# Meeting force with force



## PhotonGuy (Jan 15, 2019)

Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.

Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

Some very basic guidelines.

Was your response to the threat.
Leagal.
Reasonable. 
And proportionate.

Did the threat have.
Intent.
Ability.
A delivery system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 15, 2019)

Some very basic guidelines.

- If it's just you, you should try to avoid the fight as much as possible.
- If it involve with your love one, you should try to protect your love one as much as possible.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If it involve with your love one, you should try to protect your love one as much as possible.




What if your loved one is a better fighter than you are and is trying to protect you?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> What if your loved one is a better fighter than you are and is trying to protect you?



What if you get bashed. So your loved one jumped in to protect you and gets bashed. Then you have to get bashed again to protect her.

The old boomerang maneuver.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> What if you get bashed. So your loved one jumped in to protect you and gets bashed. Then you have to get bashed again to protect her.
> 
> The old boomerang maneuver.




What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?



Bec?

Nah she has a boyfriend.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 15, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, ...


This is why girl's handbag is always big enough to carry a brick.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 15, 2019)

You aren't required to meet force with the same force.

If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.

If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 15, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?



Yes!  I saw that.  You weren't winded and didn't even get blood on your shoes.  @drop bear it is a shame you didn't see it.  It wasn't MMA but the clever use of moves from different kata made it look like it was.  You would have been amazed.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2019)

Man 'tries to attack female MMA fighter', ends up on the floor in a choke hold

Man tries to rob female UFC star, gets instant comeuppance

Female kickboxer knocks out sex attacker who pounces as she walks home

Not everyone needs a boyfriend to protect her or a brick.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 16, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> You aren't required to meet force with the same force.


The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.



Still doesn't really explain why you posted the thread in the first place.

To me, it just reads like a random statement. There doesn't appear to be a question or invitation to discuss anything.

I like strawberries.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek (Jan 16, 2019)

As @drop bear mentioned legality 

It also depends on the laws of the area, even if the force is reasonable weapon or no and you stop the attacker and stop your attack on them - if you did so immediately when the confrontation started then this is "stand your ground" which some places dont protect that right.  You would have to try [or at least say you tried] to get away prior to meeting them with [even reasonable] force.  Be it "i took two steps that way to get away from them and they cut me off".  But at times its also better to make sure you get out of the situation alive and go home to your loved ones and then deal with things in court.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.
> 
> Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.



1. Don't go to places that you might get into a fight.
2. If possible leave, don't fight.
3. If you can't leave, hit first don't stop till he is on the ground, then leave.
I have been very lucky, I have no record.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.




Er, what?


----------



## wab25 (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.
> 
> Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.


These are very broad and dangerous statements. Dangerous because they could get you into real trouble. The problem is that you need to fully understand the law in the place where your situation occurs. Additionally, it depends on who calls the police and what the police are told before they arrive, it depends on how you and the other party react when the police show up. There are a lot of variables. Every situation is different. 

Additionally the term "self defense" is a legal term, with a legal definition. That definition is different in different locations. You need to know what you are confessing to, when you claim "self defense." 

The only broad statements I would make, would be to:
Before an incident: 
*KNOW your local law.* Research it if you have too...
After an incident:
1. Get to safety
2. Make sure you call the police before the other guy
3. Get your lawyer involved as soon as possible


----------



## Martial D (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a grown man gets attacked by another grown man of roughly the same size. Neither of them are using any weapons. He fights back and stops his attacker and he stops once his attacker stops. In a case like that he should not get in trouble since he was meeting force with force, they were both grown men and they both didn't have any weapons, and he stopped once his attacker stopped. Had he continued to beat on his attacker once he stopped him then he would get in trouble since it is no longer a case of self defense if you continue to beat on your attacker once you stop them. Had he shot his attacker then he might get in trouble since he is using a greater level of force. But he is stopping once his attacker stops and he is not using any weapons so clearly it would be a case of self defense.
> 
> Now obviously you can't shoot a five year old child who takes a slap at you and call it self defense, it wouldn't work for you in court, but if somebody is coming at you who is roughly your same size and you stop him without using any weapons and you stop when he stops, such as in the above example, it stands to reason you shouldn't get in trouble. It would be self defense.



I agree in principle, although the laws can be complicated.

The sticky part here is putting your finger on the line for 'stopped'. 


CB Jones said:


> You aren't required to meet force with the same force.
> 
> If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.
> 
> If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.



One would think, logically.

If only laws were at all logical...


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 16, 2019)

wab25 said:


> These are very broad and dangerous statements. Dangerous because they could get you into real trouble. The problem is that you need to fully understand the law in the place where your situation occurs. Additionally, it depends on who calls the police and what the police are told before they arrive, it depends on how you and the other party react when the police show up. There are a lot of variables. Every situation is different.
> 
> Additionally the term "self defense" is a legal term, with a legal definition. That definition is different in different locations. You need to know what you are confessing to, when you claim "self defense."
> 
> ...



I agree with you. My family of lawyers agree with you total.

When I was young and without resource leaving and getting back on base was the best coarse of action.
If their was a problem, I trusted the Navy more than the local police.
Lucky for me no one bother looking into those fights, probably because they were bad guys.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 16, 2019)

In the 1970's San Diego Police used to like arresting sailors for nothing, handcuffing you and beating you up for sport.
It got so bad the Admiral keep everyone on base for 3 days. It hurt San Diego's economy so the city agreed to straighten up their act.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 16, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> The point is, if I as a grown man fight off another grown man and I don't use and weapons then I did meet force with the same level of force, in such a situation we're both grown men and we both aren't using any weapons.


But you can still get in plenty of legal issues. If I decide to get into a boxing match with some dude I hate on the street, we could both get arrested for that. And one of us could get seriously injured or killed, and the other guy is now in serious legal trouble.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 16, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> But you can still get in plenty of legal issues. If I decide to get into a boxing match with some dude I hate on the street, we could both get arrested for that. And one of us could get seriously injured or killed, and the other guy is now in serious legal trouble.



And even then the legalities are sticky...

In Colorado, at least, we have a law about 'mutual combat' law, that basically says if you both agree to the fight, it's not an assault. At most, you can be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And according to the family cop, even that is unlikely unless you do it in a place that disrupts other people. If you just go off in an empty field and wallop on each other, nobody cares.
And it's easy to agree. If you say you're going to smack me upside the head, and I say "Go ahead and try, lunchmeat!" I can be considered to have agreed to the fight.
At least, that is my understanding, as a non-LEO, based on my experiences and conversations with cops.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 16, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> And even then the legalities are sticky...
> 
> In Colorado, at least, we have a law about 'mutual combat' law, that basically says if you both agree to the fight, it's not an assault. At most, you can be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And according to the family cop, even that is unlikely unless you do it in a place that disrupts other people. If you just go off in an empty field and wallop on each other, nobody cares.
> And it's easy to agree. If you say you're going to smack me upside the head, and I say "Go ahead and try, lunchmeat!" I can be considered to have agreed to the fight.
> At least, that is my understanding, as a non-LEO, based on my experiences and conversations with cops.


That goes with what my dad said. Except where he worked, which was a rich area, they would definitely be charged with disorderly conduct, and if the cop chose to, there were other laws they were probably breaking that he could add on top of it.

That's also assuming that other people witnessed the agreement. I could ask someone to fight me, without anyone hearing, he agrees. Then he beats me up, and when the cops come to break us up, I say he assaulted me. It sounds out there, but from what I've been told that's something people around here do somewhat often. The only difference is they're not expecting to get beat up, but when they do they get pissed and press legal charges.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 16, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> That goes with what my dad said. Except where he worked, which was a rich area, they would definitely be charged with disorderly conduct, and if the cop chose to, there were other laws they were probably breaking that he could add on top of it.



There are always more laws that can be piled on, if the officer wants to.
Our cop kid wrote a woman a ticket for disorderly conduct, because she's the neighborhood loon and is always causing a fuss.
She signed the ticket, then stepped back inside her house, closed the screen door, and refused to return his pen.
So he got another pen and wrote her a ticket for misdemeanor theft. Which she signed with the stolen pen.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 16, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> There are always more laws that can be piled on, if the officer wants to.
> Our cop kid wrote a woman a ticket for disorderly conduct, because she's the neighborhood loon and is always causing a fuss.
> She signed the ticket, then stepped back inside her house, closed the screen door, and refused to return his pen.
> So he got another pen and wrote her a ticket for misdemeanor theft. Which she signed with the stolen pen.


Sounds about right. Either way, dont steal pens from cops, and don't fight people in public. I feel like that's sensible advice for just about anyone


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 17, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Sounds about right. Either way, dont steal pens from cops, and don't fight people in public. I feel like that's sensible advice for just about anyone



I don't not agree. (Wrong thread?)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2019)

Talking of meeting force with force...…….. 
SAS hero who stormed Kenya hotel alone 'was out shopping as terrorists attacked'


----------



## drop bear (Jan 17, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> And even then the legalities are sticky...
> 
> In Colorado, at least, we have a law about 'mutual combat' law, that basically says if you both agree to the fight, it's not an assault. At most, you can be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And according to the family cop, even that is unlikely unless you do it in a place that disrupts other people. If you just go off in an empty field and wallop on each other, nobody cares.
> And it's easy to agree. If you say you're going to smack me upside the head, and I say "Go ahead and try, lunchmeat!" I can be considered to have agreed to the fight.
> At least, that is my understanding, as a non-LEO, based on my experiences and conversations with cops.



On every statement I did there was this bit where i say i did not give permission to fight me.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> But you can still get in plenty of legal issues. If I decide to get into a boxing match with some dude I hate on the street, we could both get arrested for that. And one of us could get seriously injured or killed, and the other guy is now in serious legal trouble.


If you decide to get into a boxing match that means you willingly chose to get into a fight which could get you in trouble. Im talking about a situation where I don't plan or choose to get into a fight but where somebody attacks me and I fight back.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> 1. Don't go to places that you might get into a fight.


I agree you shouldn't go to places where you might get into a fight because you're looking for a fight but sometimes you might choose to go to a "rough" area for other reasons. For instance, you might choose to go to college not because you want to get into fights but because you want to get a higher education.


----------



## jobo (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> If you decide to get into a boxing match that means you willingly chose to get into a fight which could get you in trouble. Im talking about a situation where I don't plan or choose to get into a fight but where somebody attacks me and I fight back.


 this debate has been done many times before, the problem is there are multiple jurisdiction s represented here with a many different interpretations of self defence, but I'm not aware of any that doesn't allow defence if someone attacks you, rather that what constitutes an attacker and how much force you can use seems to very


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> this debate has been done many times before, the problem is there are multiple jurisdiction s represented here with a many different interpretations of self defence, but I'm not aware of any that doesn't allow defence if someone attacks you, rather that what constitutes an attacker and how much force you can use seems to very


You're from Manchester. I don't know how it is in Manchester but in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.


----------



## jobo (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> You're from Manchester. I don't know how it is in Manchester but in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.


I just said that, your allowed to defend yourself almost any where

it's only when and how much that differ from place to place, in the UK you can defend if you feel threaten and you don't have to try and retreat or wait for them to throw the first punch,

but then nether does the other guy, if he feels an imminent threat of violence from you,  it all gets pretty messy sorting out who is the aggressor.

we train fighting from a neutral or surrender stance, no going in to " gaurd" just so witnesses and particularly CCTV gets a clear picture of who started it, even if your running your mouth off, to prevoke the attack, as soon as they get in range, you can wack them

running ten yards and doing a flying kick is a bit harder to justify as self defence


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> You're from Manchester. I don't know how it is in Manchester but in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.



Of course we are allowed to defend ourselves why would you think we aren't, we are even allowed to do so with any weapon we have to had. It has to be reasonable force though, we can strike first if in fear of our lives what we can't do is knock someone down and then kick them in the head or  shoot them in the back as they are running away.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> You aren't required to meet force with the same force.
> 
> If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.
> 
> If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.


I agree that is the legal party line, but who determines what is "reasonable"? The law makers left it intentionally vague so if there is any blowback from the altercation you better lawyer up. Sad but true. If I were ever attacked, regardless of the outcome, I would be the first person to file and get the story navigating the way I want it to. Because I am going to do my very best to make sure the attacker is the one who ends up on the ground, not me or my loved one. In other words, I am going to err on the side of certain safety for myself and my family. Then try my best to steer the consequences in my favor. Hopefully that simply means telling the truth regarding the attack.  Careful wording can go a looong way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 17, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> What if you get bashed but your loved one is amazing, takes down the attacker, incapacitates them with reasonable force, does first aid on you, calls the police, directs the traffic including helping old man across the road and doesn't even mess her hair up?


That’s how I know she is a keeper.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> I just said that, your allowed to defend yourself almost any where
> 
> it's only when and how much that differ from place to place, in the UK you can defend if you feel threaten and you don't have to try and retreat or wait for them to throw the first punch,
> 
> ...



If that's how you say it is in Manchester than I will take your word for it since that's where you're from. Im not from Manchester so as I said I wouldn't know. As for other places, that I also wouldn't know, I only know that in the USA the law says you can defend yourself. I know that not everybody on this forum is from the USA so for people from other countries, I will take their word for what they say about the legality of being able to defend yourself in their countries.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Of course we are allowed to defend ourselves why would you think we aren't, we are even allowed to do so with any weapon we have to had. It has to be reasonable force though, we can strike first if in fear of our lives what we can't do is knock someone down and then kick them in the head or  shoot them in the back as they are running away.


As for being able to defend yourself in your country see my above post.

Now, if you do kick somebody in the head who is down or shoot somebody in the back who is running, that is clearly not self defense as they are not coming at you and not a threat in those cases.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 17, 2019)

So anyway, in regards to defending yourself and the reasonable use of force, I've even heard some people say that the scene where Mr. Miyagi took out the Cobra Kai, if that happened in real life that Mr. Miyagi could face assault charges, even though the Cobra Kai attacked him first. The way I see it Mr. Miyagi should not be charged if that was in real life since it was self defense, the Cobra Kai attacked first.


----------



## jobo (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway, in regards to defending yourself and the reasonable use of force, I've even heard some people say that the scene where Mr. Miyagi took out the Cobra Kai, if that happened in real life that Mr. Miyagi could face assault charges, even though the Cobra Kai attacked him first. The way I see it Mr. Miyagi should not be charged if that was in real life since it was self defense, the Cobra Kai attacked first.


it seems unlikely that in real life an elderly gentleman would take out a whole karate club so seems unlikely to ever be tested in court


----------



## wab25 (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> I only know that in the USA the law says you can defend yourself.


You are still using way too broad of a brush. The USA is broken down into States and then counties and then cities. They all differ in their laws governing defense and use of force. Some places you have a duty to retreat, others you can stand your ground, some places you can defend your castle but must retreat when not in your castle... In every case, there are extenuating circumstances that make each and every case unique. 

I know a guy (doesn't everyone) who has a concealed carry permit issued by the State of CA. (that is an accomplishment by itself...) While in San Francisco a number of years ago, he was in a parking garage where two guys pulled knives on him. He pulled his gun, they ran. When he reported it to the police, they were not at all interested in the two guys who pulled the knives. They were however very interested in why he had a gun at all. Had he not had quick access to a good lawyer, he would have spent the night (or more) in jail, as they were very interested in charging him. He legally carried, legally used and legally reported the incident and still needed a lawyer in order to go home.

The only blanket statement you should be making about what you can and can't do, in regard to use of force, is to learn and know the laws where you are... and have an attorney's number to call. Telling people you can do this or that, without understanding the specific laws in force, for where that person is... can lead to lots of legal problems.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> it seems unlikely that in real life an elderly gentleman would take out a whole karate club so seems unlikely to ever be tested in court


I agree,
Unless he was Jack Hwang, Joe Lewis , or some other super human.
My MG would take on everyone in the class at the same time and he was in his 40's,


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> If that's how you say it is in Manchester than I will take your word for it since that's where you're from. Im not from Manchester so as I said I wouldn't know. As for other places, that I also wouldn't know, I only know that in the USA the law says you can defend yourself. I know that not everybody on this forum is from the USA so for people from other countries, I will take their word for what they say about the legality of being able to defend yourself in their countries.




The law in Manchester isn't different from anywhere else in the UK. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, we have guidance on the law from the Crown Prosecution Service.  Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> That’s how I know she is a keeper.



That was awesome.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Of course we are allowed to defend ourselves why would you think we aren't, we are even allowed to do so with any weapon we have to had. It has to be reasonable force though, we can strike first if in fear of our lives what we can't do is knock someone down and then kick them in the head or  shoot them in the back as they are running away.





Dirty Dog said:


> And even then the legalities are sticky...
> 
> In Colorado, at least, we have a law about 'mutual combat' law, that basically says if you both agree to the fight, it's not an assault. At most, you can be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And according to the family cop, even that is unlikely unless you do it in a place that disrupts other people. If you just go off in an empty field and wallop on each other, nobody cares.
> And it's easy to agree. If you say you're going to smack me upside the head, and I say "Go ahead and try, lunchmeat!" I can be considered to have agreed to the fight.
> At least, that is my understanding, as a non-LEO, based on my experiences and conversations with cops.


Tennessee used to be the same way as an unwritten law but that seems to be changing. It has something to do with the domestic dispute dynamic. Overlapping issues used to prevail but it seems they are making a level playing field regarding any kind of assault. Two good ole boys can't go slug it out but if one files charges against the other, they would probably have to lawyer up. Just sad.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Telling people you can do this or that, without understanding the specific laws in force, for where that person is... can lead to lots of legal problems.




Here the Crown Prosecution Service is the authority on what you will be charged with and why, it's not random 'advice'. 


_"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent, and we make our decisions independently of the police and government._

_Our duty is to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence, and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible._

_The CPS:_


_decides which cases should be prosecuted; _
_determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations; _
_prepares cases and presents them at court; and _
_provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses. _
_Prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, our lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that to charge someone with a criminal offence, prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest."
_
About CPS | The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 18, 2019)

As I said earlier my children and son-in-law are lawyers.
Normally the law works well.
The problem is the law does not work as well for the poor,
because the lawyer has many cases and not much time to spend on their case.
The rich can have many lawyers working on their case and often have political pull.

I know of a case in Texas, where a man was working temporary in town he did not live in.
Got in a bar fight of which he was out number, but he had been marine recon. 
He hurt the *wrong guy *badly. The guy was the son of the riches guy in that town.

Even thought it was self defense, he did put the guy in the hospital,
*A normal maximum would have been a year and a big fine.*
His lawyer should have asked for and got a change of venue.

The local prosecutor charged him with aggravated assault
and *the home town jury give him the Maximum of 20 years.*
The prosecutor, the jury members, and maybe the Judge were against him.
He got out in 10 years for good behavior.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Here the Crown Prosecution Service is the authority on what you will be charged with and why, it's not random 'advice'.
> 
> 
> _"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent, and we make our decisions independently of the police and government._
> ...



Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.



Also, Preliminary Exams


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.




There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.



We have Preliminary Exams which are ruled on by judges before it goes to jury trials.

But if there are grand jury indictments then PEs aren't used


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.


The cool thing about the English system is one day your the prosecutor in a case and the next day you may be working for the defense in a different case.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> The cool thing about the English system is one day your the prosecutor in a case and the next day you may be working for the defense in a different case.




No, that's not how it works. If you are a CPS prosecutor that is the only job you do other than advise police. The barrister for your defence will be instructed by your solicitor.
I think you are thinking of the independent barristers, they work from chambers, who don't prosecute criminal cases but can defend if that's their speciality. They can also take on civil cases in either defence or for the claimant.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> We have Preliminary Exams which are ruled on by judges before it goes to jury trials.




Judges here aren't involved until the actual trial. In England and Wales the CPS decide on everything to do with the prosecution, in Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal who does, they've been responsible for that since the middle of the 1800s.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Judges here aren't involved until the actual trial. In England and Wales the CPS decide on everything to do with the prosecution, in Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal who does, they've been responsible for that since the middle of the 1800s.



Let's compare....I dont think our systems are very different.

I arrest someone and booked them into jail.

The DA or prosecutor reviews the information of the arrest and files a bill of information with my charges or amended charges.....that is the formal charging of a person.

Then it can be taken before a preliminary Exam or Grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Then it goes to trial by jury or judge


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> No, that's not how it works. If you are a CPS prosecutor that is the only job you do other than advise police. The barrister for your defence will be instructed by your solicitor.
> I think you are thinking of the independent barristers, they work from chambers, who don't prosecute criminal cases but can defend if that's their speciality. They can also take on civil cases in either defence or for the claimant.



Yes, I am talking about barristers, the guys with the wigs.
Please recheck I believe they can work for the prosecution on one case and the defense on a different case.
Since the barrister knows the law and is in court, I consider them more of a lawyer than a solicitor.
It looks like a solicitor knows a little law, but is more of an agent or organizer.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The law in Manchester isn't different from anywhere else in the UK. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, we have guidance on the law from the Crown Prosecution Service.  Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service


Alright, I'll keep that in mind if I ever do visit the UK, Scotland might be interesting to visit.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> it seems unlikely that in real life an elderly gentleman would take out a whole karate club so seems unlikely to ever be tested in court


Well that definitely is something to take into consideration, most courts and most juries I don't think would buy into five big teenagers being taken down by one old man.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Yes, I am talking about barristers, the guys with the wigs.
> Please recheck I believe they can work for the prosecution on one case and the defense on a different case.
> Since the barrister knows the law and is in court, I consider them more of a lawyer than a solicitor.
> It looks like a solicitor knows a little law, but is more of an agent or organizer.



I'm not sure where you are getting your info from. Your idea of how our legal system works is not really how it works.

Both solicitors and barristers are what you call lawyers. A solicitor will know much more than a 'little' law, they are highly qualified.



*What’s the Difference between a Lawyer, a Solicitor and a Barrister? *

The term Lawyer is a generic term used to describe anyone who is a Licensed Legal Practitioner qualified to give legal advice in one or more areas of law. Put simply, Solicitors and Barristers are both types of Lawyer.

*What is a Solicitor?*
A Solicitor is a qualified legal professional who provides expert legal advice and support to clients. A Solicitor's clients can be individual people, groups, private companies or public sector organisations.

*What does a Solicitor do?*
After taking instructions from clients, Solicitors will advise on necessary courses of legal action depending on their areas of legal expertise. Most Solicitors in the UK are primarily litigators, although many Solicitors specialise in specific areas of law and some do their own advocacy cases.

Solicitors work directly with clients and although specific work activities will naturally depend on the Solicitor’s area of expertise, they typically involve conversing with clients to establish their firm’s suitability to provide the necessary legal advice and services, taking the client’s instructions and then advising them on the law and legal issues relating to their particular case.

Solicitors deal with all the paperwork and communication involved with their clients' cases, such as writing documents, letters and contracts tailored to their client’s needs; ensuring the accuracy of legal advice and procedure, and preparing papers for Court.

Solicitors will also negotiate with clients and opposing parties to secure agreed objectives, gather evidence, supervise the implementation of agreements, calculate claims for damages, compensation, loss of earnings, maintenance etc., and co-ordinate the work of all parties involved in the case. Their work ranges across the whole spectrum of legal work.

Solicitors represent clients in disputes and represent them in Court if necessary. In complex disputes however, Solicitors will often instruct Barristers or specialist advocates to appear in Court on behalf of their clients.

If a case goes to Court, it is unlikely that a Solicitor will represent their client although certain Solicitors can appear in Court as advocates. Instead, a Solicitor will generally refer the work to a Barrister or specialist advocate for expert advice or to instruct them to appear in Court to represent the client.

*What is a Barrister?*
A Barrister generally provides specialist legal advice and represents individual people and organisations in Courts and tribunals and through written legal advice.

*What does a Barrister do?*
In general, Barristers in England & Wales are hired by Solicitors to represent a case in Court and only become involved once advocacy before a Court is needed. The role of a Barrister is to "translate and structure their client's view of events into legal arguments and to make persuasive representations which obtain the best possible result for their client."

Barristers usually specialise in particular areas of law such as criminal law, chancery law (estates and trusts), commercial law, entertainment law, sports law and common la​


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.


Maybe, our "public prosecutor" (district attorney is more correct)is representation for the state to make the case against a criminal. The judge and jury pass down sentencing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Maybe, our "public prosecutor" (district attorney is more correct)is representation for the state to make the case against a criminal. The judge and jury pass down sentencing.




The judge and jury here are involved in the actual court not before. The judge sentences after the jury has decided guilt.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 22, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Here the Crown Prosecution Service is the authority on what you will be charged with and why, it's not random 'advice'.


Tez, I think you misunderstood the direction of my post. I was more directing it at the OP, who was trying to formulate general purpose advice, without taking the specific laws of the land, into account. Your advice is good, for your neck of the woods. (and I certainly was not trying to get in on that discussion, I simply don't know enough about your neck of the woods.) 

I used to live in California, I currently live in Florida. In Florida, we have the "Stand Your Ground" law. But, I would be doing a disservice to someone in California, by telling them to stand their ground, as in California, you must retreat first, or be able to prove the you could not retreat. 

The kind of research you have done for your neck of the woods, is what everyone should be doing. Know not only the law, but how it is enforced, where you are. In California, they can issue you a CCW permit. Out in the rural areas, it should work fine. Go to San Francisco, and regardless of the law, they don't want you carrying... you better have a lawyer on call, or you may see jail time for legally carrying.

Blanket statements do not work in these cases.


----------



## Deleted member 40306 (Jan 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> You aren't required to meet force with the same force.
> 
> If you or someone is at risk of losing life or sustaining great bodily injury you are justified to use reasonable force to stop the threat.
> 
> If it is reasonable that you needed to use a weapon to stop the threat you are justified regardless if the attacker is armed or not.



For a responsible fighter I agree! The goal is to disengage. However in the world of knuckleheads we live in... a judge will view it as assault with deadly weapon before its viewed as self defense.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2019)

wab25 said:


> The kind of research you have done for your neck of the woods, is what everyone should be doing. Know not only the law, but how it is enforced, where you are.




I haven't done any 'research', it's professional working knowledge.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 24, 2019)

Hans Larrave said:


> The goal is to disengage. However in the world of knuckleheads we live in... a judge will view it as assault with deadly weapon before its viewed as self defense.



I disagree.

In my experience, the courts tend  to support self defense if it is reasonable.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 24, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I haven't done any 'research', it's professional working knowledge.


I call that research by proxy. The best kind.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I call that research by proxy. The best kind.



Apart from the fact our training covered it all...…..


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 24, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> I disagree.
> 
> In my experience, the courts tend  to support self defense if it is reasonable.


I agree with both of you.
It depends on where you live, what's the law, who the DA and judge are, and *who* you have had a fight with.
P.S. How good your lawyer is also a factor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Apart from the fact our training covered it all...…..


I think that's what he meant by "by proxy" - you got the information from someone who did the research (the trainers).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think that's what he meant by "by proxy" - you got the information from someone who did the research (the trainers).



The trainers didn't research they were in the job too! Besides in the UK it's not hard to read the information provided by the CPS. You can just pop onto the government websites to read anything you want to know, not exactly research as there's no effort involved.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 24, 2019)

I was not trying to start a semantic discussion about what constitutes "research." I was trying to point out that location, and the applicable local laws are very different from place to place, even if you "have the right to defend yourself."

Lets look at some situations in the US, as I am more familiar with US law. This is to demonstrate why it is important to know the law. Lets start by saying that everywhere in the US you have the "right to defend yourself."

1. You are in your own house, an unknown person is in your house with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? In many states, you must retreat to the bedroom first and can only shoot him if he follows. In some cities you may have to prove that your gun was unloaded, locked up and possibly disassembled. Not to many years ago, in some places in the US, it would be a problem that you even had a gun in the house. In some states, there is a thing called Castle Doctrine, which means you could shoot him, without retreating.

2. In this situation, the guy is on your property, coming to the door, but not inside, with his knife in hand. Can you shoot him? If you live in a state where you must retreat... see above. If your state has Castle Doctrine, does your Castle extend to your property, outside the walls of your house? These are differences, depending on how your version of Castle Doctrine is written.

3. In this situation, the guy is on your property, stealing your car, no knife this time. Can you shoot him? In addition to the above, does your state allow you to use deadly force to protect property? Some do, some do not.

4. In this situation, you are in a public place, legally carrying a CCW. You see an unknown guy, with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? Even to protect life, in some places you must retreat first. Even in some states that have Castle Doctrine, that would only apply to your house. Does your state have Stand your Ground, meaning you would not have to retreat first, outside your home? If you were in your car, and you are being car jacked at gun point, does Castle doctrine extend to your car? Or do you need Stand your Ground? Or do you need to let him throw you out of the car first? At that point can you shoot him to protect your property? Different states, different cities, different answers.

Even in one country, the US, you cannot make a blanket statement about when you can use force. 

Further, you need to know what "self defense" means legally. In many places, it is legally defined, and has consequences. If you are in a fight and someone wants to charge you with assault, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Under certain legal definitions of "self defense" when you claim that, you are confessing to the assault, but saying there are circumstances that apply, making your illegal action, legal. It would be good to know what those where. Also, it shifts the burden of proof to you, the defendant. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, you just confessed to being guilty, and now you have the burden of proof to show you met the circumstances. These can and do differ, place to place.

Yes, you can defend yourself. But, you need to know the local laws that will be applied. It can get quite messy and very particular. What is important is that you know them, whether or not you have to "research" to gain that knowledge or not.


----------



## Deleted member 40306 (Jan 24, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> I agree with both of you.
> It depends on where you live, what's the law, who the DA and judge are, and *who* you have had a fight with.
> P.S. How good your lawyer is also a factor.



Well, where I live its a business. The more you "VIOLATE" the more likely the city will make its cash from fining you for a misdemeanor. If we talk about lawyers, we're talking about a $500 minimum for a court appearance. If I go out after hours I carry a tactical type belt that can be used as a mid-range against knife attacks. I also remove temptation, by pocketing watches and jewelry and advise friends to do the same as they walk to their car or whatever. Also... I'm not commenting on home or automobile breaches. I'm referring to any situation anyone can easily have you on camera, which is the world I live in. 

If someone is in your property, automobile or in your dirty clothes hamper... "*Do what thou wilt* shall be the whole of the Law" lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The trainers didn't research they were in the job too! Besides in the UK it's not hard to read the information provided by the CPS. You can just pop onto the government websites to read anything you want to know, not exactly research as there's no effort involved.


Even easy research counts as research, Tez. It doesn't have to be hard.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I was trying to point out that location, and the applicable local laws are very different from place to place,




However in the UK the law on self defence is the same everywhere hence you can look it up easily. This is it. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service



gpseymour said:


> Even easy research counts as research, Tez. It doesn't have to be hard.



It's hardly research when most people know it anyway and a click will tell you what you don't know, it's not research, it's common sense.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> However in the UK the law on self defence is the same everywhere hence you can look it up easily. This is it. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service



Sure, and in a place that is 1/40th the size of the US, it's not particularly surprising that you have less regional variation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure, and in a place that is 1/40th the size of the US, it's not particularly surprising that you have less regional variation.




Exactly. It's that much easier for us. Scotland has some laws of it's own but they aren't the substantive ones like 'self defence'. They have a slightly different court system, in criminal courts the jury has a third verdict it can bring in 'not proven', that means the defendant walks free from court but not free of suspicion for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> the jury has a third verdict it can bring in 'not proven', that means the defendant walks free from court but not free of suspicion


I kinda like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I kinda like that.




It's an odd verdict, there's been many attempts to have it taken out but it hasn't happened yet. It often happens when the jury cannot agree ( the jury consists of 15 people) 8 jurors have to agree on the guilty verdict, doesn't happen too often, sometimes it's brought in as a rebuke to the prosecution who they feel have only made part of a case. It's something that does cause interesting debates.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> It's an odd verdict, there's been many attempts to have it taken out but it hasn't happened yet. It often happens when the jury cannot agree ( the jury consists of 15 people) 8 jurors have to agree on the guilty verdict, doesn't happen too often, sometimes it's brought in as a rebuke to the prosecution who they feel have only made part of a case. It's something that does cause interesting debates.


I can see where it might be seen as a good thing to have, or a weak point in the legal system. I like the idea, if it is used well by juries.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> It's an odd verdict, there's been many attempts to have it taken out but it hasn't happened yet. It often happens when the jury cannot agree ( the jury consists of 15 people) 8 jurors have to agree on the guilty verdict, doesn't happen too often, sometimes it's brought in as a rebuke to the prosecution who they feel have only made part of a case. It's something that does cause interesting debates.



If they are given that "not proven" verdict, can they later be brought back for re-trial?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> If they are given that "not proven" verdict, can they later be brought back for re-trial?




No they can't, they are stuck with it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> No they can't, they are stuck with it.



So in practice, it's functionally the same as "not guilty" since it's not like they're wearing a sign.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> So in practice, it's functionally the same as "not guilty" since it's not like they're wearing a sign.




it is almost like not guilty but there's a stigma to it, people will always wonder, with guilty or not guilty they may still wonder, human nature to, but not proven shows that the jury actually can't convict because  a couple of their number think the defendant is guilty, a couple more might think there's reasonable doubt but not enough think the defendant is innocent for a majority verdict but it's not something you want hanging over your head. If you need a DBS here to work you won't get one, ( DBS is a police check for certain professions, childcare, vulnerable adult care and instructing/coaching sports and activities.) because it's on your police record. The police are also likely to be keeping an eye on you, so you aren't guilty but are dodgy basically.

It often comes in a rape/sexual assault trial, when the evidence is he said/she said, then it doesn't satisfy anyone. The victim feels the attacker has got away with it while defendant feels they haven't proved their innocence enough. The law says not proven is the same as not guilty but is not to be seen that way by the public on the whole. When I was a child in Scotland there was a case involving a man near us, he had a not proven verdict ( I found out as an adult it was a rape case) and he was hounded out of his work and home by local people.

This is one case where the verdict was not proven.  
Mother cleared of toddler murder


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 26, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> it is almost like not guilty but there's a stigma to it,



Um, how would people know? I mean, I realize that the UK is smaller than a lot of US states, let alone the whole country, but even in a small country, there are wayyyyy too many people to worry that any random person is going to know your (generic term) legal history. Unless it's an incredibly high profile case.

And that stigma (in the rare case that someone knows about it) applies to "not guilty" as well, at least in the US. It doesn't mean 'you didn't do it' at all. It means 'they couldn't prove you did it' and nothing more (or less). A great example is OJ Simpson. Most people are pretty well convinced that he's a double murderer. But the state did a crappy job, and he got away with it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Um, how would people know? I mean, I realize that the UK is smaller than a lot of US states, let alone the whole country, but even in a small country, there are wayyyyy too many people to worry that any random person is going to know your (generic term) legal history. Unless it's an incredibly high profile case.
> 
> And that stigma (in the rare case that someone knows about it) applies to "not guilty" as well, at least in the US. It doesn't mean 'you didn't do it' at all. It means 'they couldn't prove you did it' and nothing more (or less). A great example is OJ Simpson. Most people are pretty well convinced that he's a double murderer. But the state did a crappy job, and he got away with it.




All serious criminal cases, all murder and rape trials are held in the High Court  and trust me everyone knows, they are always high profile, if they aren't it would be in the Sherriff's Courts but all trials are widely reported and just about everyone knows. We aren't talking about the UK though, just Scotland, population 5 million ( according to Google 15 million less than New York lol) in many small communities. Living in Scotland is like living in a village.

The trials are only held by the High Court which can be in Aberdeen, Glasgow or Edinburgh. It has only met outside Scotland once when it was held in the Netherlands for the Lockerbie Pan-am bomber's trial, the Netherlands. It was in an American Air Force base there. ( the 30th anniversary of which was last month). My husband still in the RAF at the time was called out with his unit to help with the search for remains etc, it was a gruelling task, our local Fell Rescue team went as well as others from around the country.


----------

