• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Is It Illegal To Embed Glass In Your Wall To Deter Would-Be Intruders?

I strongly recommend reading the whole article, which gives a fuller account of the terrifying incident, but here’s a brief summary...

That's a fair enough counter-example - although, it's pretty clearly an outlier in regard to such cases.

The latter factor makes me wonder about specifics: The courts may have determined that a factor of five against one - even when the one was in a frenzy - made the use of an offensive weapon excessive (and the jury may have agreed with them). And also, how and when the wounds were caused (e.g. was the attacker restrained or on the ground when the stabbing occurred) may have been a factor.

We're viewing the incident through an overview of it's consequences, without precise information in regard to the events that led to those consequences - and that might change the overall tone somewhat.

Edit: Seems the deceased was stabbed in the back. Press reports claim all five wounds were to the back - although one legal opinion piece suggests this was the case in only one of the wounds. Whatever the case, I suspect that this was the aggravating factor. Statements made by the judge at the end of the case suggest that there was a bit more going on - but I can't find court reports that might indicate what those factors were. (There was a similar case a couple of years earlier where a claim of self-defence was effectively rejected - the dead man having been stabbed 12 times in the back.)
 
Last edited:
That's a fair enough counter-example - although, it's pretty clearly an outlier in regard to such cases.

The latter factor makes me wonder about specifics: The courts may have determined that a factor of five against one - even when the one was in a frenzy - made the use of an offensive weapon excessive (and the jury may have agreed with them). And also, how and when the wounds were caused (e.g. was the attacker restrained or on the ground when the stabbing occurred) may have been a factor.

We're viewing the incident through an overview of it's consequences, without precise information in regard to the events that led to those consequences - and that might change the overall tone somewhat.

Edit: Seems the deceased was stabbed in the back. Press reports claim all five wounds were to the back - although one legal opinion piece suggests this was the case in only one of the wounds. Whatever the case, I suspect that this was the aggravating factor. Statements made by the judge at the end of the case suggest that there was a bit more going on - but I can't find court reports that might indicate what those factors were. (There was a similar case a couple of years earlier where a claim of self-defence was effectively rejected - the dead man having been stabbed 12 times in the back.)

I've always cherished the wise words of an American judge of many years ago in a self-defence case:

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Brown v. United States

maximus otter
 
Thing is, every defensive action - even those understandable in the 'heat of the moment' - must be proportionate.
Hit them 'till they stop. Don't keep hitting them until they are dead.
 
Thing is, every defensive action - even those understandable in the 'heat of the moment' - must be proportionate.
Hit them 'till they stop. Don't keep hitting them until they are dead.

Minor problem: The accused in the case l quoted above had killed the attacker, he just hadn’t fallen over yet. He was entirely capable of inflicting serious injury or death on his victims even after having suffered mortal injuries.

maximus otter
 
Each case should be seen on its own merits.
The case you quoted above was quite different from someone committing overkill.
 
The case you quoted above was quite different from someone committing overkill.

The attacker had been stabbed five times, yet still presented a terrifying prospect to the police when they eventually attended, despite being mortally wounded.

Under those circumstances, it could well be argued that the defendant would have been entitled to continue stabbing him until the threat was obviously past. Yet he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

maximus otter
 
I've always cherished the wise words of an American judge of many years ago in a self-defence case:

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."...

Granted, but you'd think that having taken a gun to a knife fight might have helped a little bit.

English law (and I suspect it's the same in the US) does not demand anything like 'detached reflection' in such circumstances - that's pure courtroom rhetoric. In fact 'heat of the moment' is actually part of the qualification for self-defence in England - and that's literally the opposite of detached reflection.

...You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or others if a crime is taking place inside your home.

This means you can:

protect yourself ‘in the heat of the moment’ - this includes using an object as a weapon
Source - UK.GOV

...You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon...
Source: PDF Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service.

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
Source - CPS Self Defence and the Prevention of Crime

In England, such cases seem to boil down to: How you reached that moment (was it genuinely out of the blue - or had you prepared for it in some way, or actively moved towards that moment); whether the force you use is in proportion to that used against you, or that you reasonably believe might be used against you; whether you extend that moment beyond the moment.

Thing is, every defensive action - even those understandable in the 'heat of the moment' - must be proportionate.
Hit them 'till they stop. Don't keep hitting them until they are dead.

Yes:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."
Source - CPS Self Defence and the Prevention of Crime
 
Here's a photo of a wall at a school in my town, once upon a time it was topped with broken glass, now nice friendly sharp metal things. thumbnail.jpg
 

Attachments

  • thumbnail.jpg
    thumbnail.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 8
  • thumbnail1.jpg
    thumbnail1.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 8
Here's a photo of a wall at a school in my town, once upon a time it was topped with broken glass, now nice friendly sharp metal things. View attachment 71549
The sharp metal things are usually plastic and they spin around to stop an intruder getting a hand hold.

we used to put them above our hoardings and around the tower cranes where the trap door is sited. Stops people climbing up the outside of the crane to bypass the trap door.
 
The sharp metal things are usually plastic and they spin around to stop an intruder getting a hand hold.
ah ha! I thought it might be something like that. Thanks for the info.
 
Back
Top