Just a general topic for discussion here, since some people have expressed opinions I find difficult to understand in another related thread.

I'll start this off with a quote, although i'm not sure who first uttered it.

"It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

So, what do people think self-defence is, when are you and when are you not allowed to use force, and what level of force can you use.

I already believe I know the answers to these questions, from a legal viewpoint anyway.

If an agressor is attempting to kick 7 shades of sh*te out of you then you're perfectly entitled to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, me personally if someone was having a go at me I'd kick his bloody arse and ask questions later.

Reasonable force is up in the air. It's all down to the judge, jury and how good your lawyer is.

Hurting them enough that they stop whatever they're doing is probably a good rule of thumb :P

To me self defense is the avoidance or interruption of a physical attack.

It is a lot easier to stop, think and walk/run away from a problem than to physically combat your way out of it if you can.

If you can't then justified force is another option.

"Justified Force" is so hard to define.

On the one hand you have the farmer sent down for shooting intruders; and on the other I recall a case where a couple were attacked by a burglar and they lamped the guy senseless as they were both martial artists who competed on an international level.

In the first case it was argued that the farmer slept with the loaded gun and waited for the intruder to come within range and then shot him, thus his actions were premeditated and had deadly consequences.

In the second, a judge threw out the burglar's attempt to prosecute the couple for assault as he ruled that they were defending themselves and the assualt would not have taken place if he had no entered their property in the first place.

Could it be that self-defence is constituted only by an action taken in response to a percieved threat that results in a non-lethal effort to subdue the assailant?

Walking or running away still seems to be the best option if you're being attacked or accosted in the street.

What ever happened to running away screaming like a girl? It's one of my best moves. :thumbsup:

There is a difference between protecting yourself in an unprovoked attack, and getting into a fight. Also, once the person has stopped attacking you, if you carry on using force, it's hardly defending yourself.

Shooting unarmed robbers is hardly defence either... its just a psycho... :loopy:

Originally posted by Carmine
"Justified Force" is so hard to define.


Could it be that self-defence is constituted only by an action taken in response to a percieved threat that results in a non-lethal effort to subdue the assailant?

Walking or running away still seems to be the best option if you're being attacked or accosted in the street.

I agree with you, but would say that justified force would be an action taken in response to an actual threat that results in a non lethal effort to block the assailant.

Well as far as the law goes (Criminal Law Act 1967 s3), it would appear that if you are accused of say murder, and you want to base your defence on self defence for a full acquittal you will need to demonstrate:

That you did not bring about the situation yourself (provocation)

That you were forced to act to protect yourself (necessity). This means that if you anticipate an attack and strike first in self defence, you will need to specifically demonstrate that you were about to be attacked.

That you did not use excessive force and that your response was proportional to the threat. This quality of "reasonable force" is unquantifiable and is most open to interpretation.

On one hand it is taken to mean that you might be in trouble if you shoot a rowdy drunk waving his fists at you, even though you could probably demonstrate an iminent and unprovoked attack, and therefore claim self defence, your defence would collapse on the grounds of reasonable force not being used.

On the other hand it is taken to mean that you may only use force for self defence and not extend it to the point of retribution and punishment. For example, if you knocked a burglar out with a baseball bat, and then tied him to a chair and carried on bludgeoning him with it for another two hours, you would probably be convicted.

Additionally any tests of necessity or reasonableness/proportionality would depend on the facts as reported to the court, and not what you believed the facts to be at the time.

In all this, there is also case law that shows battered wives who have been released from the obligation to show a specific an iminent attack in order to plead self defence.

(thanks to the kent law school for that)

If I am been attacked (it has happend) the last thing I do is stop to think about the legal ramifications. Instinct alone should make you "fight or take flight" and with the adreniline kicking in your unlikely to make sound decisions with respect to "reasonable force".

re: Tony Martin (the farmer) he shot the pair of them in the back. Difficult to argue that you're in danger from a pair of people running away from you!

Phan, I was under the impression that you had to prove to the court that it was the situation as you truly believed it to be at the time. Ie, you surprise a burglar in your house and see what you believe to be a hammer in his hand, so you use lethal force (reasonable as a hammer is a deadly weapon), and it later turns out to be a flashlight.

Also, there were several mentionings of "non lethal", that's not a requirement, it could be that reasonable is lethal. Although you would have to argue that in court and convince the jury that you believed your life to be threatened, ie you were being attacked with a knife.

I'm all for the running away option when it is an option, and also for the handing over the wallet option if your being mugged.

One thing that's not been mentioned is that you can act in self defence if you are defending also your property or someone else.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Phan, I was under the impression that you had to prove to the court that it was the situation as you truly believed it to be at the time. Ie, you surprise a burglar in your house and see what you believe to be a hammer in his hand, so you use lethal force (reasonable as a hammer is a deadly weapon), and it later turns out to be a flashlight.
.

You're right - I got it backwards.

I knew there was a reason my client was convicted....

When defending yourself you must stay within the bounds of the law and reasonable behaviour. You should only fight to the level of your opponent, If they are unarmed then you should be unarmed but if they use a weapon then reason allows you the same option. My own philosophy on the street is that I only mess with people to the level they mess with me. All rules have their exceptions and this one is no different. If you are ambushed and seriously losing a conflict then reasonable behaviour is altered to include survival. There is only one rule for survival and that is you are allowed to do everything possible to ensure yours. Obviously once you've lost your survival the only recourse is spiritual - which means coming back and haunting your killer! ;)

As I said to stay within the bounds of the law you are allowed to use reasonable force in your defence. What is deemed reasonable is relative to the scale of the attack; You can't club someone who dishes an insult your way in a bar, it is just not reasonable. This must be considered when your involved in a situation because to the eyes of the law it could means the difference between you having your freedom and not having your freedom.

To the ears of the law threats like "I'm gonna kill you *******" are taken seriously, so if you utter such predictions and then manage to fulfil them you are in serious trouble.

But would a 25st burglar cornering an 8st householder give the householder recourse to arm themselves with (and use) a weapon in order to balance out the weight/strength advantage? Considering of course that the 25st punch would probably kill the householder, whereas the 8st punch would only 'tickle' the burglar.

Yeah, I think so, likewise if they were the same size as you but you believed them to be martial arts experts or something.

Originally posted by markham
But would a 25st burglar cornering an 8st householder give the householder recourse to arm themselves with (and use) a weapon in order to balance out the weight/strength advantage? Considering of course that the 25st punch would probably kill the householder, whereas the 8st punch would only 'tickle' the burglar.

That's if a 25st burglar can find a window big enough to climb through. :D

If someone is a martial arts expert, aren't their hands classed as deadly weapons by the law... like boxers?

That's it then, I now suspect any burglar to be a black belt in origano or whatever. That'll teach 'em!:help:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

On the other hand it is taken to mean that you may only use force for self defence and not extend it to the point of retribution and punishment. For example, if you knocked a burglar out with a baseball bat, and then tied him to a chair and carried on bludgeoning him with it for another two hours, you would probably be convicted.

You are not allowed to use a baseball bat on a burglar unless [s]he threatens you with physical violence. I think to be safe in the current PC climate you should demand the burglar should quit the premises, but a refusal is still not a threat to violence and using the baseball bat amounts to "taking the law into your own hands".

Judges are naturally jealous of their powers of punishment over criminal offenders and any perceived usurpation of that power by ordinary citizens is certain to meet with severe approbation. And of course the burglar you bashed with the baseball bat can sue the pants off you and will likely have the full sympathy of the judge.

you are allowed to use reasonable force to eject someone from your premises if they are there illegally. That wouldn't normally include a baseball bat though.

The thing about the comment works the other way though, if they've said they're going to kill you, and you believe it (ie, it's not an 8 year old child or someones grandmother) then you can react to that percieved level of threat.

Phan, no need to be like that, I only said that that's what I thought. If i'm wrong then the law requires us to have perfect knowledge of the situation in a world where nothign is perfect. Erring on the side of caution in that situation could keep you out of jail, but 6 feet under the ground.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Phan, no need to be like that, I only said that that's what I thought. If i'm wrong then the law requires us to have perfect knowledge of the situation in a world where nothign is perfect. Erring on the side of caution in that situation could keep you out of jail, but 6 feet under the ground.

Hehe sorry Cyclone, a string fulla smilies should have followed my last post. After reading yours (re:necessity and proportionality) I checked my source and discovered that I really did have it totally backwards; I put it down to trying to read dense legalese.

As I read it you are correct, and if you believed it was a hammer and not a torch for example, you're probably OK having lamped him (unless the prosecution suddenly reveal you to be a hammer silhouette expert or something).

Originally posted by Snook
If someone is a martial arts expert, aren't their hands classed as deadly weapons by the law... like boxers?

Nah - thats an urban myth (for martial artists and boxers!) However a jury will take into account any martial arts experience you may have and can make the assumption that someone with martial arts training should be able to safely incapacitate a dozen armed attacker a la the last crappy martial arts film they saw!

thanks Phan, I got that information from several different police officers in the first place, so I was hoping they weren't wrong.

I agree completely with evildrneil. The biggest danger as someone who has trained in anything is that the jury will most likely not understand and will assume that you are some sort of combat machine. And also that you should have perfect control, so instead of seriously injuring someone, you should have had the control to just lightly damage and then restrain them, despite them attacking you with a chainsaw...

It's the job of a good solicitor to convince them that training doesn't give you that level of skill and that your actions were still perfectly reasonable.

I started this thread after I'd opened a thread about being assualted and defending myself in the bus station. i won't go into details again, my other half didn't want me to discuss it and she was bothered by some of the very negative opinions in that thread.
It's interesting to see that when it's more generalised no-one has come up with the same points.

I will respect your request not to discuss your previous thread but I do beg to differ that anything I have posted on this thread is different to your last.

No offense intended.

I've read this thread but none similar. I am of the opinion that you can assume during any assault on one's person or property that it is likely you are under some sort of threat, whether real or perceived. Personally I would always say I felt my life to be in danger if I was being burgled as you have no clear indicators of the burglars intention. It is my contention therefore that if you must use force, use enough force to stop your assailant in their tracks. An injured animal is the most dangerous one therefore you should aim to incapacitate your asaillant as quickly as possible. Their actions from this point onwards will determine whether you are able to take appropriate action like call the police, i.e. if they turn to leave then I'd call the police, if they sit there holding their injuries and offer no further aggression I'd call the police but if they stand up to face me I'm gonna knock them down with the largest heaviest object I can find until they won't get up again. If someone is burgling my house, they have no right to be there and in my mind have given up all their human rights on breaking into my home!

Agreed osiris.

The moment they step outside the law, in my eyes, they lose the protection of the law.

Yes ok, I know, that's not how it works (for some stupid reason), but that's how it ought to work.:mad:

Originally posted by Greybeard


Judges are naturally jealous of their powers of punishment over criminal offenders and any perceived usurpation of that power by ordinary citizens is certain to meet with severe approbation. And of course the burglar you bashed with the baseball bat can sue the pants off you and will likely have the full sympathy of the judge.

Too true, but it will probably be the same gormless judge who made it possible for the burglar to be out there reoffending again, and again, and again................

I say hammer the scum, then put a weapon in their hand.

PS,

Don't quote me.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by markham
Too true, but it will probably be the same gormless judge who made it possible for the burglar to be out there reoffending again, and again, and again................

I say hammer the scum, then put a weapon in their hand.

PS,

Don't quote me.:rolleyes:

HERE HERE!!!! They took that risk when they entered your home!