Reasonable Force

[chuckskull]

Once again self defence law is in the news, after a father came out into his garden to find 5 'yobs' kicking and stamping on his son's head after hearing a commotion, they threatened to kill him and burn down his house. He tried to stop them and his wife called the police. He stabbed one of them.

He was arrested for attempted murder. The yob is recovering well.

It's not really this case in particular I want to talk about; but the general state of self defence laws in the country. Which seems to be giving more and more protection to the perpetrators of violent acts at the expense of the victims.

If you and your friends come onto my property, attack me or a member of my family, then threaten to kill me(A threat at this point I'm going to take seriously). I am going to hurt you, and keep hurting you until you are incapable or unwilling to carry out your threats or other violent acts toward me and mine.
Not because I think it's cool, or because I'm trying to prove I'm well 'ard, simply because I want to protect my own.

No, I would not be fighting by Duke of Queensbury rules and would not hesitate to use any weapon close to hand.

Am I a some kind of Neanderthal, thug or violent socio-path for this stance?

If you attack me or my family, unprovoked on my property should you be guaranteed the same legal protections as me?

If at the end of it, you come off worse than me, do I suddenly cease to be the victim?

Is it 'reasonable' to use a weapon to defend yourself, so long as you cease as soon as that person is no longer trying to hurt you?

Do you think the self-defence laws of this country are fair and functioning?

Please do not take anything in this post as bravado, I have seen first hand the effects of violence and detest it, because of this, this is a subject I care quite deeply about and am genuinely interested to hear other's opinions and wonder how much my own experiences have tainted mine.

[Zak33]

This worries many many people. It worries me.

Someone with a fighting talent or a skill in a martial art can be considered to be unfairly biased in a fight that they don't start and attempt to diffuse...but eventually have to resort to a violent at, hurting someone and then being dragged through court for it.

I'm no martial artist. I have no weapon skills. But like any parent, if someone threatened my kid, I'd have no second thought about stoving their head in with a large brick.

[Lowe]

What this country needs is a large dose of common sense.

The tricky part I suppose is the job that the Police have to do. You say that the guy's been arrested, and to be honest in my eyes that's fair enough. He's been arrested so that the Police can investigate what's happened and then decide what action needs taking as part of the follow up. I've not read the story yet so don't know the details but assume that he's not been charged and referred to the CPS, no? In the very broad definition of attempted murder, he's attempted to kill someone. For the right reasons? Probably yes. That's for a jury to decide, not the Police who were called to the scene.

I'm very much in favour of being able to stand up for one's self and one's own if you're being attacked, however you always have that niggling thought of what is 'reasonable'. My old martial arts instructor summed it up rather nicely:

It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[Salazaar]

Do you have a link to the story?

Has the man been convicted or just charged...? It's not really for the police to dispense judgement on a crime. The facts are (as far as I can tell from what you've said) that this man has stabbed someone else, possibly with the intent to kill him. Now if a judge and jury rule that as reasonable force in defense of himself, his family and his property then that's all well and good, but it's not really for anyone else to make that decision, particularly without full access to all the facts.

[nightkhaos]

Do you have a link to the story?

Has the man been convicted or just charged...? It's not really for the police to dispense judgement on a crime. The facts are (as far as I can tell from what you've said) that this man has stabbed someone else, possibly with the intent to kill him. Now if a judge and jury rule that as reasonable force in defense of himself, his family and his property then that's all well and good, but it's not really for anyone else to make that decision, particularly without full access to all the facts.

Agreed. We require more information to make an informed decision about this case. Given the facts thus far presented we can draw the following conclusions:

• He acted in self defence in proxy of his son (as his son was incapable of defending himself)
• The self defence was justified given the circumstances (as the attackers did not cease their attack)

What we do not know is if the stab was required in order to deter, or the stab was made in spite of the deteriance already percieved.

Then things get tricky, if the stab was required in order to deter, then we can safetly assume that he acted as any reasonable person would have given the same set of circumstances, and he shall be aquited regardless of feeling remorseful for his actions.

If the stab was not required to deter, then what we need to determine is the following:

Would a reasonable man be able to maintain is composure and cease the stabing, or was he commited to it by being by blind rage, or unable to prevent himself from completeing the act due to other circumstances?

If either of these circumstances are met, then he should be aquited if he feels remorseful, not for defending his son, but the fact that such action lead to the stabbing of another indivdual. The first part of that query is straightforward, and is often given the term temporary insanity. The second is a little more tricky, and applies to those who have recieved some form of advanced combat training.

Take the following example, a man has served in the SAS for the past five years, as such he has learned actions to pasify his opponents in close quaters. Is it not reasonable, that if faced with any situation where physical confentration is required, that the force he presents will be greater than a man without his training, and therefore he is more likely to harm the indivudual, because his training would automatically kick in?

[chuckskull]

Mail

Mirror

He has only been charged. Yes it is fair enough that he was arrested, the police need to investigate.

It's not really this case in particular that bothered me, I've meant to post a thread on similar lines a couple of times recently, because of similar stories, this case just brought it back to the front of my mind.

I like that quote lowe.

[nightkhaos]

He has only been charged. Yes it is fair enough that he was arrested, the police need to investigate.

It's not really this case in particular that bothered me, I've meant to post a thread on similar lines a couple of times recently, because of similar stories, this case just brought it back to the front of my mind.

Thank you. This does answer a few questions. He stabed one indivdual five times. Given the number of stabing it is clear why the police arrested him. What is not clear is if such stabbing were required in order to deter the group, were the attackers also armed in a similar fashion.

Given the facts I would lean towards a temporary insanity. He also seems remorseful for his actions, look closely at the wording of this statement he made.

I don't think I had any option but to do what I did. I was trying to protect my family

I don't think I had any option being the key words there. What does that say to you? To me that says he has being going over and over the events in his mind, trying to determine what he could have done different.

[Andeh13]

Thats infuriating & worrying in equal measures. Whether he is charged or not, he is arrested for it in the first place? - that's being arrested for self defence surely! Had that been my house and family (and im a new dad), id have done exactly the same...anything in my powers to stop the youths & fight them off, be it stabbing or use of another weapon.

Give the man a medal!

[AledJ]

Not had time to look for the ling but did see the story in a paper. Just like other posters on this thread the self defence laws in this country are ridiculous !!!!

The news paper article said that after he had seen what was going on he went back to the house, and picked up a letter opener i believe. He then stabbed one of the attackers of his step son five times. Now if this goes to court that fact he went back to get a weapon and then proceeded to stab five time could go against him.

Hope it does not get to court as it seems this yobs had been causing trouble for a long time, which from one resident had not been sorted out by the police. A few nights before the guys car had been smothered in hair gel.

[TooNice]

Take the following example, a man has served in the SAS for the past five years, as such he has learned actions to pasify his opponents in close quaters. Is it not reasonable, that if faced with any situation where physical confentration is required, that the force he presents will be greater than a man without his training, and therefore he is more likely to harm the indivudual, because his training would automatically kick in?

That's an interesting take, though the complete opposite of what I would have thought. I would expect a trained individual to be more capable of pacifying the aggressor without fatally wounding the person thanks to the training received (though I am seeing it more from the point of view of a martial artist/police officer - perhaps a SAS members are only trained to 'permanently disable' an aggressor, I don't know).

On the other hand, someone who is not trained may not realise when his aggressor is no longer a threat. And he may be concerned that if the aggressor gets back up, angrier than ever, that he would be killed before the authorities arrives.

Basically, yes, I agree that a trained individual has the potential of causing more damage, but is also in a better position to know when to stop than an untrained individual.

[nightkhaos]

Thats infuriating & worrying in equal measures. Whether he is charged or not, he is arrested for it in the first place? - that's being arrested for self defence! Had that been my house and family (and im a new dad), id have probably gone a damn sight further then just stabbing the one!

Not had time to look for the ling but did see the story in a paper. Just like other posters on this thread the self defence laws in this country are ridiculous !!!!

The news paper article said that after he had seen what was going on he went back to the house, and picked up a letter opener i believe. He then stabbed one of the attackers of his step son five times. Now if this goes to court that fact he went back to get a weapon and then proceeded to stab five time could go against him.

Hope it does not get to court as it seems this yobs had been causing trouble for a long time, which from one resident had not been sorted out by the police. A few nights before the guys car had been smothered in hair gel.

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.

[nightkhaos]

That's an interesting take, though the complete opposite of what I would have thought. I would expect a trained individual to be more capable of pacifying the aggressor without fatally wounding the person thanks to the training received (though I am seeing it more from the point of view of a martial artist/police officer - perhaps a SAS members are only trained to 'permanently disable' an aggressor, I don't know).

On the other hand, someone who is not trained may not realise when his aggressor is no longer a threat. And he may be concerned that if the aggressor gets back up, angrier than ever, that he would be killed before the authorities arrives.

Basically, yes, I agree that a trained individual has the potential of causing more damage, but is also in a better position to know when to stop than an untrained individual.

Here is actually the problem with self defence laws, they are very subjective.

To answer your question, SAS are generally trained to permanitly pacifiy their oponents, so that they are no longer a threat, and will not be a threat for the remainer of their time in the vacinity.

Therefore they are more likely to knock an indivdual unconcious, or kill the indivdual, than the average person. Yes, they are more likely to stop once they have completed this action, which a normal person may not be able to, but you must understand, a normal person does not know where to strike to cause damage, so they may knock the indivdual out, but the likelyhold is that that most of the damage will be superficial, and there will be a "lucky strike" or two. Like the case is here.

[chuckskull]

... perhaps a SAS members are only trained to 'permanently disable' an aggressor, I don't know

Bit off topic, but no their not. Prisoners are more valuable than bodies. Politically and strategically.

Back on topic; I'm glad I'm not alone in my opinions. Though I think this guy might struggle in court because he went back for the knife, I don't think that's fair, personally. You can't attack someone you perceive as weaker than you than you then expect the full protection of the law when it turns that in fact they are quite prepared to defend themselves. He stabbed him 5 times, but the most serious injury was a perforated lung and after surgery he is recovering quickly, which I presume means the other 4 stabs were relatively superficial.

[nightkhaos]

...which I presume means the other 4 stabs were relatively superficial.

I also made that assumption.

[badass]

Thats infuriating & worrying in equal measures. Whether he is charged or not, he is arrested for it in the first place? - that's being arrested for self defence surely! Had that been my house and family (and im a new dad), id have done exactly the same...anything in my powers to stop the youths & fight them off, be it stabbing or use of another weapon.

So what are the Police supposed to do? Or should they just take anyones word for it when they claim self defence when someone has been stabbed?
It is right that he was arrested for that. Whether he gets convicted or not is another completely different matter.

[TooNice]

Given what is reported, I actually find the amount of force used reasonable. And here's why. The 4-5 youths are clearly unafraid beating up someone, even after they are on the ground. Without any training, the odds of fending against 4-5 youths as someone past your physical prime (or even in your physical prime for that matter) is not one I would want to chance. The only option left is to come in armed and attack hard enough so they will not want to retaliate (or improve your odds to defend yourself if they try to retaliate). Had he not done that, and gone in with just his fists, he may end up lying on his lawn next to his son. Had he spent too long deciding what to take with him to tackle those youths, his son may end up more gravely injured than he is. To me, when he said 'I don't think I had any option', it meant that he did ran various scenarios in his head, and decided that was the best solution at the time. Sure in hindsight, he may wonder whether a frying pan may have been better, but given the circumstances, I consider his actions quite 'reasonable'.

But I do agree with the post above, that it is not inappropriate to investigate. I am only basing my opinion based on the two links posted.