What's your experience regarding "reasonable force"?

tallaght01

There's been a conversation over on the self defence/martial arts forum about using skills outside of the training gym.

I know you can use "reasonable force" to defebd yourself if you're attacked. But one of the posters is talking about his friend who was convicted, after using his martial arts to defend himself from 2 attackers.

So, is "reasonable force" defined in Irish law? Or is it down to the discretion of the jury or judge? I guess it would be pretty hard to define, so I do many people get in trouble for defending themselves for attack?

I have to say it was a worrying thing to hear on the other forum. Not that I go getting myself into ricks all the time. But you don't want to be worrying about a few years in the slammer if you're being attacked on the street.

Mena

I've no idea how it's defined in Irish law, but back in my army days, we were directed to only use "reasonable force" when required. Described, this amounted to fighting fists with fists, knives with knives and guns with guns. Very simplistic yeah.

I however doubt that's the case here and my post has probably served no purpose what-so-ever...

johnnyskeleton

It is a matter for the jury (or judge if it is a summary trial), but to expand on reasonable force:

1) the force used in self defence must be no more than what is necessary to defend the person (or another person, or to protect property, or to prevent an offence taking place) from the attack, so it must effectively be a proportionate response

2) it is based on what the person believed to be the case at the time (e.g. believed he was in mortal danger, believed about to be punched repeatedly, believed his girlfriend was about to be attacked etc)

3) however, even if a person genuinely believed the force was necessary, the force used must have been reasonable, and this is a matter for the jury to assess objectively.

My take on what would be or not be self defence, based only on what I consider reasonable, is (taking an example) where someone comes up to you on the street and starts to punch you, your first duty is to run away, but this is not always possible. So if you are forced to remain there, the person keeps punching you but you are stronger than them so you don't think you are likely to be injured, you are entitled to block yourself and if possible restrain the person from punching you anymore with a small amount of force (e.g. an armlock).

If you think that the person punching you may cause injury to you, you can use a higher level of force such as to repel the attack, even if this force could cause an injury to them. If you think that you are likely to be killed, and this belief is reasonable because the person produces a knife and makes a stab at you, and the only way of defending yourself is by using lethal force against the person, then the use of such force is justified.

Examples of what would not be reasonable force in this scenario would be in the first instance where instead of running away you start to punch the other person back without any effort to try to stop them punching you, in the second instance by giving the weaker person a good beating, in the third instance by using lethal force to defend against a non-lethal attack. In the last scenario (where the only way of defending yourself is lethal force) it would not be self defence if you proceeded to take the guy's wallet, hunt down his entire family and kill them all.

The dividing line is therefore somewhere between defence and retaliation.

dermot_sheehan

Also to note that if in a public place (i.e. not your home or place of business) you have a duty to retreat if this is possible. If you had the opportunity to retreat and you did not do so, the force used would not be reasonable. This doesn't apply to gardai who have a duty to preserve the peace in a public area.

Red Sleeping Beauty

That's some grim reading there. If someone wants to rob you or beat the tar out of you they've got legs too and will give chase. I think it's a bit much to be expecting a person who is threatened to make instant calculations in his/her head about what kind of threat they're facing. Attacks happen very fast and you're often caught of guard.

Kila

That's some interesting stuff.

So if someone was teaching a self defence class, how best to summarise the info above for the students?

They've always got a duty to retreat, and it's no longer reasonable force if, instead of retreating, they stay and beat someone up? Am I reading that correctly?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Kila wrote: »

That's some interesting stuff.

So if someone was teaching a self defense class, how best to summarise the info above for the students?

They've always got a duty to retreat, and it's no longer reasonable force if, instead of retreating, they stay and beat someone up? Am I reading that correctly?

Seems like students should be told to not use their martial arts training to defend themselves and that you're better off taking a beating/getting stabbed/mugged etc than potentially "assaulting" an attacker

DarkJager

The law truly works in funny ways. I know if someone was throwing punches at me, the last thing I would be doing is running away. Surely once the first punch has been thrown, any counter to that is just self defence?

Red Sleeping Beauty

DarkJager wrote: »

The law truly works in funny ways. I know if someone was throwing punches at me, the last thing I would be doing is running away. Surely once the first punch has been thrown, any counter to that is just self defence?

Without a doubt, once the first punch is thrown then you can defend yourself. But it seems that the law will gladly take hindsight into account and declare that if you throw 3 or 4 punches rather than one, then you've assaulted someone.

Sorry for everyone if my posts are coming across as cynical, but in these "tough times" (unemployment and crime on the up) it's hard to be opptimistic that the law is on our side.

mikemac

To use an example, suppose you are punched and you reply with one punch. Reasonable defense and all good so far and the jury would be happy

But the attacker falls back and hits their head off a kerb and dies in hospital. Is it still going to be treated as an ordinary assualt case?
I can't see a manslaughter conviction realy

Red Sleeping Beauty

micmclo wrote: »

To use an example, suppose you are punched and you reply with one punch. Reasonable defense and all good so far and the jury would be happy

But the attacker falls back and hits their head off a kerb and dies in hospital. Manslaughter?

I can remember a case from maybe 4years ago where there was a fight, oen guy punched the other , then he fell, hit his head and died as you say. Then there was a manslaughter charge and he was convicted. I can't remember exactly how long ago it was or who was invovled and I've no links (maybe someone else remembers it ?)

But in this context, if you're a boxer or trained in martial arts and you throw a punch and then that leads to a death it seems that you will be judged much harsher than someone who has never trained in how to throw a punch.

cushtac

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Seems like students should be told to not use their martial arts training to defend themselves and that you're better off taking a beating/getting stabbed/mugged etc than potentially "assaulting" an attacker

They should be told to do their utmost to avoid a fight, retreating where possible & only to use proportionate force where there is no alternative.

The only people I've seen get done for this have been those that didn't take the opportunity to back off or who struck their opponents more than was necessary.

Red Sleeping Beauty

cushtac wrote: »

They should be told to do their utmost to avoid a fight, retreating where possible & only to use proportionate force where there is no alternative.

The only people I've seen get done for this have been those that didn't take the opportunity to back off or who struck their opponents more than was necessary.

Yes , but hindisight is 20/20. That's of course the what we all would like to happen - avoid a confrontation by running away for instance and only use wahtever force needed to get yourself out of a dangerous situation - but the reality of fights and/or confrontations and assaults are more grey than they appear on paper. Do you think that the law should treat a person with a boxing or martial art training differently than one who does not ?

Say you've a coloured belt in karate or something and you throw 2 or 3 punches if attacked and I throw the same number of punches and I'm just joe public. It seems that the law will take a harsher stance on you who has trained how to throw a punch before.

Thoie

Don't know if it's much use to you, but a number of years ago someone tried to mug me. He was going for my wallet, but grabbed me on the shoulder. As I was trying to get away from him, his nose ended up broken (he hit it off something nearby). Other people came along, and the gardaí turned up and took him away. They spoke to me and got details, including my name and phone number, possibly address (I don't remember that well, I was very shaky and also covered in blood). I was completed uninjured other than a small bruise. There was never any question (that I know of) of doing me for assault. I'm not trained in fighting in any way, but I've have been astounded (and a nervous wreck) if assault charges had been brought against me.

cushtac

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Yes , but hindisight is 20/20. That's of course the what we all would like to happen - avoid a confrontation by running away for instance and only use wahtever force needed to get yourself out of a dangerous situation - but the reality of fights and/or confrontations and assaults are more grey than they appear on paper. Do you think that the law should treat a person with a boxing or martial art training differently than one who does not ?

I've seen & dealt with plenty of fights and assaults and I've yet to see a 'grey' self-defence case. Any legitimate self-defence case I've come across involved someone doing their best to avoid a fight & then only doing enough to stay safe.

I don't think someone with training should be dealt with differently by the law and in my experience they're not. I know of one case where a bus driver, who happened to have been a boxer in Poland, was attacked while parking up. The attacker reached in the hatch, grabbed the driver & threatened to stab him. The driver grabbed the attacker back, punched him & forced the attacker to let go. Once the attacker let go, the driver pulled up the hatch & called 999. There was no issue of the driver getting in trouble as he'd only done enough to save himself.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Say you've a coloured belt in karate or something and you throw 2 or 3 punches if attacked and I throw the same number of punches and I'm just joe public. It seems that the law will take a harsher stance on you who has trained how to throw a punch before.

I've yet to come across someone who's been done in such circumstances.

Victor

Remember that you will be judged by your peers.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

But in this context, if you're a boxer or trained in martial arts and you throw a punch and then that leads to a death it seems that you will be judged much harsher than someone who has never trained in how to throw a punch.

Possibly. But people properly trained in martial arts will generally have the oppurtunity to break away, better than say granny in her walking frame.

There are some people (I'm thinking Saturday night drunks) who, if attacked in a minor way will go all out on their attacker and seek to cause them serious harm - these people should not be able to rely on reasonable defence, as what they are doing is unreasonable.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's an interesting case as the minute involving Steve Collins

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1124/collinss.html

Manic Moran

you start to punch the other person back without any effort to try to stop them punching you

Forgive me, but if I'm someone's attacking me, it's far more effective to punch back than to just try to block. Passive defense can only last for so long, eventually a blow will land where it is effective.

They should be told to do their utmost to avoid a fight, retreating where possible

If memory serves, this should be caveated with it not applying in your own home, where there is no duty to retreat.

But it seems that the law will gladly take hindsight into account and declare that if you throw 3 or 4 punches rather than one, then you've assaulted someone

Raw numbers shouldn't be the issue, merely effect. If it took three or four punches to have the desired effect, then so be it.

NTM

shoegirl

I think its considered to be no more than is necessary to "remove" somebody from a premises or place or stop them attacking you.

samslade

I heard on the news this morning that the jury are making their decision.
I was surprised to hear he is being tried by jury, and that it is not being treated as a summary offence: He is a reputable person afaik and he is accused of throwing one punch. Did he do a lot of damage to the bouncer then? Or did he choose to be tried by jury?

Red Sleeping Beauty

The bouncer went to the Guards about 4days after the incident. It's entirely plausible that he was punched by someone after the Collins incident and that he's not being entirely truthful.

T-Square

In summary.

Run away,
if you are chased, then defend yourself,
if you can't defend and you 'think' your life is in danger, then try to kill them.

That's the KM way.

In regard to the Collins case, it's hard to tell if he used unreasonable force.
The door man should not have put his hands on Collins,
it's unclear if Collins used a blocking action, but he says he did.

The fact that the doorman didn't go to the doctor or police immediately,
suggests Collins is innocent.
Balance of probabilities etc

mark.leonard

For those of us teaching martial arts its quite the sticky wicket. At what point does defending oneself become assault?
The best self defence is avoiding the situation completely.

Stay out of dodgy areas.
If you have mates who get into trouble when they have a few beers then stop drinking them.
Don't be a d1ck; when drink is involved, sometimes it doesn't take much encouragement to have someone kick off with you.
Don't flash what you have in front of have nots, they might try to reverse the situation.

Following those guidelines is far more useful than learning years of martial arts; at the end of the day muggers look for soft targets, don't be one.

T-Square

+1 that's good advice.

Always run away. Also professionally escalating the volume of your voice is tremendously effective, e.g. shouting "go away, leave me/us alone" does work.

But...if it doesn't work, never get into the 1-2-3 "fight!" scenario.
If someone punches you(1), don't shove back(2), as you will get the smack (3).

Be the aggressor at point (2) using reasonable force, blahdy, blahdy, blah...

samslade

How come he's being judged by a jury and not a judge if it's summary? I thought sumary charges were always judged by a judge alone.

Red Sleeping Beauty

mark.leonard wrote: »

For those of us teaching martial arts its quite the sticky wicket. At what point does defending oneself become assault?
The best self defence is avoiding the situation completely.

Stay out of dodgy areas.
If you have mates who get into trouble when they have a few beers then stop drinking them.
Don't be a d1ck; when drink is involved, sometimes it doesn't take much encouragement to have someone kick off with you.
Don't flash what you have in front of have nots, they might try to reverse the situation.

Following those guidelines is far more useful than learning years of martial arts; at the end of the day muggers look for soft targets, don't be one.

That's perhaps good advice but to me it just seems like common sense.
You can't stay out of a dodgy area if you live in one. Point taken about the drink but again anyone who continues to hang around people who cause trouble is asking for trouble themselves. If someone flashes what they've got or says "I'm a UFC fighter, I can kill you" then of course they deserve harsh treatment from the law.

I think you're getting away from the issue. Anyone trained in martial arts who is in a situation where they have no choice (that they believe) but to defend themselves, they're left open to an assault charge . And even those that don't have training, if they get the better of their attacker they could end up on the defense in a court case.

mark.leonard

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

That's perhaps good advice but to me it just seems like common sense.

You are right, but common sense is not nearly as common as one might expect. You would be amazed the amount of folks who ask me about self defence prefaced with "when I drink in X I keep getting hassled, how can i defend myself?", my answer of course is stop drinking there; one would be forgiven for thinking they should have thought of it themselves.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

You can't stay out of a dodgy area if you live in one.

Good point and well made sir. Its rare that someone mugs someone they know though, what with line ups being an issue after the fact, so if you are in an alleged dodgy area that you grew up, its unlikely to be quite so dodgy for you.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Point taken about the drink but again anyone who continues to hang around people who cause trouble is asking for trouble themselves.

I actually meant to say "stop drinking WITH them", I only spotted the missing word when you quoted it. You are 100% correct of course.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

If someone flashes what they've got or says "I'm a UFC fighter, I can kill you" then of course they deserve harsh treatment from the law.

I think you confused my point - flashing cash in front of someone poor is tempting them to try and take it, avoiding trouble is easier if you don't do that.
Anyone that says "I'm a UFC fighter, I can kill you" almost certainly isn't, but either way is a plonker

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I think you're getting away from the issue. Anyone trained in martial arts who is in a situation where they have no choice (that they believe) but to defend themselves, they're left open to an assault charge . And even those that don't have training, if they get the better of their attacker they could end up on the defense in a court case.

Mea culpa, I may have strayed somewhat from the main thrust of the topic, but to my mind I think the point needed to be made. The more you stay out of trouble the less you have to worry about what happens afterwards.

The harsh fact of the real world is that if you hit someone and hurt them you will get into trouble, whether with intent or by accident. Its the main reason I got into Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and MMA instead of Taekwondo; having options apart from punching or kicking mean you can finish the fight without having to resort to blunt force trauma.

Red Sleeping Beauty

mark.leonard wrote: »

The harsh fact of the real world is that if you hit someone and hurt them you will get into trouble, whether with intent or by accident. Its the main reason I got into Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and MMA instead of Taekwondo; having options apart from punching or kicking mean you can finish the fight without having to resort to blunt force trauma.

So to get back to the topic, what's your understanding or experience with "reasonable force"?
Someone confronts you, you know it's going to end up bad either way. You're forced to defend yourself, the other guy's injured and then you find yourself facing charges of assault . Even if an armbar might not seem like a direct strike . Obviously you'd like to run away or get out of the confrontation without it being physical btu what if you need to defend yourself to a point where you've broken the attackers arm ?

mark.leonard

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

So to get back to the topic, what's your understanding or experience with "reasonable force"?
Someone confronts you, you know it's going to end up bad either way. You're forced to defend yourself, the other guy's injured and then you find yourself facing charges of assault . Even if an armbar might not seem like a direct strike . Obviously you'd like to run away or get out of the confrontation without it being physical btu what if you need to defend yourself to a point where you've broken the attackers arm ?

You mis-interpreted my reference to MMA, an arm bar is not the alternative to a punch, I was thinking of restraint/control.

The problem with your question is you are trying to simplify an infinitely varied problem to a couple of straight forward alternatives. I could blithely deflect you reference to an arm bar by saying I could put him to sleep with a rear naked choke, but trying to predict what is the outcome of a random encounter in an unknown location against an unknown number of attackers is completely pointless, if I could do that I would just predict the lotto results instead

I have no idea what would happen if I was jumped; I might be fine, or it could happen the day after I put my knee out in training, in that case I would not be fine. In other words trying to give a concrete answer to this question is impossible.

What you can predict with greater certainty is the likelihood of being attacked in a good area surrounded by good people with you being good, for want of a better word, is remote. So rather than roll the dice on the likely negative outcome of a violent altercation its better to stack the deck in your favor against getting in one.