Reasonable Force Self Defence

[Werewolf]

rypt, as I understand it arresting the person gives them all sorts of legal protections you don't get under caution (access to a free legal rep I beleive is just one of them).

Basically it covers the officers if something is admitted, but it also ensures that the "suspect" has full legal protection.

 

[Nitefly]

... 5 times. Good luck with that defence. I'm seriously struggling to find that reasonable.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Once maybe twice to each of the attackers and I would be happy to state it was self defence but stabbing a person in the chest 5 times imo is attempted murder.

Only if the prosecution can demonstrate the defendant had the necessary mens rea.

 

[JBuk]

Would you be confident if you were him going to trial and jury consisted of Burnsy, Jokester, JBuk, Richie and Tefal?

If I were on the jury I wouldn't find him guilty of anything based on the the facts as we know them. I've never said otherwise or that he should even have been charged (which he hasn't).

The police on the scene a few moments after the incident don't have the luxury of knowing exactly what has happened and from the outset they have a stabbed youth and a man admitting to it, or course they have to arrest him

I'm not sure why you are finding hard to understand, it is only an arrest.

I was recovering from a genreal anaesthetic yesterday and was a bit out of it but you seem to be off the planet lol

I wouldn't convict him at no point have I said this guy should be charged.

You still seem to be missing the point entirely, I only have the luxury of knowing the facts as established by a thorough police investigation which in turn allows me to be happy to say that if I was on the jury I wouldn't find him guilty (at least by taking the the newspaper article at face value).

Exactly

 

[The Mad Rapper]

... 5 times. Good luck with that defence. I'm seriously struggling to find that reasonable.

Apply the normal man test, i.e. would a normal man, put in that position consider it acceptable to stab someone five times in order to defend ones self. It's easy to judge in hindsight, you need to envisage yourself in that situation, someone you know or care about has been seriously assaulted by 5 individuals who are now turning on you.

I just don't accept it's as black and white as many of you are trying to make out.

 

[rypt]

If one of them hadn't been stabbed five times then I agree being arrested for attempted murder is over the top. But stabbing someone 5 times is very serious, you only have to look at this thread to see that a lot of people don't believe that is reasonable from the point of view of self defence.

No, stabbing someone 5 times who is drunk, on drugs and has adrenaline pumping though them is to be expected before they can back off

rypt, as I understand it arresting the person gives them all sorts of legal protections you don't get under caution (access to a free legal rep I beleive is just one of them).

Basically it covers the officers if something is admitted, but it also ensures that the "suspect" has full legal protection.

Once you are arrested it is better for you to answer questions, as you can then use those answers as part of your defence.
If you are simply questioned under caution then you can simply state "no comment" to everything and it would not harm any possible defence should any charges be brought (and you arrested).

I think ...

 

[Nitefly]

Applying the normal man test, i.e. would a normal man, put in that position consider it normal to stab someone five times in order to defend ones self. It's easy to judge in hindsight, you need to envisage yourself in that situation, someone you know or care about has been seriously assaulted by 5 individuals who are now turning on you.

I just don't accept it's as black and white as many of you are trying to make out.

None of us know the 'facts' of the case until they are found by the judge. In any case, stabbing anybody 5 times is going to require some extreme circumstances to find that justifiable. Extreme.

It isn't black and white, you are right, I shouldn't have sounded so suggestive in my original post.

 

[rypt]

None of us know the 'facts' of the case until they are found by the judge. In any case, stabbing anybody 5 times is going to require some extreme circumstances to find that justifiable. Extreme.

With a weapon you are allowed to use it until the person backs off - if it takes 5 stabs until the person backs off then so be it.

 

[Werewolf]

Aye, 5 times if it was quick and whilst the othe rparty could still have reasonably considered a threat/in the heat of the moment (after the initial one) it could still be classed as reasonable.

Without knowing the whole story (which will be part of the reason the police arrested the guy, to get his version of thefacts in a manner that is legally admissable in court, whilst offering him legal protection) no one really knows at the moment.
If it goes to court the Jury will get the full facts as have been discovered by the police, the witness statements from both the defendant and accused, and then make their mind up if it was reasonable.

Hence the use of the wording such as "reasonable", it allows the Jury to decide based on the specific facts of every case, if it gets that far (if say the CPS have decided based upon the evidence that there might be a case to answer), and Juries tend to be very reluctant to convict anyone of harming intruders, especially when the intruders first used violence or were threatening.

 

[scorza]

If I were on the jury I wouldn't find him guilty of anything based on the the facts as we know them. I've never said otherwise or that he should even have been charged (which he hasn't).

The police on the scene a few moments after the incident don't have the luxury of knowing exactly what has happened and from the outset they have a stabbed youth and a man admitting to it, or course they have to arrest him

I'm not sure why you are finding hard to understand, it is only an arrest.

I was recovering from a genreal anaesthetic yesterday and was a bit out of it but you seem to be off the planet lol

Oh great. Another one who thinks it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone on suspicion of attempted murder even though the facts of the case at the crime scene did not cast any suspicion on that person. But it's ok - by the time it gets to trial with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's money wasted in the process, a jury of any 12 random weirdos are sure to find him not guilty.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

If you are simply questioned under caution then you can simply state "no comment" to everything and it would not harm any possible defence should any charges be brought (and you arrested).

I think ...

Err...no.

The caution is "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court."

If you are cautioned then, unless you are an idiot, you must put forward your defence/mitigation at that point.

 

[Andy90]

There are a few people on here who need to read this. It might educate them.

 

[rypt]

Forget the under caution part then, just questioned would do

 

[The Mad Rapper]

There are a few people on here who need to read this. It might educate them.

Thanks for the link, but I would hope that most people here would already understand that 'reasonable force' is essentially sufficent force to deter further attack. Once it exceeds this level then it becomes an assault.

Now, can the chap in this scenario suggest that stabbing one of his 5 assailants 5 times was sufficent to stop the attack of all 5? Possibly. Possibly not.

 

[JBuk]

Oh great. Another one who thinks it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone on suspicion of attempted murder even though the facts of the case at the crime scene did not cast any suspicion on that person. But it's ok - by the time it gets to trial with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's money wasted in the process, a jury of any 12 random weirdos are sure to find him not guilty.

Of course the facts on the scene would lead the police to assume there was an attempted murder, youth stabbed lots of times, man admitting the stabbings

Put it this way, you seem to be in a very bery small minority that can't understand why he was arrested , what does that tell you?

You do know the difference between an arrest, being charged and going to trial don't you?

 

[RDM]

Oh great. Another one who thinks it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone on suspicion of attempted murder even though the facts of the case at the crime scene did not cast any suspicion on that person.

Someone has been stabbed, someone else has admitted doing it. To me that seems more than enough information to have someone arrested so you can find out the full facts of what happened. Especially as the arrested person will have full legal protection during the questioning.

But it's ok - by the time it gets to trial with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's money wasted in the process, a jury of any 12 random weirdos are sure to find him not guilty.

So you know for a fact that this is going to reach trial? It could very well be due to the police investigation the CPS decide not to prosecute. And is justice now secondary to cost?

 

[Jokester]

Oh great. Another one who thinks it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone on suspicion of attempted murder even though the facts of the case at the crime scene did not cast any suspicion on that person.

But they didn't - the only facts that could be established at the scene were that one person had taken a beating and required hospital treatment and someone had been stabbed and required hospital treatment, resulting in the gang presumably being arrested on suspicion of assault and the bloke on attempted murder. Everything else has comeout as a result of a proper investigation such as taking witness statements by all concerned and as Werewolf states you get legal protection and representation if you have been arrested.

He has only been arrested, not charged so it's not gone anywhere (yet).

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Oh great. Another one who thinks it's perfectly logical and reasonable to arrest someone on suspicion of attempted murder even though the facts of the case at the crime scene did not cast any suspicion on that person. But it's ok - by the time it gets to trial with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's money wasted in the process, a jury of any 12 random weirdos are sure to find him not guilty.

It is reasonable. An arrest is nothing. You need to stop viewing it as a negative thing. Being arrested is a good thing for a suspect, they then have rights - it gives them protection in law that they otherwise wouldn't have.

Once you have been eliminated from enquiries you can be un-arrested in seconds.

 

[Adrianr]

Stabbed one of them five times? He should have stabbed each of them once.

 

[Nitefly]

Thanks for the link, but I would hope that most people here would already understand that 'reasonable force' is essentially sufficent force to deter further attack. Once it exceeds this level then it becomes an assault.

Now, can the chap in this scenario suggest that stabbing one of his 5 assailants 5 times was sufficent to stop the attack of all 5? Possibly. Possibly not.

That pretty much sums it all up. There are many questions that need to be asked and they will be answered in court.