self defence cover question

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by robin101, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. robin101

    robin101 Working the always shift.

    Hi guys

    was reading up on a sylabus taught by an SD teacher mick coup, and the part was on attacking when the opponent is covering up his head, the exersize involved moving the cover and attacking, others involved switching to the low line (knee or kick) when the head is covered.

    question is, is this legal in SD. If you are hitting your assailant and he covers, can you continue to strike him, or do you have to back off? what is the Uk law about this, can you do the actions mentioned above if you still feel the guy is active and will be a threat?
     
  2. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Own question answered :p

    If you can justify it then yes. If you're hitting him anyway and he covers up then I don't thin anyone is going to complain about adding a couple more in. If he shells up and turns away then its probably time to stop.
     
  3. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    From the Crown Prosecution website.

    Reasonable Force

    A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
    self-defence; or
    defence of another; or
    defence of property; or
    prevention of crime; or
    lawful arrest.

    In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
    was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
    was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

    The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).

    To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

    It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);

    "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 ..."

    The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.
     
  4. robin101

    robin101 Working the always shift.

    So whether or not it is seen as too much depends on the jury and how you explain yourself?
     
  5. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    You have to justify your reasons for continuing the attack. If you thought the threat was still there, then you have to articulate that.

    More from the website.

    Retreating

    Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. It is simply a factor to be taken into account rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat when deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstances (section 76(6) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110).

    Final Consequences

    The final consequences of a course may not be relevant to the issue as to whether the force used was reasonable. Although, the conduct of the suspect resulted in severe injuries to another or even death, this conduct may well have been reasonable in the circumstances. On the other hand, the infliction of very superficial or minor injuries may have been a product of simple good fortune rather than intention.

    Once force was deemed to be unreasonable, the final consequences would be relevant to the public interest considerations.

    Burden of Proof

    The burden of proof remains with the prosecution when the issue of self-defence is raised.

    The prosecution must adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was either:
    not acting to defend himself/herself or another; or
    not acting to defend property; ornot acting to prevent a crime or to apprehend an offender; or
    if he was so acting, the force used was excessive.

    Prosecutors should take special care to recognise, and ensure a sufficiency of evidence in, those cases where self-defence is likely to be an issue.
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Done properly this may remove the necessity for a jury

    Any situation is always based on a totality of circumstance - someone covering their head during an altercation is markedly different than someone curled up in a ball whimpering "I'm sorry please don't hit me again"
     
  7. robin101

    robin101 Working the always shift.

    So there are some circumstances that this is a viable option in , ok thanks guys. I just ask because I see alot of that in altercations, the once pressing the attack moves forward and the other covers and pikes over. kinda like in this vid

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-WS09dneHs"]Urban Combatives - The Main Event - YouTube[/ame]

    sometimes they attack when the guy is covering his head.
     
  8. slasha

    slasha Banned Banned

    I seem to remember you can use as much force as reasonable in the circumstance to create a window of oppertunity to escape.

    Or arrest.
     
  9. greg1075

    greg1075 Valued Member

    This. Though even in situation #2 I'd still work on getting in a dominant position and control the guy. Wouldn't be the first time someone pretends to surrender and reaches for a weapon while the other guy's backing off.
     

Share This Page