What to do after you have defended yourself

[Tez3]

Wait. You mean the U.K. isn't governed by the U.S. Constitution? Now I'm all confused

I know your remark is meant as gentle sarcasm but not sure if you would laugh when I tell you I have seen posts on FB where there are people do think we are under the US Constitution, mostly on the Flat Earth Society site though......

Though seriously I have heard people here plead 'the Fifth Amendment'
We have this.......
" The right to silence has been a key part of the English (Anglo-Saxon) legal system for at least a 1000 years, it is possible it was being used as far back as the 7th- 8th centuries, the right to silence remained unchanged for centuries and it is only in recent times (15 years) that a slight amendment has been made to it, this amendment still allows the defendant the right to remain silent, BUT his silence can be presented to a jury as evidence of guilt, but only IF the defendant when questioned by the police refuses to answer BUT later at court presents an alibi, (i.e the prosecution can argue, that the defendant did not have an alibi when questioned, BUT months later suddenly has, which clearly is suspect) there is no law protecting a witness who is called to give evidence at trial, but who when on the stand then refuse's to do so, 'on the grounds that it may expose their own criminal activities', if a witness refuses to testify while on the stand they can be held in contempt of court, and treated accordingly, a defendant can decline to take the stand and speak in his own defence."

 

[jobo]

I know your remark is meant as gentle sarcasm but not sure if you would laugh when I tell you I have seen posts on FB where there are people do think we are under the US Constitution, mostly on the Flat Earth Society site though......

Though seriously I have heard people here plead 'the Fifth Amendment'
We have this.......
" The right to silence has been a key part of the English (Anglo-Saxon) legal system for at least a 1000 years, it is possible it was being used as far back as the 7th- 8th centuries, the right to silence remained unchanged for centuries and it is only in recent times (15 years) that a slight amendment has been made to it, this amendment still allows the defendant the right to remain silent, BUT his silence can be presented to a jury as evidence of guilt, but only IF the defendant when questioned by the police refuses to answer BUT later at court presents an alibi, (i.e the prosecution can argue, that the defendant did not have an alibi when questioned, BUT months later suddenly has, which clearly is suspect) there is no law protecting a witness who is called to give evidence at trial, but who when on the stand then refuse's to do so, 'on the grounds that it may expose their own criminal activities', if a witness refuses to testify while on the stand they can be held in contempt of court, and treated accordingly, a defendant can decline to take the stand and speak in his own defence."

the right to silence has been modified again, a bit more recently, in that case negative interference can be drawn from a refusal to answer a specific question, even if its not raised as part of the defence, like an alibi. so,, how did the murder,weapon get in your bed room , sort of thing

witness can refuse. To give evidence if they believe there is a specific threat to thei safety if they do so

 

[CB Jones]

there are people do think we are under the US Constitution,

Not Yet, Anyways..........

 

[jobo]

Not Yet, Anyways..........

the people of the UK are governed by a constitution, most of which is written down, not however in the same place at the same time, its spread over 10s of thousands of documents written at any time in the last thousand years or so, which can make it a bit of a pig to read, let alone understand . .

we do have the bill, of rights on which i believe the US constitution was based on, however most of that has been swapped and the magna carter isn't worth the paper its written on

 

[Anarax]

Gosh, patronise much? I know exactly what 'exercise' means in this context. Are you positive your interpretation of your rights is the prevailing one or the correct one?

Not trying to be patronizing, I thought my statement was clear in its meaning. When someone doesn't understand my statement, I break it down to a level that misinterpretation is less likely.

I am offering no opinions on the gun control debate but thought I'd use it to point out that different people depending on their agenda and understanding will argue opposite points from the same piece of writing. Which is why I asked if you actually understood your rights as given by your Justice system. You might say 'A' gives you the right to carry only a pencil, someone else will argue that 'A' gives you the right to only carry a fountain pen while the legal experts will tell you 'A' says any writing implement which you can chose.

Personal interpretation of the law is one thing, legal rulings and how it's applied is another matter. As I stated, the Supreme Court makes decision concerning the constitution. It's the ruling that changes how the laws are applied. We have 9 Supreme Court Justices, their majority decision is what will be refereed to concerning said law.There are times our Supreme Court Justice vote 5-4, thus that's how they decide. Not to say they can't have intellectual exchanges on the cases/laws, but there ruling is to be applied.

Ah well your government and the legal system are more bound up together than ours, we don't have elected officials as judges etc. We have judicial independence from the government and others who would wish to influence it. People are also prosecuted in the name of the Crown not the country or government. The Crown even prosecutes the government who is never guaranteed to win.

That's interesting and I would like to research more on the differences between our justice systems, but the context of this thread was the US Justice System. That's why I was reciting US laws and examples.

Now many scenes of an attack/attack etc have you attended or dealt with? How many witness statements have you taken? How many criminals have you dealt with? How many self defence situations have you actually seen or dealt with.
Here it's not in the least complicated to deal with self defence situations in the legal sense.

I worked in Forensics for over 5 years and have worked with police officers and detectives with cases. I have read police reports or have had them recited to me by detectives. I've been on patrol with multiple police officers on numerous occasions. I also have numerous attorneys and police officers in my family. You don't need an extensive resume to be able to understand how your judicial system works though, being an informed Citizen doesn't require a degree. My point was self-defense cases aren't always clear cut nor simple(in the US).

No idea what this means in regards to my post.

Your statement about "non-criminals" was very broad. Even non-criminals behavior can change if their circumstances change.

 

[Tez3]

but the context of this thread was the US Justice System.

You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.

 

[lklawson]

You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.

No, no. I'm pretty sure mine are more valid than anyone else'.

<ducking>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tez3]

but the context of this thread was the US Justice System.

You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.

the people of the UK are governed by a constitution, most of which is written down, not however in the same place at the same time, its spread over 10s of thousands of documents written at any time in the last thousand years or so, which can make it a bit of a pig to read, let alone understand . .

we do have the bill, of rights on which i believe the US constitution was based on, however most of that has been swapped and the magna carter isn't worth the paper its written on

The Magna Carta wasn't written as a 'bill of rights' nor as a constitution but to protect the barons and the wealthy of the time. Peasants weren't considered worth of any legal protections. It never did anything for 'normal' people. Richard the Third gave non privileged more legal rights than anyone, rights which are still protected today. the Magna Carta was also written on parchment made from sheepskin.

The governance of the UK and the Judiciary are two separate entities. The Bill of Rights is from1689 when William and Mary were invited to rule and reinforced earlier Acts. Other Acts are equally important, much of all of it was about settling the future of Protestantism for good and repressing the Roman Catholics so it was no Human Rights Bill.

We don't need a specific Constitution document.

 

[Anarax]

You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.

Yes I'm aware it's an international forum. Bringing context to the conversation isn't to belittle your opinion, it's to say the topic we are speaking of is of the US Justice System. The OP is American thus the most useful information would be rooted in US law. The OP reciting laws from other countries to US police, judges or lawyers would serve of little use.

 

[jobo]

You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.




The Magna Carta wasn't written as a 'bill of rights' nor as a constitution but to protect the barons and the wealthy of the time. Peasants weren't considered worth of any legal protections. It never did anything for 'normal' people. Richard the Third gave non privileged more legal rights than anyone, rights which are still protected today. the Magna Carta was also written on parchment made from sheepskin.

The governance of the UK and the Judiciary are two separate entities. The Bill of Rights is from1689 when William and Mary were invited to rule and reinforced earlier Acts. Other Acts are equally important, much of all of it was about settling the future of Protestantism for good and repressing the Roman Catholics so it was no Human Rights Bill.

We don't need a specific Constitution document.

the,rights in the,Mc are not restricted to barons, and the bill of rights preCEEDED W and M . Apart from that you seem to have good grasp of history, the bit about sheep skin was right at least.

currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .

 

[Anarax]

Not Yet, Anyways..........

I think this illustrates the American spirit well

 

[Tez3]

the,rights in the,Mc are not restricted to barons, and the bill of rights preCEEDED W and M . Apart from that you seem to have good grasp of history, the bit about sheep skin was right at least.

currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .

No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society


I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
Bill of Rights [1688]

Bill of Rights 1689

The European Court of Human Rights doesn't impinge on our rights in our present condition. We signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and it's this Treaty that gives us 'membership' of the European Court of Human Rights not the fact we are at the moment in the EU, shortly to leave. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU organisation. The European Council runs the court, finances etc. not the EU.

What Is The European Convention On Human Rights?

No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU

 

[jobo]

No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society


I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
Bill of Rights [1688]

Bill of Rights 1689

The European Court of Human Rights doesn't impinge on our rights in our present condition. We signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and it's this Treaty that gives us 'membership' of the European Court of Human Rights not the fact we are at the moment in the EU, shortly to leave. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU organisation. The European Council runs the court, finances etc. not the EU.

What Is The European Convention On Human Rights?

No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU

well no not JUST barons( read your own link, it all in there), and 1688 does proceed 1689( and therefore W&M) and i said nothing about the eu

 

[Tez3]

well no not JUST barons( read your own link, it all in there), and 1688 does proceed 1689( and therefore W&M) and i said nothing about the eu

currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .

Last line dear. 'Our' Government cannot 'scrap' the European Court of Human rights.

You would argue that night is day so I'll let you crack on.

 

[jobo]

Last line dear. 'Our' Government cannot 'scrap' the European Court of Human rights.

You would argue that night is day so I'll let you crack on.

i did not say that were go to scrap the court, they can withdraw from the European CHARTER of human right .and that of course scraps our human rights

 

[lklawson]

I recently listened to a "lecture" by a U.S. lawyer discussing how many amateurs in the U.S. think that the plain language of a law is what it means. Apparently that's not always (usually?) true. There is black letter law, legal precedent, judicial interpretation, and lots of other spices that bake into the cake. Just because someone thinks they know what the law "says" doesn't mean that they know what the law actually "means" out in the real world. My recollection is that it was Alan Gura who said this, a distinguished lawyer who has won cases at the highest court in the U.S.

I dug it up. It was Andrew Branca's "Case of the Week" ; State v. Outlaw.

The segment can be heard here:
The American Warrior Show: Listener Q&A: Sight/Target Focus | 1911's | Carry Considerations for Runners


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense. However, let's say that was the case. Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.

Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet. However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."

Personally, I don't have a lawyer. I haven't really needed one. So what do I do in this situation?

What you do, once free of the situation, call the police and report the incident. I know you don't want to call the police, but if it was legitimate self defense you need to make sure you have some control over the narrative. That starts with being the one to call the police. If not he will get medical treatment, his arm is broken after all, and if he tells the hospital HE was the victim of an assault he will have the control of the narrative. When the police shown up to talk with you you will have to explain your way over the hurdle of "so if you were the victim why didn't you call 911?"

So long as the force you used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, even if it resulted in serious injury, you should be good. By this I mean someone shoves you, you don't immediately move to intentionally breaking their arm but if the guy tackles you though and you break their arm to free yourself you are good. How do you get your story across? By taking the initiative on framing the narrative.

 

[Buka]

As painful as this is for me to say, it's what I feel. Iit's a difficult subject. To me, the choices I have after the fact, sometimes depend on location. I frequent parts of our country where I will do anything, and I mean anything, before calling the police. Pains me saying that, especially given my background, but that's the way I see it. That has been my experience.

 

[oftheherd1]

No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society


I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
Bill of Rights [1688]

Bill of Rights 1689

The European Court of Human Rights doesn't impinge on our rights in our present condition. We signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and it's this Treaty that gives us 'membership' of the European Court of Human Rights not the fact we are at the moment in the EU, shortly to leave. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU organisation. The European Council runs the court, finances etc. not the EU.

What Is The European Convention On Human Rights?

No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU

Thanks Tez3. As always, you are well informed and able to provide interesting links. I always try to completely read the information at your links because I never fail to learn things I didn't know. If and when I have time I often read other linked information.

When I was a kid in grade school and high school, I remember mention of the Magna Carta and other documents that were said to be things that we incorporated in our constitution (although it was often implied that the framers of our constitution were just so smart to think of those things on their own). I don't remember ever being shown pictures or more importantly, copies of what was in those documents. Where were you back then? Oh wait, you would not have been alive then, and there is that thing called the internet too.

Thanks again.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks Tez3. As always, you are well informed and able to provide interesting links. I always try to completely read the information at your links because I never fail to learn things I didn't know. If and when I have time I often read other linked information.

When I was a kid in grade school and high school, I remember mention of the Magna Carta and other documents that were said to be things that we incorporated in our constitution (although it was often implied that the framers of our constitution were just so smart to think of those things on their own). I don't remember ever being shown pictures or more importantly, copies of what was in those documents. Where were you back then? Oh wait, you would not have been alive then, and there is that thing called the internet too.

Thanks again.

Thank you for the compliments! I rather think I was probably in the RAF when you were at school or perhaps I'd left by then.

This is a very good site for British history, some quite amazing things on there.Funding for local authority archives for taking in public records along with this one The British Library

Did you know that the Magna cart was kept in Fort Knox during the second World War?

The meadow where history was made