Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Self Defence - a hypothetical question
Recently in our area, a local press storm blew up after it was announced an American self defence specialist was planning to run courses in our local town, where there have been 212 knife attacks in the local year, allegedly including how to kill in self defence.
My question follows from a statement by the local police deputy commander: "Thames Valley Police will deal robustly with anyone suspected of an assault where more force than absolutely necessary is used, even in self defence."
I believe this is likely to cause great uncertainty amongst victims. So, for example, what may a 65 year old unfit man do to protect himself if attacked by three or four very fit young men? Is he supposed to lie down and take his beating, so that the police are only faced with an attempt to trace the perpetrators, or can he make use of any means he has, to attempt to even up the odds to protect himself, without fear of prosecution if one of the attackers gets really hurt? How far can he go?
My question follows from a statement by the local police deputy commander: "Thames Valley Police will deal robustly with anyone suspected of an assault where more force than absolutely necessary is used, even in self defence."
I believe this is likely to cause great uncertainty amongst victims. So, for example, what may a 65 year old unfit man do to protect himself if attacked by three or four very fit young men? Is he supposed to lie down and take his beating, so that the police are only faced with an attempt to trace the perpetrators, or can he make use of any means he has, to attempt to even up the odds to protect himself, without fear of prosecution if one of the attackers gets really hurt? How far can he go?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Androcles. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Thanks dancairo - I think your response highlights precisely my concern. Instead of giving people the courage to defend themselves when attacked, (and I believe that being in "mortal fear" at the time of the attack is a factor in assessing the proportionality of the defence), you may hesitate just in case you go over the top, and suffer as a result. This is precisely the uncertainty which statements from the police like this create and may result in law abiding people being too afraid to defend themselves. There have been another case where a householde stabbed somebody and was not prosecuted......but as you say, how long is a piece of string?
Androcles, the press are responsible for a lot of misunderstanding and scaremongering about self-defence. The Martin case was being presented as some ruling whereby someone could never kill or hurt a burglar. They can, provided their action is proportionate to the danger to themselves in the attack they are under.Mr .Martin shot someone, who was running away, in the back and killed him.He was presenting no danger to Mr Martin at the time. .
The courts are required , by the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal, to apply common sense:"If there has been an attack so that 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 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" Lord Morris. [ ' Is reasonably necessary' is to be read in the context of following a part of the judgment where both retaliation and using grossly disproportionate force were considered,, instances of conduc not being reasonably necessary]
The courts are required , by the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal, to apply common sense:"If there has been an attack so that 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 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" Lord Morris. [ ' Is reasonably necessary' is to be read in the context of following a part of the judgment where both retaliation and using grossly disproportionate force were considered,, instances of conduc not being reasonably necessary]
As a footnote, my all-time favourite case of self-defence here in Britain was some years ago. Two idiots decided to commit a robbery at a gun shop.One of them threatened the proprietor with a pistol. The proprietor's assistant came from the back of the shop and shot the man dead. The police didn't charge the assistant,. What got me was that anyone was stupid enough to think that attempting a robbery in a gunshop was risk-free!
I think if someone comes at you and means to do you harm, then you should be able to defend yourself no matter what.
However with the way the law is, they would rather you get beaten half to death and then when you do manage to speak again, report it to police.
They do say you can use reasonable force, but when you are in the heat of the moment and you fear for your safety, how do you guage what reasonable force is. All you want to do is get away from danger.
However with the way the law is, they would rather you get beaten half to death and then when you do manage to speak again, report it to police.
They do say you can use reasonable force, but when you are in the heat of the moment and you fear for your safety, how do you guage what reasonable force is. All you want to do is get away from danger.
1 to 6 of 6
