self defence

kh8

hey whats the law on self defence if some one was getting beaten cud i step in and help cheers

Zen65

kh8 wrote: »

hey whats the law on self defence if some one was getting beaten cud i step in and help cheers

Questions like this trouble me . . .

(1) This is not the place to get proper legal advice.

(2) You did not explain which side you were intending to help!

(3) However in broad terms if you intervened in a situation where somebody else was being attacked you could apply sufficient force to stop the attack, nothing more.

(4) You cannot inflict an injury as a means of "equalising" the situation.

(5) If the person being attacked was family you may have grounds for taking a higher level of action.

(6) In all cases, self-defence fails as a valid legal argument if you are the person initiating the aggressive action (which may be physical or verbal). So for example if you name-call somebody in an intimidating way, even if you do not take physical action, that might (depending on circumstances) legitimately be construed as a potential assault, hence the third party would be entitled to protect themselves by initiating physical contact.

The primary issue with self-defence is the assumption that you need to act in order to save yourself from serious injury, so you must have reasonable grounds to believe that such an injury is likely to occur to you. Defence needs to be followed by escape (unless you are defending your home). Defending somebody else is more complicated, but the broad principle is that you are only entitled to prevent a serious injury, and not by causing a serious injury to the perceived 'assailant'.

Anyway . . . what did you do?

kh8

Zen65 wrote: »

Questions like this trouble me . . .

(1) This is not the place to get proper legal advice.

(2) You did not explain which side you were intending to help!

(3) However in broad terms if you intervened in a situation where somebody else was being attacked you could apply sufficient force to stop the attack, nothing more.

(4) You cannot inflict an injury as a means of "equalising" the situation.

(5) If the person being attacked was family you may have grounds for taking a higher level of action.

(6) In all cases, self-defence fails as a valid legal argument if you are the person initiating the aggressive action (which may be physical or verbal). So for example if you name-call somebody in an intimidating way, even if you do not take physical action, that might (depending on circumstances) legitimately be construed as a potential assault, hence the third party would be entitled to protect themselves by initiating physical contact.

The primary issue with self-defence is the assumption that you need to act in order to save yourself from serious injury, so you must have reasonable grounds to believe that such an injury is likely to occur to you. Defence needs to be followed by escape (unless you are defending your home). Defending somebody else is more complicated, but the broad principle is that you are only entitled to prevent a serious injury, and not by causing a serious injury to the perceived 'assailant'.

Anyway . . . what did you do?

nothing mate just a bully attacking a family member cheers

Craptacular

Use of force is covered under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act (1997). Here's an excerpt:

"Section 18.1 The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence -
(a) To protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act."

There's a lot of scope for legal argument within that small section. That word "reasonable" is very important. Section 20 covers the definition of force and includes the threat of force as force. I'd suggest reading the relevant sections and then reading them again. Legal arguments can come down to the interpretation of words.

One thing to remember is that if you are claiming self defence you are admitting an offence but arguing that it was committed in self defence.

Zen65

Craptacular wrote: »

One thing to remember is that if you are claiming self defence you are admitting an offence but arguing that it was committed in self defence.

That is not technically correct.

The act specifically says that that it is not an offence in certain circumstances, i.e.

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

A law cannot find define you to be both guilty of an offence and yet not guilty of an offence. You can however carry out an action which would constitute an offence except for the mitigating circumstance (of being self-defence).

Zen65

kh8 wrote: »

nothing mate just a bully attacking a family member cheers

I hope you understand from the responses here that you cannot act in a manner to try avenge such bullying attacks.

Bullying attacks are best dealt with through dialogue, or physically only in the moment of occurrence. The problem with dealing with such attacks through physical action is that it regularly leads to an escalation (next time the attack will be more vicious, possibly involving more people).

Craptacular

Zen65 wrote: »

That is not technically correct.

The act specifically says that that it is not an offence in certain circumstances, i.e.



A law cannot find you to be both guilty of an offence and yet not guilty of an offence. You can however carry out an action which would constitute an offence except for the mitigating circumstance (of being self-defence).

Yes but that's the point. You admit the use of force which can result in you being charged with an offence and then it's up to you to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that it falls under section 18.1 and was therefore not an offence.

Pat Mustard

Craptacular wrote: »

Yes but that's the point. You admit the use of force which can result in you being charged with an offence

This is not correct. A person who is charged with an offence does not have to make any admission. If matters proceed to trial, he can raise the defence of self-defence if he wants.

Craptacular

If you are claiming self defence then you are admitting the use of force. If you deny the use of force then there's no need to mention self defence.

Pat Mustard

Craptacular wrote: »

If you are claiming self defence then you are admitting the use of force. If you deny the use of force then there's no need to mention self defence.

This discussion is about self-defence. What's your point?

Craptacular

Pat Mustard wrote: »

This discussion is about self-defence. What's your point?

This discussion is about the law on self defence. My point is that claiming self defence is admitting a use of force which is an offence. The onus is then on the claimant to satisfy the court, assuming it goes that far, that the act actually was self defence.

As per the OP's scenario, stepping in and pulling somebody off a family member would be an acceptable use of force and covered under section 18.1.a of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons act. Pulling them off and then punching them would not.

Zen65

Craptacular wrote: »

My point is that claiming self defence is admitting a use of force which is an offence.

This is incorrect. The use of force is permitted in law; you've quoted some (but not all) of the legislation which permits it. You should leave it at that and not try to apply your untrained analysis to interpreting that law. Doing so removes, rather than adds, clarity.

Craptacular

Round and round we go. Claiming self defence is an admission of use of force. Simply claiming self defence does not mean it actually was self defence. You can still be investigated and charged with a use of force offence for something you believed was self defence.

The bottom line is that if you are claiming self defence you'd better be doubly sure that it actually was self defence.

SVJKarate

kh8 wrote: »

hey whats the law on self defence if some one was getting beaten cud i step in and help cheers

I think Zen and Pat have covered the legal side of this pretty well. If this is a bullying issue, as you say, then Zen's advice is also spot on . . . you don't solve ongoing bullying with physical force as it does not work. Life is not a Chuck Norris movie. Bullies will usually back down if the 'victim' stands up for themselves, and not necessarily with physical action. Often it takes no more than demonstrating a lack of fear.

If this bully is physically beating your family member then the best course of action is almost always to report the matter to the Gardaí. They may not take action at first, but they will 'speak to' the assailant if the incident is recurring.

Pat Mustard

Craptacular wrote: »

Round and round we go. Claiming self defence is an admission of use of force. Simply claiming self defence does not mean it actually was self defence. You can still be investigated and charged with a use of force offence for something you believed was self defence.

The bottom line is that if you are claiming self defence you'd better be doubly sure that it actually was self defence.

You are trying to argue something that is not correct, so claiming that it is a circular argument is unhelpful.

In a criminal trial for assault, somebody is accused of assault and evidence is raised about the unlawful use of force.

You imply that the use of a legal defence of self-defence can get somebody into trouble and you imply that people would be better off not raising the defence at all. In fact, this involves two completely different situations; one where there may be no evidence of assault, and another where there is.

In a criminal trial, if there is not enough evidence against an accused, he can simply say nothing and move for the charges to be dismissed. There is no reason to raise a defence of self-defence if there is not enough evidence to achieve a conviction.

People only raise the defence of self-defence if evidence of assault has already been brought.

You are muddying the waters here by introducing two separate ideas and introducing them as one.

These are two completely different scenarios.

Craptacular

But Pat the legal defence of self defence can get someone in trouble if they can't satisfy the court that it was self defence. Arguing that an act was done in self defence is admitting that the act was done. If the court is then not convinced that it was done in self defence then it can be judged an illegal use of force.

Pat Mustard

Craptacular wrote: »

But Pat the legal defence of self defence can get someone in trouble if they can't satisfy the court that it was self defence. Arguing that an act was done in self defence is admitting that the act was done. If the court is then not convinced that it was done in self defence then it can be judged an illegal use of force.

Ah come on, you are putting the cart before the horse here.

Why would anyone raise the defence of self-defence, unless there was enough evidence to have charged them and prosecuted with the crime of assault in the first place?

There is no point in raising a defence if there is no case to be made. If there is no case to be made, the defence lawyers will ask for an outright dismissal. That's all there is to it, really.

If there is enough evidence to show assault, at that point, it may make sense to raise self-defence as an issue, and not before.

Your idea that the defence of self-defence may be something which might incriminate somebody should not arise with a defendant/accused who has proper, competent legal representation. I don't see why a competent criminal lawyer would raise evidence which would incriminate their own client.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Craptacular

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your idea that the defence of self-defence may be something which might incriminate somebody should not arise with a defendant/accused who has proper, competent legal representation. I don't see why a competent criminal lawyer would raise evidence which would incriminate their own client.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

If the gardaí arrive at the scene of a disturbance and interview people and one of those interviewed claims they acted in self defence they are providing the gardaí with an admission of use of force.

They are saying they acted in self defence as an explanation for their use of force but they may still find themselves in court trying to prove that they actually were acting in self defence.

This is my point.

Pat Mustard

Craptacular wrote: »

If the gardaí arrive at the scene of a disturbance and interview people and one of those interviewed claims they acted in self defence they are providing the gardaí with an admission of use of force.

They are saying they acted in self defence as an explanation for their use of force but they may still find themselves in court trying to prove that they actually were acting in self defence.

This is my point.

Why make any admission prior to trial?

Craptacular

Why indeed but people rarely think straight after a violent incident. The cocktail of hormones running through the system leads to all sorts of mis-remembering and poor decision making.

kaiserdave

I think the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them and make them see and listen as regards the impact their treatment is having. For months on end I remember several lads taunting me and my brother on the bus, shouting abuse and throwing pens, etc. One day I just snapped, ran to the back of the bus and grabbed the perpetrator by the neck. I'm not proud that I used the threat of physical violence and fell down to their level, but it worked. You never know how they'll react if you confront them and say you won't stand for it anymore.

SVJKarate

kaiserdave wrote: »

I'm not proud that I used the threat of physical violence and fell down to their level, but it worked. You never know how they'll react if you confront them and say you won't stand for it anymore.

I'm willing to bet that for every one of the 'feel-good' stories where the victim stands up for himself/herself physically and it works there's another story where it results in a fight and injury to the victim (because he's usually out-numbered). Fair play you for not accepting the bullying, but I wonder if you'd consider the risk you took to be smart if it had resulted in a serious injury to you?

It's hard to judge though. I do agree that most bullies back down when confronted, but a good plan 'B' is important.

Matt KSW

i was given a very easy to understand way of looking at self defence by a serving police officer in the UK.
If i or a family member/friend is being attacked by an assailant with a baseball bat (for example) i can take whatever measures are necessary to stop them from inflicting harm on myself or the people around me (which might include breaking their arm) but must stop once the threat is no more.

that is self defence

If once i had disarmed them i then proceeded to hit them with the bat.

that is assault

You can also strike first with whats called a pre-emptive strike, if you are absolutely convinced that you are in imminent danger. but the onus would be on you to prove such actions.

Remember that this is all last resort stuff, and the best defence is avoidance. Stay calm, don't make aggressive moves or escalate conflict and walk away.

RoboRat

Firstly as already stated, this is not legal advice.

Secondly, if somebody is being bullied, they should bring this up with the relative authorities such as a principal in a school situation or the gardai. You are not entitled to go and bust some skulls.

You can talk to the individual(s) as a family member, to resolve a situation... talk, not punch. If they attack you, then you may use reasonable force to defend yourself. Reasonable force is not defined as there are many variables and each case is assessed individually. The reason for this is because if for example a woman attacks your wife/ partner, you may only need to restrain her. Headbutting and kicking her on the ground is assault. If you are attacked by a bloke with a bottle, you may need to break his arm or knock him out. It all depends on the scenario.

In a street situation, as far as I know, you have a civic duty to intervene where possible in an assault (I am open to correction on this). This means you call the guards and if possible try to deescalate the situation. It does not mean you wade in with punches. Again, if you are attacked, then you may defend yourself.

In regards to pre-emptive striking, I wouldn't advise it. Unless the person has been assaulting people and you can legally verify this, it will be your word against theirs and you will be seen as the aggressor, unless you can prove otherwise.

quainy

All legalities aside, use of force should always be a last option. Confront said bully with your mate and let him know that the bullying will not continue, that next time it will be handled. Unless he's a pro fighter or an idiot, he will back down from two people.

Or, seek out assistance from whatever authorities are in place, I.e. Teachers, Managers, Gardaí etc.

The trouble with physical action is that accidents can happen, one half hearted punch could cause the recipient to fall and hit their head on a curb... And manslaughter is a lot harder to sort than bullying.