Reasonable Force Self Defence

[The Mad Rapper]

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

That isn't realistic. What if not all 5 were actively taking part? You want to stab someone for standing there watching?

 

[wordy]

Well I thought of it along these lines:

Man is alerted to his step son being beaten to death by his wife....sorry but attacking the head on the ground can easily result in this.

Man decides in an effort to "scare" off the youths picks up his letter opener in the hall and goes outside to do so.

Unfortunately said man is confronted and attacked by the youths despite the fact he is holding a weapon.

During the attack he lashes out in self-defence and (un)fortunately one of the youths finds himself stabbed 5 times.

I read it as pure self defence and yes someone was stabbed but that was after the man was attacked himself from trying to prevent his step son being beaten to death. His attempt which would have been to scare them off I'm sure was clearly failed and he was attacked himself.

Honestly I'd hate to see him go down for this and in all honesty it would have made no sense for him to go out unarmed in any sense as without the knife I'm convinced he would have found himself in a very similar situation to which his step son was in i.e being beaten to a bloody pulp.

A well thought out post & logical, shame it's being overlooked

 

[D18241]

cant blame his actions if i was a dad and my son was laid on floor been kicked to the head i would happly do anything to stop them even if means goin to jail to possibly save my sons life

 

[Nitefly]

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

More to the point, if he was acting in defence, did he attempt to flee the scene once they turned on him?

 

[RDM]

More to the point, if he was acting in defence, did he attempt to flee the scene once they turned on him?

If he was acting in defense of his son who was on the ground after being beaten why would he flee the scene?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

More to the point, if he was acting in defence, did he attempt to flee the scene once they turned on him?

There is no requirement for him to flee the scene. He is legally allowed to defend himself to the point that any physical attack ceases. The law is very clear on this. He does not have to run away.

 

[scorza]

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.

Sorry, being arrested is a bad thing, you need to stop pretending that it isn't. The simple fact remains that this guy should never have been suspected of anything, the facts available at the crime scene did not warrant an arrest.

 

[Jokester]

Sorry, being arrested is a bad thing, you need to stop pretending that it isn't. The simple fact remains that this guy should never have been suspected of anything, the facts available at the crime scene did not warrant an arrest.

What facts would these be then - remember there's at least two different stories that the police will be getting?

 

[D.P.]

The brat was also lucky that he was only stabbed - in many countries there would have been a legal right to open fire on the scum after sufficient warning was given.

 

[Werewolf]

Scorza, the facts as the police arrived, most certainly did warrent additionla investigation, so arrest is a very good thing - it allowed the police to ask what had happened, and the guy to answer with a legal rep present (and free of charge) so he could get any advice he might have required.

Arrested = Additional Legal rights, and (in most cases ) offer of free legal representation during interview.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Sorry, being arrested is a bad thing, you need to stop pretending that it isn't. The simple fact remains that this guy should never have been suspected of anything, the facts available at the crime scene did not warrant an arrest.

You weren't at the crime scene, so you really have no right to make that call.

The fact is that he should have been arrested, regardless of why he did it, he still did it. The Police have procedures to follow and the process must be adhered to. His defence is presented at Court and a jury either convicts or not.

He should have been arrested, that is the right thing. It is not a bad thing at all and I am sorry you can't accept that. I am not going to try and convince you though, that's not my job.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Scorza, the facts as the police arrived, most certainly did warrent additionla investigation, so arrest is a very good thing - it allowed the police to ask what had happened, and the guy to answer with a legal rep present (and free of charge) so he could get any advice he might have required.

Arrested = Additional Legal rights, and (in most cases ) offer of free legal representation during interview.

I've explained all of this already this morning. It's falling on deaf ears sadly.

 

[Nitefly]

There is no requirement for him to flee the scene. He is legally allowed to defend himself to the point that any physical attack ceases. The law is very clear on this. He does not have to run away.

I was under the impression that in circumstances of harm / burglary, the victim is encouraged to protect his own life over defending his property. Perhaps I have been mistaken or I am confusing this with an extremely niche area of tort!

 

[JBuk]

Sorry, being arrested is a bad thing, you need to stop pretending that it isn't. The simple fact remains that this guy should never have been suspected of anything, the facts available at the crime scene did not warrant an arrest.

What facts are those?

How are the police supposed to handle such an incident? let a guy go who has just stabbed somebody 5 times and admitted to doing so? or arrest him for his and others safety and have time to investigate the sequence of events ?

 

[Walkerie]

Stabbing someone for vandalism is not reasonable force and does not fall under self defence. The only way he could justify stabbing them is if he believed that his life was in genuine danger, e.g. if the other party also had a knife or similar weapon. This is not an attempted murder, but on the face of it with the facts shown I would not be surprised if he was convicted of GBH with intent.

How is this not attempted murder? being repeated kicked in the head can kill you, especially by five people.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I was under the impression that in circumstances of harm / burglary, the victim is encouraged to protect his own life over defending his property. Perhaps I have been mistaken or I am confusing this with an extremely niche area of tort!

Once any threat is gone, the individual should remove themselves from the scene, but not while violence is still being offered.

 

[Nitefly]

Once any threat is gone, the individual should remove themselves from the scene, but not while violence is still being offered.

Ah, that's the one - thanks

 

[The Mad Rapper]

How is this not attempted murder? being repeated kicked in the head can kill you, especially by five people.

It comes down to intent. What was the intent of the assailants? Were they reckless as to whether or not their actions could cause more injury than they intended.

 

[scorza]

What facts would these be then - remember there's at least two different stories that the police will be getting?

That's pure speculation on your part, nowhere is there an account of the stabbed man's (or his friends') story.

I've been over the facts many times in this thread, I'm not going to do so again.

 

[Mik3]

It must have been a chaotic environment and his sons life was in danger, you cant blame the guy for self preservation.