Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK

[Tez3]

They can pull over wanker drivers who cut you off or merge in front of you without a turn signal. I'm not allowed to do that. Oh...and parking tickets. I can't give out parking tickets. [emoji12]




"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Traffic wardens hand out parking tickets, not a police job. You can try to pull over other drivers but I wouldn't recommend it, police can because the driver is committing an offence 9 careless driving)and if the drivers don't stop it's a failure to stop which is another offence but the police are also committing an offence if they cut you off or turn without a signal, ( same careless driving) you can report them.

There is also a very good article in Ian Abernethy’s now sadly defunct Jissen magazine, written by a police officer, which tell you not only your rights if you are interviewed by the police, but also the pitfalls to look out for when giving a statement, and certain key phrases which you should work into your statement.

I read that and you're right it's a shame he doesn't do it anymore. the problem with 'working a few key phrases' into your statement though is that it then sounds 'prepared' that you've got something to hide and you are covering it all up with words. It's comes out as sounding false. I've dealt with a couple of self defence incidents and to be honest it was clear as day what happened and was indeed self defence, the evidence isn't based on what the alleged victim says but much more.
Having trawled through what must be thousands of hours of cctv I can say muggings look exactly like muggings. These are nearly always done btw by people known to the police, you rarely need to put 'doubt' into the case quite honestly, there is a wealth of evidence used, statements are rarely any good as evidence quite honestly. people rarely recount what actually happened and all accounts will vary, so statements are the last thing that are taken into account.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Be that as it may their intent is not to use their weapons to make arrests. There intent is for those being arrested to come quietly so they won't have to use weapons to make their arrests.

That's their preference. Their intent is to use the weapons when necessary, and they realistically understand that includes arrests. That's why they don't wait for an arrest to turn violent before drawing a weapon (in the US). If there's anything to indicate the suspect may be violent (failure to stop for flashing lights, etc.), they often start by drawing their gun as they approach the car.

 

[Juany118]

That's their preference. Their intent is to use the weapons when necessary, and they realistically understand that includes arrests. That's why they don't wait for an arrest to turn violent before drawing a weapon (in the US). If there's anything to indicate the suspect may be violent (failure to stop for flashing lights, etc.), they often start by drawing their gun as they approach the car.

Exactly this. Here is the thing, action is faster than reaction. So, if you can articulate reasons to draw your weapon you may well draw it. Example in almost 20 years 98% of the stolen car reports I took were what we call "rentals", meaning a drug addict lent their care to a dealer and it wasn't returned as such I can articulate "based on my training and experience those who traffic in controlled substances often carry guns in order to protect themselves from being robbed of their money or illegal drugs." To boot a high speed pursuit, or simply driving a stolen car in my State are felonies.

Articulation can go further as well. One has to remember that Police, in the US, are trained to use the force necessary to prevent a suspect from escalating the use of force as this takes control of the encounter away from the Officer. So if I am speaking with a suspect and I can articulate that he has balled his hands into fists and either squared up or bladed himself to me, I can justify drawing a taser or baton in a show of force to discourage the attack interested by the suspect's body language. There are far more circumstances of course but in the end it comes down to being able to present articulable facts to justify displaying a tool.

As for the OP it is a gross exaggeration. Self defense is indeed legal in GB, what different authorities have basically sai

"one can only use the level of force that is justified in light of the threat you are confronted with...if you don't have the training or properly determine what force is justified, you are placing yourself in legal jeopardy."

The problem is there is a tendency among certain groups in both Nations to say "who cares if I cripple the other guy for pushing me, he shouldn't have put hands on me in the first place." That isn't how a civilized society under the rule of law works though.

 

[Juany118]

Having trawled through what must be thousands of hours of cctv I can say muggings look exactly like muggings. These are nearly always done btw by people known to the police, you rarely need to put 'doubt' into the case quite honestly, there is a wealth of evidence used, statements are rarely any good as evidence quite honestly. people rarely recount what actually happened and all accounts will vary, so statements are the last thing that are taken into account.

Pretty much. Usually the witness is simply there to say "he tried to rob me..." "...assault me..." etc and then give the most basic of details. Unless you are used to violent encounters (which luckily most aren't) your recollection of exact events is going to be shakey, even exaggerated at best. After that the Prosecution will submit any physical evidence gathered by police, the observations of the scene documented by police, hospital records documenting the degree of injury (if any) etc. This is especially true in cases in the US where CCTV footage is no where near as common as in places like the UK because all the Statements in the world, without some sort of corroboration, boil down to "he said she said" arguments and in that court room all the ultimately matters is what can be proven, not what we "know."

 

[Paul_D]

"if you don't have the training or properly determine what force is justified, you are placing yourself in legal jeopardy."

Not in the UK you're not.

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 ((Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)

So not only is there no requirement for you to have any ability or training to determine what force is justified, but the law specifically states you cannot be expected to judge "to a nicety" the level of force required.

All you have to do is what you “instinctively” believed to be necessary.

 

[Juany118]

Not in the UK you're not.

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 ((Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)

So not only is there no requirement for you to have any ability or training to determine what force is justified, but the law specifically states you cannot be expected to judge "to a nicety" the level of force required.

All you have to do is what you “instinctively” believed to be necessary.

I was basing my response off the Crown Prosecutors references to reasonableness. Since they will be the ones possibly facing you in the dock, I think it a good guideline...

Householders and the use of force against intruders

I am not saying someone needs to be a legal scholar but one must always keep in mind the concept of "reasonableness". The concept that exists in US law is actually founded in English Common Law, hence my familiarity with this one particular concept.

 

[Tez3]

Bear in mind that often we don't have juries in trials here, it depends on the offence. All cases start in the magistrates court, some are passed on to the Crown Court depending on the charge. Magistrates courts don't have juries.
Courts of law - Citizens Advice

 

[Paul_D]

but one must always keep in mind the concept of "reasonableness". .

In the sense that once you have acted instcitnly and the danger has ceased, then you need to bear in mind any further aciton which is unecessary, will be seen as unreasonable, yes.

But at moment you initially act/react insticvtly you don't need to think "will a jury think this is reasonable or not".

 

[Juany118]

In the sense that once you have acted instcitnly and the danger has ceased, then you need to bear in mind any further aciton which is unecessary, will be seen as unreasonable, yes.

But at moment you initially act/react insticvtly you don't need to think "will a jury think this is reasonable or not".

The concept of reasonableness is strictly a legal concept kicks in with you are in the dock. That said it can be relevant, in a Martial Arts context, in training. While it isnt always done I have always believed that MA instructors, if they are teaching with self defense in mind, should always tell their students the circumstances under which different techniques can be used.

As an example yesterday we were drilling preemptive striking. First the visiting Sifu made it clear you do this only when you can say "yep I am about to be attacked" with facts. Then he spoke about the possibilities of all the attacks you can use from after the different openers. As an example...

One of the openers of a preemptive attack was a "jamming" bong and wu in combination if the opponent is already in the fighting stance that may justify the preemptive strike. From here you can do any number of things. You can simply trap, you can apply a wrist lock and roll into a standing armbar take down. If you trapped, you can punch or palm strike to the head, you can do a knife hand to the throat, BUT the later can potentially kill so the instructor said you should avoid that preemptively because you will really have to explain in detail why you did that strike if in the end it causes serious injury or death.

If you get this kind of instruction, or perhaps better for more casual training, avoid learning the potentially fatal technique in the first place, when that muscle memory kicks in the chances of performing something that would later be seen as objectively unreasonable will be reduced.

 

[Paul_D]

if they are teaching with self defense in mind, should always tell their students the circumstances under which different techniques can be used.

You are still not getting it. There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation. You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.

 

[Juany118]

You are still not getting it. There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation. You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.

I do get that, what I am saying is that when training martial arts a good instructor should explain under what circumstances specific techniques can be used.

Example; Bob is in a bar when a drunk comes up to him to pick a fight. Bob has an avenue of escape but allows his pride to get in the way.

Scenario one. The guy starts trash talking Bob and tries to punch Bob. Bob, blocks the strike, punches the drunk and the drunk goes down for the count. Bob articulates, "I was in the bar minding my own business, a drunk comes up and tried to punch me. He missed I punched him back and knocked him out. The staff then removed him as he regained consciousness". Bob is okay.

Scenario two: The guy starts trash talking Bob and tries to punch Bob. Bob blocks/deflects the punch, then knife hands the drunk in the throat crushing the windpipe. Medics arrive and put an airway in to try and save the drunk. If the guy lives Bob is probably going to be arrested for Aggravated Assault, if the guy dies Manslaughter because his use of a technique known to be potentially lethal in the face of non-lethal force is not objectively reasonable. Bob will NOT be okay in front of a Judge or Jury unless there is some massively extenuating circumstance that would make it objectively reasonable that he was afraid he would be die.

As an LE Instructor once told me "you can use lethal force to protect yourself from being killed or maimed, not to protect yourself from an *** whooping.

I am simply saying that if you are formally studying MAs for self-defense, the instructor should address when you should use specific techniques because, legally, saying "well when a fight starts you do whatever comes to you in that moment" doesn't cut it. Instead you must be conscious and knowingly in control of your actions because they MUST be objectively reasonable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are still not getting it. There is no check list of what you can or cannot do depending the situation. You react and you do whatever comes to you at that moment.

Not always. A pre-emptive strike may not come from a place where the emotional brain is in control (that's when we lose the ability to choose rationally if an attack hasn't actually started). That was the point, I think, the instructor was making. When you are facing an imminent attack, you might respond entirely out of learned instinct. Moments before, however, you can choose. The point is to not choose a pre-emptive strike when you are still capable of making that choice, unless you see a situation that has no likely endpoint other than a physical attack.

EDIT (click before I finished typing): The same goes for techniques. With a pre-emptive strike, we can still be in control of choice (for the reasons stated above), so we can choose different techniques. Mind you, I agree with the person who suggested not developing that technique, at least not to an instinctive level, to avoid the problem of choosing it too quickly by habit. This is the issue I have with instructors who teach self-defense with too much violence every time.

 

[Juany118]

Not always. A pre-emptive strike may not come from a place where the emotional brain is in control (that's when we lose the ability to choose rationally if an attack hasn't actually started). That was the point, I think, the instructor was making. When you are facing an imminent attack, you might respond entirely out of learned instinct. Moments before, however, you can choose. The point is to not choose a pre-emptive strike when you are still capable of making that choice, unless you see a situation that has no likely endpoint other than a physical attack.

EDIT (click before I finished typing): The same goes for techniques. With a pre-emptive strike, we can still be in control of choice (for the reasons stated above), so we can choose different techniques. Mind you, I agree with the person who suggested not developing that technique, at least not to an instinctive level, to avoid the problem of choosing it too quickly by habit. This is the issue I have with instructors who teach self-defense with too much violence every time.

It was sorta this. The main jist however was.

1. Pre-emptive strikes work better than reacting BUT be damn sure you can justify it. A pre-emptive track, almost by its nature, implies thought so justification is vital.

2. If you are going to attack pre-emptively make sure the techniques you are going to use are justified. Example a person threatening to "kick your ***" and they are of similar size/fitness etc, a potentially lethal technique would be very hard to justify. However if the person was threatening to bash your head in with a bottle of whiskey or to cut you with the knife in their hand, the technique could probably be justified.

 

[Paul_D]

Example a person threatening to "kick your ***" and they are of similar size/fitness.... a potentially lethal technique would be very hard to justify.

So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?

 

[Tez3]

So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?

No it doesn't work like that here. If you are in fear of your life you aren't expected to think about the consequences of your actions beyond saving your life, once you are safe however that changes into it being reasonable force ie not kicking them in the head once you got them down. A pre-emptive strike doesn't necessarily mean thought, it means you are terrified for your life and safety or that of others. You can react out of fear. The choice of techniques would only be applicable to those who have a range of techniques to choose from.

 

[Paul_D]

No it doesn't work like that here. If you are in fear of your life you aren't expected to think about the consequences of your actions beyond saving your life, once you are safe however that changes into it being reasonable force ie not kicking them in the head once you got them down. A pre-emptive strike doesn't necessarily mean thought, it means you are terrified for your life and safety or that of others. You can react out of fear. The choice of techniques would only be applicable to those who have a range of techniques to choose from.

I know that, and you know that, but I don't think Juanny118 does.

Which I why I have asked the question of if he/she thinks a technique which is potentially lethal, such as a single punch, would be "very hard to justify" in the UK.

 

[Tez3]

I know that, and you know that, but I don't think Juanny118 does.

Which I why I have asked the question of if he/she thinks a technique which is potentially lethal, such as a single punch, would be "very hard to justify" in the UK.

Ah I understand where you are coming from now.

 

[Juany118]

So a single punch would be difficult very hard to justify under UK law, as it has the potential to be lethal?

A punch in and of itself, from a legal sense, is not considered lethal force. If it was you could shoot anyone went to punch you. For you to say it is lethal force you must be able to turn to the totality of the circumstances. Lying on your back, a person on top of you punching over and and over again and you feel you are about to lose consciousness (as an example) yes. Someone just swing a punch at your head? No. A person armed with a deadly weapon? Yes right out of the gate.

 

[Gnarlie]

Let's say person came up to me and started giving me verbal. He's standing too close and has one hand in his coat pocket, the other free. I ask him to take his hand out of his pocket but he doesn't. He becomes more aggressive with the verbal and is right in my face. I believe he has a weapon in that pocket, and I believe he intends to use it. Can I punch him?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Let's say person came up to me and started giving me verbal. He's standing too close and has one hand in his coat pocket, the other free. I ask him to take his hand out of his pocket but he doesn't. He becomes more aggressive with the verbal and is right in my face. I believe he has a weapon in that pocket, and I believe he intends to use it. Can I punch him?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Yes, if you have a genuine belief that he will harm you and you use only reasonable force there is unlikely to be any problem.