TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 07:23 PM

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.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
TigerTank77 Offline
Rage is the best anesthetic
I've been here a while
********
 
TigerTank77's Avatar
 
Name: Ben
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: NY

Posts: 1,534
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 07:35 PM

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


Often I lie wide awake, thinking of things I could make.
But I donít seem to have the parts to build them.
I am so scared of what will kill me in the end, for I am not prepared.
I hope I will get the chance to be someone, to be human.





  Send a message via AIM to TigerTank77 Send a message via MSN to TigerTank77 Send a message via Skype™ to TigerTank77 
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Snufkin Offline
XO
I've been here a while
********
 
Snufkin's Avatar
 
Name: Scott
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow

Posts: 1,982
Blog Entries: 104
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 07:53 PM

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.




   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
dr2005 Offline
Legal Beagle
I can't get enough
*********
 
dr2005's Avatar
 
Name: Dave
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Posts: 2,221
Join Date: February 14th 2010

Re: A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 07:58 PM

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.


"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." - Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

However bleak things seem, however insurmountable the darkness appears, remember that you have worth and nothing can take that away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! View Post
If you're referring to dr2005's response, it's not complex, however, he has a way with words .
RIP Nick
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Snufkin Offline
XO
I've been here a while
********
 
Snufkin's Avatar
 
Name: Scott
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow

Posts: 1,982
Blog Entries: 104
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 10:00 PM

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?




   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
dr2005 Offline
Legal Beagle
I can't get enough
*********
 
dr2005's Avatar
 
Name: Dave
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Posts: 2,221
Join Date: February 14th 2010

Re: A step in the right direction - October 7th 2011, 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snufkin View Post
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.


"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." - Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

However bleak things seem, however insurmountable the darkness appears, remember that you have worth and nothing can take that away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! View Post
If you're referring to dr2005's response, it's not complex, however, he has a way with words .
RIP Nick
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Stupidity Kills
Outside, huh?
**********
 
OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!'s Avatar
 

Posts: 4,500
Blog Entries: 10
Join Date: December 19th 2009

Re: A step in the right direction - October 8th 2011, 02:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005 View Post
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?


I can rip you off, and steal all your cash, suckerpunch you in the face, stand back and laugh. Leave you stranded as fast as a heart-attack.
- Danko Jones (I Think Bad Thoughts)
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: A step in the right direction - October 8th 2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master View Post
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.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
direction, step

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.