Can you (legally) defend yourself in Britain?

It's so specific to the case in the UK.

There was the case of Tony Martin where that was self defence really, but he was put into prison. Pardoned after, but just depends on the situation

 

The Tony Martin incident was slightly different the only reason he was imprisoned was for shooting the guy in the back as he was running away and he was only pardoned due to public pressure. I am an ex security guard (stopped doing it due to ill health from stress) and it is a mine field as there is no clear and defined definition of reasonable force ,what is reasonable in one incident is overkill in another.For example i was once confronted by a gang of youths while working security all were carrying bricks and bits of metal pipe with the intention of smashing windows where i was working, i only came across them while out doing a patrol .After calling the police and my bosses i had to hide from the youths as i was not allowed to do anything for fear of getting the security firm i worked for into trouble ,but i also had to get past the youths to get back to the security office.All of the guards i worked with always complained that we were constantly hampered by the do gooders who are the main reason for changes in the self defence rules and regulations and also the main reason for the inability for any coherent definiton of necessary force.
In my opinion self defence means if you get attacked you defend yourself intil the other person is unable to attack anymore but in doing so you can very easily step over this so called necessary force line. For example someone comes at you with a knife the police expect you to run away which allows the other person the chance to stick the knife into your back,where as if you have been trained in martial arts you can disarm them but you have to inform the person before doing so.So you can defend yourself but you are hog tied in how to do it

 

This post will start off with a slight diversion.

Please note - Tony Martin wasn't pardoned. He was convicted of manslaughter - more specifically voluntary manslaughter. This is where a person has both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens reas (guilty mind) of murder, which are an unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the Queen's peace, and malice aforethought, express or implied respectively.

Now, malice aforethought (express or implied) is a bit of a poncey legalese term, and its most accepted meaning requires neither malice nor aforethought. It is taken to mean intention to commit murder or a s18 offence (GBH), both of which can be direct or oblique. Direct intention is the desire for the outcome to occur. Oblique intention is where the jury thought the defendant saw that it was virtually certain for the outcome to occur, as in Woolin, where a father decided to throw his baby 4 - 5 feet towards his cot, but the baby ended up hitting the wall and dying (I think). The jury saw this as oblique intention, although I think it was overturned on appeal.

The key difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter is that a special defence is brought up, and is successful. These reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter, unlike the other defences, that result in acquittal or a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, which can lead to a term in a psychiatric unit. There are two special defences - loss of control (formerly provocation, but now has a few differences) and diminished responsibility.

In the case of Tony Martin, he was found to have the actus reus and mens rea of murder. However, on appeal, his special defence of diminished responsibility was accepted. This left him guilty of manslaughter. Murder has a mandatory life sentence, with a minimum sentence of 15 years. Manslaughter has a discretionary life sentence, but even suspended sentences can be given, enabling the defendant to walk out the court doors, a (partially) free man. EDIT: He was given a sentence of two concurrent 5yr convictions, but was in jail for, er, 3 years. Don't understand how that worked out, even with parole.

Now, on the topic of reasonable force, it really is a minefield, due to the objectivity of the test - it's left in the jury's hands, which are notoriously unpredictable (making discussion of self defence in law essays a godsend for easy marks ).

Use what you think was necessary to resist an attack. Provided you're of sound mind, you should be able to judge what you need to do - just don't let your aggression get away with you - retaliation leads to no complete defence (but sort of is in thr special defence of loss of control - provided you murder your attacker)

Sent from my Orange San Francisco using Tapatalk

EDIT2: Made a mistake - it is voluntary manslaughter, not involuntary manslaughter (which is the one where people are initially charged with manslaughter.)

 

All these discussions are moot really as when your being attacked your not going to have the time to think rationally about what your doing, you will just defend yourself.

 

better to aplogise than to ask permission ...

 

What don't you understand? His two sentences were to run concurrently, i.e. both served at the same time, rather than consecutively i.e. one after the other has been served. And as you say, with parole, good behaviour, etc. that equated to 3 years served.

Personally I think as a general rule concurrent sentencing is a farce. In essence they are serving time for only one offence. It makes it particularly pointless in cases of certain guilt (yes there are such cases before someone quotes the innocent until proven guilty line) being tried/found guilty on anything other than the most severe charge.

 

Everybody has the right to defend themselves.

My home is my castle comes to mind!

 

The first thing that I thought of was "reasonable force" which is a very lose term.

I always looked at it as a balancing act, if they punch you can deliver a returning punch and so forth. If someone spits on you it gives you zero right to punch or anything. As spiting is a kin to verbal abuse, not pleasant but hardly worth smashing there face even though you want too.

At the other end of the scale, if you fear for your life such as an attacker with a knife, broken bottle, or crude blunt weapon then you can defend with equal force to protect, such as busting there jaw or knocking them flat out and sitting on them until the police arrive.

I've nearly always managed to talk a situation down, remove all threats or swearing from your own language, but stand your ground. If a "d*ckhead is spoiling for a fight then send him looking else where.

When out with friends, we divide and conquer. Remove our friend caught up in the problem (if need be give him a slap and tell him to wise up) whilst the other defuses the situation or conquers..

Also strangely as a non smoker it helps to have some smokes on yourself including a lighter, its funny how the offering of a cig can claim the most ape sh*t of moments.

 

Ah. The english-fu is weak with me. I need to use a dictionary more. Concurrent sentencing seems like a way of reducing prisons being overfilled, but I don't agree with it at all.

Back the self-defence - reasonable force is certainly a very loose term (but allows Parliament to not have to create a definition for each situation). I cannot remember the exact statute, but there was some guidance stating that if you instinctively and honestly believed that that force was reasonable and needed at the time, it should usually be considered reasonable.

 

As an aside, surely it's easier to avoid the situations where you might be threatened with violence? And of course, unless you're backed into a corner or with somebody vulnerable, legging it is always the best option.

 

Buy a gun.
In all seriousness, in my experience a simple punch in the face from either verbal or physical abuse never escalated to a court case or anything similar. But I guess it's a matter of luck that things never got that serious.

 

Can't fault this thinking really. If you can stand up and say that you were in genuine fear of immediate violence then pre-emptively striking someone is legal, and can solve a lot of situations. Dependant upon that situation, obviously.

 

Please, unless you REALLY want to hurt, do not take up Krav Maga. Many lessons are learned by being the recipient of the moves-often without warning.

Also, do remeber here in the US, and especially in the part I live in, killing intruders is not only legal, it is encouraged, and the local cops tell you to shoot them in the abdomen as gut shots leave you in crippling pain without killing right away, increasing the chances they either crawl off and die or they end up at the hospital where they can deal with them. I've also been told to aim for central mass and keep firing, and to drag the body into the house if I feel there's a doubt about if it was OK to shoot them. Alabama operates under castle property law, and as your home is your castle you may use any legal means to protect it. And a person attempting to take what belongs to another forfeits any claim on safety that they may have normally.

But Krav Maga? Nasty, nasty stuff. It's easier to just shoot them. I have fewer pieces to explain, as well.

 

In Alabama, which I imagine is a big, big place with a sparse population and little police to go around that is a quite reasonable attitude. You have to rely on yourself to keep you and yours and your hard-won possessions safe. I imagine the attitude is also historical: frontier law is swift, direct and black-and-white. It has to be.

In a dense (sub)urbian environment having people shoot at perceived intruders is not such a good idea. It is easier to accidentally encroach on someone's porch (where I live it is less than three yards from front door to the pavement, and smaller houses here have the front door opening on the pavement --and there is no hallway; you literally step from street into living-room) and if the bullets start flying it is easier to hit innocent neighbours or bystanders. We have CCTV and regular police patrols, so things can generally be handled a bit differently.

 

QFT

When studying ninjutsu, I'm taught that the trick is to "hide" your technique. Any idiot can show off their karate or similar and get caught on CCTV. That makes you look like the aggressor as your training is obvious, no matter how effective your technique is.

If however, you can take your opponents balance and/or use nerve strikes and close quarters stuff, you can easily make it look like you just bumped into them and they fell over, or you walked past and knocked them accidentally, or whatever.

THAT is the way forward. You still revert to your training under pressure - but your training is better designed for the environment we live in today. Krav Maga or anything else similarly aggressive will get you into trouble eventually.

The thing to do, is disable/drop your opponent as quickly and stealthily as possible, then run. Aggressive idiots always have mates, and in the UK the police are never far behind....

 

I agree.
I've taken a few and given a few fist-a-cuffs, All of which have been resolved shortly thereafter.
Two icebergs of personality collide and smashing the ice in the breakwater builds a solid base for respecting each other, Trust can be built on respect.
Call it old school, But isn't it funny how, as a junior you always ended up best friends with people you battled with.
Later life is trickier as you are bound by the understanding of the law, whatever and wherever that may be.

 

Unfortunately in the UK it comes down to what is perceived as 'appropriate use of force'
Thankfully I'm weak and skinny. So pulling a weapon is totally justifiable, because there's no way I'd be able to physically restrain someone. But even then it's really at the disgression of some crazy judge.

 

Also; you can never trust a man who hasn't been punched in the face.

 

Reading this thread reminds me of an incident in Swansea which hit the headlines a couple of years ago... Two drunken idiots, who had already been in a few fights, set upon what they thought were a pair of transvestites. Turns out that the "transvestites" were actually a pair of cage fighters dressed in drag for a stag night; one very quick punch to each muppet had them flat out on the floor...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...essing-cage-fighters-turn-tables-on-yobs.html

The only time I've ever been in a proper fight was after a night out; co-incidentally, also in Swansea (I was a student there about 10 years ago). I was on my way home, walking past a curry house at about 2am. I heard two guys coming out of the curry house just behind me, and I could hear them walking & talking behind me. After a short while their conversation dropped off altogether and I heard stuff being dropped on the floor followed shortly by quickened footsteps. Before I realised what was going on I had one idiot trying to grab me from behind and the other punching me in the ribs. I had utterly no qualms about forcefully introducing my boots to the groins of my new pals - which put an end to things pretty rapidly - but it was only after I started walking away that I remembered I was wearing boots with steel toe caps. The night out was a regular one to a metal club - I'd gotten sick of wearing trainers and having my feet being trampled in the mosh pit.

To be honest with you, I'm not even sure I gave it that much conscious thought at the time; I haven't had any kind of training in martial arts or self defence, so I just went for what I thought would be effective. I did have a moment of panic when I realised that I was wearing steel toe caps, but that soon went away when I remembered that I wasn't the aggressor. Someone else has already mentioned it, but rational thought tends to go out the window in that sort of situation.

Of course if I'd have carried on giving them a kicking while they were on the floor instead of just walking away, that would be a completely different matter; in that case, I would definitely be at fault.

 

What is considered reasonable force, though? it is so questionable. Can you hit someone? push them? It seems the boundaries are blurred. I wouldn't want to take the risk but what is someone supposed to do when faced with that situation?