Striking first in self defense

[Killa_ken]

What's the UK law on striking an opponent first if you felt endangered? I checked the CPS but no such luck.

 

[panthro]

If he didnt retaliate you would probably get done for assault!

 

[PhillyDee]

Pretty sure its still assault. Its not self defence if you strike first.

 

[KaHn]

It depends on circumstance iirc, and also the extent on "Defending yourself".

KaHn

 

[Jono]

Pretty sure its still assault. Its not self defence if you strike first.

So if someone's poking a knife at you, you have to wait until you're cut and bleeding before touching them? I think not.

 

[Anim]

If youre being threatened with obvious intent of harm i think you can strike first. You wouldnt wait for someone to shoot you before you hit them.

 

[Guy]

It's not assault if you think there was a serious threat to yourself and there was no other option (like running away).

 

[Tefal]

iirc you're allowed to do it if they have threatened you and in your mind it's beyond reasonable doubt they would do serious bodily harm to you.

ie if the guy with the bat is saying "I'm going to smash your face in~" you'll get away with kicking him in the nuts and legging it.

Just so long as it's reasonable force, and you don't stay their to hurt he further. Anyway if it's you word verses their's it will be hard to prove anyway.

 

[Stinky]

Pretty sure its still assault. Its not self defence if you strike first.

surely if the guy is waving a knife at you and you **** him one its gotta be in self defence.

i know i wouldnt be waiting around for him to stab me before i struck out

 

[MookJong]

It's a bit of a grey area but if your under serious threat then it is within the law.

Not that I would be thinking about that if my life was in danger......smack!

 

[Killa_ken]

I guess it just comes down to my word vs theirs. Oh well, good job I will have Dr before my name

(I was just curious nothing has actually happened)

 

[davethe11]

yeah, it's circumstantial I believe and very grey like mookjong said

 

[Defcon5]

A pre-emptive strike is allowed, provided it is reasonable and justifiable

 

[Fire Wizard]

I don't think it's simply black and white, it would be very much based on the circumstances.

 

[KaHn]

A while ago there was a thread from a guy who hit an attacker twice and knocked him down, iirc the police said that it was reasonable defence to hit him once but as he hit him twice it was classed as assault or something along those lines.

KaHn

 

[rodo]

A friend of mine's dad hit a guy who was mugging a lady. He hit him once but in the face/head and the guy hit the floor and died. He went down for 6 years for manslaughter for which he served 3.

 

[Defcon5]

A while ago there was a thread from a guy who hit an attacker twice and knocked him down, iirc the police said that it was reasonable defence to hit him once but as he hit him twice it was classed as assault or something along those lines.

KaHn

There are a lot of variables. The size/percieved strength of the attacker compared to the victim, the number of attackers, drink/drugs, time of day even.

If I was attacking you, and you hit me once and a stagger back and fall over, then its not justified for you to come boot me in the face, just to make sure.

 

[Slinwagh]

You are legally allowed to use a pre meditated strike as long as the amount of force used is reasonable considering the threat that is faced.

Where this falls down is the "reasonable force" argument.

 

[wordy]

A friend of mine's dad hit a guy who was mugging a lady. He hit him once but in the face/head and the guy hit the floor and died. He went down for 6 years for manslaughter for which he served 3.

Your joking, thats sucks

 

[Paul11]

You are legally allowed to use a pre meditated strike as long as the amount of force used is reasonable considering the threat that is faced.

Where this falls down is the "reasonable force" argument.

exactly this. force must been seen to be reasonable for the circumstances.