The right to defend yourself.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

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.

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

I agree - I suppose the only difference would be if you chased down the assailant afterwards - that would be the revenge scenario,

 

i cant imagine a scenario where someone using reasonable force whilst being assaulted would find themselves in significant legal trouble.

[willman 10]

2 hours 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.

 

 

The defendant has to prove nothing,the prosecutor has to prove that they had other options.

[K1Machine 10]

2 hours ago, phil752 said:

Is this a real life event?

Yes it is unfortunately.

[woodview 10]

12 minutes ago, willman said:

The defendant has to prove nothing,the prosecutor has to prove that they had other options.

This is not going to court. No way in a million years. Police unlikely to become involved either in terms of anything against the girl.

A difficult problem for the OP, child being bullied.

I'd be contacting them in terms of the attack, the girl is on safe ground, she did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Ontarian1981 10]

10 hours 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?

My thoughts are that if someone came up and bashed me, for no reason, he or she would regret it very quickly, sod the consequences. I do come from an era that stood up for itself , whatever the occasion,so I would not fit well with all this political correctness that is the current norm. Sorry🙃

 

[TheNugget 10]

If a victim believes (subjectively) that defence is necessary, and that defence is (objectively) reasonable, then self defence is legal.

 

e.g. In the situation cited:

if the person (a) believed that they were about to be, or were being assaulted, it would be reasonable to strike back.

party B could argue that A was mistaken, but it really comes down to what A subjectively believed. Having already been assaulted, A should have no trouble with that.

 

Striking someone with your hands in defence, having already been struck, is perfectly reasonable. Picking up a piece of wood on the ground, and using it, should the attacker be larger etc than yourself seems reasonable. Beating them repeatedly if you’d knocked them to the ground and they were unconscious sounds unreasonable, for example.

 

I expect in in this situation there would be no legal consequences and positive social consequences- i.e. I suspect the bully won’t be back for more, so good work!

[Cyclone 10]

15 hours 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?

Well, yes they do.

Hitting them back is not self defence, that's revenge.

If the attack is continuing though then hitting them back in an attempt to escape is self defence.

14 hours 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.

 

 

To be fair, they'd only have to establish that they believed the attack would continue, self defence allows the use of reasonable force, you aren't required by law to run away.

11 hours ago, makapaka said:

I agree - I suppose the only difference would be if you chased down the assailant afterwards - that would be the revenge scenario,

 

i cant imagine a scenario where someone using reasonable force whilst being assaulted would find themselves in significant legal trouble.

Adults are often charged with affray when it can't be established who was the original instigator.

[K1Machine 10]

14 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well, yes they do.

Hitting them back is not self defence, that's revenge.

If the attack is continuing though then hitting them back in an attempt to escape is self defence.

To be fair, they'd only have to establish that they believed the attack would continue, self defence allows the use of reasonable force, you aren't required by law to run away.

Adults are often charged with affray when it can't be established who was the original instigator.

Have a read of my other post. It gives more detail as my OP was a bit rushed with only the bare minimum of info.

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, I carried on and read the rest of the thread.  Sounds like it would easily qualify as reasonable force due to self defence.  I doubt that the police would even pass it to the CPS unless the story from the other side was substantially different or witnesses contradicted the account.

[woodview 10]

31 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

Hitting them back is not self defence, that's revenge.

 

No it isn't. You are telling a guy who's disabled daughter has been attacked by a larger older boy, she cannot hit him back to stop it continuing. It is absolutely self defence.

 

This is excerpts from the CPS website:

 

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

• self-defence

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

• was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
• was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

 

 

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);

"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 ..."

 

There is also a section about Revenge, which I won't bother posting. Suffice it to say , the OPs daughter didn't go and seek out her attacker later. Neither did she continue beating him unnecessarily after his attack had finished.

 

On top of all that, it wouldn't go to the CPS.

The Police are not going to take action against a girl who hit back at an attacker.

 

 

K1 , you and her have nothing to worry about. You can look it up on credible websites too, to give yourself extra confidence.

 

If I were you, you should be speaking to the school and Police about it.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, I carried on and read the rest of the thread.  Sounds like it would easily qualify as reasonable force due to self defence.  I doubt that the police would even pass it to the CPS unless the story from the other side was substantially different or witnesses contradicted the account.

OK, overlapped replies. Seems consensus is she is absolutely fine.

Edited January 30, 2019 by woodview

[Cyclone 10]

34 minutes ago, woodview said:

No it isn't. You are telling a guy who's disabled daughter has been attacked by a larger older boy, she cannot hit him back to stop it continuing. It is absolutely self defence.

No, I clearly didn't say that.  The vast majority of our discussions start with you leaping to some wild conclusion that I never said.

The OP acknowledged that the first post wasn't clear and went on to clarify it later.

[woodview 10]

27 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

No, I clearly didn't say that.  The vast majority of our discussions start with you leaping to some wild conclusion that I never said.

The OP acknowledged that the first post wasn't clear and went on to clarify it later.

In post #19 after he had clarified the circumstances you said:

Hitting them back is not self defence, that's revenge.

So, not such a 'wild conclusion' ????

Anyway, I cba getting into a squabble with you again. Obviously you are never wrong in any way about anything, so obviously you'll reply to confirm you were right, but I won't be continuing with replying.