Meeting force with force

[wab25]

I only know that in the USA the law says you can defend yourself.

You are still using way too broad of a brush. The USA is broken down into States and then counties and then cities. They all differ in their laws governing defense and use of force. Some places you have a duty to retreat, others you can stand your ground, some places you can defend your castle but must retreat when not in your castle... In every case, there are extenuating circumstances that make each and every case unique.

I know a guy (doesn't everyone) who has a concealed carry permit issued by the State of CA. (that is an accomplishment by itself...) While in San Francisco a number of years ago, he was in a parking garage where two guys pulled knives on him. He pulled his gun, they ran. When he reported it to the police, they were not at all interested in the two guys who pulled the knives. They were however very interested in why he had a gun at all. Had he not had quick access to a good lawyer, he would have spent the night (or more) in jail, as they were very interested in charging him. He legally carried, legally used and legally reported the incident and still needed a lawyer in order to go home.

The only blanket statement you should be making about what you can and can't do, in regard to use of force, is to learn and know the laws where you are... and have an attorney's number to call. Telling people you can do this or that, without understanding the specific laws in force, for where that person is... can lead to lots of legal problems.

 

[Bruce7]

it seems unlikely that in real life an elderly gentleman would take out a whole karate club so seems unlikely to ever be tested in court

I agree,
Unless he was Jack Hwang, Joe Lewis , or some other super human.
My MG would take on everyone in the class at the same time and he was in his 40's,

 

[Tez3]

If that's how you say it is in Manchester than I will take your word for it since that's where you're from. Im not from Manchester so as I said I wouldn't know. As for other places, that I also wouldn't know, I only know that in the USA the law says you can defend yourself. I know that not everybody on this forum is from the USA so for people from other countries, I will take their word for what they say about the legality of being able to defend yourself in their countries.

The law in Manchester isn't different from anywhere else in the UK. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, we have guidance on the law from the Crown Prosecution Service. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Buka]

That’s how I know she is a keeper.

That was awesome.

 

[dvcochran]

Of course we are allowed to defend ourselves why would you think we aren't, we are even allowed to do so with any weapon we have to had. It has to be reasonable force though, we can strike first if in fear of our lives what we can't do is knock someone down and then kick them in the head or shoot them in the back as they are running away.

And even then the legalities are sticky...

In Colorado, at least, we have a law about 'mutual combat' law, that basically says if you both agree to the fight, it's not an assault. At most, you can be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. And according to the family cop, even that is unlikely unless you do it in a place that disrupts other people. If you just go off in an empty field and wallop on each other, nobody cares.
And it's easy to agree. If you say you're going to smack me upside the head, and I say "Go ahead and try, lunchmeat!" I can be considered to have agreed to the fight.
At least, that is my understanding, as a non-LEO, based on my experiences and conversations with cops.

Tennessee used to be the same way as an unwritten law but that seems to be changing. It has something to do with the domestic dispute dynamic. Overlapping issues used to prevail but it seems they are making a level playing field regarding any kind of assault. Two good ole boys can't go slug it out but if one files charges against the other, they would probably have to lawyer up. Just sad.

 

[Tez3]

Telling people you can do this or that, without understanding the specific laws in force, for where that person is... can lead to lots of legal problems.

Here the Crown Prosecution Service is the authority on what you will be charged with and why, it's not random 'advice'.


"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent, and we make our decisions independently of the police and government.

Our duty is to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence, and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.

The CPS:

• decides which cases should be prosecuted;
• determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations;
• prepares cases and presents them at court; and
• provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses.

Prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, our lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that to charge someone with a criminal offence, prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest."

About CPS | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Bruce7]

As I said earlier my children and son-in-law are lawyers.
Normally the law works well.
The problem is the law does not work as well for the poor,
because the lawyer has many cases and not much time to spend on their case.
The rich can have many lawyers working on their case and often have political pull.

I know of a case in Texas, where a man was working temporary in town he did not live in.
Got in a bar fight of which he was out number, but he had been marine recon.
He hurt the wrong guy badly. The guy was the son of the riches guy in that town.

Even thought it was self defense, he did put the guy in the hospital,
A normal maximum would have been a year and a big fine.
His lawyer should have asked for and got a change of venue.

The local prosecutor charged him with aggravated assault
and the home town jury give him the Maximum of 20 years.
The prosecutor, the jury members, and maybe the Judge were against him.
He got out in 10 years for good behavior.

 

[dvcochran]

Here the Crown Prosecution Service is the authority on what you will be charged with and why, it's not random 'advice'.


"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. The CPS is independent, and we make our decisions independently of the police and government.

Our duty is to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence, and to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.

The CPS:

• decides which cases should be prosecuted;
• determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations;
• prepares cases and presents them at court; and
• provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses.

Prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, our lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that to charge someone with a criminal offence, prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest."

About CPS | The Crown Prosecution Service

Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.

 

[CB Jones]

Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.

Also, Preliminary Exams

 

[Tez3]

Your CPS sounds a lot like the Grand Jury process we have in the U.S.

There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.

 

[CB Jones]

There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.

We have Preliminary Exams which are ruled on by judges before it goes to jury trials.

But if there are grand jury indictments then PEs aren't used

 

[Bruce7]

There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.

The cool thing about the English system is one day your the prosecutor in a case and the next day you may be working for the defense in a different case.

 

[Tez3]

The cool thing about the English system is one day your the prosecutor in a case and the next day you may be working for the defense in a different case.

No, that's not how it works. If you are a CPS prosecutor that is the only job you do other than advise police. The barrister for your defence will be instructed by your solicitor.
I think you are thinking of the independent barristers, they work from chambers, who don't prosecute criminal cases but can defend if that's their speciality. They can also take on civil cases in either defence or for the claimant.

 

[Tez3]

We have Preliminary Exams which are ruled on by judges before it goes to jury trials.

Judges here aren't involved until the actual trial. In England and Wales the CPS decide on everything to do with the prosecution, in Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal who does, they've been responsible for that since the middle of the 1800s.

 

[CB Jones]

Judges here aren't involved until the actual trial. In England and Wales the CPS decide on everything to do with the prosecution, in Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal who does, they've been responsible for that since the middle of the 1800s.

Let's compare....I dont think our systems are very different.

I arrest someone and booked them into jail.

The DA or prosecutor reviews the information of the arrest and files a bill of information with my charges or amended charges.....that is the formal charging of a person.

Then it can be taken before a preliminary Exam or Grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Then it goes to trial by jury or judge

 

[Bruce7]

No, that's not how it works. If you are a CPS prosecutor that is the only job you do other than advise police. The barrister for your defence will be instructed by your solicitor.
I think you are thinking of the independent barristers, they work from chambers, who don't prosecute criminal cases but can defend if that's their speciality. They can also take on civil cases in either defence or for the claimant.

Yes, I am talking about barristers, the guys with the wigs.
Please recheck I believe they can work for the prosecution on one case and the defense on a different case.
Since the barrister knows the law and is in court, I consider them more of a lawyer than a solicitor.
It looks like a solicitor knows a little law, but is more of an agent or organizer.

 

[PhotonGuy]

The law in Manchester isn't different from anywhere else in the UK. You don't have to take anyone's word for it, we have guidance on the law from the Crown Prosecution Service. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service

Alright, I'll keep that in mind if I ever do visit the UK, Scotland might be interesting to visit.

 

[PhotonGuy]

it seems unlikely that in real life an elderly gentleman would take out a whole karate club so seems unlikely to ever be tested in court

Well that definitely is something to take into consideration, most courts and most juries I don't think would buy into five big teenagers being taken down by one old man.

 

[Tez3]

Yes, I am talking about barristers, the guys with the wigs.
Please recheck I believe they can work for the prosecution on one case and the defense on a different case.
Since the barrister knows the law and is in court, I consider them more of a lawyer than a solicitor.
It looks like a solicitor knows a little law, but is more of an agent or organizer.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info from. Your idea of how our legal system works is not really how it works.

Both solicitors and barristers are what you call lawyers. A solicitor will know much more than a 'little' law, they are highly qualified.



What’s the Difference between a Lawyer, a Solicitor and a Barrister?

The term Lawyer is a generic term used to describe anyone who is a Licensed Legal Practitioner qualified to give legal advice in one or more areas of law. Put simply, Solicitors and Barristers are both types of Lawyer.

What is a Solicitor?
A Solicitor is a qualified legal professional who provides expert legal advice and support to clients. A Solicitor's clients can be individual people, groups, private companies or public sector organisations.

What does a Solicitor do?
After taking instructions from clients, Solicitors will advise on necessary courses of legal action depending on their areas of legal expertise. Most Solicitors in the UK are primarily litigators, although many Solicitors specialise in specific areas of law and some do their own advocacy cases.

Solicitors work directly with clients and although specific work activities will naturally depend on the Solicitor’s area of expertise, they typically involve conversing with clients to establish their firm’s suitability to provide the necessary legal advice and services, taking the client’s instructions and then advising them on the law and legal issues relating to their particular case.

Solicitors deal with all the paperwork and communication involved with their clients' cases, such as writing documents, letters and contracts tailored to their client’s needs; ensuring the accuracy of legal advice and procedure, and preparing papers for Court.

Solicitors will also negotiate with clients and opposing parties to secure agreed objectives, gather evidence, supervise the implementation of agreements, calculate claims for damages, compensation, loss of earnings, maintenance etc., and co-ordinate the work of all parties involved in the case. Their work ranges across the whole spectrum of legal work.

Solicitors represent clients in disputes and represent them in Court if necessary. In complex disputes however, Solicitors will often instruct Barristers or specialist advocates to appear in Court on behalf of their clients.

If a case goes to Court, it is unlikely that a Solicitor will represent their client although certain Solicitors can appear in Court as advocates. Instead, a Solicitor will generally refer the work to a Barrister or specialist advocate for expert advice or to instruct them to appear in Court to represent the client.

What is a Barrister?
A Barrister generally provides specialist legal advice and represents individual people and organisations in Courts and tribunals and through written legal advice.

What does a Barrister do?
In general, Barristers in England & Wales are hired by Solicitors to represent a case in Court and only become involved once advocacy before a Court is needed. The role of a Barrister is to "translate and structure their client's view of events into legal arguments and to make persuasive representations which obtain the best possible result for their client."

Barristers usually specialise in particular areas of law such as criminal law, chancery law (estates and trusts), commercial law, entertainment law, sports law and common la​

 

[dvcochran]

There's no jury involved though, the CPS are prosecuting on behalf of the Crown ( the Queen at the moment) as all criminal cases are Regina v ……… . It's more like your Public Prosecutor. The CPS barristers are the ones in court doing the prosecuting.

Maybe, our "public prosecutor" (district attorney is more correct)is representation for the state to make the case against a criminal. The judge and jury pass down sentencing.