The right to defend yourself.

[K1Machine 10]

Do children have a right to self defense?

Example. One teenager walks up to another teenager and hits them in the face. The victim then uses (in my opinion) reasonable force and hits the attacker back once and only once then walks away.

Are both teenagers in the wrong?

What are your thoughts?

[woodview 10]

As far as I know their age is irrelevant.

You are entitled to use 'reasonable force' to protect yourself.

If the attacked person reasonably believed that if he didn't hit back, he would come under further attack, then I'd say it was reasonable.

In theory you could kill the other person, if it was the only way to stop them from murdering you or another person.

I'd suggest looking CPS website for detailed info though.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Yes both are.

 

The second teenager is not defending themselves. If they have the ability to walk away after the hit the other person back they also have the choice to walk away after they have been hit.

 

It is not self defence, it is a revenge attack.

[K1Machine 10]

35 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Yes both are.

 

The second teenager is not defending themselves. If they have the ability to walk away after the hit the other person back they also have the choice to walk away after they have been hit.

 

It is not self defence, it is a revenge attack.

My op was typed in a rush so my apologies for the lack of information.

To be clearer. The only reason the victim was able to walk away was because the attack was stopped by the victim. The  attacker is also much larger and stronger than the victim and she was scared he was going to hit her again. He also verbally abused her using her special needs as an insult. This is something that she has to live with and cannot change but does her best to overcome but it does make her a target for abuse.

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by K1Machine
Typed in a rush...More info added.

[tinfoilhat 11]

8 minutes ago, K1Machine said:

My op was typed in a rush so my apologies for the lack of information.

To be clearer. The only reason the victim was able to walk away was because the attack was stopped by the victim. The male attacker is also much larger than the female victim and she was scared he was going to hit her again.

 

I don’t think the last bit matters much. If the female victim thought another punch was  coming then yeah, I don’t think the law would mind. But I’m not a lawyer.

[Flanker7 20]

The sex of the parties is not  strictly of much relavance.

However,  if there is a difference of ability to respond, wether by size or ability, the victim can take  more extreme measures.

There's some  arcane  case law about an old man running someone through with a sword, not guilty.

[K1Machine 10]

1 minute ago, Flanker7 said:

The sex of the parties is not  strictly of much relavance.

However,  if there is a difference of ability to respond, wether by size or ability, the victim can take  more extreme measures.

There's some  arcane  case law about an old man running someone through with a sword, not guilty.

My only reason for mentioning sex was to show a size and strength difference . I could have just explained that better but I was cooking dinner and trying to multitask. Not my strongest point lol. Ill be editing as soon as I have replied to your post.

 

[woodview 10]

44 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Yes both are.

 

The second teenager is not defending themselves. If they have the ability to walk away after the hit the other person back they also have the choice to walk away after they have been hit.

 

It is not self defence, it is a revenge attack.

What is to stop the attacker punching the victim again? The knowledge that they will be hit back, as they were after they instigated the attack. Was she just supposed to try to deflect his blows?

If the sequence of events is like the OP states, I can't see the Police taking any action. CPS either, and would be thrown out of court too.

Edited January 29, 2019 by woodview

[phil752 10]

1 hour ago, K1Machine said:

Do children have a right to self defense?

Example. One teenager walks up to another teenager and hits them in the face. The victim then uses (in my opinion) reasonable force and hits the attacker back once and only once then walks away.

Are both teenagers in the wrong?

What are your thoughts?

Is this a real life event?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

18 minutes ago, woodview said:

What is to stop the attacker punching the victim again?

We don't know, but the defendant would have to convince a court that they not only were sure that this would happen but also that the only option was to hit back including an explanation as to why they didn't take the option to run away.

 

 

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Do unto others what they do to you, but do it twice as much.

 

Angel1. 

[woodview 10]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We don't know, but the defendant would have to convince a court that they not only were sure that this would happen but also that the only option was to hit back including an explanation as to why they didn't take the option to run away.

 

 

No, neither does the girl under attack.

It wouldn't even pass the first officer investigating it. She had reasonable cause to believe she would be hit again and hit him back in self defence.

Just now, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Do unto others what they do to you, but do it twice as much.

 

Angel1. 

The law might not see it that way.......... But she is entitled to use reasonable force to defend herself, which she did.