Reasonable Force

[SammEl]

If you are attacked, or are in the process of "going" to be attacked, you should be able to basically do ANYTHING, and I mean anything, to protect yourself, and get away with it, no court hearing, nothing.

Someone attacks me with a knife and I grab it and cut their head off, I should be able to walk away with no criminal charges.

[malfunction]

If you are attacked, or are in the process of "going" to be attacked, you should be able to basically do ANYTHING, and I mean anything, to protect yourself, and get away with it, no court hearing, nothing.

Someone attacks me with a knife and I grab it and cut their head off, I should be able to walk away with no criminal charges.

Don't be ridiculous. You shouldn't be allowed to do anything you like in retaliation. It has to be reasonable. I say this for many reasons the most obvious of which being that someone could attack you and claim they were acting in self defense!

[SammEl]

Don't be ridiculous. You shouldn't be allowed to do anything in retaliation for many reasons the most obvious of which being that someone could attack you and claim they were acting in self defense!

What?

You are a coward then, you are going to let yourself be mugged or smacked? Or even worse, watch someone being attacked eh.

Attack me in the street, I'll smack you down, and serve years in prison for it.

I learnt the hard way, and boy it's good using your fists.

[malfunction]

What?

You are a coward then, you are going to let yourself be mugged or smacked? Or even worse, watch someone being attacked eh.

Attack me in the street, I'll smack you down, and serve years in prison for it.

I learnt the hard way, and boy it's good using your fists.

Just read back my original post - I meant you shouldn't be able to do anything *you like* in retaliation - i.e. I don't believe you should be able to go to any means to defend yourself. I dont mean you shouldn't be able to do anything at all but that what you do should be reasonable. Have edited my original post in line with this now. What you are saying is still ridiculous though and I doubt you have learnt the hard way - if you've already 'defended' yourself to a point where you've already spent years in prison then you haven't learnt anything at all. However I doubt that's actually the case.

[SammEl]

Just read back my original post - I meant you shouldn't be able to do anything *you like* in retaliation - i.e. I don't believe you should be able to go to any means to defend yourself. I dont mean you shouldn't be able to do anything at all but that what you do should be reasonable. Have edited my original post in line with this now. What you are saying is still ridiculous though and I doubt you have learnt the hard way - if you've already 'defended' yourself to a point where you've already spent years in prison then you haven't learnt anything at all. However I doubt that's actually the case.

Well that's your view, then no problem.

My view, I can basically do whatever "I" want to do in self defence to stop someone physically hurting me or anyone around me.

Thing is, I would anyway, regardless of law.

And don't comment on what I have been through, you only know a forum name, nothing more, nothing less, and what I do now will not be changed by anyone i.e. police, law, family, anything.

If I get attacked, and I choose to kidnapp that person who attacked me and torture him, that's my choice, and I'll do it.

No law will stop me from protecting myself or my family.

[TooNice]

Edited.

[TeePee]

My view, I can basically do whatever "I" want to do in self defence to stop someone physically hurting me or anyone around me.

If I get attacked, and I choose to kidnapp that person who attacked me and torture him, that's my choice, and I'll do it.

No law will stop me from protecting myself or my family.

I'll agree with points one and three, but kidnap and torture aren't self defense.

You shouldn't be expected to retreat and call the police either. I remember from my dealings with them in the UK, unless you use the right words when calling, you might not see them for a while, or worse, you might get a CPSO. In this country, it takes even longer for a response, although eventually you'll get 3 or more cars for even the slightest disturbance.

[malfunction]

Well that's your view, then no problem.

My view, I can basically do whatever "I" want to do in self defence to stop someone physically hurting me or anyone around me.

Thing is, I would anyway, regardless of law.

And don't comment on what I have been through, you only know a forum name, nothing more, nothing less, and what I do now will not be changed by anyone i.e. police, law, family, anything.

If I get attacked, and I choose to kidnapp that person who attacked me and torture him, that's my choice, and I'll do it.

No law will stop me from protecting myself or my family.

You are either off your rocker or are talking out of your behind. Yes I only know a forum name but if you think the police / law can't interfere in your choices in life then you are very deluded indeed. Same goes for thinking kidnap and torture are acceptable. I'm not saying don't defend yourself or your family or that staying inside the law is going to be anyone's primary concern at such moments but kidnap and torture - WTF?

[Whiternoise]

Well that's your view, then no problem.

My view, I can basically do whatever "I" want to do in self defence to stop someone physically hurting me or anyone around me.

Thing is, I would anyway, regardless of law.

And don't comment on what I have been through, you only know a forum name, nothing more, nothing less, and what I do now will not be changed by anyone i.e. police, law, family, anything.

If I get attacked, and I choose to kidnapp that person who attacked me and torture him, that's my choice, and I'll do it.

No law will stop me from protecting myself or my family.

Whilst i agree you have a right to defend your family, you're talking like a mob boss.

What if that person (that you kidnap/torture) has a family?

What if that family happened to be in the mafia?

What if they kidnapped a member of your family and tortured them?

An eye for an eye is a ridiculously naive way to look at life.

[Rave]

Saracen's done the legal bit so I'll try and keep my explanation of why I think you're wrong on three of your four points relatively- by my standards- short and sweet.

There are a few things that stand out to me (i realise i'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here):

1. He hit a lung. You don't randomly perforate a lung, not with a letter opener, even a relatively sharp one. He was aiming at the guys chest, pure and simple. A deep wound to the leg or arm will incapacitate most people.

Pfft. It won't for a start, and in any case aiming for an arm or leg would be difficult for an untrained knife wielder. I'll happily prove my theory by putting on a pair of boxing gloves and attacking you like a drunken loon while you defend yourself with a rubber knife with paint on it to trace the blows- good luck hitting one of my limbs before I land a right hook on your face.

Lungs, on a person who isn't fat, are under an inch away fron the skin. It doesn't take a massive stab wound to puncture one.

If he had hit it on the first one, perhaps the youth ran at him and he simply stuck it out in front, then yes, possibly lucky hit. However, 5 wounds - however light - implies a repeated assault. And as others have mentioned, it only stopped after he got the lung, so presumably he had struck 4 times before that.

Pure supposition. A lung puncture would doesn't disable someone instantly, and people can breathe with one lung anyway. Some unlucky tall people suffer spontaneously deflated lungs- it hurts and is generally unpleasant but doesn't kill them. I believe a forum member named Michael had just that problem.

2. What i think will possibly play in his favour is that he took a letter opener rather than a knife. Whether it just because it was close to hand we don't know. He could have gone to the kitchen and fetched a carving knife which would have done a LOT more damage. But, he didn't and perhaps that shows that he didn't go out (at least initially) with the intention of killing the attackers.

I'd say it's pretty good evidence to that end.

3. He has been rightly arrested. The grounds for reasonable force are situation specific, but stabbing someone five times is not reasonable force - especially if the attackers are unarmed. Sadly, no matter what your assailants are doing, if they are unarmed and you retaliate with a blade, you've crossed the line.

Sorry, but that's crap. Let's say you're a single woman and someone breaks into your bedroom and ties your feet to the bed so they can rape you. You have every legal and moral right to use your free hands to grab a knife and stab them to stop them doing it. If confronted with a superior force intent on doing you harm (like, for instance, 5 drunk 17 years olds, versus one 25 year old on the floor getting his head kicked in, and one 58 year old bloke), you have an absolute legal and moral right to use whatever force you deem necessary.

4. "They returned 15 minutes [later] with three others and all were visibly drunk." No police in 15 minutes? Either they didn't take it seriously or they weren't called. Either way there is a problem, if someone was vandalising my property i would shut the hell up and call the police - no need to antagonise them.

Well, then you and I have a fundamentally different opinion about how a society should operate. Personally, I don't want to rely on the police to save me from any wrongdoers. TBH, I don't want to rely on the state to save me from anything. Let's say a 10 year old pulls a craft knife on you and demands your wallet. Would you honestly hand it over and then call the police, or would you tell him to **** off, with, if necessary, the threat of a swift boot to the face?

Yeah, we could have a society where police are absolutely everywhere, checking up on anybody and everybody: they had that in East Germany, and having watched The Lives Of Others that's not the kind of society I want to live in. I think, given that I've lived in SE London for 26 of my thirty years, I'm very lucky that I've never been mugged or assaulted on the street. Ironically, the only time I have been assaulted was when I tried to stop a bloke in Southampton stealing a woman's bike. The thief knocked me on my arse, then I got assaulted by one of his fat relatives when I went back to the scene to compare notes with the victim. The police didn't give a toss that I'd been assaulted, but they did get the bike back. Would I do it again? Absolutely.

I know this is easy to say as an outsider, but people really should understand that if someone is doing this sort of stuff to your property, as long as they're outside and you're inside, you damn well call the police and lay low until they arrive.

So how can I put this politely? Erm....are you a police-statist or just a coward?

In my opinion they let the situation get to their heads, it was unfortunate that their son got dragged into it, but he should have known better than to confront a group of 5 drunken yobs.

What, he should have just allowed a bunch of drunken yobs to kick someone in the face repeatedly while he waited for the police? The fact that it was his step-son is irrelevant, since I personally would wade in to a group of five yobs to prevent them kicking a total stranger in the face repeatedly.

If that's genuinely your argument sir, I pity you.

What i'm trying to say is, all they would have had to do is stay indoors, quietly call the police and things would probably have ended up differently

Yeah- he'd have a smashed up van and the police taking no interest. Great.

[Whiternoise]

Pfft. It won't for a start, and in any case aiming for an arm or leg would be difficult for an untrained knife wielder. I'll happily prove my theory by putting on a pair of boxing gloves and attacking you like a drunken loon while you defend yourself with a rubber knife with paint on it to trace the blows- good luck hitting one of my limbs before I land a right hook on your face.

All i have to do is get one lucky shot, there are 5 of me and one of you. It's a fun game trying to protect yourself against someone with a red marker whilst wearing a white t-shirt.

And of course it's pure supposition, if you read my post it should be clear that i was going on total assumptions based on the evidence given.

Sorry, but that's crap. Let's say you're a single woman and someone breaks into your bedroom and ties your feet to the bed so they can rape you. You have every legal and moral right to use your free hands to grab a knife and stab them to stop them doing it. If confronted with a superior force intent on doing you harm (like, for instance, 5 drunk 17 years olds, versus one 25 year old on the floor getting his head kicked in, and one 58 year old bloke), you have an absolute legal and moral right to use whatever force you deem necessary.

I'm just saying that there have been cases, where i live, where people have been prosecuted for bringing out knives in self defence against people who have been attacking unarmed. The law sucks, it should be changed, and it's why we have Juries. I'm sure if someone broke into my house i probably would get a blunt object to attack them with (easier than getting a knife any day). Certainly the law frowns upon carrying knives for self defence. I apologise if you got the wrong end of the stick, but i concluded that in THIS CASE HE WAS JUSTIFIED.

Well, then you and I have a fundamentally different opinion about how a society should operate. Personally, I don't want to rely on the police to save me from any wrongdoers. TBH, I don't want to rely on the state to save me from anything. Let's say a 10 year old pulls a craft knife on you and demands your wallet. Would you honestly hand it over and then call the police, or would you tell him to **** off, with, if necessary, the threat of a swift boot to the face?

A ten year old? Don't insult my intelligence with pointless rhetorical questions. If it was a ten year old, of course i would tell him where to shove it. But what if it was two 19 year olds with 7" knives? Of course i'd hand over my wallet. What's to lose? A few bank cards, my student card, i don't carry much cash... inconvenience but not life threatening.

Did you read the thread a while ago about the guy who got mugged at a train station? He sure as hell didn't tell them to **** off.

So how can I put this politely? Erm....are you a police-statist or just a coward?

If that's genuinely your argument sir, I pity you.

Yeah- he'd have a smashed up van and the police taking no interest. Great.

Jesus Christ mate, i never said it was a perfect system. My opinion on the police force generally is that they're in two camps. There's the overly macho lot that enjoy beating the crap out of protesters because they "have the powah" and there's the overly macho lot that are PCSO's that have no power at all but act like they do. The police force is corrupt and follows a very strange moral code - not helped by some of the more recent anti-terror laws that make every citizen a suspect.

So before you start making assumptions, believe me, a police state is the last thing on my mind.

I'd much rather let them smash the crap out of my van, take some pictures from my window and claim it on the insurance. It's a pain, but rather my van than me or my family.

How is it a pitiful argument? He was an idiot to confront them, unless he was built like a brick ****house and they were all scrawny buggers, he didn't stand a chance.

And yeah, I would be a coward in a situation like this, problem?

Is it that wrong to play devil's advocate and consider other possible situations? I appreciate the criticism, but there's no need to go militant as a response.

[Salazaar]

My opinion on the police force generally is that they're in two camps. There's the overly macho lot that enjoy beating the crap out of protesters because they "have the powah" and there's the overly macho lot that are PCSO's that have no power at all but act like they do. The police force is corrupt and follows a very strange moral code - not helped by some of the more recent anti-terror laws that make every citizen a suspect.

Strangely enough, my impression of the police comes from the people I know who are actually on the force, my cousin, my uncle who retired recently after a life long career there, one of my best friends from uni and a friend of my friend who I went to school with. They all work on different forces but they have one major thing in common, they're all normal people trying to do a really tough job as best they can.

They work long hours under very difficult conditions, they're expected to uphold laws that often make little sense except to the knee-jerk politicians who enacted them and regardless of how they do their job there's always someone ready to step forward and critisice them for it.

Why not join up and find out how hard it is before ripping strips off them.

[nightkhaos]

Wise man once said:

Always work within the law. If the law fails you, change the law.

Historical laws that were established long ago may not apply today, yet they must be followed, until the day that they are changed.

One example I recall is one of the bi laws in the city of Manchester:

If a welshman lays hand on thy stead without thy permission, they man take thy crossbow and fire upon him.

Excuse my bad middle english and paraphrasing

[liddlefeesh]

I'd like to explore what you mean by: "He stabbed one of them."

There are many events behind those five words that appear to be obscured. You see, if the man went back into the house with violent aforethoughts, went into the kitchen, opened the drawer, took out the biggest blade he could find, closed the draw and rushed the yob...

That could be considered excessive force.

I have quizzed various Police officers about these kinds of incidents before and the general rule of thumb is if you have something "to hand" you can use it to defend yourself (prepare to defend it in court), but under no circumstances can you go to obtain a weapon. That could be seen as attempted murder.

IANAL, etc. (and yes, I think the self-defence laws in this country are barking mad and need to be reworked).

[nightkhaos]

I'd like to explore what you mean by: "He stabbed one of them."

There are many events behind those five words that appear to be obscured. You see, if the man went back into the house with violent aforethoughts, went into the kitchen, opened the drawer, took out the biggest blade he could find, closed the draw and rushed the yob...

That could be considered excessive force.

I have quizzed various Police officers about these kinds of incidents before and the general rule of thumb is if you have something "to hand" you can use it to defend yourself (prepare to defend it in court), but under no circumstances can you go to obtain a weapon. That could be seen as attempted murder.

IANAL, etc. (and yes, I think the self-defence laws in this country are barking mad and need to be reworked).

He considered that five youths to be a considerable threat to his safety, so according to the news, if read correctly, he backed out and say the letter opener, which that to hand, he went out and fought them over, stabing one of the individuals five times before he ceesed attack and the others felt threated enough to bail.

So the weapon was "to hand" but the fact it was a knife will not work in his favour because of the various "knife crime" campagins that have been going on, the fact that the indivudual that took the brute of his force needed to be stabed five times also will cause misconceptions. A stabing is considered to be very bad, however in reality most stabing are non-fatal, and superfical.

So yes, it could be considered excess force in front of the wrong jury, but I feel this will not go to trial. Futher more we will not hear that it has not gone to trial because the Daily Mail does not follow up a story if it is boring.

[liddlefeesh]

He considered that five youths to be a considerable threat to his safety, so according to the news, if read correctly, he backed out and say the letter opener, which that to hand, he went out and fought them over, stabing one of the individuals five times before he ceesed attack and the others felt threated enough to bail.

So the weapon was "to hand" but the fact it was a knife will not work in his favour because of the various "knife crime" campagins that have been going on, the fact that the indivudual that took the brute of his force needed to be stabed five times also will cause misconceptions. A stabing is considered to be very bad, however in reality most stabing are non-fatal, and superfical.

So yes, it could be considered excess force in front of the wrong jury, but I feel this will not go to trial. Futher more we will not hear that it has not gone to trial because the Daily Mail does not follow up a story if it is boring.

Thanks for expounding the story for me.

I'd still have questions to ask this guy if I were the judge; I mean he was outnumbered 5:1 - what did he think he was doing going out there? I presume none of the yobs were armed as they so often are. I think what this guy did was incredibly brave, and stupid. Although I'm not going to shed a tear for the yobs though.

I would like to see some decent property defence principals integrated into our laws. If you're on private land and the owner doesn't want you to be; you can be asked to move. If you don't comply, the owner can forcefully move you on - US style - using anything up to lethal force as necessary.

Unfortunately these yobs have no respect for individuals, property or the police.