hi, i've got a problem with legal definitions so wondered if anyone could help.

in a self defence situation you're legally allowed to use minimum necessary force but like what does that mean really?
do you have to calculate how many Newtons you generate, F=ma, whilst trying to defend yourself?

how many Newtons is excessive?

It's a totally grey area, as is virtually every law that defines anything as 'reasonable' as there's no way of predicting what someone else considers 'reasonable' (as an example, the Disability Discrimination Act expects people to make 'reasonable' adjustments to their building to enable people with disabilities to use the building- what one person thinks is reasonable is not necessarily the same as what another person thinks).

Your allowed to use any force required, but not excessive.

You are not obliged to use the minimum necessary.

There is no absolute explanation of what this means. Ultimately you may have to convince a jury that the actions you took were consistent with what a reasonal person would have done. If you convince them, then you're not convincted, if you don't then it was excessive.

As a couple of examples, if you are attacked by a single person, similar size to you who hits you, and you pull out a bazooka and blow him up, that's excessive. Equally, if you pull out a knife and knife him 27 times, that's excessive.

If you are attacked by someoen with a knife who you believe to be trying to kill you, and you hit them with a convenient 2*4, that's reasonable.
If you break their arm and then restrain them, that's reasonble.
If you break their arm and then proceed to give them a bloody good hiding and/or stab them with their own knife, it's become assault as you were no longer in any danger.

Using reasonable force means that you have to make a judgement call as to what is reasonable, and that it should be one that is consistent with what the average person would make.

I'd say whatever it takes to 'breakaway' from the situation & get help or to a place of safety.

part of my problem is thinking about eye-strikes: obviously it require less force to pop an attackers eyes than say slug it out and overpower your assailant with fistycuffs or wrestling.
in this case wouldn't using the lesser force method cause more legal wrangling over the word 'excessive'?

part of my problem is thinking about eye-strikes: obviously it require less force to pop an attackers eyes than say slug it out and overpower your assailant with fistycuffs or wrestling.
in this case wouldn't using the lesser force method cause more legal wrangling over the word 'excessive'?

If you have reason to believe your life is in danger, then jabbing him in the eye, or elbowing him in the throat, are perfectly legitimate tactics to defend yourself. In the case of an elbow to the throat, there's a fair chance you'll kill him, but that does not make it excessive. You HAVE to put him out of commission, and if that causes him to die, so be it. If you put him out of commission and *continue* to use force against him, then you're in trouble.

In general, any single blow or strike is not going to land you in jail. (It might land you in court because the police might take a dim view of it, but no jury is going to convict you for hitting an assailant ONCE, no matter how hard.)

If you're confident you can jab someone in the eye and temporarily blind him to put him out of action, that's a perfectly acceptable tactic. Just don't do both eyes - one is probably enough.

heyesey, your penultimate sentence is ambiguous: is it confidence about jabbing someone in the eye coz if you can hit them in the face, taking an eye is no great skill.
also popping someones eyes isn't a temporary thing and is more or less a 'game over' technique (although there may be some remarkable individuals who can fight on).

part of my problem is thinking about eye-strikes: obviously it require less force to pop an attackers eyes than say slug it out and overpower your assailant with fistycuffs or wrestling.
in this case wouldn't using the lesser force method cause more legal wrangling over the word 'excessive'?

Ever tried it, for real?

Eyes are suprisingly resilient.

Not to mention they are very small targets that you are trying to hit accurately against a resisting opponent whilst dealing with a whole load of adrenalin that you aren't used to.
Fine motor control is gone, your vision narrows down, most of your higher brain effectively shuts down, they're trying to hit you, or stab your or something, you're trying to not get hurt and to defend yourself.

Still think you can jab an finger in their eye?

If you said yes, you're probably kidding yourself.

heyesey, your penultimate sentence is ambiguous: is it confidence about jabbing someone in the eye coz if you can hit them in the face, taking an eye is no great skill.


*I* wouldn't be confident about jabbing someone in the eye; I'd probably hit their cheek bone and get pulverized. But if you think you can hit that target, yes, I'd say it was legitimate. If someone is assaulting you, your duty is to disable them as quickly as possible.

part of my problem is thinking about eye-strikes: obviously it require less force to pop an attackers eyes than say slug it out and overpower your assailant with fistycuffs or wrestling.
in this case wouldn't using the lesser force method cause more legal wrangling over the word 'excessive'?

Err...I've got to ask...what have you done to create this sudden interest?

hi cyclone, i see where you're coming from(i think) but as i'm normally under stress (flash backs) and often do -extremely carefully- end up putting my fingers in peoples eyes there is a possibility that i might be able to target an eye.
i have never actually popped an eye so i still need empirical data on that one: if i ever do i'll pm you.

When I was a teenager I attended a self-defence course for women. It was run by a police officer, and the emphasis of the course was that especially if you were smaller and less powerful than your attacker, it could take a concerted effort to get out of someone's grasp, and that effort ran the risk of seriously hurting your assailant, but it was OK to run the risk of hurting them as an alternative to them hurting you.

This was, of course, before the Tony Martin case- I have no idea how self defence classes promote protecting yourself in a climate of letigiousness.

hi tomataheeed, its not a sudden interest thing just one of those unanswered questions i've not been able to work out so thought i'd ask.

When I was a teenager I attended a self-defence course for women. It was run by a police officer, and the emphasis of the course was that especially if you were smaller and less powerful than your attacker, it could take a concerted effort to get out of someone's grasp, and that effort ran the risk of seriously hurting your assailant, but it was OK to run the risk of hurting them as an alternative to them hurting you.

This was, of course, before the Tony Martin case- I have no idea how self defence classes promote protecting yourself in a climate of letigiousness.

I think the Tony Martin case was unusual in that it involved firearms. My neighbour had no trouble or come back when he was burgled, and he hit the burglar with a step ladder, pushed him over the bannisters down the stairs, and stood on him till the police arrived.....all whilst he was naked !

When I was a teenager I attended a self-defence course for women. It was run by a police officer, and the emphasis of the course was that especially if you were smaller and less powerful than your attacker, it could take a concerted effort to get out of someone's grasp, and that effort ran the risk of seriously hurting your assailant, but it was OK to run the risk of hurting them as an alternative to them hurting you.

This was, of course, before the Tony Martin case- I have no idea how self defence classes promote protecting yourself in a climate of letigiousness.

Tony Martin used an illegally held firearm to shoot two men in the back who were trying to climb out of a window to get away from him.
It hardly falls within the definition of self defence, hence why he was convicted.

I think the key to remember is that you can't use more than reasonable force (which isn't saying that you must use a minimum).

hi cyclone whether you say reasonable or minimum the point is..... what the heck does it really mean?

hi cyclone whether you say reasonable or minimum the point is..... what the heck does it really mean?

Well, there's the rub. There is no final definition, it all depends on circumstances. In some cases, bashing someone upsides the head with a breezeblock would be reasonable force; in others, it would get you a conviction for murder.


Ultimately, if you can persuade the jury that (a) you genuinely believed you were using no more than necessary force, and (b) you weren't massively overestimating what was needed, then you will not be convicted of any crime.

surely allowing for technique bashing one person up the head with a breeze block would be the same(or comparable) force as bashing anyone else up the head with a same mass of breeze block.

edit bit: is there like points for artistic merit?

surely allowing for technique bashing one person up the head with a breeze block would be the same(or comparable) force as bashing anyone else up the head with a same mass of breeze block.


It would depend on how much of a threat the assailant was; killing someone because he was trying to steal a fiver is probably going to land you in trouble. Killing someone because he was trying to rape you, or because you genuinely believed your life was at risk (he's got a knife, say) and I, for one, would give you a commendation, not a conviction.

Yeah, it's all about the perceived level of risk to yourself. Hence my earlier examples about someone punching you, and someone trying to stab you.
A fist fight isn't really threatening your life, so it's unreasonable to kill someone for it, a knife is a very real threat to your life and a killing them is proportionate.

so it's not a force thing then but about how convincingly you make your statement that you believed something?

Both are part of it. The amount of force you used and how convincing you can be in front of a jury.

so it's not a force thing then but about how convincingly you make your statement that you believed something?

I think it is more that the prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were acting with 'malice aforethought'.

Providing you tell the truth in court I don't think there's a jury that would convict you - if you were genuinely in fear of your life (as anyone would be if they discovered a robber in their house at night).

so... in other words you could use a 'lesser force option' and still find yourself legally in hot water : thats a bit of a head****!

edit bit: that was comeback to cyclones comments

phanerothyme would the 'in fear of your life' thing apply to say a vietnam vet who could at any time be reacting to percieved threat levels that non traumatised individuals just wouldn't find taxing?

phanerothyme would the 'in fear of your life' thing apply to say a vietnam vet who could at any time be reacting to percieved threat levels that non traumatised individuals just wouldn't find taxing?

I reckon so.

phanerothyme my thinking was along the lines of using deadly force on someone who just stopped you to ask the time which was perceived as the start of a life threatening attack.

just as an afterthought: wouldn't reasonable force be pointless if you had a belief that your life was under serious threat?

The test is that your actions would be considered reasonable by an average person.

Killing someone who wasn't even attacking you would probably result in either a conviction, or if you pleaded diminshed responsibility in compulsory psychiatric help in a secure facility.

phanerothyme my thinking was along the lines of using deadly force on someone who just stopped you to ask the time which was perceived as the start of a life threatening attack.

I'm with cyclone on this. If you death-chopped someone for asking you the time, I'd want you banged up in a secure facility of some kind.

just as an afterthought: wouldn't reasonable force be pointless if you had a belief that your life was under serious threat?

reasonable in that case might be the maximum force you can apply.

But the law doesn't just cover life threatening situations, it covers all situations where you might need to use force to defend yourself.

cyclone, this doesn't really help as how can one know what is reasonable to another person? especially in a court room away from the time of delivery of the force? there seems to be no quantifiable description of reasonable force BEFOREHAND to act as a guideline.

cyclone, this doesn't really help as how can one know what is reasonable to another person? especially in a court room away from the time of delivery of the force? there seems to be no quantifiable description of reasonable force BEFOREHAND to act as a guideline.

You're right, there isn't.


This is one reason why we have juries; if a panel of twelve people all agree that it was completely unreasonable, then it very probably WAS unreasonable. There's just no way to put down a definitive mark that would hold in all possible circumstances: each case is dealt with on its own merits; what the assailant's actually already done, what he can reasonable be expected to do, what state of stress you're under, how much time you have to think through your reactions, etc. etc.

It's (moderately) simple to read about a specific instance of force used in self-defence, and say "yes that was perfectly reasonable" or "no, that's just wrong." But it's impossible to generalize.

cyclone, this doesn't really help as how can one know what is reasonable to another person? especially in a court room away from the time of delivery of the force? there seems to be no quantifiable description of reasonable force BEFOREHAND to act as a guideline.

Unless your pretty unsual, reasonable to you will probably be pretty close to reasonable for most other people.

There's an a lot of law that requires a degree of interpretation, you can't specify a level of force for every possible situation, it's just not possible, so the word reasonable is used instead.
It's just the same as dangerous driving. It's not clear what 'dangerous' means and is open to interpretation in court.

i can go along with me being pretty unusual. i just ask questions and when i find the answers coming back are not logically consistent or vague or ambivalent i ask more questions as i suspect the people i'm dealing with have faults in their reasoning.

this kind of leads me to fear being judged by people whose reasoning may be biased due to their prejudices, tastes, lack of experience.

so the reasonable force thing seems to not be about force, sometimes about and sometimes not about the defenders perception of threat, and a lot to do with an unknown group of people who may have all kinds of strange ideas about the effects of your force.
hmmm tricky one to get my schizoid mind around. nothing concrete to act as a guideline at all.