What happens if your in a fight and the Law?

In Australia, where the fight takes place is very important.

If you are in your own home, you do not have to make any attempt to retreat. This is under the castle rule (probably the same in the UK). I also THINK that you may use a force greater used than the attacker to remove them from your home (you may club them if they aren't armed.)

 

I think in the UK they are trying to change it so that even if you kill a burglar/intruder in your home, you won't be prosecuted unless there is evidence to suggest you acted in a malicious manner.

 

Thats fair enough in my book. You can't really think "rationally" when someone is breaking into your house. You dont know if they are there to rape and kill your family or "just" trying to nick your watch. I'ts pretty much, if you break into someone's house, expect to get clubbed over the head with a baseball bat.

 

Thanks Gangrel, good info as always

 

Good information in this thread. Must remember to ask my brothers take on UK law, he's a barrister here in NI.

My mums uncle lives in US, and has mentioned several times that if anyone breaks into his house he is legally permitted to shoot them ....

Whilst understandably scary having someone in your house - it happened me once - I was in no way considering killing him, I just wanted him out, and its easier to let him walk out, than to carry him out.

 

I feel that to think rationally is a difficult thing to do in a fight !!

There are so many things that can factor into your responses to an intruder as already stated.

Another thing to think about is "not thinking" about your techniques and the possible medical implications and legal ramifications of what happens in these situations.

We as martial artists train and train and then train some more and even more so that or reactions and techniques become fluid, dare I say it "perfect" techniques. if one pauses to consider what the law might say about your technique or choice of technique one could lose the advantage of all that training and lose the confrontation.

A case in example being a man who is proficient at martial arts is seen to "push" an arrogant drunken trouble maker once at a party ......there are numerous witnesses ....who all see the same single push ....the trouble maker is dead before he hits the floor !!!! his carotid artery has been severed .....

is this murder ?

what was the intent of the martial artist at the time of the push ?

Did the martial artist have any intentions or did he just instinctivly react to a perceived threat ?

The martial artist reacted to an attack and his knife hand strike to the neck burst the carotid artery....

He had to live with the fact that he killed someone .....

Judges, juries, laywers, solicitors, barristers,politicians will have months even years to discect, analyse and critique every little nuance and action that a person makes in a split second dynamic fast moving life or death struggle .

We train for the worst case attacks , we become competent at the physical moves, but are we prepared for the possible after effects of what we do ?

If we worry too much about the consequences of our actions we can become ineffective in our defence ......if we dont worry at all we could commit an unlawful act.

there is the crux of the matter ...find the correct way...it is not easy...

all I can suggest is train hard in your chosen art, be aware of the law of the land and do your utmost to work within the boundaries of both ..



Smurf

 

Hey I actually have a question about this too. If some guy started a fight with you then you 'won' with only the minimum amount of force required should you wait for some polices to come or just leave the scene?

 

"Legally" you would have to wait for the police.

Realistically, run rabbit run.

 

Another query in the duty to retreat arguement.

What happens if your training, be this in the gym/dojo or professionally, kicks in so that you engage in fighting rather than make the retreat?

 

I think it'll be circumstantial based on the factors we've been talking about. What was the nature of the perceived threat? What did the aggressor do? Did you end up becoming the aggressor? Sadly, self-defense isn't as black and white as contracts law, for example.

In a perfect world, you stay at the scene or somewhere close by. You also report it, don't wait for someone else to do it. Personally, I think it makes you look a lot less guilty of something than just running off does.

 

But if you get jumped in a rough or city centre area and you get the best of the struggle -who do you think will get there first, Officer Friendly and his collegues or The guy you have beaten up's friends, brothers, mum, gang or the locals of his pub who he has told "you jumped him for nothing". I would get out the area ASAP and phone in from a safe place not in the imediate area, if I saw a patrol car I would flag it down though.

 

Interesting stuff guys.

I have had 2 real life fight situations where the law got involved with 2 very different outcomes. Both many years ago.

First one. Saturday afternoon, I pull up outside a supermarket while my GF pops in to buy something. I sit and wait in the car. GF leaves the supermarket & drunken guy follows & just will not leave her alone.

I stepped out of the car & told the guy to back off & that I was her boyfriend. Guy gets very aggresive & takes a swing at me. I block this & hit him once.

Unfortunately, the guy 'drops' but on the way down manages to fall back into the wall & then forwards landing on his face

I bundled him into the car & took him to hospital. He needed stitches. They called the police. Guy sobered up apologised profusely & refused to press charges.For a couple of years this bloke would always apologise & buy me a drink if I bumped into him in pub.

Second incident. The local supposed 'hardman' came into my local pub on Christmas eve of all days. He's very drunk (of course) & decides to do a 'Begbie' i.e. randomly tossing a beerglass in the air. It landed in a female friends face

I went nuts at the guy we had quite a brawl. (The bloke did turn out to be a bit of a hardman). Police were called. I spent Christmas eve & day in a cell.

I got charged with affray, assault & criminal damage. He got off with nothing. You see I'd attacked him, so I was guilty.

The pub landlord actually paid my fines for me.

However, my job is exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act, so I still have to declare these convictions even though they are spent. This is at best a little embrassing & at worst has stopped me getting a few jobs.

My advice, get away from the scene ASAP. Or just obey the law and let people beat up you and your friends

 

This is changing in the States. The Gun Lobby is pushing for removing the retreat requirement. Self defense laws in the US tend to be aimed at firearms because of the high ownership here.

AP article

You really need to know the laws & how they tend to be applied in your particular state. Most deep south states, for example, will be fairly leniant with intruders. In Louisiana, it is actually legal to shoot someone who is trying to get into your home or who is threatening you on your property.

 

If you have control of the situation (the guy/group is unconcious, or ran away) then I'd stay. If you have to flee to avoid further violence then you should probably call the police when you are safe (if you want to do the legally right thing) and explain what happened and why you left. That kind of integrity would probably go a long way in getting the authorities on your side.

You should also pay attention to the general mentality of the authorities in your area. Where I live they are mostly "cowboys" that like to swing their clout around. So I'd get out ASAP and find an alliby. lol. That is assuming I wasn't laying on the pavement bleeding.

 

Who has ever stopped/won a fight with minimum force?

It's utter nonsense .

I'm sorry but when you are getting punched in the face are you really thinking...."oh I better use minimum force here".

 

I think you're taking minimum force a little to literally here.

When people use the term minimum force in this context, it's a little more arbitrary.

You use the minimum NECESSARY force to control the situation. If somebody punched me in the face, I wouldn't just turn around and elbow, I wouldn't use a technique that could cause serious injury or be potentially life threatening.

You'd take them down from the legs, where they are now rendered not possible, or if it's possible then retain them. You don't go all out on somebody just coz they hit you.

If you're mature that is.

 

Nothing minimum about an elbow If I elbowed someone I'd expect it to cause injury. Or do we do a half elbow? Or maybe an elbow warning tap.

My point is, in a real situation, how does one judge the extent of force that is appropriate?

I'm certainly not talking about beating someone to within an inch of their lives.

However, if it goes to court, the amount of force used is not down to your judgement, it is how it is interpreted by judge or jury.

Has anyone on this thread actually had a serious beating?

 

Well in a situation, are weak jabs and good strong low kicks.

You should be looking to disable the aggressor, and take control of the situation, you're not looking to fight it out.

 

Minimum force isn't refering to the amount of force per hit, but the minimum number of hits needed to stop the opponent. Or basically stop hitting them when their eyes roll back. Minimum isn't predertermined like 5 hits is ok, but 6 is attempted murder. lol. But who, with any honor, would continue to beat a subdued opponent? That's the point of "minimum force".

 

It's a sad fact in the UK that getting the upper hand in a situation when you are attacked, is likely place you at a ...er legal disadvantage.

If we think about the minimum force legislation, it is actually designed protect the attacker by placing the onus of decision on the defender.

I think this whole legal approach is fundamentally flawed. As I pointed out earlier one punch can cause a lot of damage. What if the attacker then falls flat on his face on the concrete, corner of a table....? It doesn't really get more minimum than one punch does it?

I think the key issue here is intent. The law should allow defense to the point of incapacity, or something like that. And it should be appropriate force not reasonable force!

I think it is entirely reasonable in defense to make sure the attacker is incapable of continuing the attack.

If the attacker ends up with a broken cheekbone for example, then tough luck. They were the attacker and should have no recourse for prosecution. There surely needs to be more legal clarity.