Jump to content

The right to defend yourself.

Recommended Posts

On 29/01/2019 at 21:42, K1Machine said:

Yes it is unfortunately.

Then there must be more to the query, you must have more information. i will say you are allowed to defend your self, that as  others have said, wrongly,  it does not mean running away, neither does it mean going zombie on a attacker. However you have been wittiness in the first person to a individual  committing a crime. You are empowered by reasonable force to detain the person till police arrive much the same force as a PCO  has, indeed you have the same powers as a police officer. except the police have powers to detain before and after a fact, whilst a person can only  do it during.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, phil752 said:

Then there must be more to the query, you must have more information. i will say you are allowed to defend your self, that as  others have said, wrongly,  it does not mean running away, neither does it mean going zombie on a attacker. However you have been wittiness in the first person to a individual  committing a crime. You are empowered by reasonable force to detain the person till police arrive much the same force as a PCO  has, indeed you have the same powers as a police officer. except the police have powers to detain before and after a fact, whilst a person can only  do it during.

My bold.

Yes I do have more information but I am limited to what I can post as I want to protect the privacy of the child involved. If there is something specific you would like to know then just ask and Ill answer if I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, K1Machine said:

My bold.

Yes I do have more information but I am limited to what I can post as I want to protect the privacy of the child involved. If there is something specific you would like to know then just ask and Ill answer if I can.

all i have said, if some one is wittiness to a crime  she he has the same powers to detain the subject as a police officer, as long as it is witnessed in the first person, that is is to say not before or after. For example if you see someone with a brick, no power. If you see the same person running form a broken window, no action. If you actually see the brick leaving is shes hand and breaking the window, you have the same empowerment in law as a police officer. As i said not before not after but during, so if you are punch it is during and you are empowered to restrain with reasonable force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phil752 said:

all i have said, if some one is wittiness to a crime  she he has the same powers to detain the subject as a police officer, as long as it is witnessed in the first person, that is is to say not before or after. For example if you see someone with a brick, no power. If you see the same person running form a broken window, no action. If you actually see the brick leaving is shes hand and breaking the window, you have the same empowerment in law as a police officer. As i said not before not after but during, so if you are punch it is during and you are empowered to restrain with reasonable force.

I must be thick or something as I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The thread is about an unprovoked attack on a young girl with learning difficulties and her rights of self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, K1Machine said:

I must be thick or something as I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The thread is about an unprovoked attack on a young girl with learning difficulties and her rights of self defense.

and i don under stand what, you thread seeks,  i have given the ish law, if you are attacked its a crime in  the first part and you have witnessed it, you are allowed to take reasonable force to detain the suspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phil752 said:

and i don under stand what, you thread seeks,  i have given the ish law, if you are attacked its a crime in  the first part and you have witnessed it, you are allowed to take reasonable force to detain the suspect?

Mate, read the OP or stop drinking as its seems you might have trouble holding your booze. Either that or your on the troll.

I never witnessed a thing and never said I witnessed anything. Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, K1Machine said:

Mate, read the OP or stop drinking as its seems you might have trouble holding your booze. Either that or your on the troll.

I never witnessed a thing and never said I witnessed anything. Ok?

i guess your first post was just a  what? you said some one was attracted and fought back. I guess it was just a spoof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phil752 said:

i guess your first post was just a  what? you said some one was attracted and fought back. I guess it was just a spoof

Attracted?

Now I know you are drunk. You and I are done my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, K1Machine said:

Attracted?

Now I know you are drunk. You and I are done my friend.

sorry for one Ive tried good look if the simple spelling mistake sparks you off, if the girl is is a family member you seem to have a  habit of biting the hand that tries to help. Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phil752 said:

all i have said, if some one is wittiness to a crime  she he has the same powers to detain the subject as a police officer, as long as it is witnessed in the first person, that is is to say not before or after. For example if you see someone with a brick, no power. If you see the same person running form a broken window, no action. If you actually see the brick leaving is shes hand and breaking the window, you have the same empowerment in law as a police officer. As i said not before not after but during, so if you are punch it is during and you are empowered to restrain with reasonable force.

I think you've really got the wrong end of the stick if you're wanting a bullied child to make a citizen's arrest for assault on a larger child when they're the one being assaulted!

4 hours ago, phil752 said:

and i don under stand what, you thread seeks,  i have given the ish law, if you are attacked its a crime in  the first part and you have witnessed it, you are allowed to take reasonable force to detain the suspect?

No you haven't, you started talking about arrest, not self defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phil752 said:

and i don under stand what, you thread seeks,  i have given the ish law, if you are attacked its a crime in  the first part and you have witnessed it, you are allowed to take reasonable force to detain the suspect?

You've not read what he has written.

His daughter was punched by an older boy. She hit him back.

He is asking about the law in these circumstances.

You've gone of on the wrong track altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the daughter has reason to believe she'll be hit again, she's entitled to flatten the guy with any means necessary - however, once he has BEEN flattened, she's not entitled to take any further aggressive action, as she now has time to remove herself from the threat.

People who self-defend with one blow, accidentally nick the attacker's femoral artery, and kill them stone dead, don't even get prosecuted. They do tend to get arrested while the police sort out what the hell happened, but they are not charged.  (One such person was arrested last year, there was a huge public outcry that he shouldn't be prosecuted; he wasn't. The police dropped all investigations against him the moment they'd established what actually happened, less than a day later.)

As this thread has already proven, how the scenario is presented can make a HUGE difference to how people think about it.  "He hit me so I hit him back" is likely to get you in trouble:  "he started hitting me, so I hit him back to make him stop" is not. One sounds like retaliation and the other is clearly self-defence.

 

 

(Incidentally, the argument that you can make a citizen's arrest on the assailant is legally accurate but pretty daft in the given circumstances...)

Edited by Heyesey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.