# Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK



## moonhill99 (Jul 20, 2016)

Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK.

Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK

It now looks like Self-defense is now Illegal in the UK.

Self Defense Is Illegal In The UK

For anyone here living in the UK and thinking of  Self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2016)

Not really news dude.

You can't carry defensive weapons in Australia either.

And one of the criteria here is you are supposed to be removing yourself from the threat.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not really news dude.
> 
> You can't carry defensive weapons in Australia either.
> 
> And one of the criteria here is you are supposed to be removing yourself from the threat.



Well Australia is kinda like the UK too where Self defense is out.

Self defence is a very "grey" area under the law. You cannot use any more force than is reasonably necessary to stop the threat to your life. 

Any form of self defense you use in Australia that involves the use of a weapon (including a knife or baseball bat or stick ) or a special skill (like martial arts) will almost certainly find you arrested by the police. 

I know Japan also has laws like this where you cannot even get sword. 

In the Netherlands, Finland and Japan you cannot buy gun for Self defense.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 20, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK.
> 
> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK
> 
> It now looks like Self-defense is now Illegal in the UK.


We heard you the first time.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 20, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK.
> 
> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK
> 
> ...



Have you considered looking to anything close to a reliable source… or even a partially credible one? This alarmist skewing of reality for shocks sake is really far, far beneath being given the moniker of "news"… or "accurate"… or "good writing".


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

*What utter rubbish, complete and total nonsense.
*
In the UK you are allowed to defend yourself, you can even use a pre emptive strike if you feel your life is in danger and you can use weapons. All that is asked in law is that the force used is reasonable. You can certainly 'stand your ground'.

_"The first thing that the government has done is banned a variety of sexual acts,"_  and what the hell is that about...I suspect and I'm going to be looking into this further especially with the other site that those 'variety of sexual acts' mentioned is paedophilia.
If the OP is not only posting up nonsense about self defence but is using sites promoting paedophilia I think there will be repercussions.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

Posted twice as computer playing up.


----------



## WW3 Combatives (Jul 20, 2016)

A lot of countries have similar laws with defending yourself. You can only use as much force as is needed to stop the threat. If you knock the person out and then continue to beat them till they are dead then that is way to far. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in the pursuit of saving your own life, then it is justified. If a 110lbs woman attacks a man that weighs 230lbs and he uses extreme force or a weapon to stop her. Then that is definitely going to far. 

When you are in a situation where you defend yourself and the result is an injured or dead attacker. The best thing to do is call the police immediately. If you run away you will be caught and you will appear suspicious. When talking to the cops you have to be careful, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. The best thing to say is "I was afraid for my life, I want to speak to a lawyer", nothing else.

Self defense is such a grey area and leaves people with the idea that if they do anything they will get in trouble. It is very unfortunate and leaves many people to become victims.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

WW3 Combatives said:


> When talking to the cops you have to be careful, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. The best thing to say is "I was afraid for my life, I want to speak to a lawyer", nothing else.



In the UK you are allowed and entitled to have a solicitor, being abrupt with the police is not recommended. What you have to understand is that when police officers arrive at a scene they have no way of telling who is who and what has been done, they aren't against anyone, they just don't know who is telling the truth so a series of actions is take to enable what happened to be pieced together. Assuming the police are against you from the start would be false, here at least anyway. One doesn't have to be so much 'careful' as to be prepared to tell the truth, police officers will understand that a victim is shaken and upset.
this is the law on self defence in the UK.
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 20, 2016)

Also your source is light on details and the one source it quotes is only talking abut self defence items you can buy, it does not talk about self defence in general.

You should really determine what is actually being conveyed in the article (as is the one who posted it) you are referencing, especially if it is second hand information, before posting it on here (or anywhere for that matter).


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

Lets take one of the sites comments apart.
_"The United Kingdom has been moving politically to the Left for some time now, but even in our wildest dreams, never could we have imagined that it would become illegal to protect yourself there."
_
Incorrect, we have a Conservative government and at this moment an Opposition that is more centre than left, after Brexit the country has moved more to the Right.

_"As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on __a police web site__. It is sponsored by the British government's Police National Legal Database."_

That 'police website' isn't an official police website, nor is the 'Police National legal Database' government run, they are one and the same thing, a charity purporting to give advice.

_"In another case, a well-known TV personality was seated at her kitchen table with her daughter one night when she caught several young men peering through her window. She immediately began looking around for something to use to defend herself and her daughter from what she believed was an imminent attack and found a kitchen knife. She waved it in front of them and chased them away."_

This was a rather sad publicity stunt admitted by the person concerned.


_Real people have experienced the absurdity of such rules being enforced with diligence across the country. Three knife-wielding burglars [guns are __illegal__ in England] invaded a home in England, tied up the family members and threatened to kill the father. One of the members managed to escape and get help. The family member and the helper returned and inflicted permanent brain damage on one of burglars — a criminal, by the way, with more than 50 previous convictions — using a cricket bat. Authorities arrested the defendants — the victims — and sent them to prison for more than two years. The attacker? He escaped punishment.
_
Not exactly the truth. The family member and 'helper' didn't return to the house, they ran through the streets and beat up someone they thought the family member recognised as one of the burglars.

To be honest this is not a British article but an American one designed to fool people into thinking that in the UK it is other than it is, the purpose of this is to support their own views and put them forward to Americans. Therefore this is a political article, full of lies and propaganda. Believe it if you wish but you'd be a fool to.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

Personal Safety

this is from the Merseyside Police, advice on how to keep yourself safe not this part.
_"If attacked, you can punch, kick or bite your attacker or use a perfume spray, walking stick or umbrella to fight them off and get away. Go for the sensitive parts of your attacker's body. Use as much force as you need to get out of danger, but no more."
_
So, you can use quite a few things, there's others as well not mentioned there, basically anything you have to hand. The police always emphasis 'getting away' that's important, you don't hang around. If you knock your attacker out, cause damage even kill them etc that's fine as long as it's proportional which is easy enough to work out and another poster has already mentioned it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 20, 2016)

After trawling through some sites I have found that the only laws the UK have enacted about 'sexual acts' is this  PM announces new global action to deal with online child abuse - Press releases - GOV.UK

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 20, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Also your source is light on details and the one source it quotes is only talking abut self defence items you can buy, it does not talk about self defence in general.
> 
> You should really determine what is actually being conveyed in the article (as is the one who posted it) you are referencing, especially if it is second hand information, before posting it on here (or anywhere for that matter).


 
  The OP has been taken to task numerous times for posting erroneous information and not bothering to validate the statements he makes. This time is no different than any of the others. Fortunately, there are any number of people on the forum that are willing to attempt to educate the OP since he seems determined to avoid educating himself.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 20, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK.
> 
> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK
> 
> ...



Well I don't know about the UK but in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself. That's part of what in my opinion makes the USA so beautiful.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not really news dude.
> 
> You can't carry defensive weapons in Australia either.
> 
> And one of the criteria here is you are supposed to be removing yourself from the threat.



One if the impressions I've got from some of what's been said on this forum regarding Australia and self defense is that you can use self defense in Australia as long as you don't use weapons.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> One if the impressions I've got from some of what's been said on this forum regarding Australia and self defense is that you can use self defense in Australia as long as you don't use weapons.



You can't carry a weapon for self defence. If there is one laying around you can use it. 

The idea is you are not supposed to be walking around with the intent to hurt people.


----------



## Rayrob (Jul 21, 2016)

As Tez3 has implied this story is a load of nonsense. I live and work in LondonAnd I have used an object to defend myself from attack on two occasions, in my case a Mag-lite torch. Once the police were satisfied that I acted in self defence it wasn't even an issue.  In the first instance there was CCTV and the second a couple of independent witnesses.

I think that it is perfectly reasonable not to be allowed to walk the streets armed with weapons, what a nightmare for the police that would be. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Have you considered looking to anything close to a reliable source… or even a partially credible one? This alarmist skewing of reality for shocks sake is really far, far beneath being given the moniker of "news"… or "accurate"… or "good writing".



The article may been bit misreading but was talking about weapons.

*No where in any of the articles is it saying you could not use martial arts for self defense. *

It just you cannot go to store and by gun for self defense. And guns have to be locked in safe.

To get gun for target shooting or hunting is red tape. Have to get approval why you want to own a gun and you must prove it, background checks, safety class,  proper permits, two people must say you okay person to own a gun.

To own gun is really hard in Australia.

Quote *You have to be a member of a target shooting club or a hunter and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory 30 day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well. 

Another part of the law that changed is that the police can come to your house and inspect your storage. When we renovated our house, I built a room dedicated to my firearms collection. They’re all in large safes. All the ammunition is stored separately to the rifles and the pistols*. Quote

What it’s Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control.

What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control

It is even harder in the the UK.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> *What utter rubbish, complete and total nonsense.
> *
> In the UK you are allowed to defend yourself, you can even use a pre emptive strike if you feel your life is in danger and you can use weapons. All that is asked in law is that the force used is reasonable. You can certainly 'stand your ground'.
> 
> ...



Even the cops don't really have weapons self defense and  shoot people armed with knife in the UK.

Just look at the many youtube clips of many officers dancing around on youtube throughing trash cans and any thing they can find at  a suspects armed with non gun.

The UK police hardly shoot people armed with knife, stick or other weapon that is not a gun

There has been 55 police shootings in UK in past 24 years compared  640 people shot by police this year in the US.

The US average close to 1,000 people shot by police every year in the US. 

And there been several people arrested just for threatening the bad guy breaking into your home in the UK. Not stabbing just threatening the bad guy with a knife.

The UK is not culture difference it is complete culture difference for both public and the police.

 Read up on the retreat law vs stand your ground law. Read up on police officers getting arrested in the UK and Canada for shooting suspect armed with knife. Where courts saying the police officers should of moved out of harms way and called in Special response unit that could of tased the suspect or had police shield. Where normally courts say unless suspect walks or runs after the police officer shooting is not justified.

A complete culture difference. This would be joke in US public eye for even the liberals. Where you are armed and I tell you to drop it and you don't I shoot and case is closed.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

WW3 Combatives said:


> A lot of countries have similar laws with defending yourself. You can only use as much force as is needed to stop the threat. If you knock the person out and then continue to beat them till they are dead then that is way to far. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in the pursuit of saving your own life, then it is justified. If a 110lbs woman attacks a man that weighs 230lbs and he uses extreme force or a weapon to stop her. Then that is definitely going to far.
> 
> When you are in a situation where you defend yourself and the result is an injured or dead attacker. The best thing to do is call the police immediately. If you run away you will be caught and you will appear suspicious. When talking to the cops you have to be careful, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. The best thing to say is "I was afraid for my life, I want to speak to a lawyer", nothing else.
> 
> Self defense is such a grey area and leaves people with the idea that if they do anything they will get in trouble. It is very unfortunate and leaves many people to become victims.



It does not change the fact even in the US some states have stand you ground law and other states do not.

Where the 911 operator will say hide in your room or in the closest and if you shoot the bad guy thus you can argue you could not retreat.

Where in Texas you can pull out your gun and chase the suspect of your property thus stand your ground law.

Where in other states and other more liberal countries the home owner got arrested for chasing the suspect of your property that don't have stand your ground law. .


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You can't carry a weapon for self defence. If there is one laying around you can use it.
> 
> The idea is you are not supposed to be walking around with the intent to hurt people.



What do you mean?  If police show up at burglary call and the bad guy is stabbed it is up to you to argue in court you could not retreat.  That is why many states in the US that do not have the stand your ground law say the retreat law is up for debate in court as you have to prove it. That I cannot retreat and I thought the bad guy was going to kill me and thus I stabbed him or shot him.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> *What utter rubbish, complete and total nonsense.
> *
> In the UK you are allowed to defend yourself, you can even use a pre emptive strike if you feel your life is in danger and you can use weapons. All that is asked in law is that the force used is reasonable. You can certainly 'stand your ground'.
> 
> ...



I never said sexual acts it most be some thing in the article that they are talking about some news laws just got passed. .

They probably mean this fetish.

A long list of sex acts just got banned in UK porn

And fetish pornography producers like that are banned.

_spanking_ _,Caning, Aggressive whipping, Penetration by any object "associated with violence" ,Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of  if consensual) ,Urolagnia (known as "water sports"), Role-playing as non-adults ,Physical restraint ,Humiliation ,Female ejaculation ,Strangulation ,Facesitting _and _Fisting._

The producers companies of some fetish acts.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Lets take one of the sites comments apart.
> _"The United Kingdom has been moving politically to the Left for some time now, but even in our wildest dreams, never could we have imagined that it would become illegal to protect yourself there."
> _
> Incorrect, we have a Conservative government and at this moment an Opposition that is more centre than left, after Brexit the country has moved more to the Right.
> ...



Are hand guns not banned in the UK? I thought lot of police don't even have guns in the UK?

Can you buy sword in the UK?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Are hand guns not banned in the UK? I thought lot of police don't even have guns in the UK?
> 
> Can you buy sword in the UK?



Yes you can buy swords ( and knives, machetes, kukris, etc etc) in the UK. Hand guns can be licensed by the Home Office but we don't carry them around.

We have armed police officers, of course we do. we even have two police forces permanently armed, one of which carries their weapons with them off duty as well.

The sex acts aren't banned, you just can't show them in porn films. Can't you tell the difference between reality and films?

It's clear you don't understand an awful lot about law, crime and self defence.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 21, 2016)

Christ…



pgsmith said:


> The OP has been taken to task numerous times for posting erroneous information and not bothering to validate the statements he makes. This time is no different than any of the others. Fortunately, there are any number of people on the forum that are willing to attempt to educate the OP since he seems determined to avoid educating himself.



This. However… some things I just don't let stand… but it must be said, Paul's absolutely right. 



PhotonGuy said:


> Well I don't know about the UK but in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself. That's part of what in my opinion makes the USA so beautiful.



You can defend yourself in every nation on the planet. There is nothing special about the US there at all, other than you guys seem to have a love of, and preference for, lethal responses. And if you think that is "beautiful", well… 

That said, you're absolutely right. You don't know about the UK. Or anywhere else, frankly.



PhotonGuy said:


> One if the impressions I've got from some of what's been said on this forum regarding Australia and self defense is that you can use self defense in Australia as long as you don't use weapons.



What on earth are you talking about? No-one, at any point on this forum has ever said anything of the kind. No-one. It'd be idiocy to even suggest. What we do like, however, is some kind of common sense, proportionate response… justified force and so on. If a weapon is justified, use a weapon. If someone calls you a name, and you decide to run them over with your car, that's not exactly proportionate. 

Got it?



moonhill99 said:


> The article may been bit misreading but was talking about weapons.
> 
> *No where in any of the articles is it saying you could not use martial arts for self defense. *
> 
> ...



Son, rather than go through the lunacy of your post, I'm simply going to suggest you don't try to tell us here in Australia what it's like here in Australia. You don't have a clue.

But no, owning a gun is not hard here. It's simply not so insanely easy as it appears to be in the US. Really, what it comes down to is we ask "do you have a reason to own one?", whereas the US seems to prefer asking "is there a reason for us to not give you one?", with a preference for looking for a way to say "no"….



moonhill99 said:


> Even the cops don't really have weapons self defense and  shoot people armed with knife in the UK.
> 
> Just look at the many youtube clips of many officers dancing around on youtube throughing trash cans and any thing they can find at  a suspects armed with non gun.
> 
> ...



Yeah… maybe don't try to lecture on the UK's laws and culture either… nor anything to do with LEO's, the law itself, or anything of the kind. You're really not in any position to do so.



moonhill99 said:


> What do you mean?  If police show up at burglary call and the bad guy is stabbed it is up to you to argue in court you could not retreat.  That is why many states in the US that do not have the stand your ground law say the retreat law is up for debate in court as you have to prove it. That I cannot retreat and I thought the bad guy was going to kill me and thus I stabbed him or shot him.



If you can express sufficiently why it was necessary, and it is deemed to be proportionate, then yeah, that's what you say. The basic idea is predicated on "present ability"… can the aggressor make good on the threat to kill you? Do they have the means and opportunity? Can you not escape? Then yeah, lethal force is going to be seen as justified… but you have to make sure that it can be demonstrated when required.



moonhill99 said:


> Are hand guns not banned in the UK? I thought lot of police don't even have guns in the UK?



Weren't you trying to give stats on police shootings in the UK? How do you think they are shooting people if they don't have guns?!?



moonhill99 said:


> Can you buy sword in the UK?



Considering some of my friends in the UK who train in sword arts, I'm going to say yes… but here's the thing… none of them are buying swords for self defence… because they're not delusional lunatics… lunatics, sure, but not delusional (hi, Scott!).


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Even the cops don't really have weapons self defense and shoot people armed with knife in the UK.



So what are your qualifications for being an expert on UK policing then?



moonhill99 said:


> There has been 55 police shootings in UK in past 24 years compared 640 people shot by police this year in the US.



Well, that's something to be proud of, we don't go around shooting people with our, according to you non existent guns, just because we can. 



moonhill99 said:


> And there been several people arrested just for threatening the bad guy breaking into your home in the UK. Not stabbing just threatening the bad guy with a knife.



You're the expect, tell me what being arrested means in the UK, because I can tell you it doesn't mean the same as it does in the US. Anyone can be arrested ( and de-arrested) in a situation where officers arrive and it's not clear who has done what and who everyone is, arresting mean all suspects and potential witnesses are not going to disappear.



moonhill99 said:


> Read up on the retreat law vs stand your ground law. Read up on police officers getting arrested in the UK and Canada for shooting suspect armed with knife



No officer in the UK has been arrested for shooting someone with a knife, if you have articles saying there is then they are false. Unlike you I won't speak for Canada because I don't know anything about Canadian laws and policing practices. We don't have stand your ground or retreat laws here, not in any of the six country's legal systems we have in the UK.



moonhill99 said:


> Where courts saying the police officers should of moved out of harms way and called in Special response unit that could of tased the suspect or had police shield. Where normally courts say unless suspect walks or runs after the police officer shooting is not justified.




All UK police officers can carry tasers if they want, there is no 'special taser unit'. There's no special unit for 'shields' either. We've never had a court case where a police shooting has been judged unjustified, it might infuriate certain groups but that's the truth. British policing isn't perfect, there's flaws, mistakes and ineptitude at times but on the whole police officers do their best, to malign them the way you do is nothing short of criminal. You don't live here, you don't get to criticise, you don't pay taxes which pay for our police forces so just shut up.


Stop posting lies and misinformation, stop thinking you are some sort of bloody police expert, just stop. You are making a fool of yourself.


----------



## WW3 Combatives (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> In the UK you are allowed and entitled to have a solicitor, being abrupt with the police is not recommended. What you have to understand is that when police officers arrive at a scene they have no way of telling who is who and what has been done, they aren't against anyone, they just don't know who is telling the truth so a series of actions is take to enable what happened to be pieced together. Assuming the police are against you from the start would be false, here at least anyway. One doesn't have to be so much 'careful' as to be prepared to tell the truth, police officers will understand that a victim is shaken and upset.
> this is the law on self defence in the UK.
> Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service


Yes it is different everywhere. I would say too that it is good to give an explanation of what happened. Still in Canada and the States one must be careful of what is said.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

WW3 Combatives said:


> Yes it is different everywhere. I would say too that it is good to give an explanation of what happened. Still in Canada and the States one must be careful of what is said.



Here the police may well arrest everyone involved, this doesn't have the significance it does in other countries but it does give the arrested person rights which includes having a (free) solicitor present when being interviewed by the police.

This is the police caution here given when arresting.  _“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”_


----------



## frank raud (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Read up on the retreat law vs stand your ground law. Read up on police officers getting arrested in the UK and Canada for shooting suspect armed with knife.
> 
> A complete culture difference. This would be joke in US public eye for even the liberals. Where you are armed and I tell you to drop it and you don't I shoot and case is closed.



With your in depth knowledge, please tell me about police being charged for shooting someone with a knife in Canada, and while you're at it, explain how that doesn't happen in America.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

A lot of swearing in these. On the whole this though is how you will be spoken to by British police, if you are violent however expect to be arrested robustly. 










so yes the police do carry tasers here.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> There has been 55 police shootings in UK in past 24 years compared 640 people shot by police this year in the US.
> 
> The US average close to 1,000 people shot by police every year in the US.
> 
> ...


It's hard to tell with the general incoherence of moonhill99's posts, but is he citing the nearly 1000 shootings yearly by police in the U.S. vs 55 shootings in 24 years by police in the U.K. as a point of _pride_ for the U.S.? Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'm not exactly comfortable saying_ "our country is better than yours because our police shoot way more people than yours do, so nyah!"_


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 21, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> But no, owning a gun is not hard here. It's simply not so insanely easy as it appears to be in the US. Really, what it comes down to is we ask "do you have a reason to own one?", whereas the US seems to prefer asking "is there a reason for us to not give you one?", with a preference for looking for a way to say "no"….


  Yep, that pretty much sums it up.  Lots of guns. Lots of very knowledgeable and experienced people with guns. Unfortunately, a lot of lunatics and idiots with guns also. 



Tez3 said:


> Stop posting lies and misinformation, stop thinking you are some sort of bloody police expert, just stop. You are making a fool of yourself.


  This right here. Doesn't seem to bother him much though as he's been coming across the fool for quite some time now in pretty much every post he makes.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's hard to tell with the general incoherence of moonhill99's posts, but is he citing the nearly 1000 shootings yearly by police in the U.S. vs 55 shootings in 24 years by police in the U.K. as a point of _pride_ for the U.S.? Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'm not exactly comfortable saying_ "our country is better than yours because our police shoot way more people than yours do, so nyah!"_



Perhaps someone who is good at statistics could work out the comparison between 1000 shootings in the USA with a population of 325 million and the UK shootings of 60 in 26 years ( the real figures) with a population of just 64 million, perhaps the figures wouldn't be that different? 6 dead in 2005 is the highest total for a year here. It doesn't sound much when you compare it to America but perhaps 1000 isn't much when you consider the size of the US?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps someone who is good at statistics could work out the comparison between 1000 shootings in the USA with a population of 325 million and the UK shootings of 60 in 26 years ( the real figures) with a population of just 64 million, perhaps the figures wouldn't be that different? 6 dead in 2005 is the highest total for a year here. It doesn't sound much when you compare it to America but perhaps 1000 isn't much when you consider the size of the US?


Without getting out my calculator, that comes out with the U.S. having roughly 100 times the per capita incidence of police shootings than the U.K..


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Without getting out my calculator, that comes out with the U.S. having roughly 100 times the per capita incidence of police shootings than the U.K..



Considering how many guns there are in the country probably not so bad ( there are many things to factor in I imagine, poverty, gangs, social conditions, terrorist attacks etc different places having different problems plus a justified fear that anyone being stopped by the police can be armed whereas it's unlikely here, at least armed with a gun anyway), any police shootings are regrettable because of the effects they have on police officers ( I'm not talking about the current highly publicised ones that have happened recently, I know little to nothing about those situations). It may suit moonhill to think that the police are aggressive bulldogs who act like Robocop but killing something is not something a police officer wants to do and it takes a long time getting over taking a life even when it's justifiable and saves lives. 
Traditionally here long before anyone came up with so-called 'gun control' the weapons of choice here were always knives rather than guns even when guns we supposed to be available. 'Gun control' here has a long very tangled history with guns being denied to only Catholics as one time, (that's why the Pilgrim Fathers being Protestants had 'guns') then only Catholics as various kings and queens feared uprisings from whichever faction they were oppressing at the time. Then we've had terrorism for centuries, bombs and shootings, Guy Fawkes was a terrorist along with his gang. There's been a lot throughout our history right up to the present day, all this informs our thoughts on gun ownership.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> various kings and queens feared uprisings from whichever faction they were oppressing at the time.


  And thus the creation of the USA Second Amendment created by colonist from where?!?   

Just to complete the history lesson....ha ha ha


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Well Australia is kinda like the UK too where Self defense is out.
> 
> Self defence is a very "grey" area under the law. You cannot use any more force than is reasonably necessary to stop the threat to your life.
> 
> ...



U,m you contradict yourself there you say self defence is out then in the next sentence you say you can't use any more force than is reasonably necessary. Well yeah that's kind of obvious isn't it if a drunk swings for me I'm not going to put him on the ground and stamp on his face until he's unconscious I'll block his and if I have to hit him back to stop then I will but once he's stopped i stop that's reasonable force


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

EddieCyrax said:


> And thus the creation of the USA Second Amendment created by colonist from where?!?
> 
> Just to complete the history lesson....ha ha ha



Ah but the Pilgrim Fathers weren't oppressed in the UK, they were Puritans who wanted to make people do things their way and were told 'on yer bike sunshine' so they went off to the colonies ie America to make what they thought was going to be lots of money


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Jul 21, 2016)

Anyway all this stuff about it being illegal I don't care if it is if someone attacks me I will defend myself. If some scum bags trying to do me in I'm not going to think I can't hit back or I'm getting arrested ill do whatever I have to do to stop the guy and I'll face the consequences of my actions but I'd rather have to face a jury then face a priest


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Anyway all this stuff about it being illegal I don't care if it is if someone attacks me I will defend myself. If some scum bags trying to do me in I'm not going to think I can't hit back or I'm getting arrested ill do whatever I have to do to stop the guy and I'll face the consequences of my actions but I'd rather have to face a jury then face a priest



It's very simple, you defend yourself if attacked, you use the force that is needed, that doesn't mean once you have taken them down you them stab them, stamp on their heads etc. that would be stupid anyway.
A British serviceman was attacked today near an RAF camp, a suspected kidnapping/terrorist attack, one attacker had a knife, the airman dropped the first attacker who hit the ground and before the second attacker could get him he ran off to safety and alerted the police. Sensible self defence. No macho stuff, no nonsense just survival and a good description of the attackers and their vehicle.

Not sure why you'd face a priest?


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> It's very simple, you defend yourself if attacked, you use the force that is needed, that doesn't mean once you have taken them down you them stab them, stamp on their heads etc. that would be stupid anyway.
> A British serviceman was attacked today near an RAF camp, a suspected kidnapping/terrorist attack, one attacker had a knife, the airman dropped the first attacker who hit the ground and before the second attacker could get him he ran off to safety and alerted the police. Sensible self defence. No macho stuff, no nonsense just survival and a good description of the attackers and their vehicle.
> 
> Not sure why you'd face a priest?


I mean it like a priest at a funeral burying me


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> I mean it like a priest at a funeral burying me



Ah I see.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Not sure why you'd face a priest?



  Because no one expects the Spanish inquisition!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 21, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Because no one expects the Spanish inquisition!



Or father O Malley from mash.  That dude could scrap.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 21, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK.
> 
> Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK
> 
> ...



So to clarify...
WEAPONS are illegal in the UK.
Martial arts are NOT illegal in the UK

Therefore, self-defense is NOT illegal in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> So to clarify...
> WEAPONS are illegal in the UK.
> Martial arts are NOT illegal in the UK
> 
> ...



Weapons aren't illegal in the UK. Many of us shoot, many of us own swords, knives etc etc all legally. Do it legally and all is fine.


----------



## lqkenpo (Jul 22, 2016)

Old quote but relevant in this debate:

'Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6' - Ed Parker


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2016)

lqkenpo said:


> Old quote but relevant in this debate:
> 
> 'Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6' - Ed Parker



12 also in England and Wales but 15 on a jury in Scotland who also have a choice of three verdicts...guilty, not guilty and not proven. More chance of getting away with something in Scotland.


----------



## lqkenpo (Jul 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> 12 also in England and Wales but 15 on a jury in Scotland who also have a choice of three verdicts...guilty, not guilty and not proven. More chance of getting away with something in Scotland.



Everyday is a school day, Thanks Tez3


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 22, 2016)

I guess the thing is how easy is it to buy guns for self defense in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.

And how are the police, courts, public and media of shooting or stabbing a burglar in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 22, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's hard to tell with the general incoherence of moonhill99's posts, but is he citing the nearly 1000 shootings yearly by police in the U.S. vs 55 shootings in 24 years by police in the U.K. as a point of _pride_ for the U.S.? Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I'm not exactly comfortable saying_ "our country is better than yours because our police shoot way more people than yours do, so nyah!"_



I wonder if there more red tape for police officers in UK that have to prove the bad guy armed with bat, knife, stick, pole or any other weapon started to run or walk to the officer.

Or it just really hard for the police officers to shoot some one as you have to prove it in court.

So the police are really scared to shoot some one thee.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 22, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> I guess the thing is how easy is it to buy guns for self defense in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> And how are the police, courts, public and media of shooting or stabbing a burglar in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.




Don't compare them. You aren't anywhere close to understanding the different contexts, so you won't understand any similarities or differences if you find them.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons aren't illegal in the UK. Many of us shoot, many of us own swords, knives etc etc all legally. Do it legally and all is fine.



You know and I know that we were talking about the use of weapons against another person; not in a collection. And I'm pretty sure if you strap on your katana and walk down the streets of London, you will be arrested.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> You know and I know that we were talking about the use of weapons against another person; not in a collection. And I'm pretty sure if you strap on your katana and walk down the streets of London, you will be arrested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk



And where can you walk down the street carrying a katana? Pretty sure most cities in the world would have police certainly interested if not arresting. Who caries a katana for self defence these days anyway?

I'm not talking about collections of knives, machetes etc, if you use them for work or leisure activities you can carry them in public though I'd recommend covering them up. I can carry a sword in public as long as it's covered up and am carrying it to or from a specific place for a specific reason. Handguns will be kept at gun clubs but shotguns are kept at home as rifles would be. You have to have a firearm certificate here and plenty of people do. In 2006, there were nearly 128,000 FACs covering just under 369,000 firearms in England and Wales and, in 2007, over 26,000 FACs covering nearly 67,000 guns in Scotland. Numbers have gone up since.
There is no reason that if you use something you have on you for self defence and it is a knife etc and you were in fear of your life you would be taken to court for defending yourself. If it's reasonable to use a weapon to defend yourself there's no problem here.


----------



## mograph (Jul 22, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Because no one expects the Spanish inquisition!


Are their chief weapons illegal in the UK?


----------



## EddieCyrax (Jul 22, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> I guess the thing is how easy is it to buy guns for self defense in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.
> 
> And how are the police, courts, public and media of shooting or stabbing a burglar in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.



Also do not buy into the main steam media in the ease to purchase in the US.  Background checks are performed and people are denied. Recent issues surround larger societal issues that politicians/media find harder to address so they focus on the tool rather than the root cause.  Also the over sensationalism sells papers/internet click/tv viewing....  IMHO....


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 22, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> I guess the thing is how easy is it to buy guns for self defense in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.
> And how are the police, courts, public and media of shooting or stabbing a burglar in the UK or Australia comparing it to the US.



  Why? Why in the world would you wish to do that? They are different countries, with different laws, different societal outlooks, and different people. If you are planning on moving to the UK or Australia, I can see researching their laws. However, comparing their apples to our oranges is just a total waste of time and effort, and can't possibly have any sort of meaningful result in my opinion.



mograph said:


> Are their chief weapons illegal in the UK?



Their chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er ... among their chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Considering how many guns there are in the country probably not so bad ( there are many things to factor in I imagine, poverty, gangs, social conditions, terrorist attacks etc different places having different problems plus a justified fear that anyone being stopped by the police can be armed whereas it's unlikely here, at least armed with a gun anyway), any police shootings are regrettable because of the effects they have on police officers ( I'm not talking about the current highly publicised ones that have happened recently, I know little to nothing about those situations). It may suit moonhill to think that the police are aggressive bulldogs who act like Robocop but killing something is not something a police officer wants to do and it takes a long time getting over taking a life even when it's justifiable and saves lives.
> Traditionally here long before anyone came up with so-called 'gun control' the weapons of choice here were always knives rather than guns even when guns we supposed to be available. 'Gun control' here has a long very tangled history with guns being denied to only Catholics as one time, (that's why the Pilgrim Fathers being Protestants had 'guns') then only Catholics as various kings and queens feared uprisings from whichever faction they were oppressing at the time. Then we've had terrorism for centuries, bombs and shootings, Guy Fawkes was a terrorist along with his gang. There's been a lot throughout our history right up to the present day, all this informs our thoughts on gun ownership.


I do think the incidence of actual guns and anticipated guns (there might be one there) probably account for much of the difference in the per capita rate. We could probably find out by looking at areas with low incidence of guns (both legal and illegal) in the US to see if those police forces have a rate similar to that in the UK.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2016)

EddieCyrax said:


> Also do not buy into the main steam media in the ease to purchase in the US.  Background checks are performed and people are denied. Recent issues surround larger societal issues that politicians/media find harder to address so they focus on the tool rather than the root cause.  Also the over sensationalism sells papers/internet click/tv viewing....  IMHO....


If you don't have any problems in your background, it is extremely easy to purchase. If you go to a gun show or buy from a neighbor, you can even bypass that issue.

So, yes, it is very easy to buy in the US.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I do think the incidence of actual guns and anticipated guns (there might be one there) probably account for much of the difference in the per capita rate. We could probably find out by looking at areas with low incidence of guns (both legal and illegal) in the US to see if those police forces have a rate similar to that in the UK.



Violence is always more prevalent in cities ( obviously lol) we have areas here that are tiny villages, small towns and for example in the area I live now we have about one murder every twenty odd years and they invariably are 'domestics'. I imagine there's many areas like that in the US where the police officers haven't used their weapons for years and don't ever expect to, policing would be extremely diverse in the USA as it is here.

Anyway this is my favourite police officer, if you are on FB do follow him, sadly though he's off back to the mainland soon ( but that leaves a constable's job if anyone fancies it). He does have a book about his time on the Scillies coming out soon.

Tales of a Scilly sergeant: 'The islands aren't a crime hotspot, but...'


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 22, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Violence is always more prevalent in cities ( obviously lol) we have areas here that are tiny villages, small towns and for example in the area I live now we have about one murder every twenty odd years and they invariably are 'domestics'. I imagine there's many areas like that in the US where the police officers haven't used their weapons for years and don't ever expect to, policing would be extremely diverse in the USA as it is here.
> 
> Anyway this is my favourite police officer, if you are on FB do follow him, sadly though he's off back to the mainland soon ( but that leaves a constable's job if anyone fancies it). He does have a book about his time on the Scillies coming out soon.
> 
> Tales of a Scilly sergeant: 'The islands aren't a crime hotspot, but...'


Absolutely. My dad lives in Wyoming, a state where there's a very high rate of gun ownership. However, there's also a very low population density - a few people per square mile, IIRC. There's not much violence of any type there - just not many people you can actually reach to perpetrate violence upon.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 23, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Don't compare them. You aren't anywhere close to understanding the different contexts, so you won't understand any similarities or differences if you find them.



Well if you want to get into you cannot really compare, you could make same case in the US.

In some states shooting trespasser or some one on your property even shots fired in air to scare him off the home owner got arrested. Some owners got prison time for chasing the suspect off the property.

The key is moving to state that has stand your ground law and conservative judges.

The critics of stand your ground law is trigger happy homeowner or wannabe cop trying to detain the burglar for the cops to show up or chasing the suspect off the property.

The pro stand your ground people is that cut all this red time in court room explaining why you shot a burglar in your home. Where they say okay so you said you not hide in house some where like under bed or in closet or runway.

Some times not so simple in real world. And than there are trigger happy homeowners.

You can't ague self defense trying to detain the burglar for the cops to show up or chasing the suspect off the property onto the city street or shooting in back well the bad guy runs away.

But they have what is right to protect family and property that I'm sure UK and Australia does not have or stand your ground.

Where by law I have right to shoot the burglar stealing my stuff or may be doing harm to my family. 

Where in other states in US or the UK and Australia only right for fear of my life.

This could not play out in court room well where how can I prove of fear of my life and not just protecting my family or property.

Shooting some one on my property not in house or shooting into air to scare off the burglar may play well in Texas but not play well in other US states or UK and Australia.

It also hard to argue self defense in UK, Australia and Canada if guns have to be locked in safe.

Where in US having gun by bead or in Bedside Table  or Dresser is not looked what hack culture is that.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 23, 2016)

EddieCyrax said:


> Also do not buy into the main steam media in the ease to purchase in the US.  Background checks are performed and people are denied. Recent issues surround larger societal issues that politicians/media find harder to address so they focus on the tool rather than the root cause.  Also the over sensationalism sells papers/internet click/tv viewing....  IMHO....



The problem is some states where doing Background checks and other states where not.

Some making it too easy and some harder.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 23, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Why? Why in the world would you wish to do that? They are different countries, with different laws, different societal outlooks, and different people. If you are planning on moving to the UK or Australia, I can see researching their laws. However, comparing their apples to our oranges is just a total waste of time and effort, and can't possibly have any sort of meaningful result in my opinion.



Well the point of this thread is self defense is self defense unless I'm cowboy or there are cowboys shooting some one in back for trying to runway or shooting some on on property it should be self defense.

If there is forcible entry and the burglar got shot in the house you should not have go through all the red tape trying prove in court why they should not send you to prison. And courts trying rip you apart treating you as a criminal.

The critics of those liberal countries like UK, Australia and Canada is it is terrible. That you are arrested and have to prove to the court you could not hide or runway and treating you as a criminal.

A system in Canada, UK, Australia how can you have proper  self defense if guns have to be locked in safe.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> But they have what is right to protect family and property that I'm sure UK and Australia does not have or stand your ground.



How many times do I have to tell you that we in the UK do have what you call 'stand your ground' How many times do I have to tell you and I even posted up the legal stuff from the legal body that deals with this, that you can protect your family and property. Really this is getting tiresome, having to keep telling you something and you ignoring it.



moonhill99 said:


> The critics of those liberal countries like UK, Australia and Canada is it is terrible. That you are arrested and have to prove to the court you could not hide or runway and treating you as a criminal.




Bollocks, rot and cobblers, more rubbish from you, Really how many times do you have to be told that what you are posting is simply not true. Ok so I'm going to post this in full because you clearly do not read or understand what I've been saying. From here. Householders and the use of force against intruders

*Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers*
*What is the purpose of this statement?*
_It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime._

_Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events._

*Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?*
_Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon._

_As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence._

*What amounts to disproportionate force? I’ve heard I can use that.*
_The force you use must always be reasonable in the circumstances as you believe them to be. Where you are defending yourself or others from intruders in your home, it might still be reasonable in the circumstances for you to use a degree of force that is subsequently considered to be disproportionate, perhaps if you are acting in extreme circumstances in the heat of the moment and don’t have a chance to think about exactly how much force would be necessary to repel the intruder: it might seem reasonable to you at the time but, with hindsight, your actions may seem disproportionate. The law will give you the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances. _

_This only applies if you were acting in self-defence or to protect others in your home and the force you used was disproportionate – disproportionate force to protect property is still unlawful._

*I’ve heard that I can’t use grossly disproportionate force. What does that mean?*
_If your action was ‘over the top’ or a calculated action of revenge or retribution, for example, this might amount to grossly disproportionate force for which the law does not protect you. If, for example, you had knocked an intruder unconscious and then went on to kick and punch them repeatedly, such an action would be more likely to be considered grossly disproportionate._

*Do I have to wait to be attacked?*
_No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself._

*What if the intruder dies?*
_If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:_


_having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or_
_you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,_
_you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted._

*What if I chase them as they run off?*
_This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not._

*Will you believe the intruder rather than me?*
_The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers._

*How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?*
_In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events._

_To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:_


_An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and_
_If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision._
_It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.
_
This is the definitive statement of self defence in the UK, please read and inwardly digest, then stop saying we cannot defend ourselves and we end up in court if we do, it doesn't happen. The cases that have ended up in court are those where self defence was claimed but on investigation it was very far from that, in fact the statement touched on one case that of a man that lured young men to his house to break in and steal but he laid a trap for them then shot one as he was running from the house, self defence was claimed but it obviously wasn't. The case that was mentioned in your OP was that of men who chased burglars from the house, found a man several street away and beat him with an iron bar, that was claimed as self defence, it wasn't.
As you can see from the statement even if you use a weapon, if you cause death, it is still self defence as long as it was not disproportionate force ( explained in the statement) or a revenge attack or knowing the crime was going to be committed and not calling the police but choosing to attack instead.
Where the CPS and the police have, understandably, to be careful is of a killing/attack that is claimed as self defence but isn't, it was a planned attack on someone hence the investigations that follow. Genuine self defence incidents are usually self evident so few problems occur afterwards.
I would always recommend that people have good security on their homes and property rather than rely on being able to stop a burglar! Home security is quite cheap these days and easily put in place, in the UK you can have a police officer come round and advise you on what are actually quite simple things you can do to make your home secure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Well if you want to get into you cannot really compare, you could make same case in the US.
> 
> In some states shooting trespasser or some one on your property even shots fired in air to scare him off the home owner got arrested. Some owners got prison time for chasing the suspect off the property.
> 
> ...


I'm not aware of any place in the US where I could shoot someone to stop them stealing my property. Perhaps Wyoming and Texas, but unlikely in other states. Lethal force is only allowed in response to a reasonable fear of bodily harm. You seem to be confusing "the US" with the version of the US that is sometimes shown on TV or portrayed by those pandering to the NRA (which would rather have the 2nd amendment than literally anything else you could name).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> The problem is some states where doing Background checks and other states where not.
> 
> Some making it too easy and some harder.


Um. No. The background check is a Federal law, not a state issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Well the point of this thread is self defense is self defense unless I'm cowboy or there are cowboys shooting some one in back for trying to runway or shooting some on on property it should be self defense.
> 
> If there is forcible entry and the burglar got shot in the house you should not have go through all the red tape trying prove in court why they should not send you to prison. And courts trying rip you apart treating you as a criminal.
> 
> ...


Are you not even listening to those folks from those countries? Their self-defense laws are not so very different from those we have in the US. Yes, they have more restrictions on gun ownership and such, but that's not the self-defense law.


----------



## frank raud (Jul 23, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Are you not even listening to those folks from those countries? Their self-defense laws are not so very different from those we have in the US. Yes, they have more restrictions on gun ownership and such, but that's not the self-defense law.


Near as I can understand, Moonbat is arguing on a martial arts forum that if you don't have easy access to guns and the ability to shoot someone without going to court over that trivial thing, you don't have self defense.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2016)

I would say even if every one of us was armed we should still know how to defend ourselves without weapons because you should always be able to rely on yourself when the worse happens. You never know what life is going to throw at you. As Lord Baden-Powell said ... Be Prepared!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I would say even if every one of us was armed we should still know how to defend ourselves without weapons because you should always be able to rely on yourself when the worse happens. You never know what life is going to throw at you. As Lord Baden-Powell said ... Be Prepared!


Agreed. Those who depend solely upon a firearm are screwed if they get surprised by an attacker within arm's reach when said firearm isn't in their hands. Or worse yet, isn't nearby.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 23, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Well if you want to get into you cannot really compare, you could make same case in the US.
> 
> In some states shooting trespasser or some one on your property even shots fired in air to scare him off the home owner got arrested. Some owners got prison time for chasing the suspect off the property.
> 
> ...


"Shooting into the air" to scare off an intruder, etc. is illegal. It has nothing to do with being allowed (or not being allowed) to defend your property. No one who responsibly uses forearms would shoot a rifled projectile into the air. Bullets travel very long distances (some can travel for miles) and you don't know where that projectile will land. It's could travel several blocks away, smash through someone's window, and hit a child. That is why in many cities and municipalities "discharging a firearm" is a crime all by itself (never mind why or what you were shooting at). Any fool who would even consider warning shots into the air has no business handling firearms. That's something you'd see in old cowboy movies.

Texas actually does not have the most liberal gun laws in the US. Idaho does. Alaska also has some pretty liberal gun laws. For example, in Alaska, you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun. You sound like you're not from America.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

When it comes to defending myself I subscribe to the belief that it is better to be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6.  I will do what I feel is necessary at the time without concern for the safety of the attacker or the law.  Lucky for us here in the United States you face your peers when in court. Hence the statement judged by 12.  Six men carry the coffin to the grave.   I know our government is working hard to take my right to defend myself away from me but for now in the state I live we can save it for the jury.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> When it comes to defending myself I subscribe to the belief that it is better to be judged by 12 rather than carried by 6.  I will do what I feel is necessary at the time without concern for the safety of the attacker or the law.  Lucky for us here in the United States you face your peers when in court. Hence the statement judged by 12.  Six men carry the coffin to the grave.   I know our government is working hard to take my right to defend myself away from me but for now in the state I live we can save it for the jury.



Then you are unlucky because if it's self defence it doesn't go to court here. The last sentence is a political comment which isn't allowed on this site.


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

Well, when the police are unsure they take everyone in and sort it out later they cant just take the winners word.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 23, 2016)

If it doesn't go to court, who pre-determines if it was self defense?


----------



## JP3 (Jul 23, 2016)

I can't think of a single jurisdiction where one can use deadly-force in self-defense and not get in trouble for it, except when being imminently threatened with deadly force yourself.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> Well, when the police are unsure they take everyone in and sort it out later they cant just take the winners word.



Gosh! never thought of that or did I actually say that many posts ago. yep I said that. However once they have sorted out ( which it does and relatively quickly because it's treated as a priority) and it's genuine self defence it doesn't go to court, well the victim only goes to court as a witness in the criminal trial of their attacker.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 23, 2016)

Who is "they"?  "They" must have a lot of power to determine innocence or guilt. Kinda scary.


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

they = police obviously,


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

Yes, it is scary the police do not know the law they only enforce it.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 23, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> Yes, it is scary the police do not know the law they only enforce it.


I'm curious why you disliked my post when it seems you agree with me.


----------



## Tames D (Jul 23, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> they = police obviously,


Then the public is at the mercy of a police officers mood at the time, instead of them turning the case over to a judge and jury to decide.


----------



## SenseiHitman (Jul 23, 2016)

I hit the wrong button my apologizes  will be more careful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Then the public is at the mercy of a police officers mood at the time, instead of them turning the case over to a judge and jury to decide.


The police (and the prosecutors in some cases) are the ones who make the decision whether to pursue charges in the US, too. That's nothing odd. As for your comment of "innocence or guilt", nobody said anything about determining guilt - just determining when it's an apparent clear case of self-defense. If you want all of those to go to court, I suspect you aren't considering the impact to all those who defend themselves, nor the cost of all those court cases.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 23, 2016)

JP3 said:


> I can't think of a single jurisdiction where one can use deadly-force in self-defense and not get in trouble for it, except when being imminently threatened with deadly force yourself.



I can. Pretty much ANY jurisdiction in the US. Will there be an investigation? Absolutely. Will you be in trouble? Not if it was justifiable. 



Tames D said:


> Who is "they"?  "They" must have a lot of power to determine innocence or guilt. Kinda scary.



Isn't that pretty much how the system works (yes, I know it doesn't always work)? 
I am assaulted. I use deadly force. There is an investigation to determine if the deadly force was justified. If it clearly was, then that's the end of it. If it's iffy, then it goes to the DA or a Grand Jury or whatever the details are in that particular jurisdiction. 
Now, I didn't kill anybody, but in the assault that cost me my eye, I did turn a mugger into a quadriplegic. And that was how it worked. The police investigated. It was clearly justified. I was not arrested. Being attacked was scary. The police doing their job really was not.
Or do you think that the police ought to just arrest everybody in a 2 mile radius of the crime?


----------



## Tames D (Jul 23, 2016)

I think I misunderstood the quote I responded to.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 23, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> Well, when the police are unsure they take everyone in and sort it out later they cant just take the winners word.


If you use deadly force, you WILL be arrested. The important thing is to understand the distinction between being arrested and being convicted. You'll be arrested because the police will need to detain you for questioning during the initial phase of the investigation. You may never actually be charged with a crime and they may simply let you go after getting things sorted out. In any case, my advice is to ALWAYS "lawyer up" (request an attorney and refuse to answer any questions they ask until your attorney arrives).
As charming as they will be at the time, the police are NOT on your side and they are not "trying to help you". They are trying to build a case against the perpetrator (which they may believe is YOU at the time).


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> Yes, it is scary the police do not know the law they only enforce it.



The police here do know the law, the training here is at least 20 weeks at the Force's police college then another two years before they qualify as a police constable. It will take 9-12 months to be accepted in the first place. There is far more to policing than just enforcing the law. the laws that govern how the police work here is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK) and believe me every police officer in the country knows that backwards and forwards, inside and out. 
Yes, you most likely could be arrested, as I've said that's not such as serious thing as it seems to be elsewhere, but you can be de-arrested quite easily. It is a means to make sure everyone can be questioned easily but it isn't always used. By all means, get a solicitor being arrested means actually that you are entitled to one free as well. The police take the evidence ( they don't build evidence as such, they collect it and for the most part here sympathy will be with the victim though open minds are kept, bear in mind most things like this are actually perpetrated by known criminals anyway) which is passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. All criminal cases here are prosecuted on behalf of the Queen ( Regina v Smith/Jones/whoever). If the police are quite satisfied that it was justified self defence the CPS will go over it, agree and no case will be made against the person who defended themselves. I did post the criteria that the CPS work under for self defence including the fact that the victim is in fact the victim and that it is taken that the person harmed brought it upon themselves by committing a criminal act. They   , in fact were harmed by their own actions. The police aren't stupid it's actually reasonably easy to tell genuine self defence cases from those where someone has set it up. The media sometimes find it less easy though. We don't actually have a lot of self defence cases, we do have break ins and burglaries of course but most are when the householder is out, so called 'home invasions' are rare thank goodness. Perhaps we have more old fashioned cat burglars.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2016)

I don't know what police officers job description is in other countries and I don't know what they are perceived as being, I've heard people here say that the police aren't there to protect people but just to deal with crime however that's not the job description here. This is on the role of a police officer by National Police College. 
_"Police officer       _
_ 
As a police officer your job will be to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and promote confidence among local people that the police understand and are prepared to deal with the issues that matter most to them._

_Policing will enable you to work in partnership with the public and other organisations and make a difference to the local community._

_You will have a key role in supporting victims and witnesses and providing reassurance to individuals who have been subjected to crime and anti social behaviour.  Many people will look to you for guidance and protection from such experiences and to provide this effectively you will need to be able to see things from their perspective, tailoring your approach to address their particular needs and fears.  _

_You must be a person who thrives on challenges, and are willing to work hard to learn the skills necessary for this difficult but critical role._

_This can be a tough and unpredictable job, but it is also an extremely rewarding position. Every day when you put on your uniform and go to work, you will be making life safer and more secure for your friends and neighbours, and making your community a better place to live"
_
There is a big emphasis on police education as well as training in the UK and Europe, here 16 year old who wish to be police officers ( they have to be 18 to apply) can go to college on a 'Public Service' course, most police officer here have educational qualifications anyway including degrees. I'm not posting this to say that any country's force is better but to get over to people the idea that the police are educated, well trained and responsible professionals who aren't like to jump to conclusions and arrest everyone in the hope that someone 'confesses' and they can close the case. That's pure television I believe like shooting tyres out and kicking knives out assailant's hands etc etc.

if you are interested this makes a good read, on European policing. they do note some differences between the US and Europe as it's an American study.  EUROPEAN SYSTEMS OF POLICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING

On a political note, just the one, the recent Brexit result has left many of us worrying about whether we will remain in Europol, something that has been successful and we really should remain in.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 24, 2016)

SenseiHitman said:


> Yes, it is scary the police do not know the law they only enforce it.



LOL!! How can they enforce it if they don't know it?
Are you outside the US?
In the USA, officers are trained to be familiar with the laws they enforce. You can't expect a cop to be a walking encyclopedia of the law (attorneys and judges can't even be that), but they are familiar with the laws and they have the means to look up a law to see what it specifically says. They used to carry criminal code books (municipal code, state code, etc.) now they can access that from the computer in their vehicles.
If/when you get a ticket from a cop in the USA, look at it. You'll see the reference number of the law you broke on the ticket.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 24, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> LOL!! How can they enforce it if they don't know it?
> Are you outside the US?
> In the USA, officers are trained to be familiar with the laws they enforce. You can't expect a cop to be a walking encyclopedia of the law (attorneys and judges can't even be that), but they are familiar with the laws and they have the means to look up a law to see what it specifically says. They used to carry criminal code books (municipal code, state code, etc.) now they can access that from the computer in their vehicles.
> If/when you get a ticket from a cop in the USA, look at it. You'll see the reference number of the law you broke on the ticket.
> ...



There are a lot of detractors of the police who assume they just arrest on a whim. What I've always found is that those who protest the most and who think police should be chasing 'real criminals' are those who have just been caught doing something they shouldn't, quite often it's drink driving or have been stopped for dangerous or reckless driving. For some being criticised let alone being pulled up for their behaviour makes them angry, they are always 'innocent', they always 'pay your wages' as tax payers and they always know the Chief Constable. 
 There's a rant on here about the UK police, poster hasn't been back for five years and I can't remember the thread at the moment but he was ranting about how nasty they are because he's been campaigning to legalise cannabis, is always picked on and is a 'free' person. Yep, and the fact you are a free person is because the police keep the real bad guys away from you. If you choose to live in a society, then you have to conform to certain standards of behaviour for your comfort and safety as well as others, it's the price of living with people. You don't have to live with people though, you can go off into the ulu so you affect no one so do what you want.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 25, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Well the point of this thread is self defense is self defense unless I'm cowboy or there are cowboys shooting some one in back for trying to runway or shooting some on on property it should be self defense.
> 
> If there is forcible entry and the burglar got shot in the house you should not have go through all the red tape trying prove in court why they should not send you to prison. And courts trying rip you apart treating you as a criminal.
> 
> ...



  You got something against cowboys slick? Are you insinuating that I have shot people in the back because they ran away from me? Are you trying to figure out who you can kill if you visit a foreign country? Do you have any idea how ridiculous your posts sound?
  Personally, I think you need to go back and re-read the directions on your meds, because you're definitely operating in an alternate reality from the rest of us.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 25, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> You can defend yourself in every nation on the planet. There is nothing special about the US there at all, other than you guys seem to have a love of, and preference for, lethal responses. And if you think that is "beautiful", well…


If it prevents you from being raped or murdered than yes. However, deadly force in the USA is only allowed in the most extreme situations such as if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Most of us hope to never be in such a situation. However, as I said you can only use deadly force in the situations I mentioned above. You can't kill somebody for slapping or shoving you.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You can't carry a weapon for self defence. If there is one laying around you can use it.
> 
> The idea is you are not supposed to be walking around with the intent to hurt people.



With that train of thought you can say police walk around with the intent to hurt people since most police officers in all countries do carry weapons of some sort.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 25, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Considering how many guns there are in the country probably not so bad ( there are many things to factor in I imagine, poverty, gangs, social conditions, terrorist attacks etc different places having different problems plus a justified fear that anyone being stopped by the police can be armed whereas it's unlikely here, at least armed with a gun anyway),


If its criminals being stopped I don't see why they couldn't be carrying guns. There might have laws against owning and carrying guns but criminals don't obey the law, that's what makes them criminals.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> With that train of thought you can say police walk around with the intent to hurt people since most police officers in all countries do carry weapons of some sort.



They do. They intend to use force on people and that will hurt those people. We empower them with that role. And because we empower them with that role. We also place restrictions on their behaviour that an average person does not have.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They do. They intend to use force on people and that will hurt those people. We empower them with that role. And because we empower them with that role. We also place restrictions on their behaviour that an average person does not have.



On the contrary a police officer can do lots of stuff an average person can't. If anything, average people are more restricted than police officers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> If it prevents you from being raped or murdered than yes. However, deadly force in the USA is only allowed in the most extreme situations such as if you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Most of us hope to never be in such a situation. However, as I said you can only use deadly force in the situations I mentioned above. You can't kill somebody for slapping or shoving you.





PhotonGuy said:


> If its criminals being stopped I don't see why they couldn't be carrying guns. There might have laws against owning and carrying guns but criminals don't obey the law, that's what makes them criminals.



Well thank you Captain Obvious.



PhotonGuy said:


> On the contrary a police officer can do lots of stuff an average person can't. If anything, average people are more restricted than police officers.



and what can a police officer do that the average person can't? How are people restricted? Police officers aren't above the law, they have to act within it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> On the contrary a police officer can do lots of stuff an average person can't. If anything, average people are more restricted than police officers.



They are also required to adhere to a code of conduct and are scrutinised more closely than we are.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

PG and Moonhill on the same thread argh.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> PG and Moonhill on the same thread argh.


And tez. Oh man.   And drop bear, too.   Can it get any worse?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> If its criminals being stopped I don't see why they couldn't be carrying guns. There might have laws against owning and carrying guns but criminals don't obey the law, that's what makes them criminals.


Most cop-civilian interactions aren't with "criminals" (usually reserved for felons and significant misdemeanors), but traffic stops and the like. That's where legal ownership and legal ability to carry or have at hand comes into play.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Most cop-civilian interactions aren't with "criminals" (usually reserved for felons and significant misdemeanors), but traffic stops and the like. That's where legal ownership and legal ability to carry or have at hand comes into play.



Plus the awful for all concerned visits to inform relatives and loved ones of deaths either by accidents or crime. The visits police make to advise on home safety. The visits they make when you have been the victim of a crime. Police-civilian interaction is not always about arresting people and being in what many people's eyes the 'bad guys'.

Too many people don't understand what a week in the life of a police officer is like, too many take their information from films and television, goes for a lot of professions and martial arts of course but real information doesn't seem to penetrate far in some's brain.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> And tez. Oh man.   And drop bear, too.   Can it get any worse?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> and what can a police officer do that the average person can't? How are people restricted? Police officers aren't above the law, they have to act within it.



To give one example police officers can drive on the shoulder of the road to bypass traffic.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> To give one example police officers can drive on the shoulder of the road to bypass traffic.



In the UK, police, fire and ambulance don't have any _rights_ that ordinary drivers don't have, they have no right to speed, drive on the hard shoulder or go through red lights. They may do it however because when there is an operational necessity there is an exemption, the only time they can do these things without been charged and/or disciplined. However if they cause an accident they will be charged and they will be disciplined the same as any other driver. they cannot just speed because they want to be back at base for teatime.


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


>


What the hell???  That was kind of awesome.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 26, 2016)

In the UK we have some of the best self defence laws in the world.  The problem is that most people have not taken the time to understand therm.  Instead they rely on hearsay, sensationalist newspaper headlines, and common misconceptions (of which there are many).

If you take the time to actually look at our laws you realise that the law is most definitely on your side.  The reasons that most people who are legitimately defending themselves get into trouble with the courts is not because of what they have done, but because of the mistakes they make when they give their statement to the police.  Six months down the line, if you are unlucky enough to end up in court, it is not your actions that will convict you, but most likely your statement.

As for weapons out laws are pretty straight forward, they are illegal.  Weapons are classified in three ways:-

Firstly Weapons, i.e an object which is made to be a weapon;  a sword, a gun, a kubotan, an extendable police baton, pepper spray.  If you are caught with these you will be prosecuted, there are no if’s and’s or but’s.

Secondly, everyday objects which have been modified to become weapons.  E.GF “Tatcial” pens, sharpening the tip of an umbrella, carrying a sock with a pool ball in it.  If you have modified an everyday object thereby turning it into a weapon then you will be prosecuted, end of.  Having said that of course, they are going to bear in mind the fact that they have to decide if prosecuting people is within the public interest, so if they find a 65 year old women who has been mugged three times carrying a tactical pen, they probably aren’t going to take her to court, as it’s not in the public interest, they will probably use discretion and just confiscate it and give her a police caution.

Thirdly, and this is where it gets interesting.  Unmodified everyday object used as weapon.  It is ILLEGAL to carry an everyday object if it is your _intention_ to use it as a weapon.  However, and this is the interesting part; in these cases the burden of proof lies with the police.  So whereas with weapons or modified everyday object, the police do not have to prove you intended to use them as weapons (the fact you were carrying them is enough to convict you) they do have to prove that you were carrying your unmodified everyday object purely with the intention of using it as a weapon, which as you can imagine presents its own challenges.

n.b.
I am not a lawyer, this is purely my interpretation of how the laws on weapons stand, feel free to interpret them different, many of my own martial arts friends do.   Also, there is little to be achieved by arguing, so if you do disagree with me, as you are welcome to do, you will forgive me if I do not reply


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2016)

If people are getting in trouble with the law y months later not because of what they did, but becaUse of their statement, isn't that s problem with the law?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> The reasons that most people who are legitimately defending themselves get into trouble with the courts is not because of what they have done, but because of the mistakes they make when they give their statement to the police. Six months down the line, if you are unlucky enough to end up in court, it is not your actions that will convict you, but most likely your statement.



To be honest though I've never know someone who defended themselves legitimately actually go to court. The police can only document what people say they did, people have their statements taken as they are speaking, then they read and sign, if they say they did things they didn't then they really should be careful. What is likely to trip them up is other people's statements, witnesses who say they saw something other than what the alleged victim says happened, that's what will really trip you up, that and cctv.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 26, 2016)

Steve said:


> If people are getting in trouble with the law y months later not because of what they did, but becaUse of their statement, isn't that s problem with the law?



I would say it’s more a problem with police procedure than the law.

You are under no obligation to give a statement right away, however in order to avoid spending a night in a holding cell, people chose to give a statement without waiting for a solicitor, and while they are still experiencing the shock and stress of the incident on which they are being questioned.  These people invariably are also ignorant of UK self defence law.

As an analogy, you would never ever buy a house without consulting a solicitor as you can find out (as I did) that the property you were going to buy have a public right of way through the ground floor.  You hire a professional to guide you through the minefield of paperwork and legalities.  And yet giving a statement to the police without an experienced professional solicitor to guide you, is just like buying a house without a solicitor carrying out the necessary searches.

It is better, if you are unsure of what you are doing, to wait until the morning when a solicitor will be available and when you will a clearer and calmer head, but like I say, people prefer to give their statement right away so they can avoid a night in the cells.

If however, you are aware of the law, and your rights, you can give a statement that will not lead to your cases even getting as far as the courts.  Here is a perfect example from Mr Morrison:-

*warning, naughty words


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2016)

I think its reasonable for a person who has lawfully defended himself to believe that giving an honest account.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest though I've never know someone who defended themselves legitimately actually go to court. The police can only document what people say they did, people have their statements taken as they are speaking, then they read and sign, if they say they did things they didn't then they really should be careful. What is likely to trip them up is other people's statements, witnesses who say they saw something other than what the alleged victim says happened, that's what will really trip you up, that and cctv.



I am going off Dead or Alive.  Chapter 22 describes The Law as “The Second Enemy” and Geoff tells us “Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law”.  So whilst I, like your good self, are not directly aware of such cases, others are.

There is also a very good article in Ian Abernethy’s now sadly defunct Jissen magazine, written by a police officer, which tell you not only your rights if you are interviewed by the police, but also the pitfalls to look out for when giving a statement, and certain key phrases which you should work into your statement.

As for CCTV footage, if there were footage of a mugger mugging me, and CCTV footage of me attacking a would be mugger, they are pretty much going to look the same, as violence looks like violence.  The difference is not going to be what it looks like, it’s the intent of the person carrying out the violence.  And if you don’t know what the key phrases are that you need to work into your statement, then you are not going to put enogh doubt into the mind of the CPS that a prosecution is unlikely, which essentially all you really need to do.

But again, these are only my thoughts, which does not necesarily mean they are correct


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest though I've never know someone who defended themselves legitimately actually go to court. The police can only document what people say they did, people have their statements taken as they are speaking, then they read and sign, if they say they did things they didn't then they really should be careful. What is likely to trip them up is other people's statements, witnesses who say they saw something other than what the alleged victim says happened, that's what will really trip you up, that and cctv.



That's why I wouldn't say anything without a lawyer.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They are also required to adhere to a code of conduct and are scrutinised more closely than we are.



What Im saying is this. Police officers carry weapons not with the intent to use them on people but as a deterrent. If it comes to a situation where officers have to defend themselves than they will use any and whatever means up to and including deadly force if it comes to that. However, at least with most of the police officers I know they hope it never comes to that. If anything police officers carry weapons with the intent to cause a deterrent so that nobody will cause any trouble in the first place and so they won't have to use them.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> What Im saying is this. Police officers carry weapons not with the intent to use them on people but as a deterrent. If it comes to a situation where officers have to defend themselves than they will use any and whatever means up to and including deadly force if it comes to that. However, at least with most of the police officers I know they hope it never comes to that. If anything police officers carry weapons with the intent to cause a deterrent so that nobody will cause any trouble in the first place and so they won't have to use them.



Police officers use those weapons to make arrests as well. Which is not self defence.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Police officers use those weapons to make arrests as well. Which is not self defence.



Be that as it may their intent is not to use their weapons to make arrests. There intent is for those being arrested to come quietly so they won't have to use weapons to make their arrests.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 26, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Well thank you Captain Obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> and what can a police officer do that the average person can't?...


They can pull over wanker drivers who cut you off or merge in front of you without a turn signal. I'm not allowed to do that. Oh...and parking tickets. I can't give out parking tickets. [emoji12]




"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 27, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> They can pull over wanker drivers who cut you off or merge in front of you without a turn signal. I'm not allowed to do that. Oh...and parking tickets. I can't give out parking tickets. [emoji12]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Traffic wardens hand out parking tickets, not a police job. You can try to pull over other drivers but I wouldn't recommend it, police can because the driver is committing an offence 9 careless driving)and if the drivers don't stop it's a failure to stop which is another offence but the police are also committing an offence if they cut you off or turn without a signal, ( same careless driving) you can report them.



Paul_D said:


> There is also a very good article in Ian Abernethy’s now sadly defunct Jissen magazine, written by a police officer, which tell you not only your rights if you are interviewed by the police, but also the pitfalls to look out for when giving a statement, and certain key phrases which you should work into your statement.




I read that and you're right it's a shame he doesn't do it anymore. the problem with 'working a few key phrases' into your statement though is that it then sounds 'prepared' that you've got something to hide and you are covering it all up with words. It's comes out as sounding false. I've dealt with a couple of self defence incidents and to be honest it was clear as day what happened and was indeed self defence, the evidence isn't based on what the alleged victim says but much more.
Having trawled through what must be thousands of hours of cctv I can say muggings look exactly like muggings. These are nearly always done btw by people known to the police, you rarely need to put 'doubt' into the case quite honestly, there is a wealth of evidence used, statements are rarely any good as evidence quite honestly. people rarely recount what actually happened and all accounts will vary, so statements are the last thing that are taken into account.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Be that as it may their intent is not to use their weapons to make arrests. There intent is for those being arrested to come quietly so they won't have to use weapons to make their arrests.


That's their preference. Their intent is to use the weapons when necessary, and they realistically understand that includes arrests. That's why they don't wait for an arrest to turn violent before drawing a weapon (in the US). If there's anything to indicate the suspect may be violent (failure to stop for flashing lights, etc.), they often start by drawing their gun as they approach the car.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 1, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's their preference. Their intent is to use the weapons when necessary, and they realistically understand that includes arrests. That's why they don't wait for an arrest to turn violent before drawing a weapon (in the US). If there's anything to indicate the suspect may be violent (failure to stop for flashing lights, etc.), they often start by drawing their gun as they approach the car.



Exactly this.  Here is the thing, action is faster than reaction.  So, if you can articulate reasons to draw your weapon you may well draw it.  Example in almost 20 years 98% of the stolen car reports I took were what we call "rentals", meaning a drug addict lent their care to a dealer and it wasn't returned as such I can articulate "based on my training and experience those who traffic in controlled substances often carry guns in order to protect themselves from being robbed of their money or illegal drugs." To boot a high speed pursuit, or simply driving a stolen car in my State are felonies.

Articulation can go further as well.  One has to remember that Police, in the US, are trained to use the force necessary to prevent a suspect from escalating the use of force as this takes control of the encounter away from the Officer.  So if I am speaking with a suspect and I can articulate that he has balled his hands into fists and either squared up or bladed himself to me, I can justify drawing a taser or baton in a show of force to discourage the attack interested by the suspect's body language.  There are far more circumstances of course but in the end it comes down to being able to present articulable facts to justify displaying a tool.

As for the OP it is a gross exaggeration.  Self defense is indeed legal in GB, what different authorities have basically sai

 "one can only use the level of force that is justified in light of the threat you are confronted with...if you don't have the training or properly determine what force is justified, you are placing yourself in legal jeopardy."

The problem is there is a tendency among certain groups in both Nations to say "who cares if I cripple the other guy for pushing me, he shouldn't have put hands on me in the first place." That isn't how a civilized society under the rule of law works though.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Having trawled through what must be thousands of hours of cctv I can say muggings look exactly like muggings. These are nearly always done btw by people known to the police, you rarely need to put 'doubt' into the case quite honestly, there is a wealth of evidence used, statements are rarely any good as evidence quite honestly. people rarely recount what actually happened and all accounts will vary, so statements are the last thing that are taken into account.



Pretty much.  Usually the witness is simply there to say "he tried to rob me..." "...assault me..." etc and then give the most basic of details.  Unless you are used to violent encounters (which luckily most aren't) your recollection of exact events is going to be shakey, even exaggerated at best.  After that the Prosecution will submit any physical evidence gathered by police, the observations of the scene documented by police, hospital records documenting the degree of injury (if any) etc.  This is especially true in cases in the US where CCTV footage is no where near as common as in places like the UK because all the Statements in the world, without some sort of corroboration, boil down to "he said she said" arguments and in that court room all the ultimately matters is what can be proven, not what we "know."


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> "if you don't have the training or properly determine what force is justified, you are placing yourself in legal jeopardy."



Not in the UK you're not. 

_If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ((Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)_

So not only is there no requirement for you to have any ability or training to determine what force is justified, but the law specifically states you cannot be expected to judge "to a nicety" the level of force required. 

All you have to do is what you “instinctively” believed to be necessary.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 2, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Not in the UK you're not.
> 
> _If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ((Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)_
> 
> ...



I was basing my response off the Crown Prosecutors references to reasonableness.  Since they will be the ones possibly facing you in the dock, I think it a good guideline...

Householders and the use of force against intruders

I am not saying someone needs to be a legal scholar but one must always keep in mind the concept of "reasonableness".  The concept that exists in US law is actually founded in English Common Law, hence my familiarity with this one particular concept.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2016)

Bear in mind that often we don't have juries in trials here, it depends on the offence. All cases start in the magistrates court, some are passed on to the Crown Court depending on the charge. Magistrates courts don't have juries.
Courts of law - Citizens Advice


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> but one must always keep in mind the concept of "reasonableness".  .


In the sense that once you have acted instcitnly and the danger has ceased, then you need to bear in mind any further aciton which is unecessary, will be seen as unreasonable, yes.

But at moment you initially act/react insticvtly you don't need to think "will a jury think this is reasonable or not".


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In the sense that once you have acted instcitnly and the danger has ceased, then you need to bear in mind any further aciton which is unecessary, will be seen as unreasonable, yes.
> 
> But at moment you initially act/react insticvtly you don't need to think "will a jury think this is reasonable or not".



The concept of reasonableness is strictly a legal concept kicks in with you are in the dock.  That said it can be relevant, in a Martial Arts context, in training.  While it isnt always done I have always believed that MA instructors, if they are teaching with self defense in mind, should always tell their students the circumstances under which different techniques can be used.

As an example yesterday we were drilling preemptive striking.  First the visiting Sifu made it clear you do this only when you can say "yep I am about to be attacked" with facts.  Then he spoke about the possibilities of all the attacks you can use from after the different openers.  As an example...

One of the openers of a preemptive attack was a "jamming" _bong_ and _wu_ in combination if the opponent is already in the fighting stance that may justify the preemptive strike.  From here you can do any number of things.  You can simply trap, you can apply a wrist lock and roll into a standing armbar take down.  If you trapped, you can punch or palm strike to the head, you can do a knife hand to the throat, BUT the later can potentially kill so the instructor said you should avoid that preemptively  because you will really have to explain in detail why you did that strike if in the end it causes serious injury or death.  

If you get this kind of instruction, or perhaps better for more casual training, avoid learning the potentially fatal technique in the first place, when that muscle memory kicks in the chances of performing something that would later be seen as objectively unreasonable will be reduced.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> if they are teaching with self defense in mind, should always tell their students the circumstances under which different techniques can be used.


You are still not getting it.  There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation.  You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You are still not getting it.  There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation.  You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.



I do get that, what I am saying is that when training martial arts a good instructor should explain under what circumstances specific techniques can be used.  

Example; Bob is in a bar when a drunk comes up to him to pick a fight. Bob has an avenue of escape but allows his pride to get in the way.  

Scenario one.  The guy starts trash talking Bob and tries to punch Bob.  Bob, blocks the strike, punches the drunk and the drunk goes down for the count.  Bob articulates, "I was in the bar minding my own business, a drunk comes up and tried to punch me.  He missed I punched him back and knocked him out.  The staff then removed him as he regained consciousness". Bob is okay.

Scenario two: The guy starts trash talking Bob and tries to punch Bob.  Bob blocks/deflects the punch, then knife hands the drunk in the throat crushing the windpipe.  Medics arrive and put an airway in to try and save the drunk.  If the guy lives Bob is probably going to be arrested for Aggravated Assault, if the guy dies Manslaughter because his use of a technique known to be potentially lethal in the face of non-lethal force is not objectively reasonable.  Bob will NOT be okay in front of a Judge or Jury unless there is some massively extenuating circumstance that would make it objectively reasonable that he was afraid he would be die.

As an LE Instructor once told me "you can use lethal force to protect yourself from being killed or maimed, not to protect yourself from an *** whooping.

I am simply saying that if you are formally studying MAs for self-defense, the instructor should address when you should use specific techniques because, legally, saying "well when a fight starts you do whatever comes to you in that moment" doesn't cut it.  Instead you must be conscious and knowingly in control of your actions because they MUST be objectively reasonable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You are still not getting it.  There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation.  You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.


Not always. A pre-emptive strike may not come from a place where the emotional brain is in control (that's when we lose the ability to choose rationally if an attack hasn't actually started). That was the point, I think, the instructor was making. When you are facing an imminent attack, you might respond entirely out of learned instinct. Moments before, however, you can choose. The point is to _not _choose a pre-emptive strike when you are still capable of making that choice, unless you see a situation that has no likely endpoint other than a physical attack.

EDIT (click before I finished typing): The same goes for techniques. With a pre-emptive strike, we can still be in control of choice (for the reasons stated above), so we can choose different techniques. Mind you, I agree with the person who suggested not developing that technique, at least not to an instinctive level, to avoid the problem of choosing it too quickly by habit. This is the issue I have with instructors who teach self-defense with too much violence every time.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not always. A pre-emptive strike may not come from a place where the emotional brain is in control (that's when we lose the ability to choose rationally if an attack hasn't actually started). That was the point, I think, the instructor was making. When you are facing an imminent attack, you might respond entirely out of learned instinct. Moments before, however, you can choose. The point is to _not _choose a pre-emptive strike when you are still capable of making that choice, unless you see a situation that has no likely endpoint other than a physical attack.
> 
> EDIT (click before I finished typing): The same goes for techniques. With a pre-emptive strike, we can still be in control of choice (for the reasons stated above), so we can choose different techniques. Mind you, I agree with the person who suggested not developing that technique, at least not to an instinctive level, to avoid the problem of choosing it too quickly by habit. This is the issue I have with instructors who teach self-defense with too much violence every time.



It was sorta this.  The main jist however was.

1. Pre-emptive strikes work better than reacting BUT be damn sure you can justify it.  A pre-emptive track, almost by its nature, implies thought so justification is vital.

2. If you are going to attack pre-emptively make sure the techniques you are going to use are justified.  Example a person threatening to "kick your ***" and they are of similar size/fitness etc, a potentially lethal technique would be very hard to justify.  However if the person was threatening to bash your head in with a bottle of whiskey or to cut you with the knife in their hand, the technique could probably be justified.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Example a person threatening to "kick your ***" and they are of similar size/fitness....  a potentially lethal technique would be very hard to justify.


So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?



No it doesn't work like that here. If you are in fear of your life you aren't expected to think about the consequences of your actions beyond saving your life, once you are safe however that changes into it being reasonable force ie not kicking them in the head once you got them down. A pre-emptive strike doesn't necessarily mean thought, it means you are terrified for your life and safety or that of others. You can react out of fear. The choice of techniques would only be applicable to those who have a range of techniques to choose from.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 16, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> No it doesn't work like that here. If you are in fear of your life you aren't expected to think about the consequences of your actions beyond saving your life, once you are safe however that changes into it being reasonable force ie not kicking them in the head once you got them down. A pre-emptive strike doesn't necessarily mean thought, it means you are terrified for your life and safety or that of others. You can react out of fear. The choice of techniques would only be applicable to those who have a range of techniques to choose from.


I know that, and you know that, but I don't think Juanny118 does.  

Which I why I have asked the question of if he/she thinks a technique which is potentially lethal, such as a single punch, would be "very hard to justify" in the UK.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> I know that, and you know that, but I don't think Juanny118 does.
> 
> Which I why I have asked the question of if he/she thinks a technique which is potentially lethal, such as a single punch, would be "very hard to justify" in the UK.



Ah I understand where you are coming from now.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 16, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?



A punch in and of itself, from a legal sense, is not considered lethal force.  If it was you could shoot anyone went to punch you.  For you to say it is lethal force you must be able to turn to the totality of the circumstances.  Lying on your back, a person on top of you punching over and and over again and you feel you are about to lose consciousness (as an example) yes.  Someone just swing a punch at your head?  No.  A person armed with a deadly weapon?  Yes right out of the gate.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 17, 2016)

Let's say person came up to me and started giving me verbal. He's standing too close and has one hand in his coat pocket, the other free. I ask him to take his hand out of his pocket but he doesn't. He becomes more aggressive with the verbal and is right in my face. I believe he has a weapon in that pocket, and I believe he intends to use it. Can I punch him? 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 17, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> Let's say person came up to me and started giving me verbal. He's standing too close and has one hand in his coat pocket, the other free. I ask him to take his hand out of his pocket but he doesn't. He becomes more aggressive with the verbal and is right in my face. I believe he has a weapon in that pocket, and I believe he intends to use it. Can I punch him?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Yes, if you have a genuine belief that he will harm you and you use only reasonable force there is unlikely to be any problem.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> Let's say person came up to me and started giving me verbal. He's standing too close and has one hand in his coat pocket, the other free. I ask him to take his hand out of his pocket but he doesn't. He becomes more aggressive with the verbal and is right in my face. I believe he has a weapon in that pocket, and I believe he intends to use it. Can I punch him?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Pushing him to regain your personal space definitely.  The problem with ordering him to remove his had from his pocket is that you lack that legal authority so he has no duty to comply.

I'll give a LEO example.  I am on foot patrol.  I walk up to someone and start talking to them, no reasonable suspicion to detain, no reason to arrest, simply what the law calls a "mere encounter." I can ask him to take his hand out of his pocket, but if I order it I have now turned a mere encounter into a detention.  If I don't have reasonable suspicion it is an unlawful detention, if I go hands on to get his hands out of his pocket I have a nice Act 1983 law suit on my hands.  This includes if he is saying "ffffing pig, ffff off, I got nothing to say to you ffff punk...."

So you need to define "aggressive." Is he just insulting you?  Your momma, whatever in a loud and aggressive way?  Then, technically, you can push him to regain you If he threatens physical violence I would actually advise simply pushing (unless there are witnesses).  I say this for a few reasons.

1. No witnesses means it's a "he said, he said" argument.  The person lacking injuries loses.
2. Any preemptive action is dicey, unless you can articulate objective facts that would make a reasonable person in like circumstances fear for their safety.  Most people I know, without the requisite legal training, can't do this properly

So I usually say, don't let pride get in the way, if someone gets in your face and starts trash talking, suck it up and walk away.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 17, 2016)

Police officers here can ask someone to take their hands out of their pockets they can also ask to search the person. Doesn't mean the person has to say yes but it's not a 'detention'. However swearing at a police officer, in fact swearing in public could be classed under  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as an offence. It's not an offence in itself but there's a lot that can be classed under Public Order, the police officer has to use his judgement. If there's children or others around who could hear then the swearer will be arrested, if it's just the police officer they will probably just tell them to shut up but warn them if they continue to swear they will be arrested. It tends to be about context.

The justification for attacking someone in 'self defence' always has to be 'were you in fear of your life or safety', being insulted doesn't cut it.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Police officers here can ask someone to take their hands out of their pockets they can also ask to search the person. Doesn't mean the person has to say yes but it's not a 'detention'. However swearing at a police officer, in fact swearing in public could be classed under  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as an offence. It's not an offence in itself but there's a lot that can be classed under Public Order, the police officer has to use his judgement. If there's children or others around who could hear then the swearer will be arrested, if it's just the police officer they will probably just tell them to shut up but warn them if they continue to swear they will be arrested. It tends to be about context.
> 
> The justification for attacking someone in 'self defence' always has to be 'were you in fear of your life or safety', being insulted doesn't cut it.



Oh we can ask for all of that... I was referring to ordering.  As for swearing, due to the first Amendment and my position I can not be a victim of verbal harassment or disorderly conduct due to a Supreme Court Decision.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 17, 2016)

As long as that hand is still in the pocket, and his body language is threatening, I believe my life is in danger.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 17, 2016)

Police officers don't order anyone to do anything lol they ask nicely ( seriously) nine out of ten will respond to that, the tenth gets asked un-nicely.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> As long as that hand is still in the pocket, and his body language is threatening, I believe my life is in danger.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court.  That is the problem I was referring to.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Police officers don't order anyone to do anything lol they ask nicely ( seriously) nine out of ten will respond to that, the tenth gets asked un-nicely.



Where I work depends of the person/part of town.  Good parts yes, shady parts if the person is say 30+ years old?  Yes.  The % drop with each year younger that 30 lol


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court.  That is the problem I was referring to.


A concealed hand, declining to remove it when asked, and clearly aggressive body language. The combination of those three factors, and most of all, my perception of them at that moment are what is important.

As a non-LEO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> A concealed hand, declining to remove it when asked, and clearly aggressive body language. The combination of those three factors, and most of all, my perception of them at that moment are what is important.
> 
> As a non-LEO.


A concealed hand doesn't present a threat, in and of itself.

I'd guess that "declining to remove it when asked" won't gain you much justification unless there's perceived justification to feel threatened before you ask them to take it out. Most guys, when being belligerent, are unlikely to comply with ANY request by someone they see as confrontational, so that's not much of an indicator of additional threat.

Thus, aggressive body language (just posturing, probably) is all you have that points to any threat, and that's a fairly weak indicator of an imminent threat. I think that's why Juany was saying you'd have justification to push them back if they get too close, but probably not to hit them.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> A concealed hand doesn't present a threat, in and of itself.
> 
> I'd guess that "declining to remove it when asked" won't gain you much justification unless there's perceived justification to feel threatened before you ask them to take it out. Most guys, when being belligerent, are unlikely to comply with ANY request by someone they see as confrontational, so that's not much of an indicator of additional threat.
> 
> Thus, aggressive body language (just posturing, probably) is all you have that points to any threat, and that's a fairly weak indicator of an imminent threat. I think that's why Juany was saying you'd have justification to push them back if they get too close, but probably not to hit them.


I'd be fine in the UK, if I could adequately express why I perceived a threat to my life after the event. Which I could. I believed he had a knife in the pocket, his refusal to reveal the hand did nothing to reassure me, and the way he was acting led me to believe he intended to use it. So I hit him with the intent of facilitating my escape. Your honour.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> I'd be fine in the UK, if I could adequately express why I perceived a threat to my life after the event. Which I could. I believed he had a knife in the pocket, his refusal to reveal the hand did nothing to reassure me, and the way he was acting led me to believe he intended to use it. So I hit him with the intent of facilitating my escape. Your honour.



It sounds weak in the context of my head. I presume you're picturing a different context, where it probably makes perfect sense. In the right context, of course, it does.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court.  That is the problem I was referring to.


He doesnt need good luck, his intepretation of UK SD law seems spot on.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It sounds weak in the context of my head. I presume you're picturing a different context, where it probably makes perfect sense. In the right context, of course, it does.


I don't think it has to be taken in a different context to work under UK law.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> He doesnt need good luck, his intepretation of UK SD law seems spot on.



No go to the link for the Crown Prosecutor I posted previously.  The legal standard does not, to my understanding, miraculously change between a local Magistrate and the Crown.  You need to be able to articulate not just that they "seemed aggressive".  That does not reach the standard of reasonableness under Common Law that the US also shares incidentally.  You need to articulate specific actions that rise to that level.  Someone yelling, being in your personal space and having their hand in their pocket doesn't reach that level, you need more before you waffle them.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> No go to the link for the Crown Prosecutor I posted previously.  The legal standard does not, to my understanding, miraculously change between a local Magistrate and the Crown.  You need to be able to articulate not just that they "seemed aggressive".  That does not reach the standard of reasonableness under Common Law that the US also shares incidentally.  You need to articulate specific actions that rise to that level.  Someone yelling, being in your personal space and having their hand in their pocket doesn't reach that level, you need more before you waffle them.


This one?
Householders and the use of force against intruders


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 17, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> This one?
> Householders and the use of force against intruders


Yes, but you have to take something else into account with that and I should have mentioned it.  If you read it all that is referring to being in your own home.  Due to that fact you have greater self defense rights than "on the street" due to the Common Law theory commonly called the Castle Doctrine.  That doctrine gives you WIDE latitude to engage in self defense.  This doctrine does NOT apply on the streets however or even just outside your home as illustrated inhttp://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Beckford-v-The-Queen.php. Where the court ruled... 





> A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.



The defendant argued it was a mistake, the court ruled that did not rise to the level of reasonableness.

From Palmer v R



> The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken



British case after British case talking about "reasonable" and "But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances" etc.

Based on all of the British case law I would strongly suggest people remember under British Law Self Defense is a Justification.  Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.

Now this may make people say "well them defending myself is a crap shoot why take the risk?".  To quote from another web site the reason for this is...



> Because of the completeness of the defence, self-defence is interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating *too* generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defence, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event. Thus, although the jury in self-defence cases is entitled to take into account the physical characteristics of the defendant, that evidence has little probative value in deciding whether excessive force was actually used.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 18, 2016)

In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 18, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Well I would say that, after almost 20 years as a cop in one of the highest per capita crime areas in the US, that you are letting TV and movies get in the way.  Regardless the law honestly doesn't care what one person may think.  What matters are the facts, in detail, that you can articulate, not mear thoughts because those amount to feelings.

Or you can say "forget the cop who has experience and has quoted case law including case law relevant to GB itself." Because I admit my practice is the US.  Common Law however applies to this topic in both Nations because mine would not exist without the other.

The choice is yours.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well I would say that, after almost 20 years as a cop in one of the highest per capita crime areas in the US, that you are letting TV and movies get in the way.  Regardless the law honestly doesn't care what one person may think.  What matters are the facts, in detail, that you can articulate, not mear thoughts because those amount to feelings.
> 
> Or you can say "forget the cop who has experience and has quoted case law including case law relevant to GB itself." Because I admit my practice is the US.  Common Law however applies to this topic in both Nations because mine would not exist without the other.
> 
> The choice is yours.


Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.

US and UK law, interpretation of written law and case law regarding self defence are very different.

The choice is mine, and I've done my research and lived it, so...


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 18, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.



That's how it works in reality here,  if you have two scrotes lining up against each other then the 'defendant's' word is not likely to mean anything but you have the proverbial good law abiding citizen up against a scrote then it will always go the citizen's way unless it's a road rage case >sigh< then it seems the good upright citizen turns into a raging bull but no one has any claimed self defence though it's always 'the other person's fault'. When it comes to self defence then people are considered here, it's been demonstrated enough times when cases *haven't* been prosecuted against people defending themselves. It' not so much the cases that go to court but the ones that don't that is significant. When deciding whether to prosecute the main consideration is In the context of cases involving the use of violence, the guiding principle is the preservation of the Rule of Law and the Queen's Peace. In self defence cases the CPs will look at whether the person defended themselves acted reasonably and in good faith. The law says "There is often a degree of sensitivity to be observed in such cases; this is particularly important when the alleged victim of an offence was himself/herself engaged in criminal activity at the relevant time. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence in such cases, a prosecutor must be satisfied there is enough reliable and admissible evidence to rebut the suggestion of self-defence. The prosecution must rebut self-defence to the criminal standard of proof.However, it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not prosecuted for such action. The CPS have published a joint leaflet with ACPO for members of the public making clear that if householders have acted honestly and instinctively and in the heat of the moment, that this will be the strongest evidence for them having acted lawfully and in self-defence."

The CPS : The Code for Crown Prosecutors

Common law only applies when defending one's person, family or other people, criminal law covers  the 'defence' of protecting property. This is why a man here was convicted of manslaughter when he found a burglar in his ex wife's house, the stabbing took place just outside the house, the man claimed self defence but the family wasn't at home. the suspicion was that the man found someone in the house and assumed it was a  lover/boyfriend of the ex wife's and he killed him out of jealousy, he'd plenty of time to call the police from a place of safety but didn't.


The Beckford v The Queen case is a Jamaican case, while Jamaican law is based on common law it, like Scottish, Irish and Isle of Man law has variations from English law, the reason that case was cited is becauset he defendant has the right of appeal to the Privy Council here. Jamaica has the death penalty and we don't another big difference. The difference thinking here is what allowed the appeal to stand. Our legal system doesn't include the Privy Council. I will also add that no British police officer would be issued with a shotgun in that manner nor are shotguns weapons in use much here against people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> I don't think it has to be taken in a different context to work under UK law.


Are you absolutely sure you know the context in my head?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


That first sentence is where you may have problems. There are MANY reasons why a person might have a hand in their pocket. You've used the word "conceal", which already draws a conclusion not in evidence (that they are hiding the hand). Here are a few reasons a person might have their hand in their pocket, besides having a weapon in it:

Arm injury (I actually did this a lot when I had my shoulder injury)
Disfigured hand (being self-conscious)
They were about to pay (wallet or money in that pocket) and simply didn't take the hand out
Phone in that pocket (they think they need to call the cops on you)
I could think of others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.
> 
> US and UK law, interpretation of written law and case law regarding self defence are very different.
> 
> The choice is mine, and I've done my research and lived it, so...


That "reasonably" is the issue, however. Is it reasonable (in the view of the court) that there is only one reason a person would have a hand in their pocket while arguing with someone?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That "reasonably" is the issue, however. Is it reasonable (in the view of the court) that there is only one reason a person would have a hand in their pocket while arguing with someone?



Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.


Okay, substitute "CPS" where I had "court", and my point still stands. I wouldn't want to depend upon someone looking at a situation where I blasted a guy in the face for talking smack and having a hand in his pocket and deciding that was reasonable. They could just as easily decide I assaulted the guy, and then we're down a path that wasn't necessary. Besides that, I've escalated the conflict. If that punch doesn't put him down (and there's no guarantee), then I'm about to find out for sure what's in that pocket. Even if it's only a fist, I'm in a different situation than I was.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 18, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.



The same thing happens here though.  Actually it often doesn't even get to the County Prosecutor.  The investigating Detectives or even Officers often have the discretion to decide "arrest or not arrest.". In my county we only need Prosecutor Permission for Attempted Murder charges because the line between Aggravated Assault and Attempt Murder can be blurry.  In the US at least such case law not only governs how a Judge or Jury must rule but also governs whether or not an arrest is made.

My main point, based on reading British Case Law, is that you need to say more than just "they were acting aggressively, were in my personal space and had their hand in their pocket".  More than one case says you need to define aggressive.  We're they actively threatening you or just cursing you.  Did they actually imply they may have a weapon by saying things like "do you want some of this?" Or "I'll cut you" Immediately after putting their hand in their pocket?  So I am not saying the state of mind of the person using self defense is incorrect, only that the person has to forth actual facts to justify the state of mind.  Now we have to remember that the standard of reasonableness is (simplified) "a person of like training and experience under similar circumstances." Again my point is to say simply saying "aggressively" doesn't cut it.

There is more to it of course but you need to be able to justify the feeling you had that triggered your action with facts.  I am sure more than once an Inspector in Britain as said what I have "sorry, not saying right or wrong but this is what the Law and the Courts say."

As for the Privy Council I think their rulings are relevant to an extent.  They are a Body, established under the Monarch's name, and their Judicial Committee Acts as the High Court for what remains of the Empire (besides Britain itself) as well as Crown Dependency's, over seas territories and some Commonwealth States.  Since the body is made up of not only Commonwealth Judges but also Justices of the Supreme Court of Great Britain I think it safe to say their rulings would be consistent with a ruling over a similar casethat occurred in say Liverpool.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Inspector in Britain as said what I have "sorry, not saying right or wrong but this is what the Law and the Courts say."



 Good lord, constables can say that lol.



gpseymour said:


> wouldn't want to depend upon someone looking at a situation where I blasted a guy in the face for talking smack and having a hand in his pocket and deciding that was reasonable



To be honest, I wouldn't like to actually give an opinion on it because there's no facts to go on really. As I said before that's going to depend quite a bit on who you hit, where you were, if it were someone known to cause trouble, had a record and the cctv and/or witness agreed with your version and you were the local vicar, no problem. There's too many variables to just say well no that's wrong or right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest, I wouldn't like to actually give an opinion on it because there's no facts to go on really. As I said before that's going to depend quite a bit on who you hit, where you were, if it were someone known to cause trouble, had a record and the cctv and/or witness agreed with your version and you were the local vicar, no problem. There's too many variables to just say well no that's wrong or right.


That was my point about "context". If Gnarlie is picturing a different context than mine, then he likely is picturing some elements that would make it more justifiable. The picture I get in my head from his description woulnd't likely pass the test of reasonability, but that's probably more a matter of my interpretation of his description.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That was my point about "context". If Gnarlie is picturing a different context than mine, then he likely is picturing some elements that would make it more justifiable. The picture I get in my head from his description woulnd't likely pass the test of reasonability, but that's probably more a matter of my interpretation of his description.



This is my point.  With how vague his picture is I see a guy I spoke to a few years ago.  He was on his porch behind the railing, a guy about 15 feet away on the sidewalk was arguing with him about parking in front of his house.  The other guy said "I should kick your ***" and the gentleman I spoke to said "next time I can shoot him right?" He was completely serious.  The area is a high crime area and there are more than a few assaults and robberies that happen in the neighborhood.  This guy was from the suburbs and got suckered into buy new construction not knowing the nature of the neighborhood so he was basically living in fear.  However that fear sure as heck didn't justify lethal force under the circumstances he related and he was actually pissed and arguing with me to the point I cleared the call saying "fine sir, shoot the guy, then we will arrest you and send you to prison while the other guys family sues you for wrongful death and takes the roof off your wife's head."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> This is my point.  With how vague his picture is I see a guy I spoke to a few years ago.  He was on his porch behind the railing, a guy about 15 feet away on the sidewalk was arguing with him about parking in front of his house.  The other guy said "I should kick your ***" and the gentleman I spoke to said "next time I can shoot him right?" He was completely serious.  The area is a high crime area and there are more than a few assaults and robberies that happen in the neighborhood.  This guy was from the suburbs and got suckered into buy new construction not knowing the nature of the neighborhood so he was basically living in fear.  However that fear sure as heck didn't justify lethal force under the circumstances he related and he was actually pissed and arguing with me to the point I cleared the call saying "fine sir, shoot the guy, then we will arrest you and send you to prison while the other guys family sues you for wrongful death and takes the roof off your wife's head."


This. And, of course, if you adjust a few of the variables, it can easily become justifiable. Perhaps the other guy threatens violence beyond "kick your ***", claims he has a gun, and suddenly reaches where one might be. Or if the guy has a stick in his hand and starts running across that 15' distance with it brandished like a bat. Now we're heading into different territory.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This. And, of course, if you adjust a few of the variables, it can easily become justifiable. Perhaps the other guy threatens violence beyond "kick your ***", claims he has a gun, and suddenly reaches where one might be. Or if the guy has a stick in his hand and starts running across that 15' distance with it brandished like a bat. Now we're heading into different territory.



Exactly.  The problem is a simple adjective like "aggressive" is not only vague but subjective.  You need facts to explain and justify the adjectives used to explain your state of mind.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Yes, but you have to take something else into account with that and I should have mentioned it.  If you read it all that is referring to being in your own home.  Due to that fact you have greater self defense rights than "on the street" due to the Common Law theory commonly called the Castle Doctrine.  That doctrine gives you WIDE latitude to engage in self defense.  This doctrine does NOT apply on the streets however or even just outside your home as illustrated inhttp://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Beckford-v-The-Queen.php. Where the court ruled...
> 
> The defendant argued it was a mistake, the court ruled that did not rise to the level of reasonableness.
> 
> ...



You realise Beckford vs the Queen took place in Jamaica (which has been independent since 1962) not Britain?

Reasonable refers to the level of force, you are mistaking this as when and when it is not "reasonable" to take action to defend yourself.  Beckford vs the Queen was not about whether or not it was reasonable to take action, it was about the level of force because lethal force was used, and therefore declared unreasonable as the office shot and unarmed suspect. 

You are therefore trying to argue it is not reasonable to defend yourself against someone who is shouting at you and in your personal space and concealing a hand and clearly aggressive and threatening, by quoting a case where a police officer shot and killed an unarmed man (and also using “reasonable” in the wrong context, and also ignoring the fact this did not even take place in a British court). 

If they are in your personal space, threatening, abusive and concealing their hand; what more information do you need to know you need to protect yourself, a written statement of intent form the aggressor?

This is why we have this:-
_There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75)._

Further


Juany118 said:


> Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.



You could not be more wrong if you tried.  It is not your job to _prove_ anything as you are innocent until proven guilty.   It is the job of the _prosecution_ to _prove_ that you did not act in self defence.  In order to do this they have to present evidence which demonstartes you were not acting in self defence.  Unless the CPS are confident they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate this in court they will not prosecute as there is little chance of a conviction.

I am sure you have a good grasp of US law, but it is clear you do not adequately understand our SD law, let alone enough to be advising us of what we can and cannot do.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 20, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You could not be more wrong if you tried. It is not your job to _prove_ anything as you are innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the _prosecution_ to _prove_ that you did not act in self defence. In order to do this they have to present evidence which demonstartes you were not acting in self defence. Unless the CPS are confident they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate this in court they will not prosecute as there is little chance of a conviction.




This is absolutely correct, it says this in the links I've provided, you are always innocent until you are proven guilty and it's the CPS job to find that proof.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 21, 2016)

In my experience the British police have totally supported me when I have needed to defend myself. I have never been arrested, and never been prosecuted. I gave had to defend myself on numerous occasions. 

The police typically take a very pragmatic approach, rather than throwing the book at someone with good intent. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That first sentence is where you may have problems. There are MANY reasons why a person might have a hand in their pocket. You've used the word "conceal", which already draws a conclusion not in evidence (that they are hiding the hand). Here are a few reasons a person might have their hand in their pocket, besides having a weapon in it:
> 
> Arm injury (I actually did this a lot when I had my shoulder injury)
> Disfigured hand (being self-conscious)
> ...



I have disarmed a pair of smokes and a phone before that someone had decided to pull out in the middle of a confrontation.

Anecdotally.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2016)

Gnarlie said:


> In my experience the British police have totally supported me when I have needed to defend myself. I have never been arrested, and never been prosecuted. I gave had to defend myself on numerous occasions.
> 
> The police typically take a very pragmatic approach, rather than throwing the book at someone with good intent.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



It is a bit akward though because it is still a roll of the dice.

I have had pretty much the same exept for one mate who did two years.  Which is a phenomenal amount of time for a self defence.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is a bit akward though because it is still a roll of the dice.
> 
> .



Not really because there's plenty of official guidance issued on how to deal with self defence situations. it's in the courts and the people's interest that cases don't go to court unless absolutely necessary for a number of reasons.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> This is absolutely correct, it says this in the links I've provided, you are always innocent until you are proven guilty and it's the CPS job to find that proof.



Sorry just did some digging the new Act the Tory's got passed in 2008 changed that.  Prior to that, self defense was, as it is in most US States, an Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short if you are arrested for say murder the defendant had the burden to present evidence that the murder was justified based on the circumstances.  Now some States have changed it (Missouri and Florida come to mind) so the Prosecution must prove that as well however there have been some high profile cases where there are now movements to go back to the old way.  Trayvon Martin comes to mind.  When the only witnesses to the incident are the suspect and the corpse it's impossible to prove it wasn't self defense.

So wrong in the UK now, yep.  Wrong in the US, nope.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Not really because there's plenty of official guidance issued on how to deal with self defence situations. it's in the courts and the people's interest that cases don't go to court unless absolutely necessary for a number of reasons.



So there is no chance it can all go pear shaped?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So there is no chance it can all go pear shaped?



It would be very unlikely for one simple reason, if the evidence looks as if it won't stand in court, it's flimsy or circumstantial the CPS won't prosecute for the prosaic reason that it will waste public money. Probably not the best reason but it's true all the same. In other cases not self defence related it's caused a lot or grief for victims who have seen the accused get off with a crime. The CPS wants a water tight case they know they will win, they won't justify spending money on cases that they 'might' win. Morally it's difficult to agree with on purely financial grounds but it is what it is.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 21, 2016)

Actually @Tez3 .  As you obviously know the system better, in Great Britain isn't Self Defense, for practical purposes an affirmative defense.  As I said in the US a couple States set up a mechanism to do away with this.  What happens is a Defendant declares in the court they are making a "self-defense" claim.  Upon that claim being made the Prosecution must produce evidence that proves otherwise.  The defense need do nothing.

If I understand the process in the UK correctly there is no such trigger.  So if a Defendant is arrested and the Prosecution can prove that the defendant killed someone, would not the defendant have to produce evidence of some sort it was self defense to argue that it was self defense?

That is what an affirmative defense is.  In say a "regular" murder case the defense only needs to attack the State's evidence, not out forward any of their own, but it seems to me in the UK, if you go to trial, you would have to present evidence as the defendant.  Simply saying "it was self defense, the defense rests" doesn't appear to cut it.

Now of course the Prosecution would have to be able to refute it BUT the Defense has to present something.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> So if a Defendant is arrested and the Prosecution can prove that the defendant killed someone, would not the defendant have to produce evidence of some sort it was self defense to argue that it was self defense?



British Self Defence Governing Body - Law Relating to Self Defence


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> British Self Defence Governing Body - Law Relating to Self Defence



Well based on that I would say affirmative defense applies as I said.  The Defendant would still have put up some evidence saying "the defendant hit the 'victim' with a cricket bat because the 'victim' was charging the defendant with a tire iron.". Now the Prosecution would have to prove something like "the victim had the tire iron because he had just finished changing his tire and the defendant hit him from behind" of course but the defence needs to present SOMETHING, unlike a normal case.

It may seem like legal minutia but that ultimately is what the law is about, the minutia.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

We don't hit people with 'tire irons' (what on earth are they anyway?) here lol. The point here though is that if it's a true self defence case here it doesn't go to court, only the  iffy ones do which often turn out to be not self defence, alcohol comes into it a lot sadly. This means there is rarely a defence counsel that needs to put up any proof that it was self defence hence the lack of cases of true self defence, it's been decided beforehand not to prosecute. the CPS has to have enough evidence to prove it wasn't self defence and quite honestly in cases of self defence they look very hard at the case to ensure that it wasn't self defence. In fact despite what the media and the public think no case of self defence which actually was straight forward self defence has come to court in many years. The cases that have come up have done so because they were ambiguous or more complicated to work out, then the jury decides directed by the judge. Self Defence | Criminal Law Cases | Law Teacher



Juany118 said:


> The Defendant would still have put up some evidence saying "the defendant hit the 'victim' with a cricket bat because the 'victim' was charging the defendant with a tire iron.". Now the Prosecution would have to prove something like "the victim had the tire iron because he had just finished changing his tire and the defendant hit him from behind" of course but the defence needs to present SOMETHING, unlike a normal case.



If it were straightforward self defence and the evidence supported it there would be no case, the problem would come if it looked like a fight or altercation rather than a case of self defence then it'd go to court and the defence counsel would try the self defence. the cases quoted in the link I've put up are all cases that have come up because the actions of self defence are evident and need to be examined. Did the woman 'forget' she had a glass in her hand, did the landlord really just place the man down or did he push him down the stairs? As for the petrol bombs!

While self defence is clearly laid out here and is sympathetically looked at by the CPs there are alwsy those who will use that as an excuse for something they have done andx is against the law. That's what complicates cases and that's what gets the media and public riled up because they don't always get what acutally happened.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> We don't hit people with 'tire irons' (what on earth are they anyway?) here lol. The point here though is that if it's a true self defence case here it doesn't go to court, only the  iffy ones do which often turn out to be not self defence, alcohol comes into it a lot sadly. This means there is rarely a defence counsel that needs to put up any proof that it was self defence hence the lack of cases of true self defence, it's been decided beforehand not to prosecute. the CPS has to have enough evidence to prove it wasn't self defence and quite honestly in cases of self defence they look very hard at the case to ensure that it wasn't self defence. In fact despite what the media and the public think no case of self defence which actually was straight forward self defence has come to court in many years. The cases that have come up have done so because they were ambiguous or more complicated to work out, then the jury decides directed by the judge. Self Defence | Criminal Law Cases | Law Teacher
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I definitely have read some articles about the 2008 Law Change where they gave more discretion to Police and Prosecutors not to bring charges, I was talking about only if you end up in a court room, so I think that is our issue, a little misunderstanding there.

As for a tire iron 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You now have me curious as to what they call them in England lol.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

They are wheel braces lol 

I've never dealt with anything SD related that went to court, they've never gone that far.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> They are wheel braces lol
> 
> I've never dealt with anything SD related that went to court, they've never gone that far.


Here in the US, the most common usage of "braces" is for teeth. Now I'm imagining a car with those on its wheels.
_(Another usage of "braces" would be the things that hold pants up, if you're not wearing a belt, also called "suspenders". That image isn't much better.)_


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2016)

Our suspenders are much much sexier, it's what women have to hold stockings up, the things men like better than tights.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 21, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> the things men like better than tights.


And some women, as they don't have to pull them down to go pee ;-)


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2016)

When you think of what tights do when pulled over criminals heads to hide their identity imagine what your bum looks like in tights!


----------

