Laws regarding self defence

yomchi

Hello all,

Just a quick question regarding the laws here about defending one's self.
Also does the law define what reasonable and excessive force is?

Thanks
Jon

MaeveD

No concrete definitions as far as I'm aware...

The way I understand it is that for a bloke... by law if someone attacks you, you do can enough to escape.

For women it's different, if attacked I think we can get away with a lot more.

vasch_ro

You must in all cases use reasonable force
That is : only such force only such as is reasonable in the circumstances

this may help
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA26Y1997S18.html

do a google.ie using the words "use of reasonable force to defend yourself" and you should come with some court judgements to explain how the courts view reasonable force or search the court service web site

in summation
Justifiable use of force
If you are attacked or your property is under threat, you are entitled to use a certain amount of force to defend yourself and your property. However, the precise limits are not very clear. The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 provides that the use of reasonable force for the following purposes is not an offence:
• to protect yourself or another person from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act or
• to protect yourself or another (with the authority of the other person) from trespass to the person or
• to protect your property or that of another person (with the person’s authority) from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
• to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

What exactly constitutes reasonable force and what circumstances give rise to the right to use such force are dependent on the precise facts of the case.

The law does make any gender distinctions, a judge however might.
Jon pm me with your snail mail address and I will send you the bill

Sangre

You can attack first and it can still be self defence

loz

vasch_ro wrote:

• to protect yourself or another (with the authority of the other person) from trespass to the person or
•

So - If you see someone being raped - you have to ask if they need help ?

dunkamania

Sangre wrote:

You can attack first and it can still be self defence

Please explain this,

yomchi

vasch_ro wrote:

You must in all cases use reasonable force
That is : only such force only such as is reasonable in the circumstances

this may help
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA26Y1997S18.html

do a google.ie using the words "use of reasonable force to defend yourself" and you should come with some court judgements to explain how the courts view reasonable force or search the court service web site

in summation
Justifiable use of force
If you are attacked or your property is under threat, you are entitled to use a certain amount of force to defend yourself and your property. However, the precise limits are not very clear. The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 provides that the use of reasonable force for the following purposes is not an offence:
• to protect yourself or another person from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act or
• to protect yourself or another (with the authority of the other person) from trespass to the person or
• to protect your property or that of another person (with the person’s authority) from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
• to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

What exactly constitutes reasonable force and what circumstances give rise to the right to use such force are dependent on the precise facts of the case.

The law does make any gender distinctions, a judge however might.
Jon pm me with your snail mail address and I will send you the bill

LOL thanks!!
Jon

cavedave

The Gerry Ryan show today had a law professor on who said that you cannot consent to being assaulted. His example was that if you agreed to a mess fight with a friend and this turned into an assault your consent would not justify the assault.
Having a quick google on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_(criminal)#Consent_as_a_defence_to_non-sexual_assaults

"The problem has always been to decide at what level the victim's consent becomes ineffective. Historically, the defence was denied when the injuries caused amounted to a maim"

Does this mean that if you injure someone training or competing in martial art you can be charged with assault? The "they signed up for it" argument does not hold because in irish law you cannot sign away your rights.

There seems to be an obvious difference between 1. an accident 2. deliberately maiming someone, where does martial arts injuries fall on this scale?
David

cavedave

Sorry just paid more attention to the section
Consent as an effective defence
"In properly regulated sport, there is a legal right to cause incidental injury...arising within the rules of the game being played."

This would seem to mean that as long as you obey the rules of your properly regulated sport you are not commiting an assault. "Thus, the consent in licensed boxing events is to intentional harm within the rules and a blow struck between rounds would be an assault."
So the questions left are
1. is mma a "properly regulated sport" given the lack of governing body etc?
2.Are non sport martial covered as a form of horseplay as described in the article?

Sangre

loz wrote:

So - If you see someone being raped - you have to ask if they need help ?

Their request for help is implicit in their screaming and kicking etc..

Have you ever heard the term assault and battery? Well its the old legal term for assault.
Assault was verbal - threats of physical damage and death
Battery was actual physical act.
Now the law sees them both as assault although they are both distinct.

So if someone is verbally assaulting and you reasonably feel that your only way to prevent yourself being injured is to strike and run then thats ok.

'Give us your wallet or ill kill you'
*PUNCH and run*

Still self defence. The law is not going to require to be attacked before you can fight back.
Hmmm Im surrounded by 10 threatening men..better wait until im kicked to be safe etc.

ninjawitatitude

Hi Jon,

Jon wrote:

...does the law define what reasonable and excessive force is?

Nope. This is a huge grey area and is largely subject to the judge's whims/discretion.
For example, two summers ago a colleague of mine (nine stone in a wet duffel coat) broke a guys arm in the course of his work. No charges were brought.
I (15 stone) knocked a glass out of an attackers hand, four months custodial. (Appeal pending)

yomchi

ninjawitatitude wrote:

Hi Jon,



Nope. This is a huge grey area and is largely subject to the judge's whims/discretion.
For example, two summers ago a colleague of mine (nine stone in a wet duffel coat) broke a guys arm in the course of his work. No charges were brought.
I (15 stone) knocked a glass out of an attackers hand, four months custodial. (Appeal pending)

Whoa that's harsh!
I see what you mean

Colm_OReilly

Dave,

The case of R. v. Brun in the UK dealt with a lot of issues regarding consenting to assault. Basically a bunch of homosexual sado-machicists were charged with assault, despite their activities being consensual and highly regulated.

They argued that in all sports you are assaulting, rugby being their example case, yet they lost. It is wildly regarded that they shouldn't have lost the case based on the facts, it would appear their lawyer wasn't top notch. It doesn, however, raise the question of what exactly is a sport.

Colm

Roper

So Homosexual sado-masochism isn't a sport?

Better withdraw the government funding application so....

Sangre

You can get done for assault from participating in a match if its extreme enough. Playing rugby or something won't excuse you from prosecution.