I think you need to be more specific if you want advice on whether what you did last night when you were drunk is worth worrying about or not....
Self Defense ?
- Thread starter lixxus
- Start date
I think you need to be more specific if you want advice on whether what you did last night when you were drunk is worth worrying about or not....
I don't think that's correct at all. If you can safely leave then you should do so.
Man of Honour
Hah, joke's on you, when you had me in the headlock and thought I died I faked it and ran away, the cops are on their way.
WATCH YOUR SELF MAN.
Brap.
Soldato
Man of Honour
Not neccessarily.
To leave a mark is usually ABH, depending on the circumstances.
GBH covers more serious injuries although it has two seperate sections within the OATPA with sec 18 covering GBH with intent and section 20 without.
surely it would not be safe to leave until they are no longer able or willing to attack, like he said
It depends on the circumstances. In most cases he would be right, but not all.
I think if it's safe for you to leave and you hang around and continue battering the guy them I don't think that's acceptable under the law.
Man of Honour
It might still be self defense.
If you are a policeman otherwise your boned.
Soldato
There's no slide rule for how far you can go, some drunk guy comes at you, you'd probably have to do some serious damage to make him stop with his beer boxing gloves on. Common sense will dictate you just run away as it's the lesser of two evils. A guy comes at you with a blade and you somehow kick his butt to protect yourself, im sure you'll be fine, the police arent idiots and wont lock you up for ten years if the guy has a scratch on him, not all justice lives in the world of the Daily Mail you know 
Caporegime
Does anyone know a reasonable man? It might help if he's on the Clapham omnibus.
He'll know the answer.
He'll know the answer.
Caporegime
Nope. For all.
I'm completely missing that reference...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Well im pretty sure it would up to a court to decide any any action were to be taken against you (what you get arrested for is a diferent matter). There afaik is no "line" you cross to go gain a GBH/ABH/Assult conviction in self defence.
Im pretty sure the law states reasonable force or something along those lines.
So if some bloke punches you and there are other people about and you start to lay into eachother then expect a conviction.
On the other hand if you walk into your house and wife and child are tied up and are about to be killed I seriously doubt you would get a conviction for the attacker being seriously or mortaly wounded in the process of you defending your family.
Could you be more specific with the self defence situation?
Soldato
I can't speak for English law, but as far as Scottish law is concerned a few people have said it already. You have to act appropriately according to the situation. (Common Sense)
If you are attacked and you defend yourself "appropriately" without breaking anyone's legs then this is fine. If you are attacked with a knife and are lucky enough to disarm the assailant and perhaps in the meantime broke his wrist, then this is also acceptable.
It depends on the situation and the level of force used has to match that of the attack, as soon as the defence goes beyond the required level then you are the one who will get into trouble.
I teach self defence in colleges and schools to kids and teachers. There is a whole new world of rules when it comes to children, teachers, mentally insane and drunk people.
Like I said. Not sure how English laws work but that's how it is in Scotland
If you are attacked and you defend yourself "appropriately" without breaking anyone's legs then this is fine. If you are attacked with a knife and are lucky enough to disarm the assailant and perhaps in the meantime broke his wrist, then this is also acceptable.
It depends on the situation and the level of force used has to match that of the attack, as soon as the defence goes beyond the required level then you are the one who will get into trouble.
I teach self defence in colleges and schools to kids and teachers. There is a whole new world of rules when it comes to children, teachers, mentally insane and drunk people.
Like I said. Not sure how English laws work but that's how it is in Scotland
Soldato
you can kill the guy but evidence is required for self-defence, CCTV or if the guy is drunk they can check the alcohol levels in his blood. But srsly, you just need to do one Chuck Norris roundhouse kick and your done.
Soldato
That's completely not the case.
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence.
If you're a trained martial artist and you kill a drunk guy having a go at you with one kick then you will most likely be found guilty of unlawfully killing him. Just the same as if you were legally allowed to carry a sidearm for one reason or another and used it on someone who took a swing at you.
once the threat to yourself is minimised, you have to stop acting for it to be considered self defence
however, if you're in fear of your life, you can react with anything you have available to you, be that a kitchen knife or whatever - the caveat being that it has to be reasonably close at hand (so no going to the kitchen to fetch a knife then heading upstairs to see a burglar)
however, if you're in fear of your life, you can react with anything you have available to you, be that a kitchen knife or whatever - the caveat being that it has to be reasonably close at hand (so no going to the kitchen to fetch a knife then heading upstairs to see a burglar)
Did the law on tha one get changed? I know the Conservatilves were railing against it (rightly so) at one point, but I'm not sure if it was changed or not.
Certainly I'd want to be able to legally confront a burglar, and I'd want to be able to grab a weapon if one was to hand first.