Your joking, thats sucks
Bear in mind the circumstances may not have been as clear cut as that. You can still use force as defence of another person, but evidently the amount of force used in this case was not proportionate to the threat faced
Striking first in self defense
- Thread starter Killa_ken
- Start date
Bear in mind the circumstances may not have been as clear cut as that. You can still use force as defence of another person, but evidently the amount of force used in this case was not proportionate to the threat faced
When using self defence, you need to make a split decision and decide whether the force you are going to use is justified in the situation. What would a reasonable jury have to say about the matter when you explained the action that you took.
Use of force is unlawful, unless justified.
Self defence comes under Common Law. Common law is traditional law rather than the result of legislation because it originates from the custom of the people. It has been justified and developed by the rulings of judges in various courts over the years.
People may use reasonable force to defend themselves or another against attack. This applies anywhere, in public or private premises.
1. Reasonable force is what you honestly and instinctively think is necessary.
2. You must have a genuine belief of immiment danger from attack.
3. You don't have to wait for the attacker to strike the first blow.
In R v Palmer (1971) it was stated:
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself...... but may only do what is reasonably necessary...... If there has been an attack so that 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...... in a moment of unexpected anguish a person had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
Concerning pre-emptive strikes. In R v Beckford (1988):
"The Common Law recognises that there are many circumstances in which one person may inflict violence on another without committing a crime..... The Common Law has always recognised as one of these circumstances the right of a person to protect himself from attack and to act in defence of others and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing so. If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed. Furthermore, a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
So, by all means you are easily covered by law to protect yourself as long as you have the correct beliefs of imminent danger and you use a reasonable level of force, you will not be convicted, however, this does not mean that you will not be arrested. It is quite possible that you will be arrested in an incident where you was just protecting yourself, however, it would be less likely that you would be charged with an assault, and very unlikely that you would be convicted, if you were arrested and charged.
Use of force is unlawful, unless justified.
Self defence comes under Common Law. Common law is traditional law rather than the result of legislation because it originates from the custom of the people. It has been justified and developed by the rulings of judges in various courts over the years.
People may use reasonable force to defend themselves or another against attack. This applies anywhere, in public or private premises.
1. Reasonable force is what you honestly and instinctively think is necessary.
2. You must have a genuine belief of immiment danger from attack.
3. You don't have to wait for the attacker to strike the first blow.
In R v Palmer (1971) it was stated:
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself...... but may only do what is reasonably necessary...... If there has been an attack so that 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...... in a moment of unexpected anguish a person had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
Concerning pre-emptive strikes. In R v Beckford (1988):
"The Common Law recognises that there are many circumstances in which one person may inflict violence on another without committing a crime..... The Common Law has always recognised as one of these circumstances the right of a person to protect himself from attack and to act in defence of others and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing so. If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed. Furthermore, a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
So, by all means you are easily covered by law to protect yourself as long as you have the correct beliefs of imminent danger and you use a reasonable level of force, you will not be convicted, however, this does not mean that you will not be arrested. It is quite possible that you will be arrested in an incident where you was just protecting yourself, however, it would be less likely that you would be charged with an assault, and very unlikely that you would be convicted, if you were arrested and charged.
When I was a Special Constable I have used a pre emptive strikes. It does not matter that I was in uniform, I was still only allowed to use reasonable force, assault is assault whether or not you are acting as a police officer or a member of of the public.
eh? because thinking about hitting someone in a particular way before doing it clearly shows intent... as would be seen by anyone with some sense watching it on CCTV.
The fun thing about pre emptive strikes is that you could just happen to have something in your hand (say a glass or bottle) and happen to strike the other person. Of course, picking a glass or bottle up to smack them would be assault
Someone I work with is constantly arguing about this he seems to think its ok to pretty do whatever he wants once he's been threatened. he's an idiot though and if someone did say boo to him he would most likely leg it. why are these mouth almighty people always the ones who are the cowards.
at the end of the day if someone attacks me I do enough to get away or stop them from attacking me a slap or a swift kick to the nicnacs (see what I did there) is enough murdering someone because they try to take your wallet is not on.
at the end of the day if someone attacks me I do enough to get away or stop them from attacking me a slap or a swift kick to the nicnacs (see what I did there
) is enough murdering someone because they try to take your wallet is not on.Thats not 'feeling threatened' Thats actually being threatened. There is a difference. Which is the whole point to most of the comments.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Well, if you throw just one palm strike correctly then it'll probably give the impression that you know what you're doing and you're trying to use minimal force. The other advantage to palm heel strikes is that you don't end up with broken knuckles if you hit a hard target
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,784
- Location
- Falling...
Thing is - you're similar to be, i.e. a big guy who could deliver a hell of a blow - so you'd have to be careful. If the guy was armed and went to strike you I'd take him out first and suffer the consequences later. If on the other hand the person had no weapons I'd be careful as I'd do more damage to him than most people would do to me.
It's a bit of a grey area from what I hear.
It's a bit of a grey area from what I hear.
The grey area is the interpretation of the word 'reasonable'. You're very right about the sizing of people involved. If a 8 stone female goes to swing at a 15 stone male, and then he proceeded to punch her in the face, he would struggle to explain how this was reasonable force. I would say that reasonable force here would be to block a punch and to push the female away from him, not to actually strike a blow on her.
I got arrested for this in 2006, after someone came over to me from nowhere and started threatening and pushing me around, basically he wanted a fight and there was no way out, even after being nice and trying to laugh him off/calm the situation, he was quickly getting extremley nasty. So I headbutted him first, which did quite a lot of damage he subsequently had a go but it was all over very quickly...
In the police station it had been an awfully busy night and I was stuck in the cell for around 21 hours, before being dealt with.
The solicitor told me that if I said I was acting in self defence, we'd both be charged and the case would go straight to court - as the police cannot work out what constitutes self defence. If we both just admitted to "having a brawl" we'd both be cautioned and released with a slapped wrist, so we obviously took that route.
The solicitor did say on several occasions, that if you're being threatened and you feel there is no way out of the situation you can strike first, which is actually classed as self defence, in my case it would be a bit of a grey area as headbutting is classed as "assault with a weapon" so it probably wouldn't have been wise but would still have constituted self defense, as technically he was a lot taller and larger than me, I had nowhere to go and I wanted it over and done with, my saftey is paramount not his.
Even so i'd do the same again if it happened, if someone you've never ever seen in your life is willing to come over and start being violent in your face, they get whats coming to them.
In the police station it had been an awfully busy night and I was stuck in the cell for around 21 hours, before being dealt with.
The solicitor told me that if I said I was acting in self defence, we'd both be charged and the case would go straight to court - as the police cannot work out what constitutes self defence. If we both just admitted to "having a brawl" we'd both be cautioned and released with a slapped wrist, so we obviously took that route.
The solicitor did say on several occasions, that if you're being threatened and you feel there is no way out of the situation you can strike first, which is actually classed as self defence, in my case it would be a bit of a grey area as headbutting is classed as "assault with a weapon" so it probably wouldn't have been wise but would still have constituted self defense, as technically he was a lot taller and larger than me, I had nowhere to go and I wanted it over and done with, my saftey is paramount not his.
Even so i'd do the same again if it happened, if someone you've never ever seen in your life is willing to come over and start being violent in your face, they get whats coming to them.
Last edited:
Technically I guess it is, but headbutting someone is looked upon in a far more dim view than punching someone, as it can do a lot of damage (and it did)
In my situation I couldn't punch him as his forehead was pressing against my face and I was being forced backwards, I'd struggle to think of a more effective way.
Your whole body is, if you are trained to a sufficient level.
we talk a lot about this in jitsu, have had a police trainer come talk to us, aparently we can defend ourselves, our family and our property whilst using a preemtive strike.
ive been mugged, i got the second punch in on the first guy but the first punch on the second, police didnt bat an eyelid and let me go saying its probably best just to let them have the wallet, you never know if they have a gun.
i do have a certain pride that i defended myself though.
rotters
ive been mugged, i got the second punch in on the first guy but the first punch on the second, police didnt bat an eyelid and let me go saying its probably best just to let them have the wallet, you never know if they have a gun.
i do have a certain pride that i defended myself though.
rotters
Not legally. It would be considered with regard to what is reasonable though.
fully agree with the copper. you could do any MA you want, but that won't stop ****heads pulling weapons on you that you cant deal with. Unless you had thousands in your wallet, you risked injury for nothing other than the pain of waiting for new cards to be delivered.
This is the big issue though isn't it, in my opinion you have to look after yourself, the streets can be a dangerous place at night and should you come into contact with people who may wish to do you harm you, the police encourage you to run like hell... I just don't agree that doing so is the best course of action, i'm an utterly crap runner and i'd probably end up worse off if they gave chase as i'd get nowhere and be knackered quickly. I'd sooner stand my ground and try the bear cavalry/nuke from orbit/harpoons approach.
I just can't help but get the impression, that when things kick off the Police talk as though you're supposed to treat your attacker with respect, and be careful in response in case you hurt them too much or reasonable force becomes unreasonable and you become liable.. When it was all their fault and aggresion which led to it in the first place.
Remember, its not the police, its the courts. Police are simply an agency that send people to court. CPS are an agency that try and convict you of the offence that the police think you might have committed. And the court makes the decision on what happens to you based on the evidence that the CPS has provided. Police don't make the laws, police just try to enforce what they are told to.