The right to Self Defence

Canacourse · 10-06-2008 09:54AM #1

I have an up to date self defense book which claims that it legal to attack an agressor if you "think" you are about to be attacked or you feel threatened. The book was published in the UK.

Assuming the author was correct does the same law apply over here?

Also, What would be the legal position in general terms if I was attacked and fought back and the attacker died directly either from a blow to the head or even indirectly after hitting his head on a kerb for example?

Thanks...

username123 · 10-06-2008 09:58AM

Canacourse wrote: »

Also, What would be the legal position in general terms if I was attacked and fought back and the attacker died directly either from a blow to the head or even indirectly after hitting his head on a kerb for example?

Thanks...

You'd be done for manslaughter. It happened I guy I knew years ago, fight broke out in a bar, he got punched in the face, stood up and punched the guy who had hit him first, yer man went over backwards, and severed an artery in his neck on broken glass when he landed, and died. The guy I knew used self defence as his defence in court, was sent to portlaoise prison for a few years for manslaughter.

In the case of using a skill set such as martial arts to defend yourself you may even face a heavier sentence.

mark.leonard · 10-06-2008 10:01AM

There is no provision for "pre-emtive" self defence in the legal system in this country AFAIK, perhaps somebody in the Guards or practicing Law could correct me?

If you can prove that you used reasonable force to defend yourself then criminal charges wouldn't be upheld, but if someone dies you have a serious uphill battle doing that.

There was a case a couple years ago in Donegal where some guys went after a guy who had battered one of their younger brothers. The older brother hit the guy and knocked him out, his head hit the kerb and he died. They were charged with Manslaughter/accessory to and are in prison.

Canacourse · 10-06-2008 10:05AM

username123 wrote: »

You'd be done for manslaughter. It happened I guy I knew years ago, fight broke out in a bar, he got punched in the face, stood up and punched the guy who had hit him first, yer man went over backwards, and severed an artery in his neck on broken glass when he landed, and died. The guy I knew used self defence as his defence in court, was sent to portlaoise prison for a few years for manslaughter.

I don't know the details of that case but that sounds pretty unfair to Me. What was he meant to do, allow the attacker to beat the crap out of him and do nothing?

username123 · 10-06-2008 10:13AM

[quote=Canacourse;56195217I don't know the details of that case but that sounds pretty unfair to Me. What was he meant to do, allow the attacker to beat the crap out of him and do nothing?[/quote]

According to the judge he was supposed to leave and not fight back, after the first punch was thrown the guy who threw it turned away, the guy I knew (didnt know him well, through a friend), stood up, put his hand on yer mans shoulder, yer man turned round and bam in the face. Judge said guy I knew had chance to walk away and press charges himself but he chose to take the law into his own hands and serve his own justice. Whole bar witnessed it and said he did have chance to walk away.

Baggio... · 10-06-2008 10:53AM

I guess it depends on the context to. A bar fight is a ridiculous scenario anyway, and you should always leave at the first sign of trouble. The will law always questions could you have left in the first place?

Now, if it was in a dark alley way – with no escape, and you were attacked by a career criminal that would be a different story. Say he hit his head on the kerb and died, you'd get away with it (I presume - I'm no law man). And assuming you used a "level of force to level of threat parallel". By that I mean if you manage to knock the guy down then just run away, you don't keep kicking him as punishment.

But the best self-protection is: just don't be there... (if you can)

username123 · 10-06-2008 11:17AM

Baggio... wrote: »

I guess it depends on the context to. A bar fight is a ridiculous scenario anyway, and you should always leave at the first sign of trouble. The will law always questions could you have left in the first place?

Now, if it was in a dark alley way – with no escape, and you were attacked by a career criminal that would be a different story. Say he hit his head on the kerb and died, you'd get away with it (I presume - I'm no law man). And assuming you used a "level of force to level of threat parallel". By that I mean if you manage to knock the guy down then just run away, you don't keep kicking him as punishment.

But the best self-protection is: just don't be there... (if you can)

Yes I agree, in the particular case I outlined it was a drunken brawl but the guy I knew could have left after he had been hit once. Thats a completely different scenario to some psycho who keeps coming at you. I would still think you would be charged with manslaughter in such a case, but perhaps convicted of a lower crime and/or no custodial sentence? Im not a law person - just thinking aloud.

Baggio... · 10-06-2008 11:17AM

A lot of it will depend on what 3rd party witnesses see. If you're insulted in a bar for example and you “rise” to the threat by hurling abuse back - that does not look too good in court, as it is effectively throwing fat on the fire. It shows you did nothing to try to avoid trouble in the first place.

Where as, if you have your hands are up in a passive way, a fence, and you say stuff like, “look man, I don't want any hassle, I'll leave now...”, etc. That will look a lot better in court when the witnesses say, he tried to avoid the trouble and leave.

Also, for CC TV, if your hands are up in that universal “passive stance” that will be in your favour to. As it will appear that you wanted no part of it.

Baggio... · 10-06-2008 11:24AM

username123 wrote: »

Thats a completely different scenario to some psycho who keeps coming at you. I would still think you would be charged with manslaughter in such a case, but perhaps convicted of a lower crime and/or no custodial sentence? Im not a law person - just thinking aloud.

It's true... you could be convicted alright. Just watch the news these days.:(

So avoid and escape at all costs. If not, just to enough damage so you can run away. If something accidentally really bad happens.... I'd prefer a few years in prison than being put in the ground.

Raze_them_all · 10-06-2008 12:27PM

The problem with the reasonable force thing, there's nothing that defines it, It's up to the judge on the day to decide if it was reasonable or not, which i have a problem with, how can someone decide what was resonable months down the line?

username123 · 10-06-2008 12:31PM

Baggio - you make a very valid point about the universal passive stance - witnesses or cctv will then prove you didnt want to get involved.

I would also prefer prison than death.

Im sure there are many permutations of it, if someone attacled you with a deadly weapon and you accidently killed them, no chance of escape for you, cornered and faced with a gun - I think a judge would have to rule you were wrong to take a life, but I cant imagine you would be sent down for many years.

Baggio... · 10-06-2008 12:31PM

Raze_them_all wrote: »

It's up to the judge on the day to decide if it was reasonable or not, which i have a problem with, how can someone decide what was resonable months down the line?

Very true... Not to harp on about G. Thompson, but he refers to the law as "the second enemy", which I always found very interesting.

Also, criminals don't tend to follow the whole "reasonable force" issue either.

Charlie3dan · 10-06-2008 12:34PM

As Raze said the key thing is reasonable force.
Whether the attacker dies directly or indirectly as a result of your actions, you are held responsible. As the lads suggested above, the circumstances surrounding the attack will be taken into account, but you are still legally responsible regardless of whether the person throws a drunken punch in a bar or a serious attack in a dark alley.

Again as Raze said, reasonable force is a subjective term, but for example, if a guy pushes you and you throw a punch back, that’s excessive force. (In the eyes of the law). Even if the guy were to have a knife, and you managed to disarm him, that doesn’t mean you can succeed where he failed and plunge the knife into him. It all comes down to reasonable force in the given situation.

If you are teaching self defence, it’s got to be practical whether the law is on your side or not but I think it’s important to address that the law may not look kindly on (let’s say) digging your thumb into someone’s eye socket. Most people think if you disarm someone with a knife it’s perfectly ok to use it to stab them and succeed where they failed. In reality you can’t be overly concerned with reasonable force but it’s something to be aware of. In any case, your main concern should be with defending yourself, not hurting the other guy, but I think we’d all take a cell over a body bag.

Raze_them_all · 10-06-2008 12:44PM

even if someone has a weapon, lets say a knifeand u grab something like a pool cue do distance yourself and try defend yourself, it's considered unreasonable to hit the person with the aim to knocking them out, your supposed to aim for the arm holding the weapon. I would glady hit someone in the head with a pool cue to defend myself from being stabbed and risk the he moved arguement rather than finding out how deep the knife would go inside me. I don't know bout you guys but if someone got hit in the arm when they had a knife it'd only encourage them further to use it IMO

mark.leonard · 10-06-2008 01:21PM

Raze_them_all wrote: »

The problem with the reasonable force thing, there's nothing that defines it, It's up to the judge on the day to decide if it was reasonable or not, which i have a problem with, how can someone decide what was resonable months down the line?

By looking at the available evidence? Much the same way the courts decide anything.

Probably the best solution is to get Judges on Giant Motorcycles give them big guns and call them something colorful like "Lawmaker" or something like that, give the judges more powers than the police in addition to their existing sentencing and let them hold trials on the spot. Seemed to work 8 years ago, but I don't think the uptake has been great outside Mega City 1

Boru. · 10-06-2008 01:28PM

Actually, it's quite well defined what is and is not reasonable. In fact I teach it in detail in all my courses and even have a small book published on the subject called "Use of Force, the law and self defence". (Incidentally if you would like a copy free of charge, pm me your email and I'll forward it on to you). The legality of self defense is a vital component of any self defence course and martial art, yet it is rarely if ever taught or explained in detail. We even have a little diagram for it - one that has since been adopted by major police and law enforcement organisations aound the world, including recognition of it in Ireland.

mikemac · 10-06-2008 01:35PM

Would the fact that you have skill and training (like most posters here) make a difference?

For instance, a weak and untrained person might throw a lucky punch and cause the aggressor to fall and hit their head off a kerb.
But if a person with years of experience in sport and martial arts did the same thing, would the judge think they had more knowledge and knew their own power.

So the person trained in martial arts might get a stiffer sentence?

Power Chords · 10-06-2008 01:54PM

There's something that strikes me often in these discussions on this board, it's the idea that you get offside, or leave the bar or try to run away if possible.
As competitive mma fighters or martialists how likely is that you would actually be able to walk away from such a sitution?
i.e, some gimp smacks you in a bar (doesn't like especially like he's gona hit you again) in front of your mates, your girlfriend, her mates and every other random bystander, I'm not sure I'd easily be able to walk away. Pride's a f**ker like that, not to mention the adrenaline and training for reaction. Of course it could just be me but I doubt it.

mark.leonard · 10-06-2008 01:58PM

I demand someone acknowledges my excellent 200AD joke at the end of the first page.

username123 · 10-06-2008 02:01PM

Power Chords wrote: »

There's something that strikes me often in these discussions on this board, it's the idea that you get offside, or leave the bar or try to run away if possible.
As competitive mma fighters or martialists how likely is that you would actually be able to walk away from such a sitution?
i.e, some gimp smacks you in a bar (doesn't like especially like he's gona hit you again) in front of your mates, your girlfriend, her mates and every other random bystander, I'm not sure I'd easily be able to walk away. Pride's a f**ker like that, not to mention the adrenaline and training for reaction. Of course it could just be me but I doubt it.

Would your training and discipline not make you more likely to walk away, you dont have anything to prove?

Charlie3dan · 10-06-2008 02:13PM

micmclo wrote: »

So the person trained in martial arts might get a stiffer sentence?

It's up to the solicitor to present this information. If they managed to find out you were an MA instructor they could well use some information against you such as conditioning your knuckles to be able to hit harder (for example). Something like that could very well influence a judge.

Having the skill in itself is not enough to argue a stiffer sentence. A martial artist might also have faster reaction times but it couldn't really be argued that he/she could control whether or not to take advantage of this attribute. The same should be true of MA skills, they are part of you, not something you "have" like a secret weapon or something.

hardCopy · 10-06-2008 02:16PM

mark.leonard wrote: »

I demand someone acknowledges my excellent 200AD joke at the end of the first page.

Duly acknowledged. For the record, it ceased to be funny once you explained it :pac:

Raze_them_all · 10-06-2008 02:21PM

mark.leonard wrote: »

I demand someone acknowledges my excellent 200AD joke at the end of the first page.

RedXIV · 10-06-2008 02:27PM

username123 wrote: »

Would your training and discipline not make you more likely to walk away, you dont have anything to prove?

+1, i've walked out of a pub before after getting hit. More worried that the people i was with were going to get hurt rather than me get arrested or a lack of pride. Especially my gf at the time who didn't take it well at all :rolleyes:

Charlie3dan · 10-06-2008 02:27PM

username123 wrote: »

Would your training and discipline not make you more likely to walk away, you dont have anything to prove?

Very tough question, I can see where power chords is coming from.
Guys that get black belts, or win tournaments, or go to internationals representing ireland are gonna be well known in their area and have probably been in the local paper, won local sports awards etc etc.
Not so easy to just walk away, but I think this comes down to the individual.

mark.leonard · 10-06-2008 03:21PM

In Bigger cities scumbags look for weaker prey, aside form staying away from dives where trouble happens, and mates who cause trouble. Having the aura of being a predator reduces the number of attacks you are likley to suffer greatly.

phoenix-MT · 10-06-2008 04:20PM

what about defending other people? I nearly got charged with GBH when i broke a lads jaw...because he had a girl pinned up against the wall with a knife to her throat. Now, i was an instructor at that point and this all came to light in court. I would be one of the first to walk away if some drunken idiot was "kicking off" but in this situation i couldnt. It wasnt going to well for me in court, even though i had witnesses and the victim, they were pretty convinced that what i did- it was excessive force. I am not being funny but if someone comes at me with a knife, i am not going to keep hitting them-starting with a slap gradually getting harder untill they stop! i want to immobilize them and reduce that threat asap then get away! Anyway as far as the case went, some CCTV managed to appear and some good local high up coppers acted as character references which helped me out.

Power Chords · 10-06-2008 06:43PM

Not having anything to prove is all well and good in a stare down, when you get to say 'hey man, this'll get ya no where', fairly sure I'm happy to laugh and walk away (and have done) but after taking a punch, especially one of those nothing attempts at a haymaker from some asshole who tried coke for the first time and thinks he can take on the world, in your local maybe, where not that you're known as a martial artist but just known as a random bloke.
Apologies for taking this a bit off topic but it was just something I've noticed and I find it hard to believe that many lads would walk away and be forced to leave a pub with all of their mates for the convienence of an attacker who any one of us here could probably sort quickly and effectively without much hassle.
The potential of an all out brawl that puts the other half in the firing line is something completely different all together, every sitution should be considered on its own merits.

Clive · 10-06-2008 11:23PM

mark.leonard wrote: »

Having the aura of being a predator reduces the number of attacks you are likley to suffer greatly.

Sokoudjou takes Mark's advice a little too literally...

hardCopy · 11-06-2008 12:31AM

Clive wrote: »

Sokoudjou takes Mark's advice a little too literally...

How'd that work out? :pac:

challengemaster · 11-06-2008 02:08AM

Definatly hit the nail on the head with reasonable force & first try to calm/prevent it. However why is it that the law sides in favour of the criminal here? I don't exactly want the extreme opposite (eg. Texas) Shoot first, ask questions later, but the law being on the side of people trying to defend themselfs would be nice.

The right to Self Defence

Comments