbone usually comes under actual bodily harm, not grievous bodily harm, and psychological harm is very unlikely to stick.
Also, the S.20 you're referring to in the part you're quoting wouldn't be applicable to the S.18 offence which would be applicable to a knife wound if your self-defence argument failed. Your assumption that the action is automatically lawful because of the nature of you defending your house is heavily reliant on the jury accepting that your actions were proportionate to the reasonably perceived threat. It is this part which is more influenced by the type of weapon used and the resulting injury - ie. a knife wound is not a proportionate response to the threat of unarmed violence unless you are particularly vulnerable, such as the old lady in your earlier quote.
Last edited by MMAMickey; 1/02/2012 6:19pm at ."The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero projects his fear onto his opponent while the coward runs. 'Fear'. It's the same thing, but it's what you do with it that matters". - Cus D'Amato
1/02/2012 6:15pm, #19
Wrong, in a home defense both are legal yet both are deadly force and both can cause GBH.
Legal hairsplitting confirmed.
Edit: Pls go read the entire thread again.
I'm getting out of here (office) for the day, "Sun is shining and the weather is sweet."
Hauoli makahiki hou...
neighborhood weather cam:
Last edited by ChenPengFi; 1/02/2012 6:25pm at .
1/02/2012 6:34pm, #20
If I had to choose, I'd say the bat.
However, the few times that I've heard suspicious noises outside or my wife has been startled, sent me out to check on things - I've grabbed my staff.
Indoors though, as another poster pointed out, you need to choose based on the size of your place, width of hallways etc." If one wants to have a friend one must also want to wage war for him: and to wage war one must be capable of being an enemy." - Fr. Nietzsche 'On The Friend' Thus Spake Zarathustra