A step in the right direction

[BDF]

Perhaps these subtle changes are coming about because of how everyone's responding to the recent riots in the UK:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/householder...072342199.html

I'm all for it. Need more similar to this before I regain trust in the police though. A lot more.

[TigerTank77]

Bout damn time they stopped punishing people for trying to defend themselves.

[Snufkin]

I think it's certainly reassuring. The UK had too many cases of people defending themselves being the ones who ended up with criminal convictions, so there was always some blurry line about whether or not defending yourself with reasonable force is actually going to do you any favours. While I'm not glad about people having to defend themselves due to criminal activity, I am glad to know that self defence can be used without fear of being prosecuted for it.

[dr2005]

The thing that surprises me - having studied Criminal Law at university - is the fact that the existence of self-defence as a bar to prosecution seems to surprise people. It's been around for longer than I have. The courts have always upheld the right to self-defence, provided that the force used is reasonable and justifiable in relation to the threat faced by the defendant. I suspect some of the confusion stems from the case of Tony Martin who was convicted after shooting and killing an intruder with a shotgun, but that was because the intruder was actually trying to flee and thus Martin's actions were therefore disproportionate to the threat he faced (and arguably not connected at all), hence why he was convicted of murder by the jury. That is different to the more common instances of self-defence which come up in the courts, hence why I am surprised this is not clearer to people.

[Snufkin]

Out of interest, does the same apply if the self-defence does not take place at your home/on your property? If you're attacked on the street and then defend yourself, do the same rules apply?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

Out of interest, does the same apply if the self-defence does not take place at your home/on your property? If you're attacked on the street and then defend yourself, do the same rules apply?

Yes - it's self-defence in terms of person as well as property. The doctrine in English common law covers defence of self, defence of dependents and defence of property, as set out in Beckford v R (1988), so provided it is reasonable force the defence can be invoked.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

The thing that surprises me - having studied Criminal Law at university - is the fact that the existence of self-defence as a bar to prosecution seems to surprise people. It's been around for longer than I have. The courts have always upheld the right to self-defence, provided that the force used is reasonable and justifiable in relation to the threat faced by the defendant. I suspect some of the confusion stems from the case of Tony Martin who was convicted after shooting and killing an intruder with a shotgun, but that was because the intruder was actually trying to flee and thus Martin's actions were therefore disproportionate to the threat he faced (and arguably not connected at all), hence why he was convicted of murder by the jury. That is different to the more common instances of self-defence which come up in the courts, hence why I am surprised this is not clearer to people.

I've always wondered a few things about the law and self-defense, and you're probably able to answer my questions and then some.

If A is untrained in martial arts and attacks B who is very well trained in martial arts, it's obvious they have differing capacities or ways of defending themselves. For example, in 2 different scenarios, A pulls a knife on B. First scenario: B responds by twisting but not damaging A's wrist to disarm and does nothing further. Second scenario: B makes A stab themselves in the gut once (assume non-lethal), then does nothing further (there are some holds you can use for someone to stab or punch themselves while standing). Would this knowledge affect the component of "reasonable" force?

Also, is it possible for the self-defense explanation to be used as a defense for murder? I always thought it was possible but wondered if the person would be charged with a lesser crime. Have there been cases where someone wasn't charged with any crime after using self-defense as a defense for murder? I'm excluding police officers and other law enforcement individuals in this.

Lastly, if someone is being attacked and they've tried to defend themselves but the attacker keeps attacking, I assume it would be acceptable for them to use more force to defend (correct me otherwise). How does the law in this case distinguish between proper self-defense and self-defense that leads to assaulting the attacker? For example, A pulls a knife of B and B disarms A without any harm but A keeps attacking by any means possible causing damage to B. Eventually B uses more force but A persists. Is there a way to determine whether B's use of force was excessive yet the cause was justifiable?

[BDF]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I've always wondered a few things about the law and self-defense, and you're probably able to answer my questions and then some.

If A is untrained in martial arts and attacks B who is very well trained in martial arts, it's obvious they have differing capacities or ways of defending themselves. For example, in 2 different scenarios, A pulls a knife on B. First scenario: B responds by twisting but not damaging A's wrist to disarm and does nothing further. Second scenario: B makes A stab themselves in the gut once (assume non-lethal), then does nothing further (there are some holds you can use for someone to stab or punch themselves while standing). Would this knowledge affect the component of "reasonable" force?

Also, is it possible for the self-defense explanation to be used as a defense for murder? I always thought it was possible but wondered if the person would be charged with a lesser crime. Have there been cases where someone wasn't charged with any crime after using self-defense as a defense for murder? I'm excluding police officers and other law enforcement individuals in this.

Lastly, if someone is being attacked and they've tried to defend themselves but the attacker keeps attacking, I assume it would be acceptable for them to use more force to defend (correct me otherwise). How does the law in this case distinguish between proper self-defense and self-defense that leads to assaulting the attacker? For example, A pulls a knife of B and B disarms A without any harm but A keeps attacking by any means possible causing damage to B. Eventually B uses more force but A persists. Is there a way to determine whether B's use of force was excessive yet the cause was justifiable?

The best is to make sure there's no camera and no one else standing around to see it. Difficult on a bus which is where quite a lot of crime happens in London, at least where I used to live. But on the plus side, on the bus only 2 at most (if they're lucky) can surround you.