Self Defense

#1
Is their any police on here that can give me the criteria of self defence so you dont end up in the nick?

In light of the recent yobs who kicked to death that ex-soldier who will most probably get 10 hours community or something like that and with a recent personal event, I was wondering who here wouldnt think twice about knocking fcuk out of some silly little cnut/s if they gave you the grief?

I do Mixed martial arts, im no rambo(well i am actually) but i can look after myself but if i got jumped,cornered by anyone I will honestly say i will be more worried about me the victim going to prison for defending myself and if it came to it taking a beating rather than myself getting in court facing jail for using "unreasonable force" on the poor little bastards who are not as advantaged as me and the world is against them who just tried to mug me ,because we all know we cant trust the law, we just have to understand it so we know what we can and cannot do. ^ refer to my first question :roll:
Cheers
Cal

P.S posted here because i am aware journos, some big people have a gander sometimes and by the sounds of it your lot are the only decent folk around 8O
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
I'm no copper or solicitor, but my advice, if you are being set upon by a group of youths is to smash the biggest one into the ground first, stamp up and down on his head, and beat the others to death with whatever blunt weapon you can find nearby.

If you haven't got any bruises or cuts yourself, get some on the way home, or before you call the plod and tell them you've been attacked.

Just a though. (not that I'd do it myself you understand).
 
#4
callum13 said:
Is their any police on here that can give me the criteria of self defence so you dont end up in the nick?

In light of the recent yobs who kicked to death that ex-soldier who will most probably get 10 hours community or something like that and with a recent personal event, I was wondering who here wouldnt think twice about knocking fcuk out of some silly little cnut/s if they gave you the grief?
What was the "recent personal event" out of interest?
 
#5
Yellow_Devil said:
callum13 said:
Is their any police on here that can give me the criteria of self defence so you dont end up in the nick?

In light of the recent yobs who kicked to death that ex-soldier who will most probably get 10 hours community or something like that and with a recent personal event, I was wondering who here wouldnt think twice about knocking fcuk out of some silly little cnut/s if they gave you the grief?
What was the "recent personal event" out of interest?
Its abit ironic but a mate was walking home and got set about by 3 lads, he did a decent kick and broke a few ribs ( i believe or bruised something?) and threw a few punches at the others before doing a BFT in record time i.e legging it, unfortunatly the lads knew who he was and since their was no cameras near this area and he hit first (got into his comfort zone for those who do martial arts) are trying to get him to court, dont know the whole story as what the police are/going to do but if he goes to court or even gets questioned under caution for excessive force which he reckons he might do - and basically i thought to myself last night fcuked if im going to prison because some waster needs a good kicking and im sure there will be alot of "knock em all out" comments but this is whyit isnt in the NAAFI :p

FIrst serious post i have done in a while now..
 
#6
As the Police are unable to protect us and the Goverment unwilling to lock these scum up until they commit several of these crimes, I rely on "Louise" to defend me.

Louise is a very nice knife that goes stabitty stab stab. I love her and pet her and kiss her and.....Nurse Nurse
 
#8
The definition of reasonable force is kind of vague. Make sure you don;t hit first unless they directly threaten you (a threat is legally an assault) at which point you can respond with justifiable force. This normally means getting them on the ground and getting out of there. Kicking them whilst on the floor will get you in serious shit unless they are still armed.

Should they have a weapon then you can take it from them and threaten them with it unill they bugger off. But, as they no longer have the weapon, you can't actually us it as that would be unreasonable force.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Seriously - if a group of yoofs attack me, weapons or not, I willnot take any chances - I'll take them down as hard as I can without trying to be in the least bit reasonable about it.

One tiny bit of indecision, or leniency, they'll be all over you like a pack of dogs and it's goodnight Vienna.

When they are lying on the floor, unconscious and bleeding, the threat is over.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#11
If you honestly believe they posed a threat to life you could use reasonable force to nutralize the threat.

Well thats how it should work, although i have a mate who was attacked by some 12 year olds, nothing serious but he got a bollocking from the police saying if he'd hit them back he'd have been in the shit.
 
#12
Which would you rather do? Act within the law and get a good kicking and possible brain damage etc or give them a good hiding and get a few months years inside at worse? I know what I'd choose.
 
#14
Best piece of advice I was ever given in regards to self defence is to not, in anyway, show any form of premeditation.

So, if confronted in your house or by your car, make sure you beat the tawts to death with a 7 cell maglight as opposed to golf club, baseball / cricket bat or chair leg with six inch nails protruding from it. That way you have not “armed” yourself by picking up a weapon, but have picked up a torch, which you have a legitimate reason for being in your house / car.

Also, keep insisting that as you were outnumbered, you considered that your life was in danger as long as even one was still standing, after all, according to the media every chav over 6 carries a knife.
 
#15
This has been done, but as a simple pointer to defend yourself you can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, ie force with like force. Once you with your ninja skills have subdued an attacker/s assault or prevented same then offensive gratuitious excessive force must cease, in the end it comes down to the jury and a judge, in a recent court decision a Police officer was convicted for assault, he kicked the arm of a person who he honestly thought was going for a concealed weapon. The judge convicted him as he said his honest held belief was wrong, only a judge could make such a decision, it is or has been challenged but that is the type of nonsense a judge is capable of.

So be careful! the chav scum you deal with will look like a choir boy in court and you as the mean and Moody military type will be painted as some sort of mad man by his solicitor.
 
#16
Read and enjoy. Not my definition but this is the CPS view.

Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814.

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R and other authorities is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that;

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and Section 3. However, Section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters so, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used excessive in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276, R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367 and <Archbold 19-49>).

To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

In R v Martin (Anthony), TLR 1 November 2001, the Court of Appeal held that in deciding whether a defendant had used reasonable force in self-defence it was not appropriate to take into account the fact that the defendant was suffering from some psychiatric condition at the relevant time, except in exceptional circumstances which would make such evidence especially probative.

In R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315, it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in Palmer v R ,1971 A.C. 814;

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".

The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that such action was reasonable.

Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

Where the purpose of the act is alleged to have been the prevention of crime and/or the apprehension of offenders, necessity in acting may not equate with reasonableness in the choice of action deployed. This approach was confirmed in R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL
 
#17
Cheers for that hog mate. so aslong as you feel physically threatened you can give them a jolly good slap and while they are stunned get your running boots on.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#19
squiffy_parsons said:
..and remove any DNA you may have picked up....which leads into the question, what is the best way of destroying DNA etc.
I could not possibly comment since I would not wish to expose you to a charge of attempting to pevert the course of justice.

However, a wise man once told me that one should wash ones knuckles / hands / boots / nut with petrol as a precaution against catching AIDS off the sports clothes wearing scum.

Not whilst smoking. That could be dangerous and the Health & Saftey Nazis would probabally nick you.
 
#20
Where the purpose of the act is alleged to have been the prevention of crime and/or the apprehension of offenders, necessity in acting may not equate with reasonableness in the choice of action deployed. This approach was confirmed in R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL

Is that the Clegg I think it is? As in "you can't shoot a joy rider even though they are committing a crime per se"?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top