Reasonable Force Self Defence

[Von Smallhausen]

Why would it not?

This whole case against Mr Philpotts has just been a colossal waste of everybody's time. The police, the CPS, and indeed Mr Philpotts and his family - totally un-necessary waste of taxpayer's money.

It isn't a police call to make unforunately.

To turn up at a scene as in the OP, accept that a stabbing was self-defence or defending someone and leave it at that there and then would cost you your job.

 

[Eriedor]

Quite shocked most people here believe stabbing someone 5 times constitutes self defence!

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.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Without knowing the specifics of the case relating to the stabbing it's difficult to tell whether this was justified self-defence.

Teenagers cease to be little scamps when they're kicking someone's head to a pulp, and I'm inclined to think the guy was justified in arming himself, even with a knife. A friend of mine was stabbed in the back 6 or 7 years ago, and thought he had just been punched. It's possible the stabs were almost a reflex set of actions in quick succession in response to being mobbed; I suppose that's for a jury to decide.

 

[xiphrex]

But there is such thing as common sense which this country's services has forgotten solely for fear of legal issues and litigation that may or may not happen.

In the end though its probably easier to arrest everyone, then ask questions and find out what happened.

Honestly if any of my relatives or even friends were being attacked I would not lock my door and stay inside as "self defence", I would try to do something. But most probably it would not involve a knife as taking a knife with you means only one thing which is that you are planning to do serious damage UNLESS you are using it as a deterrent to make the thugs get up and leave. Obviously this didnt work here.

Im glad Im not related to some of the people posting in this thread, they would have left me get beat up outside my own home by 5 thugs and just sit in the house, lock the door as "self defence" - what nonsense you people sometimes come up with. lol.

 

[Pestilence]

Yet another case of the police wrongly prosecuting someone for self defence, a huge waste of a jurys time and taxpayers money because no jury is going to convict someone who stabs a chav after being attacked by them.

Nope, he'll go down for this.

Similar incident happened here not too long ago - someone who had suffered years of abuse, assaults - you name it - from well known local yobs finally snapped and clouted one of them round the face with a cleaver.

He's currently serving a custodial sentance and the local pond life, after over a year of relative quiet, have gotten affirmation that they can do what they like and are spilling right back onto the streets again. Great stuff considering we're one of their favourite targets.

 

[moremoney]

I think that even if somone has gone over the top with the self defense argument.

You would be hard pressed to actually convict somone for defending their homes these days, no matter their excessive actions.

For example, take 12 people from here and get them to convict this guy.

Public opinion is turning away from the Law, because the Law is turning away from the public. (Unless you are a public fkin nuisance).

 

[Energize]

Nope, he'll go down for this.

Similar incident happened here not too long ago - someone who had suffered years of abuse, assaults - you name it - from well known local yobs finally snapped and clouted one of them round the face with a cleaver.

That's not a similar incident it's a straw man, not the same as someones life being in imminent danger.

This would be a more similar incident where the jury acquitted someone of murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-accidentally-shot-intruder-threats-him.html

 

[samuria]

The law is stupid in these situations a few years ago some 6 lads broke into the scout hut behind our house. I ran out and caught one coming out of a hole they had made in the wall. I held on to him and called the Police. The first thing the Police said when they arrived was your going down for this and they were going to arrest me for false imprisonment.

There reasoning I had seen him come out of the scout hut but this is trespass and you cant arrest anyone for trespass only the Police can do that. If I had seen him smash the hole then thats criminal damage and you can arrest them for that.

I have walked away ever since as it was weeks of worry before wondering if I would end up in court.

As for this case the law is reasonable force to stop an attack which means if you attack me and I throw you to the ground the attack has then stopped so I cant then kick you I must wait for you to get up and attack me again before I can kick you. On that basis if he stabled the lad and he attacked him again he could do it again

 

[manic111]

Without knowing the specifics of the case relating to the stabbing it's difficult to tell whether this was justified self-defence.

Teenagers cease to be little scamps when they're kicking someone's head to a pulp, and I'm inclined to think the guy was justified in arming himself, even with a knife. A friend of mine was stabbed in the back 6 or 7 years ago, and thought he had just been punched. It's possible the stabs were almost a reflex set of actions in quick succession in response to being mobbed; I suppose that's for a jury to decide.

Exactly; if as you say the series of stabbings were "unavoidable", either due to his mental state or because the guy was still kicking his son after 4 stabbings, then the jury ought to go easier on him. If, on the other hand, the guy went down after being stabbed once, and the man involved went on to stab him four more times simply for revenge, and being fully conscious of what he was doing, he deserves whatever he gets to be honest.

 

[Pestilence]

That's not a similar incident it's a straw man, not the same as someones life being in imminent danger.

This would be a more similar incident where the jury acquitted someone of murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-accidentally-shot-intruder-threats-him.html

I'll concede you're legally correct there with the comparison, however I think my opinion of the two is reflective of how much I expect the justice system here to do the right thing.

However morally or sheer humanly justified what this man has done is, he has broken the law. It's a pity this Country, in its efforts to level-peg attitudes to both lowlives and citizens alike, treats everyone with contempt.

Quite off topic, but does anyone know what the outcome was of the Tyler Juett debacle (that chav that got stabbed to death breaking into a house in Nottingham)?

 

[manic111]

I'll concede you're legally correct there with the comparison, however I think my opinion of the two is reflective of how much I expect the justice system here to do the right thing.

However morally or sheer humanly justified what this man has done is, he has broken the law. It's a pity this Country, in its efforts to level-peg attitudes to both lowlives and citizens alike, treats everyone with contempt.

How has he done what's humanly correct in this case? Admittedly I am assuming here that it wasn't necessary to stab the guy 5 times to stop him from attacking his son, but if I'm right in thinking that then stabbing him 5 times is anything but correct, either humanly or legally!

 

[rypt]

First off do you class what he did as reasonable force in regards to self defence?

Third off, what do you personally class as reasonable force when it comes to self defence?

1) Yes

3) Anything goes, once someone attacks you or your property they lose all their rights in my eyes.

 

[Pestilence]

How has he done what's humanly correct in this case? Admittedly I am assuming here that it wasn't necessary to stab the guy 5 times to stop him from attacking his son, but if I'm right in thinking that then stabbing him 5 times is anything but correct, either humanly or legally!

Your perspective is from the outside, with hindsight, and obviously approaching it from the point of view that the threat this kid represented was finished after the first stab. If that was 100% the case here, then I agree with you.

What I'm considering, and what I mean by the "human" standpoint, is how a person can react in that kind of situation. Think of this guy running out, some **** is stomping his son's head into the curb - there's 5 of them fired up, kicking, swinging, shouting - they move on him, adrenaline pumping, he's scared as ****, heart pumping, mouth dry, head swimming from it, and within a few seconds, 12345 there's five stabs into the first one to make a move.

It's not like, here comes one of them.....stab him.....there....how do you like that son........there's number 2.......oh, you're hurt are you........I'll grab you again......number 3. And so on.

Things don't happen so slowly and clearly in the fray.

 

[moremoney]

Adrenalin counts for a lot here.

How many times would you stab somone who is a threat to you or yours.

Answer......until they are dead, probably

 

[manic111]

Your perspective is from the outside, with hindsight, and obviously approaching it from the point of view that the threat this kid represented was finished after the first stab. If that was 100% the case here, then I agree with you.

What I'm considering, and what I mean by the "human" standpoint, is how a person can react in that kind of situation. Think of this guy running out, some **** is stomping his son's head into the curb - there's 5 of them fired up, kicking, swinging, shouting - they move on him, adrenaline pumping, he's scared as ****, heart pumping, mouth dry, head swimming from it, and within a few seconds, 12345 there's five stabs into the first one to make a move.

It's not like, here comes one of them.....stab him.....there....how do you like that son........there's number 2.......oh, you're hurt are you........I'll grab you again......number 3. And so on.

Things don't happen so slowly and clearly in the fray.

I agree with you to an extent. However, if this becomes an acceptable defense it could be used in a vast number of murder cases. Anyone who murders somebody in a moment of passion could simply stand up and say "it all happened so quickly."

I can understand it from the human point of view, but as far as I'm concerned, unless the guy took 5 stabs to go down, or the stabs can be shown, either psychologically or physiologically, to have necessarily followed one-another through no fault of Colin Philpott's own, then he does deserve to be punished. From a human point of view it would be harsh, but not (in my opinion, although I can see where you're coming from) wrong. From a legal point of view it strikes me as being the only feasible way forward with it. Like I say, if it can be show that the stabs followed each other immediately (and I expect that this was the case) without conscious thought or pre-meditation then he ought to walk free. However, if this cannot be shown to be the case then as far as I'm concerned he's guilty.

 

[rypt]

I can understand it from the human point of view, but as far as I'm concerned, unless the guy took 5 stabs to go down, or the stabs can be shown, either psychologically or physiologically, to have necessarily followed one-another through no fault of Colin Philpott's own, then he does deserve to be punished.

Thing is though, I can take a few minutes for a stab to have the desired effect and make someone back off - in this time they are still an aggressor though and as such get stabbed again.

5 stabs in 60 - 90 seconds is do-able, and it would take at least 90 sec for the person to start to back off after the first stab

 

[Pestilence]

I can understand it from the human point of view, but as far as I'm concerned, unless the guy took 5 stabs to go down, or the stabs can be shown, either psychologically or physiologically, to have necessarily followed one-another through no fault of Colin Philpott's own, then he does deserve to be punished. From a human point of view it would be harsh, but not (in my opinion, although I can see where you're coming from) wrong. From a legal point of view it strikes me as being the only feasible way forward with it. Like I say, if it can be show that the stabs followed each other immediately (and I expect that this was the case) without conscious thought or pre-meditation then he ought to walk free. However, if this cannot be shown to be the case then as far as I'm concerned he's guilty.

Yep, from a legal point of view you're spot on mate.

It just annoys me how strict and cold that can be at times. In this case, one can only hold the generic faith in a jury.

 

[manic111]

Thing is though, I can take a few minutes for a stab to have the desired effect and make someone back off - in this time they are still an aggressor though and as such get stabbed again.

5 stabs in 60 - 90 seconds is do-able, and it would take at least 90 sec for the person to start to back off after the first stab

Yep, from a legal point of view you're spot on mate.

It just annoys me how strict and cold that can be at times. In this case, one can only hold the generic faith in a jury.

I agree with you both. If the guy kept coming after the first couple of stabs, or if the subsequent stabs were simply "reflexes", then Colin Philpott should get off. Like I say though, we don't know the details. We don't know if the guy went down within seconds of the first stab, in which case the subsequent four were wrong, but legally and humanely in my view.

Pestilence, I agree that this case might come down to how a jury takes it, but that means that it's down to Colin Philpott to plead his case from a human point of view, that he was "unable" to stop stabbing once he had started (or that the man didn't go down after the first couple of stabs). One of the points of having a jury is to bring an element of "humanity" to the law, and if he can't convince them then I'm not convinced that his case holds much water humanely or legally.

I think that what happens here is that there are two ways of looking at it. From the human point of view, we immediately want to believe that he wouldn't have continued stabbing the guy had he been able to stop. We wait until we are convinced otherwise to say that he was in the wrong.

From the legal point of view, somebody has been seriously stabbed. Only if the defendant can show mitigating circumstances (which will include but cannot end at his son's life being in danger) will he get off.

It's a tough one to call who is right without effectively knowing exactly what went through Colin Philpott's mind at the time of the event.

 

[rypt]

From the human point of view, we immediately want to believe that he wouldn't have continued stabbing the guy had he been able to stop.

Speak for yourself, I want to believe that he carried on stabbing the scrote so that the scrote gets what he deserves

 

[arknor]

reasonable force imo, obviously most people wont see if this way but if you go watch one of the cctv videos various sites host of people beeing set upon by a bunch of youths you would quickly change your mind.

i remember a rather nasty one which apeared to be from a city centre late at night of around 7 people attacking a lone male next to a shop window, he was obviously unconcious but they carried on kicking him in the head as hard as they could most of them then walked off but 1 guy stayed behind and jumped on the blokes head with both feet atleast 6 times.

fights often dont sound so bad in writing because whats happening isnt described in detail, no doubt these youths could have been blasting the 25 year olds head like they were taking penalties, im sure if it was your son you would do anything you could to get the scum bags away.