Reasonable Force

[KidChameleon]

Going by what has been reported (The Daily Mail tend to word these kind of stories with a bias) I think what the father did was fine. If someone you love is hapless on the ground being beaten up, sod the law. You're going to want to make sure they at least live. You can come back from prison. You can not come back from death.

I also think it was right that the police arrested him. If a teenager had stabbed an old man and claimed when the police arrived that it was self defence, they wouldn't be allowed to walk off into the sunset.

I would like to know exactly what is meant by "stabbed" five times. Perhaps four of them were jabs that left a bruise, and only one pierced the skin, resulting in the punctured lung. Letter openers aren't exactly razor sharp.

[AledJ]

I understand both of your concerns, but this is not about whether or not his actions were justifed, it is clear they are, it is whether or not he should have undertaken them, and whether or not when he undertook them he did so with reasonable force.

Given the facts it seems they were justified, he should have undertaken them, but he may have used unreasonable force.

That is the point I was making when I said a court will question his actions in firstly getting a weapon, and then secondly stabbing the guy five times. I don't think a jury no matter how much they may understand that situation, will see five stabs as reasonable force. Let alone the fact he went to get a weapon!!

[nightkhaos]

That is the point I was making when I said a court will question his actions in firstly getting a weapon, and then secondly stabbing the guy five times. I don't think a jury no matter how much they may understand that situation, will see five stabs as reasonable force. Let alone the fact he went to get a weapon!!

I see five stabs of reasonable force, and his decision to go back and obtain a weapon reasonable, as do most of the users on this forum. Based upon this, and the fact the jury is meant to be a reasonable sample of the general public, don't you think he has a very good chance of being acquited?

Or is the intelligence quota of the people on this forum higher than that of the average public? Of that, I very much doubt.

[matty-hodgson]

a baseball bat to the limbs would've probably been better tbh...

[nightkhaos]

a baseball bat to the limbs would've probably been better tbh...

Actually no, a knife is the most efficent non-lethal weapon in the right hands. A knife can be used to inflict pain that is not fatal, cause minor loss of blood which will affect the victims thoughs processes, light-headed, as well provide a deteriance from the combat in the first place, because of the common misconception.

A baseball bat on the other hand can impart sigificant force that can result in broken limbs, and a signficant blow to the head will kill. Because it is blunt, using it to hit the head is the only effective means of quickly pacifying your opponent. (You could attempt to brake the assilants legs or arms, but because the object is heavy, he will have more time to react if unarmed, therefore more likely to avoid, or prepare for and use to his advantage, the blow).

The risks of someone dying from a head injury are higher than those of a few minor cuts/stabs around non-essitantal organs.

Of course this is a null issue, because it assumes both you and the assilant have a reasonable knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of differents arms, and that you both have some form of combat training.

[SeriousSam]

The problem with "Reasonable Force" as a legal definition is that it is highly subjective and in order to work out if it is "reasonable" you have to take into account a large number of variables. It’s not just the level of force used you also have to take into account what the individual is facing as a dangerous situation. The big question is whether the law has evolved over time in order to take this account or whether it’s still stuck with its old definition from the 18th or 19th century.

As an example one on one the interaction will be different to one versus a group. Add into that the psychology of those involved i.e. is the group more like an angry mob than a group of aggressive individuals and you have a very complex situation to analyze.

One can only speculate as to the demeanor of the youths that were assaulting his son, so it is hard to decide whether his actions fit in with the definition of reasonable force. That he went back for a “weapon” would suggest that he had significant fear of his own life were he to confront them. It was probably the first thing he could lay his hand on so the choice should be irrelevant, but people may see it as more of an offensive weapon than if he had grabbed say something bludgeoning.

Personally in that situation I would do whatever it took to get the attackers to stop and retreat back to a distance. The most effective being to demonstrate a degree of force and intent with minimal effort to “shock” them into thinking “this chap means business we better get out of here”. But that means that one individual (the first you attack and thus the one that must go down and stay down) bears the brunt of the force used and thus become severely injured so he’s unlikely to view it as “reasonable” nor is the law.

In the end a person’s response this type of situation will be governed by his experience, so without thinking someone may step over the line without thinking in the heat of the moment. This needs to be taken into account within the law, but how you do that is up for debate. I would say that a person in the act of a dangerous crime has suspended his rights by his own actions and thus should be treated differently to a normal person.

[Salazaar]

The problem with "Reasonable Force" as a legal definition is that it is highly subjective and in order to work out if it is "reasonable" you have to take into account a large number of variables. It’s not just the level of force used you also have to take into account what the individual is facing as a dangerous situation. The big question is whether the law has evolved over time in order to take this account or whether it’s still stuck with its old definition from the 18th or 19th century.

Which is precisely why we rely on trial by jury to assess the details of the case and apply the law appropriately.

[nightkhaos]

The problem with "Reasonable Force" as a legal definition is that it is highly subjective and in order to work out if it is "reasonable" you have to take into account a large number of variables. It’s not just the level of force used you also have to take into account what the individual is facing as a dangerous situation. The big question is whether the law has evolved over time in order to take this account or whether it’s still stuck with its old definition from the 18th or 19th century.

As said, that is why juries and judges are used. The law is subjective, not objective. This becomes very apparent if you parctice case law. The law is not determined by the written law, it is determined by how it is understood by the people involved. Hence examples of previous cases are used in law in order to show the court the intend of the written law.

As an example one on one the interaction will be different to one versus a group. Add into that the psychology of those involved i.e. is the group more like an angry mob than a group of aggressive individuals and you have a very complex situation to analyze.

Common misconception of groups. They are not angry mobs, they are very corperative, and adapative. Your misconception seems odd considering your following response which shows a very advanced understanding of group dynamics.

One can only speculate as to the demeanor of the youths that were assaulting his son, so it is hard to decide whether his actions fit in with the definition of reasonable force. That he went back for a “weapon” would suggest that he had significant fear of his own life were he to confront them. It was probably the first thing he could lay his hand on so the choice should be irrelevant, but people may see it as more of an offensive weapon than if he had grabbed say something bludgeoning.

It is unfortunate that the most effetive weapon he could find to hand was a letter opener. Such a weapon has bias associated to it due the the increase in knife crime. It was however, the first weapon he could find, this is clear. Our only hope is the the dectectives, and if appliable, the jury also notice this.

Personally in that situation I would do whatever it took to get the attackers to stop and retreat back to a distance. The most effective being to demonstrate a degree of force and intent with minimal effort to “shock” them into thinking “this chap means business we better get out of here”. But that means that one individual (the first you attack and thus the one that must go down and stay down) bears the brunt of the force used and thus become severely injured so he’s unlikely to view it as “reasonable” nor is the law.

As I said before, this shows a very advanced understanding of group dynamics. You are dealing with five or six minds, so you must be unambigious with your intent, and further more your ability to carry out your intent. As such, he acted in a perfect manner considering he was up against a large group. The others would have likely bailed after he took down the young man. It is unfortunate however that the group considered of a few unreasonable, and likely drunk youths. Groups tend to extradiate general, or postive, traits. For example, if the majority of people will act in an orderly fashion at a football match the crowd will be orderly and calm, however, if the majority of people are irrational, or impaired, the group will act irrational. People tend to, however, because the media only records negative events, think of groups as irrational. Hence the "anrgy mob" mentality.

In the end a person’s response this type of situation will be governed by his experience, so without thinking someone may step over the line without thinking in the heat of the moment. This needs to be taken into account within the law, but how you do that is up for debate. I would say that a person in the act of a dangerous crime has suspended his rights by his own actions and thus should be treated differently to a normal person.

This is where the "temporary insanity" problem comes into affect. If you can prove that the person was actting on instinct, rather than with reason and logic, the person should not be held accountable, provided they feel remorse for their actions. Humans surpress their emotions and handle problems with logic, but often there is not time to approach a problem with such delibrate action, and we will act based upon our instincts.

[Disturbedguy]

I feel that the man was in the right to defend his son and his family and home if he felt like it.
If the people out there in the world continue to try and do good and get punished for it, those do gooder's will stop bothering and things will gradually become worse.

More to add but finishing work

[nightkhaos]

I feel that the man was in the right to defend his son and his family and home if he felt like it.
If the people out there in the world continue to try and do good and get punished for it, those do gooder's will stop bothering and things will gradually become worse.

More to add but finishing work

Me too, (finishing work) but as I have said, that is not what should be dicussed, or in fact why he was arrested!

Why must I repeat myself?

[matty-hodgson]

Actually no, a knife is the most efficent non-lethal weapon in the right hands. A knife can be used to inflict pain that is not fatal, cause minor loss of blood which will affect the victims thoughs processes, light-headed, as well provide a deteriance from the combat in the first place, because of the common misconception.

A baseball bat on the other hand can impart sigificant force that can result in broken limbs, and a signficant blow to the head will kill. Because it is blunt, using it to hit the head is the only effective means of quickly pacifying your opponent. (You could attempt to brake the assilants legs or arms, but because the object is heavy, he will have more time to react if unarmed, therefore more likely to avoid, or prepare for and use to his advantage, the blow).

The risks of someone dying from a head injury are higher than those of a few minor cuts/stabs around non-essitantal organs.

Of course this is a null issue, because it assumes both you and the assilant have a reasonable knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of differents arms, and that you both have some form of combat training.

i kinda meant it as a joke mate :\

[Andy3536]

What the guy should have done is killed them all and buried them all were no one will find them.

If i were put in a similar situation not being strong, and knowing i'm not really going to handly myself well in a fight. I'd grab the biggest knife or blunt heavy object and hit them quickly and as many times as possible and make damn sure they won't be getting up.
The guy should be praised as a hero of his community, not arrested and charged.

[nightkhaos]

i kinda meant it as a joke mate :\

Well I thought I would "kinda" show you the flaw in your logic.

[SeriousSam]

My point about "reasonable force" is that it asking a bit much for a jury to be able to accurately determine whether the actions were or not, when (a) they weren't there and thus are relying on witness statements which considering the situation are likely to be unreliable all round, and (b) the relative influence of expert witnesses involved, as one may be able to couch a better response than the other. The facts don't always stand on there own. Admittedly this is a better system than having a prescriptive law, but it still needs improving.

As for groups then when formed and organised then I agree they are adaptive and co-operative. The real issue comes with those that spark off and are driven more by emotion as they are much more difficult to deal with. You either have to let them "burn" themselves out or meet them with a dissproportionate amount of force in order to "shock" them back into rational behaviour. Now a well trained person witnessing the event would be better able to determine who to target to dissuade them from further action, but in this situation it's likely that the nearest youth was the one that he attacked.

Faced with this situation I'd probably be arrested as well, even though I wouldn't have gone back for a weapon. I was always taught that when flight is not option then you incapacitate your opponents as efficiently as possible, minimising their ability to do you further harm. With a bit of luck you may be able to pull one off and choke him out, but after that its going to get a tad nasty. I'm going to go for insteps and knees for starters as if they can't stand or move then they are a significantly lesser threat. But in all honesty I can't say that I wouldn't strike at least one of them in the throat, or start using elbows and knees with serious intent. Not to mention most of the useful "blocks" in that sort of situation do a fair amount of damage as well... braking / disslocating joints

[nightkhaos]

My point about "reasonable force" is that it asking a bit much for a jury to be able to accurately determine whether the actions were or not, when (a) they weren't there and thus are relying on witness statements which considering the situation are likely to be unreliable all round, and (b) the relative influence of expert witnesses involved, as one may be able to couch a better response than the other. The facts don't always stand on there own. Admittedly this is a better system than having a prescriptive law, but it still needs improving.

So does the government. If you can find a better law and governance system I'm all ears.

It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except all forms of government that came before it.

As for groups then when formed and organised then I agree they are adaptive and co-operative. The real issue comes with those that spark off and are driven more by emotion as they are much more difficult to deal with. You either have to let them "burn" themselves out or meet them with a dissproportionate amount of force in order to "shock" them back into rational behaviour. Now a well trained person witnessing the event would be better able to determine who to target to dissuade them from further action, but in this situation it's likely that the nearest youth was the one that he attacked.

There have been studies that refute this misconception.

Faced with this situation I'd probably be arrested as well, even though I wouldn't have gone back for a weapon. I was always taught that when flight is not option then you incapacitate your opponents as efficiently as possible, minimising their ability to do you further harm. With a bit of luck you may be able to pull one off and choke him out, but after that its going to get a tad nasty. I'm going to go for insteps and knees for starters as if they can't stand or move then they are a significantly lesser threat. But in all honesty I can't say that I wouldn't strike at least one of them in the throat, or start using elbows and knees with serious intent. Not to mention most of the useful "blocks" in that sort of situation do a fair amount of damage as well... braking / disslocating joints

It sounds to me you have had some form of unarmed combat training. We do not know if this applies to our subject.

[chuckskull]

There have been studies that refute this misconception.

Quite true. Generally humans are very good at self regulation in groups. Individuals are unique and unpredictable, crowds on the other hand often follow distinguishable and predictable patterns. Generally in a mutually co-operative and protective manner(despite what the news tries to tell us). It's something you have observed thousands of times and never really noticed. Society as we know it being one slightly over-complex and imperfect example.

So a better example/thought experiment; 10 perfectly average adults from all walks of life and one, 5 year old child who is not related to any of them, are sealed in a room. None know any of the others. There are no outside influences, incentives, rewards or punishments. Only the 10 adults and 1 child.

There is food in the room, the child is hungry but cannot reach it, what do the adults do?

One adult attacks the child for no reason, what do the other adults do?

The child is hurt, what do the adults do?

The group will nurture and ruthlessly protect who they see as the most vulnerable and boundaries of behaviour will be set almost instantly and enforced without hesitation. It is instinctual, the modern legal system is one product of this instinct, pretty similar to the original with some added bureaucracy

You can even see it right here, despite quite a few who would profess not to care about society as a whole. Many, if not all of the posts in the thread are rooted in the desire to better the whole. We're not particularly special or saintly we're just plain old Homosapien v1.0(beta) like every one else.