UK Law on Self Defence

Can anyone give me an accurate description of where self defence law stands in the UK, and what constitutes as reasonable force? If not, is there anywhere someone can refer me to?

 

Try the sticky threads at the top of the self defence forum for details and discussion on legislation.

You can also go here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfcD4TGW10"]UK Laws on Self Defence (Self Defense) - EXPLAINED! - YouTube[/ame]

Amusing and reasonably accurate.

 

Man I wish there was a video like that for each US state. (Or at least the ones I tend to live in/pass through)

 

I think there is a general rule of thumb there that works pretty well.

 

The thing that surprised me in UK law (and I don't know if we have a similar one in the US) is that if you use an object to defend yourself and the prosecution can show that you initially acquired that object with intent to use it as a weapon, then even if you would otherwise be able to argue self defense you can't anymore.

I assume we do not have a similar law in the US or people wouldn't consider buying firearms for home defense.


I am familiar with the basics of the law in the US (at least I think I am):
- Reasonable force (just like in UK at a broad level, not sure about details)
- Deadly force only if your life or someone else's life is in danger (can't use deadly force to protect property or prevent a non-life-threatening crime).
- Duty to retreat (aside from some states castle doctrine)
- You need to prove that you reasonably believed you were in imminent danger, not that you actually were in imminent danger, in order to argue self defense.

But that still doesn't tell me a lot of things.
E.g., I'm walking down an empty street at night. 2 guys who are walking by on the sidewalk suddenly turn and have me penned in against a building, start crowding me and being aggressive.

I bet I can pre-emptively strike and argue self defense. But how hard? I just started taking Jiu Jitsu and out of the 5 classes I've been to, each one taught at least one way to break a joint or limb.
Would it be reasonable for me to break one of their arms pre-emptively, or can I only punch at them or throw them to the ground? I could argue that I felt I was in imminent danger of assault, but I think limb-breaking falls under the "deadly force" category in the US. (IIRC, it isn't limited to deadly force, but also to force which results in severe disabling injuries).

 

Not exactly. You could argue self defence, but you could also be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. Carrying an offensive weapon doesn't necessarily mean that you did not act in self-defence, but it can find you on the wrong side of the law. What it can do, is it can seriously harm your defence in court, because it would make a jury less likely to believe that you acted in self defence, and arouse suspicions that you were looking for an excuse to harm people.

You can have weapons in your house, but you cannot ambush intruders when you didn't have to. Wounds to an intruder's back never look good in court

That's my understanding, anyway. I am not a qualified legal expert

 

The thing is man, breaking someone's arm is not deadly force and is arguably safer than hitting them really hard and knocking them out. If you it right, injury is severe but not permanent. If you punch someone and they hit their head on the ground and die from that, that's definitely worse. It's happened to a few people.

I would argue if you are fighting twould people then it would be necessary to neutralise one of them and then the other. If you pin one down, the other will jump on you. Better to break something and hit the next one.

I don't know if others would do differently.

 

What if you severe an artery when you break their limb?

There is no such thing as a safe way to injure people.

 

Its actually really really hard to rip someones joints apart so hard the bones themselves break and sever an artery, most joint ''breaks'' are soft tissue injures.

It turns out Steven Seagal moves are not medically accurate.

 

It's possible of course. Happened to an MMA fighter a few weeks ago. Got in a hit and run and broke his leg, the amputated but in the end he died!

Admittedly I was thinking of a kimura or a wrist lock, which applied correctly can pop a shoulder out of its socket. Wrist lock is a smaller joint and I would hope, less risk of sustained injury.

I was told a story about someone here who was in a spot of bother with someone. Soke guy was really getting in his face. He tried a few times to defuse it but the guy kept coming back. So then he pushed away, the guy went to get in his face again, up comes the head kick without even thinking about it. Man drops to the ground and hits his head of concrete and dies. Jury ruled self defence.

 

I do realise that hyperextension is a more likely result than shattering bone.

But Chadderz was specifically talking about breaking limbs, not hyperextending them.

 

I may have (probably) mis-interpreted the law.

Here is a quote from a document on how to instruct juries for self defense cases in Massachusetts:
"B. USE OF DEADLY FORCE
If the defendant (used deadly force, which is force intended or likely
to cause death or great bodily harm) (or) (used a dangerous weapon in a
manner intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm)..."

(http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/cou...inal/6000-9999/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf)

I have no legal experience in this area at all, am not a lawyer, etc etc.

I was thinking breaking someone's arm (at the elbow) would constitute "great bodily harm", but maybe not?

For deadly force to be ruled self defense, you had to believe you or another person were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

The differentiator there is:

Non-deadly force: Acceptable if I believe I am in imminent danger.

Deadly force: Acceptable if I believe I am in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

So if, e.g., the two guys penned me in, didn't let me escape, and demanded my wallet, I think that would only allow "non-deadly" force.

 

Yeah, it is not all that uncommon. One of my perceived failures, years ago, was being with a group of guys who got started on by three thugs. I was ready to step in (I had only met them that night through a mutual acquaintance), but they did the right thing and left the bus stop to get a taxi (good decision, I thought; they decided to pay more money in order to avoid trouble), but the thugs walked after them. I presumed because the thugs had been running their mouths for half an hour without doing anything that they were all mouth and no trousers, but my friend was concerned so we went after them (they never had a problem with my friend or me). We caught up with them to find a scuffle going on, they ran away about 10 seconds later, but because I didn't know these other guys and I'd been drinking, I couldn't ID any targets to know who to deal with!

Anyway, turns out the quiet one of the thugs (always the way, the mouthpiece starts the trouble and the muscle finishes it) had approached one of them and was speaking calmly to him when he unloaded a left uppercut out of nowhere. The poor guy's head hit the curb and was bleeding out of his head quite badly. We all spent the night in A&E while he got stitched up, and he was lucky he didn't have more serious injuries.

I learnt a couple of things that night: that everything my instructor had told me about group dynamics in a fight was true, because in retrospect it was obvious who was going to do what to who. And also that it is a nightmare trying to do proper first aid amongst hysterical drunk people

 

I think we have to be very careful in comparing UK law with the law of US states.

Common sense is not always the deciding factor.

 

I'm not a lawyer either, but if I understand that correctly it's similar here (Germany) as well.

If in a self-defence-situation you would actually even be allowed to use a gun (to use an extrem example, I know) and kill your attacker and chances are, you can still get through with seld-defense.

BUT you could, in a separate trial, be charged with illegal possession of firearms (and more then likely get sentenced as well).

 

Yes. Heavens forbid that one actually plans to be able to defend oneself.