What happens if your in a fight and the Law?

There is, as far as I am aware, NO mention in UK legalities anything to do with minimum force. There is mention of such force that is reasonable (by which I asume the ammount of force any reasonable person would use in the same situation) and necassary force. For instance I would assume that kicking some one who is clearly unconscious would not be necassary, thus not reasonable.

To highlight my previous thought about training, I was assaulted at work a few days ago. In my job, if someone becomes aggressive we are taught to restrain them, using various techniques. However this was a one on one situation where I was punched in the face. The logical thing, in hindsight, to do would be to retreat and then deal with the situation safely when there are the staff to facilitate this. I didn't get past the "he needs restraining" part and attempted to restrain him. In essence I switched off and the training kicked in.

So am I the aggressor? Was the action I took unreasonable or unnecassary?

 

Now, now Judderman, we all know that certain jobs require the use of force, and while you may not be working under the same laws governing self-defense, we also know that if you go overboard, you get sued and/or lose your job...

Gajah: In the US, we do take into account the whole situation. You'd be surprised how many assaults get reduced once it's deiscovered there was only one punch thrown.

By the way, if a MOD or ADMIN sees this little note... can we PLEASE change the title of the thread? The correct spelling in this case is "you're in a fight".

 

Indeed and rightly so.

(BTW we are still governed by the same self defence laws.)

The point still applies to those who regularly train for this eventuality. What of them? Would the same apply out of a "professional" environment?

 

GangrelChilde, why is "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" nonsense? Are you really saying that you would just let people beat you into a coma in order to avoid legal consequences? It's not about being macho, it's just that if you hold back in self defence you put yourself at a huge disadvantage. Unless you are MASSIVELY better at fighting than your attacker - which is not something you know when you're randomly attacked - I think it's a bad idea to be thinking about legal consequences in the heat of the moment.

 

No it isn't.

What minimum force legislation?

Do you actually know what the law is or do you just read the tabloids? It sounds like you just had one bad run-in with the law and you're making a blanket statement.

 

Sorry meant reasonable force.

Now then, don't start patronising. I read the Guardian

Yes, the law as I understand it is thus. One can use reasonable force to in self defence to repel an attacker. Anything more than this is deemed to be retaliation and could be construed as assault.

Actually my worst run in with the law was when in my teens I was beaten into a coma. Incidentally, this was for no other reason than having long hair. I was KO'd from behind-no warning & and beaten up whilst unconcious.

Of the two guys that did this, the judge let one off because he was ill, the other got fined 100pounds.

So yes I've been on both sides of the legal issue

 

Timmy

One must be aware of the consequences of ones actions ...
like anything it is better to be forwarned and fore armed with the information than to learn about it historically.

Being aware of the law and its possible effects if one was to use self defence are IMHO a vital part of todays Martial Arts .

As to the argument about possibly elbow tapping and decreasing ones energy in a dynamic confrontation...this is rubbish . If you hit someone whilst being attacked one would use as much power as possible ...that is a fact.

Restraining people is a very difficult thing to do without causing injury, but as mentioned is a part of some peoples job describtion. those who have not done it for real can put forward all the theories and ideas but when you have used force in situations like this it is so easy for you to second guess and put the "what if " syndrome into play.If you have doubts in your own mind think of how a jury would feel given the facts .

With a sound knowledge of the law and application of the concepts of proportioanality, reasonableness, necessity and accountabilty for ones actions one can prepare not only for the physical confrontation but also for the legal one which could follow.

Not meaning to be rude but if one has used ones MA skills in a confrontation on the street and disabled, disfunctioned or incapacitated an opponent the idea of running away can be misconstrued in many ways .

You have a duty of care for the person you have injured ....if you show no remorse or attempt to aid your attacker this could go against you.

if you run away without reasonable cause "fear of further atack" again this could be misconstrued as a sign of guilt on your part.

Dont close your mind to legallities please, dont write a load of tripe about winning a fight using all means available and then running away. You have to live with yourself, human nature means you will not keep it a secret, advances in forensic science, extended use of CCTV etc will probably mean you would be tracked down and asked to account for your actions.

Train hard be aware of the medical and legal ramifications of your actions and remember the old adage ...sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never harm you ....

:Angel:

 

I'm not saying that being aware of the law isn't a good idea. However, when people say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", they don't mean "anything goes, who cares about the law", they mean that if you are conscious of reasonable force at the time of an incident and thus restrain yourself you make it far far harder on yourself, and if you lose you could end up becoming seriously hurt.

I've posted this a couple of times before, hopefully people will find it useful. It is NOT the same as American self defence law.

 

Sorry for snapping.

Kind of - see above.

Sorry to hear about that one mate, but at least justice was done in some sense. Until recently I had long hair too and I received no end of aggro for it.

 

The average maturity of people on MAP who spew that line is about 12. I find that too many people, despite what you say later on down in this thread, tend to act like online vigilantes. the purpose of this thread isn't necessarily to go over every nuance of the law, but to give people an idea as to what is and is not legal. Sadly, the MAP vigilante wannabes tend to think with their fists, and that, as you are well aware, is illegal in many cases.

 

What, justice in the sense of no justice at all!

 

GangrelChilde time for that crate of beer! Also Timmyboy has quoted much of the SD law here in the UK, but I was still wondering how those in the US who "react instinctively", due to their MA training, would fair?

TimmyBoy unfortunately many don't have the approach you seem to and would rather hide behind the 12 quote instead of taking responsibility for their actions. Its very easy to shift the burden of responsibility to ones attacker. This is, of course, a moral viewpoint.

 

No, in the sense that at least one of them got fined and got a criminal record, even if it's less than we would hope for. Can you read?

 

Sadly morals and the law aren't the same thing, and some people start charging in with the law and saying "well you'd get sent to prison if you did that, I think I'm being original and I'm completely missing the point " when you're actually debating the moral position. Personally I have no sympathy for the kind of idiot who wants to go around starting fights for no reason and contributes nothing positive to society, so I feel they deserve what they get, morally speaking.

 

Being fined £100 for doing what he did is a slap in the face to the victim.

 

Like I said, it was justice in some sense. They did at least do SOMETHING.

 

That is why Timmy Boy said it was less than we could hope for?
But what would be enough for this offence?
Jail time, Community service, Crucifixion?
They were probably first offenders and evryone deserves a second chance even scum.

 

Nah, they were well known local guys with a 'reputation'. No doubt gained by randomly beating up unsuspecting teenagers.

A bit extreme though, knocking a guy out from behind & then giving him a kicking I had a perfect bootprint bruise down one side of my face

That was 20years ago but 2 lessons well learnt. Fights are unfair & British law is crap

As for justice, I'd love a rematch

As for onus of responsibility, it surely should rest upon the attacker as they instigate the violence...any 'reasonable' injury they incur is a direct result of their own action.

Anyway, in comparison, the other situation where I removed "begbie" from the bar after glassing a friend, I ended up with much larger fines & 3 convictions.

Now this apparently came down to a point of law. Removing him from the area of incident was OK. If I'd used reasonable force in the bar I'd have probably got away with it.

However, as I removed him and then snotted him, I was stuffed. Apparently there could not be an arguement for defence as the majority of the brawl took place in the carpark. Unfortunately the cops turned up just as I got the better of the situation.

Ah, lifes so unfair :cry:

C'mon I think most guys would lose a bit of self retraint in the 'beerglass in girls face situation'.

 

Gajah Silat, the problem in my eyes is that most assaults take place when the police aren't around to see it, meaning it's your word against theirs as to who started it. They therefore need to put some restrictions on what you can do in self defence so as to avoid people stoving each other's heads in with spades and then saying "but he started it!" So again, as much as I think people who start fights deserve whatever consequences they get, the law has to bear in mind public order rather than mere morality. Plus, as I said, you 't have to gauge the amount of reasonable force with pinpoint accuracy and you're judged according to the facts as you believed them to be, even if you were mistaken.

 

OK I was wrong but I still say what would be justice in this situation? Probably forcing themn to have a square go with someone who could slap them about like a tailless monkey is the best thing that could happen, but it isn't going to unfortunately.