jobo
Grandmaster
that's what I just said, on the other hand if there isnt, then it's all a bit fuzzy as to at what point he stopped being a threat to you
Use of Force Law
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
True enough.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
jobo
Grandmaster
ITS ONLY GBH IF YOUR NOT DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM A BELIEVED THREAT, WHICH AS I SAID IS ALL A BIT FUZZY
YOUR ALOWED TO USE THE LEVEL AND DURATION OF FORCE YOU BELIEVE IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE THREAT YOU BELIVE EXISTS
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
What is the case law for that?
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
No, its GBH, you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds. As much as i hate to be that person, if you killed somone, you killed somone, your just let off the hook legally speaking. (or not)
This is in this really technical discussion, as far as i know most places work like that.
jobo
Grandmaster
that may be how the law works in America, it's not how the law works in the uk.
gbh is ILLEGAL wounding, if what your doing isnt illegal it cant be gbh
you have a set of circumstances, that the court considers, if the court accepts your explination, then no illegal act took place, so it's not gbh and it's not pleading guilty to an illegal act with mitigation, which is what your sugesting and what seems to happen in america, from conversations on here
dvcochran
Grandmaster
@jobo and @dvcochran , just as a heads up, @Rat lives in the UK, not in the US. I assume that means his advice (accurate or not, I don't know since I don't live in the UK and not a lawyer), is from knowledge of the UK, not the US. Just putting it out there since both of your replies seem to indicate you think he lives in the US.
jobo
Grandmaster
no its not
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Anyway this is the basic idea for legal defence against assault.
The issue that you will run in to is that self defence generally says something along the lines of justifiable fear or you feared for your life. Or something like that. And so people interpret that as if I am convinced I was afraid for my life then my actions were justifiable. Eg. Soccer kicking someone in the head.
In practical terms though you have to convince the judge or the jury. And they can be a bit weird on the subject.
Hence why you would look at case law or precedent rather than statute law.(if I have my terms correct, which I probably don't)
I have never encountered a judge who has looked kindly on kicking people while prone exept in exceptional circumstances.
And I have never heard but there were no witnesses so therefore my story is the correct one to carry much weight in those sorts of instances.
The issue that you will run in to is that self defence generally says something along the lines of justifiable fear or you feared for your life. Or something like that. And so people interpret that as if I am convinced I was afraid for my life then my actions were justifiable. Eg. Soccer kicking someone in the head.
In practical terms though you have to convince the judge or the jury. And they can be a bit weird on the subject.
Hence why you would look at case law or precedent rather than statute law.(if I have my terms correct, which I probably don't)
I have never encountered a judge who has looked kindly on kicking people while prone exept in exceptional circumstances.
And I have never heard but there were no witnesses so therefore my story is the correct one to carry much weight in those sorts of instances.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Judges just don't like that kind of thing.
Man who kicked blood-covered attack victim in the head is jailed
Man who kicked blood-covered attack victim in the head is jailed
Yep.
jobo
Grandmaster
if that the limit of your point il leave it be, if you have some law to support you then post it
jobo
Grandmaster
I've posted the relevant case law, have you read it.
it says very much what your disagreeing with as being the case law.??????
as I keep saying the boundary is fuzzy, undefined and each case will turn on it merits
but yes it's clearly established if you have a honestly held belief that what your doing is required for the threat you honestly belive exists then you have the base for a self defence argument.
Did you?
Last edited:
jobo
Grandmaster
did I what, ? I've listed the cps charging guidelines, that make no mention st all of anything that supports that point,
as your making a specific claim that rat is correct the onus is on you
under english law your either guilty or not guilty, there is no middle point where you admit guilty and are let off, which is rats claim that you say is correct? with the notable exception of being given an absolute discharge,which is still a conviction, so guilty, just with no penalty, which doesnt happen in serious criminal trials or much at all really
perhaps if you actually explain how you think he is correct, we can further the discusion
Last edited:
