Protection allowed to be carried by women or men?

caseyann

Hey i am just wondering,what kind of protection women or men are allowed to carry?
Because of this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055998555
Thought it would be better asked over here.

Shield

If you're asking if you're allowed to carry weapons for the purposes of self defence, the answer is unfortunately no, you can't.

You CAN improvise with what you happen to have on you at the time in the name of self defence. There are some very good self defence courses you can take which show you how you can turn everyday objects into fierce weapons.

caseyann

psni wrote: »

If you're asking if you're allowed to carry weapons for the purposes of self defence, the answer is unfortunately no, you can't.

You CAN improvise with what you happen to have on you at the time in the name of self defence. There are some very good self defence courses you can take which show you how you can turn everyday objects into fierce weapons.

Sorry i wasn't clear.
Thanks.:)
Do you think it should be changed and weapons of self defense of some sort should be brought out?
I remember seeing batons somewhere are allowed,cant remember where.
And self defense classes arent really good for pregnant or semi disabled women or men really or the old?
I was once told best place to hit some is in the throat or eyes?

Was pepper spray removed because used as a weapon by assailants etc..?


I did find an old woman who defended herself with a pen.

scudzilla

On this subject, i have a steering wheel lock, it's exactly the same shape and length as a baseball bat, i never use it but it's always in the rear footwell within arms length.

I can't get done for having it can i?

Shield

Rather than give you specific advice on such matters, I would direct you to our Self Defence & Martial Arts forum where you can receive expert answers to those kind of questions.

The problem with being allowed by law to arm yourself "just in case" is that the scum out there would more than likely raise their game and start using firearms to mug people. It also could give rise to you overdoing things a bit if you got the upper hand, and by using force that would be deemed excessive (if you sprayed someone for example), you are then open to prosecution if you then proceed to beat someone into a coma as revenge for the attempted attack.

Any type of spray over here is considered a firearm, and is illegal to possess unless you are a Garda.

Batons are deemed to be offensive weapons, and are therefore illegal to possess (except by the Gardai) because it only has one purpose.

You'd be surprised at how everyday items can be used to defend yourself from an attacker. I know that some of the experts in our Self Defence & Martial Arts forum will be able to give you a few pointers, so drop in and ask them for a few pointers.

If you need any further clarification on the legal/policing side of things, you can always reply here and I'll help you as best as I can.

Delancey

Leaving legalities aside for a moment , it should be remembered that when you carry a weapon for protection there is a very real possibility an attacker will disarm you and turn your weapon on your goodself.

MagicSean

psni wrote: »

If you're asking if you're allowed to carry weapons for the purposes of self defence, the answer is unfortunately no, you can't

Nothing unfortunate about it.

scudzilla wrote: »

On this subject, i have a steering wheel lock, it's exactly the same shape and length as a baseball bat, i never use it but it's always in the rear footwell within arms length.

I can't get done for having it can i?

Not if it has a practicle use. But what would you use it for? If someone attacks you what use would it be. The time it takes you to get it would be too long and it would have little use in the confines of a car.

Shield

k_mac wrote: »

Nothing unfortunate about it.

In the context of the OP and her concern for her safety, I would say it is unfortunate. In other countries, laws permit people to carry sprays and guns. In Ireland and the UK, laws forbid it. Some would say that's unfortunate for us. It's a matter of opinion and you've achieved nothing by nitpicking at my post.

scottsullivan

caseyann wrote: »

I did find an old woman who defended herself with a pen.

well iv always been told the pen is mightier than the sword

shakin

in the uk some doormen carry a spray that disperses a very strong pungent odour, not going to physichally harm you but may give you that extra second to get away or get the upper hand in a struggle.

Zambia

shakin wrote: »

in the uk some doormen carry a spray that disperses a very strong pungent odour, not going to physichally harm you but may give you that extra second to get away or get the upper hand in a struggle.

Is it Brut ?

Sorry I jest, is this spray legal?

scottsullivan

Zambia232 wrote: »

Is it Brut ?

Sorry I jest, is this spray legal?

notice the way he said "doesnt physically harm"

Brut stings the nostrils, like a real "sex panther. it works 60 % of the time, everytime

Delancey

Brut - ' turns women into beasts ' :P

Zambia

I cant find a Molle pouch for it ...foiled

Shakin when you wake up , what is that spray and is it Legal under UK law?

HxGH

psni wrote: »

If you're asking if you're allowed to carry weapons for the purposes of self defence, the answer is unfortunately no, you can't.

You CAN improvise with what you happen to have on you at the time in the name of self defence. There are some very good self defence courses you can take which show you how you can turn everyday objects into fierce weapons.

Well you see... I "found" a gun under a plant pot...... So I simply defended myself! :rolleyes:

MagicSean

psni wrote: »

In the context of the OP and her concern for her safety, I would say it is unfortunate. In other countries, laws permit people to carry sprays and guns. In Ireland and the UK, laws forbid it. Some would say that's unfortunate for us. It's a matter of opinion and you've achieved nothing by nitpicking at my post.

I'm not nitpicking your post. I don't see it as unfortunate that people can't carry weapons. Any garda will probably feel the same. A simple theft, were there would be no violence involved, could get very messy for no reason. The best thing for people to do is run away if possible or comply with the thief and remember everything they can. There are very few situations were an armed victim would produce a good result.

psni wrote: »

You CAN improvise with what you happen to have on you at the time in the name of self defence.

This kind of advice should not be given out by any serving member because it invariably leads to this kind of attitude.

HxGH wrote: »

Well you see... I "found" a gun under a plant pot...... So I simply defended myself! :rolleyes:

The fact is that you cant improvise in all situations. There would have to be a real threat to your life if you were to produce a firearm or knife.

Ian Beale

psni wrote: »

If you're asking if you're allowed to carry weapons for the purposes of self defence, the answer is unfortunately no, you can't.

You CAN improvise with what you happen to have on you at the time in the name of self defence. There are some very good self defence courses you can take which show you how you can turn everyday objects into fierce weapons.

k_mac wrote: »

I'm not nitpicking your post.

This kind of advice should not be given out by any serving member because it invariably leads to this kind of attitude.

Eh his post is very clear that you can't carry weapons and that you can improvise with objects for self defence if it is necessary. Clearly this doesn't mean you can just "happen" to find a gun in your back pocket, everyday items like pens, torches etc and it's good advice too.

k_mac

k_mac wrote: »

A simple theft, were there would be no violence involved, could get very messy for no reason.

I disagree there. I think if a 'simple theft' gets messy, then it's to be expected.

Without trying to go for the keyboard warrior of the year award, I feel that if anyone intentionally steals from someone, then the person stealing from them deserves the absolute worst case scenario as a result.

If someone tried to steal from me, provided I wasn't in a situation where I couldn't do anything (heavily outnumbered, they have decent weapons, etc.) then I'd like to think things would end up getting 'messy'.


I hate the thoughts that because it's viewed as a minor crime, that there shouldn't be any punishment for it. Pickpockets and the likes are rarely ever caught.


To be more on-topic though, I do think people should be allowed to carry things to defend themselves. You'd really need to pick your weapon carefully though. As has been said on the thread already, it wouldn't be much use if you got disarmed straight away and had it used against you.


Speaking of which, is there something to stop that happening to AGS? Do they have wrist straps or something on their batons?

nesf

k_mac wrote: »

This kind of advice should not be given out by any serving member because it invariably leads to this kind of attitude.

I firmly disagree, self-defence is a right in this country and rightly so. I am entitled not to carry weapons but to improvise objects to aid me in defending myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a member of the force advising a person of their rights in this regard.

shakin

here ya go.....

http://www.vestguard.co.uk/bouncer-spray/vestguard-bouncer-spray.htm

MagicSean

Ian Beale wrote: »

Eh his post is very clear that you can't carry weapons and that you can improvise with objects for self defence if it is necessary. Clearly this doesn't mean you can just "happen" to find a gun in your back pocket, everyday items like pens, torches etc and it's good advice too.

It's terrible advice. If someone attacks you with a knife you get the hell out of there. You don't try fight them off with a pen.

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree there. I think if a 'simple theft' gets messy, then it's to be expected.

Without trying to go for the keyboard warrior of the year award, I feel that if anyone intentionally steals from someone, then the person stealing from them deserves the absolute worst case scenario as a result.

If someone tried to steal from me, provided I wasn't in a situation where I couldn't do anything (heavily outnumbered, they have decent weapons, etc.) then I'd like to think things would end up getting 'messy'.


I hate the thoughts that because it's viewed as a minor crime, that there shouldn't be any punishment for it. Pickpockets and the likes are rarely ever caught.


To be more on-topic though, I do think people should be allowed to carry things to defend themselves. You'd really need to pick your weapon carefully though. As has been said on the thread already, it wouldn't be much use if you got disarmed straight away and had it used against you.


Speaking of which, is there something to stop that happening to AGS? Do they have wrist straps or something on their batons?

You assume I meant get messy for the criminal. Its more likely to be messy for the person who drew the weapon. The punishment for a crime should be left to the courts, not the victim or the police.

nesf wrote: »

I firmly disagree, self-defence is a right in this country and rightly so. I am entitled not to carry weapons but to improvise objects to aid me in defending myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a member of the force advising a person of their rights in this regard.

Just because you have the right to do so does not mean you have to use it. If a hardened criminal tries to take your money you should not be advised to tackle them. Also if you get in a fight with someone and you see a knife or sharp implement on the ground you are not necessarily entitled to pick it up and use it.

nesf

k_mac wrote: »

Just because you have the right to do so does not mean you have to use it. If a hardened criminal tries to take your money you should not be advised to tackle them. Also if you get in a fight with someone and you see a knife or sharp implement on the ground you are not necessarily entitled to pick it up and use it.

And no one is saying that you should automatically fight back in every situation, all that's being said is that it is legal to fight back using improvised weapons. Self-defence is about situations where you can't escape, not about fighting back for the sake of fighting back.

meathstevie

Why would PSNI's advice be bad ? You have a right to not have to suffer from unlawful violence; it's called self defence and it all comes down to what you did to defend yourself was proportionate and reasonable. Ultimately it will be a court that decides whether what someone has done was lawful self defence or illegal violence.

If grabbing whatever comes to hand as a weapon to defend myself if needs be I'm not going to be the one who gets a hiding...there'll be vases, bottles and chairs and the whole lot flying.... .

If someone would be stupid enough to rob a hardware store you could hardly blame the shopkeeper to throw a couple of hatchets at the robber could you ? Or the staff of an off licence to crack a botlle over a head or a chipper to lash a dollop of red hot frying oil in the direction of etc etc...

pa990

shakin wrote: »

here ya go.....

http://www.vestguard.co.uk/bouncer-spray/vestguard-bouncer-spray.htm

or
http://www.prankplace.com/product.aspx?p=297&c=34

ILA

Take a look at FARB gel as well, its a non-harmful spray which can be used to surprise an attacker (he'll think pepper spray) and it shoots a red gel on the attacker which stays on for a hour or more, and forensic fragments of it remain for up to a week.

Otherwise improvise.

angelfire9

As a Female married to a cop up to 6 months ago if a scrote tried to rob me I'd have fought back tooth and nail with a fair degree of confidence (unless of course the attacker had a knife or gun)

As a now 5 month pregnant woman I wouldn't dream of it I'd hand over whatever they wanted be it wallet or car and walk the hell away (or waddle as the case may be)

NOTHING I own right now is worth getting hurt over

wouldn't stop me getting a full description and ringing the station ASAP though and I'd be happy to testify if they were caught but even if the attacker got away Scott free it would be preferable to being injured, material possessions can always be replaced a life cannot

Zambia

Congrats Angelfire.

Sorry nothing further.. what I think has been said

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

I'm not nitpicking your post. I don't see it as unfortunate that people can't carry weapons. Any garda will probably feel the same. A simple theft, were there would be no violence involved, could get very messy for no reason. The best thing for people to do is run away if possible or comply with the thief and remember everything they can. There are very few situations were an armed victim would produce a good result.

Why? Why do you think it's best for people to just run away? Why is it so wrong to stand up for yourself, to stand your ground instead of running away. Granted if I was approached by a gang of thugs I would probably run, but in a lot of cases people have the right to not run away and hide.

This kind of advice should not be given out by any serving member because it invariably leads to this kind of attitude.

And what kind of attitude is that?

The fact is that you cant improvise in all situations. There would have to be a real threat to your life if you were to produce a firearm or knife.

Do you not find it strange that I cannot carry a knife, yet use a pen to stab someone in the eye as self defence?

Zambia

What ?

My god dont go around stabbing people in the eye with anything as the entire piont of defensive action is to escape or stop the attack. If its the only option/target use your finger, its probably closer to hand. If it was the only option left fair enough but be prepared to answer for this action at a later date.

You also cannot carry around a knife for defensive purposes. If found with it you will be in the poo rightly. It is quite frankly a horrible offensive weapon.

Finnbar01

Zambia232 wrote: »

What ?

My god dont go around stabbing people in the eye with anything as the entire piont of defensive action is to escape or stop the attack. If its the only option/target use your finger, its probably closer to hand. If it was the only option left fair enough but be prepared to answer for this action at a later date.

You also cannot carry around a knife for defensive purposes. If found with it you will be in the poo rightly. It is quite frankly a horrible offensive weapon.

I've no intentions of going around stabbing anyone in the eye. What if I'm set upon and I have no escape, the nearest thing to protect myself is a pen, I don't think it would be wrong to lash out with it.

What if I have a swiss army knife that I use for fishing and odd jobs?

BTW, what do you cut the sunday roost with?

angelfire9

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I've no intentions of going around stabbing anyone in the eye. What if I'm set upon and I have no escape, the nearest thing to protect myself is a pen, I don't think it would be wrong to lash out with it.

What if I have a swiss army knife that I use for fishing and odd jobs?

BTW, what do you cut the sunday roost with?

If you are set upon and there is no escape???
There is always or nearly always an escape option but methinks the "macho man" part of you would rather fight than flight??

As for the Sunday roast I have a set of Victrinox knives including a 12inch carving knife that funnily enough stays in the kitchen!
Invariably for Christmas day my mother asks me to carve the meats and help with the veg prep so my knives and I go travelling with the knives in a LOCKED box in the boot of the car, to carry them in the passenger area of the car is illegal

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Why? Why do you think it's best for people to just run away? Why is it so wrong to stand up for yourself, to stand your ground instead of running away. Granted if I was approached by a gang of thugs I would probably run, but in a lot of cases people have the right to not run away and hide.

Because unless they are Jackie Chan you will probably get badly hurt. The majority of people who do street robberies will be junkies or career criminals who have little to lose and will have done this before. Like i've said before, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

And what kind of attitude is that?

This kind of attitude:

Finnbar01 wrote: »

use a pen to stab someone in the eye as self defence?

Finnbar01

k_mac wrote: »

Because unless they are Jackie Chan you will probably get badly hurt. The majority of people who do street robberies will be junkies or career criminals who have little to lose and will have done this before

.

So, if your attacker has you on the ground and is trying to slit your throat, would you not use the metal pen as the closet thing at hand?

Like i've said before, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.

True, but that's neither here nor there. BTW, my karate instructor told me many years ago that the best self defence weapon was my two legs - RUN!

This kind of attitude: original posted by finnbar01

The point I was making, is that a pen (and a whole host of other household objects) can do just as much damage as a knife.

angelfire9

Finnbar01 wrote: »

.

So, if your attacker has you on the ground and is trying to slit your throat, would you not use the metal pen as the closet thing at hand?


True, but that's neither here nor there. BTW, my karate instructor told me many years ago that the best self defence weapon was my two legs - RUN!

The point I was making, is that a pen (and a whole host of other household objects) can do just as much damage as a knife.

May I ask, what is it that you carry on your person that is SO VALUABLE that you are willing to risk your life to keep it????

Finnbar01

angelfire9 wrote: »

If you are set upon and there is no escape???
There is always or nearly always an escape option but methinks the "macho man" part of you would rather fight than flight??

What if there is not an escape route? What's so 'macho' for defending your person?
Please be aware I'm on about life death situations.

angelfire9 wrote: »

As for the Sunday roast I have a set of Victrinox knives including a 12inch carving knife that funnily enough stays in the kitchen!
Invariably for Christmas day my mother asks me to carve the meats and help with the veg prep so my knives and I go travelling with the knives in a LOCKED box in the boot of the car, to carry them in the passenger area of the car is illegal

Zambia's post which he stated he find knives offensive. I find them useful as so does your good self.

angelfire9 wrote: »

May I ask, what is it that you carry on your person that is SO VALUABLE that you are willing to risk your life to keep it????

My life.

angelfire9

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if there is not an escape route? What's so 'macho' for defending your person?
Please be aware I'm on about life death situations.

Zambia's post which he stated he find knives offensive. I find them useful as so does your good self.

My life.

Mugging does not have to be a life or death situation, you always have 2 options fight or flight, you are choosing fight every time, muggers do not generally aim to kill their victims, they aim to rob their victims and generally only turn violent when provoked

I have never been hurt on the streets despite working in niteclubs in the DMA in the late 90's and having to walk home past junkies every night

I know how to defend myself if i have to, 15 years of working in the Hotel industry and you learn what situations are worth taking a stand and when it is better to walk away

As for the knife comment you are taking Zambia's comment out of context and you know it!
Knives on the street are offensive.... end of!!

shampon

angelfire9 wrote: »

Mugging does not have to be a life or death situation, you always have 2 options fight or flight, you are choosing fight every time, muggers do not generally aim to kill their victims, they aim to rob their victims and generally only turn violent when provoked

I have never been hurt on the streets despite working in niteclubs in the DMA in the late 90's and having to walk home past junkies every night

I know how to defend myself if i have to, 15 years of working in the Hotel industry and you learn what situations are worth taking a stand and when it is better to walk away

As for the knife comment you are taking Zambia's comment out of context and you know it!
Knives on the street are offensive.... end of!!

I hope your talking about Human Resource managers...

Finnbar01

angelfire9 wrote: »

Mugging does not have to be a life or death situation, you always have 2 options fight or flight, you are choosing fight every time, muggers do not generally aim to kill their victims, they aim to rob their victims and generally only turn violent when provoked

I have never been hurt on the streets despite working in niteclubs in the DMA in the late 90's and having to walk home past junkies every night

I know how to defend myself if i have to, 15 years of working in the Hotel industry and you learn what situations are worth taking a stand and when it is better to walk away

As for the knife comment you are taking Zambia's comment out of context and you know it!
Knives on the street are offensive.... end of!!

I meant in my other posts I'm talking about life and death situations. If someone wants to fight that is there right and their own business.

Zambia said he found knives offensive weapons, all weapons are offensive. I would use a knife in a situation where my life was threatened.

Just because you've never experienced 'hurt' on the streets, doesn't mean someone else will not. The choice they make, fight or flight is entirely up to them.

angelfire9

shampon wrote: »

I hope your talking about Human Resource managers...

??????
I was a duty manager in hotels all over Ireland I've dealt with my fair share of drunks and people high on drugs in hotels and clubs

Zambia

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I've no intentions of going around stabbing anyone in the eye. What if I'm set upon and I have no escape, the nearest thing to protect myself is a pen, I don't think it would be wrong to lash out with it.

My bad Maybe I should have been clearer , if you are set upon and you have a pen in your hand. Jamm it anywhere , it bloody hurts if enough force is applied. There is no need to go for the eyes.

Jamming a pen in somesone eye stinks of malicous forethought. But that just my opinion however remember I could be on a Jury. The same effect can be achieved by a simple finger poke in the eye.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if I have a swiss army knife that I use for fishing and odd jobs?

A knife is potential lethal force and can only be used in the event of imminent threat to life. If you have time to extend the blade on a swiss army knife you have the time to escape the attack by other means.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

BTW, what do you cut the sunday roost with?

A carving knife and the last person I met with one outside a kitchen or dwelling is now in prison.

I agree with your stance on defending yourself and using what is to hand where we differ is in this comment which is what I responded to.

Do you not find it strange that I cannot carry a knife, yet use a pen to stab someone in the eye as self defence?

Should you carry a knife that is easily deployed like a steak knife or a Rambo Kinife or a carving knife. You cannot ever excuse it with the excuse of it was for defence. If a knife had defensive value it would be issued to police.

angelfire9

Cops cannot serve on a jury in Ireland Zambia

I was called for jury duty once and the defence objected to me cos both my dad and hubby are cops (father now retired)

I was so disappointed but I guess your average Joe soap wouldn't understand the concept of malice aforesight / mens rea which I do

Zambia

angelfire9 wrote: »

Cops cannot serve on a jury in Ireland Zambia

I was called for jury duty once and the defence objected to me cos both my dad and hubby are cops (father now retired)

I was so disappointed but I guess your average Joe soap wouldn't understand the concept of malice aforesight / mens rea which I do

Ah there is the beauty of it I'm not a cop, I work for an alarm company. Any sensible defence lawyer would exclude me anyway. If they have that option.

angry_fox

Finnbar01 wrote: »

.

So, if your attacker has you on the ground and is trying to slit your throat, would you not use the metal pen as the closet thing at hand?

well that person would not be an attacker, more of an attempted murderer...... if some one is going to attempt to mug, rob etc from another person there is not much the victim can do, the fear, shock and speed of the event will make any sort of "protection" they are carrying useless, maybe if they see it coming they might have a chance but it usually it wont make a difference. Anyway who needs protection when a kick in the balls will nine times out of ten to the job

480905

Its all very well talking about defending yourself but you dont actually know how you'll react in a situation. I would personally like to think i'd be able to react but I dont know for sure.
If you're caught up in a situation, in the heat of the moment and in self defense, your attacker receives a fatal injury, you will have to face Judge and Jury in a case that might be deemed "justifiable". But if you get the upper hand and see red and continue after "acceptable levels of force" have been used in order to quell the attack has been used , well then you'll be charged accordingly in the eyes of the law. Training with a reputable self defence club or instructor should give an individual an idea of how they will react and equip them with the self confidence to defend themselves.

Spartan09

Something else to bear in mind and just to blur the waters further. During our martial arts training we were informed by our instructors that if we were physically attacked and responded with physical force to defend ourselves, that once we reached the level of black belt that the law would construe that as having used a weapon in defending ourselves. I never actually checked the veractity of this claim within a legal context. I reached black belt level a few years ago and despite being able to look after myself physically if needs be my first reaction is always to get out of the situation as quick as possible without the need to use violence. However I do also believe that if a person is backed into a corner with no feasabile means of escape and fears for the physical safety / bodily integrity that they should be able to use any means at their immediate disposal to prevent harm against themselves and escape the situation.

ART6

I always bothers me, this "reasonable force" business. I was never trained in the army or the AGS. I have not made a habit of getting into fights for many a year, although I did inadvertantly in the occasional seaport in my youth as a seaman. I experimented quite successfully for a while with amateur boxing, and I learned how to hit very hard indeed, but I still don't know what "reasonable force" is.

If I am attacked, in a moment of shock and (yes probably) fear and maybe anger, I lash out and seriously injure my attacker, is that "reasonable"? If it turns out that my attacker was a druggie who could hardly stand up alone, am I guilty of an offence although I didn't immediately realise that?

All these cosy little laws sound all nice and human, but in a law court when a very clever barrister is trying to convince the jury that I was a rampant maniac who wildly over-reacted to the timid approach for alms by his client.....

Maybe the choice wouldn't be so necessary is the same laws made the criminal regret bitterly the day he turned to robbery etc?

480905

Reasonable force could be argued in the point that it was the level of force used to stop the attack.
If you continued to use that level of force against the individual AFTER the attack has been quelled , then the law wouldn't be in your favour.
Example could be, Boxer is approached by 2 yokes looking for money with violence ,he deems it necessary to defend himself and strikes one or two of them and they stop - Job done. If after a period of time he goes and Strikes them again without the need to defend himself and they receive an injury,then he's in Limbo.
If you find that level of force is not enough and the attackers keep coming then you need to defend yourself further and if this leads to the injury of an attacker then so be it. You will face legal proceedings most likely ,but the law will be on your side. Hopefully anyway.

480905

ART6 wrote: »

If I am attacked, in a moment of shock and (yes probably) fear and maybe anger, I lash out and seriously injure my attacker, is that "reasonable"? If it turns out that my attacker was a druggie who could hardly stand up alone, am I guilty of an offence although I didn't immediately realise that?

Yes it is reasonable if it stops the attack. The fact he/she receives an injury attacking you and it was done AT THE TIME during the initial attack and NOT subsequent to the original attack will be taken in to account. If they were injured AFTER that, then you'll be in bother.

Spartan09

I had an instructor who was a 5th dan in a martial art, 3 gougers with knives tried to mug him with knives, he put two in hospital with broken jaws and the other with a broken cheek bone. In terms of criminal law he was adjudged to have defended himself within the remit of self defence. However as he was a 5th dan the gougers took a civil case against him that he used unreasonable levels of force considering his skill levels. They didnt win their case but makes you think twice about the leve of force that you use that its not always just about a criminal prosecution as the level of evidence needed for a civil case is much lower.

Zambia

They where just chancing their arm due to the fact they had nothing to lose by suing him. A side product of the cliam culture. I reckon if you are convicted of a crime you should be unable to sue anyone for anything directly connected to that crime.

I cant see any court ruling for three armed males attacking an unarmed Male of any skill level.

Spartan09

Zambia232 wrote: »

They where just chancing their arm due to the fact they had nothing to lose by suing him. A side product of the cliam culture. I reckon if you are convicted of a crime you should be unable to sue anyone for anything directly connected to that crime.

I cant see any court ruling for three armed males attacking an unarmed Male of any skill level.

Thankfully the courts had one of their common sense days and threw out the civil case, unfortunatley as he was a 5th dan the courts seemingly considered him as being armed as were the attackers, thankfully he was uninjured