Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK

[Juany118]

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

Pushing him to regain your personal space definitely. The problem with ordering him to remove his had from his pocket is that you lack that legal authority so he has no duty to comply.

I'll give a LEO example. I am on foot patrol. I walk up to someone and start talking to them, no reasonable suspicion to detain, no reason to arrest, simply what the law calls a "mere encounter." I can ask him to take his hand out of his pocket, but if I order it I have now turned a mere encounter into a detention. If I don't have reasonable suspicion it is an unlawful detention, if I go hands on to get his hands out of his pocket I have a nice Act 1983 law suit on my hands. This includes if he is saying "ffffing pig, ffff off, I got nothing to say to you ffff punk...."

So you need to define "aggressive." Is he just insulting you? Your momma, whatever in a loud and aggressive way? Then, technically, you can push him to regain you If he threatens physical violence I would actually advise simply pushing (unless there are witnesses). I say this for a few reasons.

1. No witnesses means it's a "he said, he said" argument. The person lacking injuries loses.
2. Any preemptive action is dicey, unless you can articulate objective facts that would make a reasonable person in like circumstances fear for their safety. Most people I know, without the requisite legal training, can't do this properly

So I usually say, don't let pride get in the way, if someone gets in your face and starts trash talking, suck it up and walk away.

 

[Tez3]

Police officers here can ask someone to take their hands out of their pockets they can also ask to search the person. Doesn't mean the person has to say yes but it's not a 'detention'. However swearing at a police officer, in fact swearing in public could be classed under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as an offence. It's not an offence in itself but there's a lot that can be classed under Public Order, the police officer has to use his judgement. If there's children or others around who could hear then the swearer will be arrested, if it's just the police officer they will probably just tell them to shut up but warn them if they continue to swear they will be arrested. It tends to be about context.

The justification for attacking someone in 'self defence' always has to be 'were you in fear of your life or safety', being insulted doesn't cut it.

 

[Juany118]

Police officers here can ask someone to take their hands out of their pockets they can also ask to search the person. Doesn't mean the person has to say yes but it's not a 'detention'. However swearing at a police officer, in fact swearing in public could be classed under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as an offence. It's not an offence in itself but there's a lot that can be classed under Public Order, the police officer has to use his judgement. If there's children or others around who could hear then the swearer will be arrested, if it's just the police officer they will probably just tell them to shut up but warn them if they continue to swear they will be arrested. It tends to be about context.

The justification for attacking someone in 'self defence' always has to be 'were you in fear of your life or safety', being insulted doesn't cut it.

Oh we can ask for all of that... I was referring to ordering. As for swearing, due to the first Amendment and my position I can not be a victim of verbal harassment or disorderly conduct due to a Supreme Court Decision.

 

[Gnarlie]

As long as that hand is still in the pocket, and his body language is threatening, I believe my life is in danger.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Police officers don't order anyone to do anything lol they ask nicely ( seriously) nine out of ten will respond to that, the tenth gets asked un-nicely.

 

[Juany118]

As long as that hand is still in the pocket, and his body language is threatening, I believe my life is in danger.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court. That is the problem I was referring to.

 

[Juany118]

Police officers don't order anyone to do anything lol they ask nicely ( seriously) nine out of ten will respond to that, the tenth gets asked un-nicely.

Where I work depends of the person/part of town. Good parts yes, shady parts if the person is say 30+ years old? Yes. The % drop with each year younger that 30 lol

 

[Gnarlie]

Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court. That is the problem I was referring to.

A concealed hand, declining to remove it when asked, and clearly aggressive body language. The combination of those three factors, and most of all, my perception of them at that moment are what is important.

As a non-LEO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A concealed hand, declining to remove it when asked, and clearly aggressive body language. The combination of those three factors, and most of all, my perception of them at that moment are what is important.

As a non-LEO.

A concealed hand doesn't present a threat, in and of itself.

I'd guess that "declining to remove it when asked" won't gain you much justification unless there's perceived justification to feel threatened before you ask them to take it out. Most guys, when being belligerent, are unlikely to comply with ANY request by someone they see as confrontational, so that's not much of an indicator of additional threat.

Thus, aggressive body language (just posturing, probably) is all you have that points to any threat, and that's a fairly weak indicator of an imminent threat. I think that's why Juany was saying you'd have justification to push them back if they get too close, but probably not to hit them.

 

[Gnarlie]

A concealed hand doesn't present a threat, in and of itself.

I'd guess that "declining to remove it when asked" won't gain you much justification unless there's perceived justification to feel threatened before you ask them to take it out. Most guys, when being belligerent, are unlikely to comply with ANY request by someone they see as confrontational, so that's not much of an indicator of additional threat.

Thus, aggressive body language (just posturing, probably) is all you have that points to any threat, and that's a fairly weak indicator of an imminent threat. I think that's why Juany was saying you'd have justification to push them back if they get too close, but probably not to hit them.

I'd be fine in the UK, if I could adequately express why I perceived a threat to my life after the event. Which I could. I believed he had a knife in the pocket, his refusal to reveal the hand did nothing to reassure me, and the way he was acting led me to believe he intended to use it. So I hit him with the intent of facilitating my escape. Your honour.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd be fine in the UK, if I could adequately express why I perceived a threat to my life after the event. Which I could. I believed he had a knife in the pocket, his refusal to reveal the hand did nothing to reassure me, and the way he was acting led me to believe he intended to use it. So I hit him with the intent of facilitating my escape. Your honour.

It sounds weak in the context of my head. I presume you're picturing a different context, where it probably makes perfect sense. In the right context, of course, it does.

 

[Paul_D]

Good luck with that simply "threatening" in court. That is the problem I was referring to.

He doesnt need good luck, his intepretation of UK SD law seems spot on.

 

[Paul_D]

It sounds weak in the context of my head. I presume you're picturing a different context, where it probably makes perfect sense. In the right context, of course, it does.

I don't think it has to be taken in a different context to work under UK law.

 

[Juany118]

He doesnt need good luck, his intepretation of UK SD law seems spot on.

No go to the link for the Crown Prosecutor I posted previously. The legal standard does not, to my understanding, miraculously change between a local Magistrate and the Crown. You need to be able to articulate not just that they "seemed aggressive". That does not reach the standard of reasonableness under Common Law that the US also shares incidentally. You need to articulate specific actions that rise to that level. Someone yelling, being in your personal space and having their hand in their pocket doesn't reach that level, you need more before you waffle them.

 

[Paul_D]

No go to the link for the Crown Prosecutor I posted previously. The legal standard does not, to my understanding, miraculously change between a local Magistrate and the Crown. You need to be able to articulate not just that they "seemed aggressive". That does not reach the standard of reasonableness under Common Law that the US also shares incidentally. You need to articulate specific actions that rise to that level. Someone yelling, being in your personal space and having their hand in their pocket doesn't reach that level, you need more before you waffle them.

This one?
Householders and the use of force against intruders

 

[Juany118]

This one?
Householders and the use of force against intruders

Yes, but you have to take something else into account with that and I should have mentioned it. If you read it all that is referring to being in your own home. Due to that fact you have greater self defense rights than "on the street" due to the Common Law theory commonly called the Castle Doctrine. That doctrine gives you WIDE latitude to engage in self defense. This doctrine does NOT apply on the streets however or even just outside your home as illustrated inhttp://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Beckford-v-The-Queen.php. Where the court ruled...

A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable.

The defendant argued it was a mistake, the court ruled that did not rise to the level of reasonableness.

From Palmer v R

The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken

British case after British case talking about "reasonable" and "But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances" etc.

Based on all of the British case law I would strongly suggest people remember under British Law Self Defense is a Justification. Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.

Now this may make people say "well them defending myself is a crap shoot why take the risk?". To quote from another web site the reason for this is...

Because of the completeness of the defence, self-defence is interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defence, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event. Thus, although the jury in self-defence cases is entitled to take into account the physical characteristics of the defendant, that evidence has little probative value in deciding whether excessive force was actually used.

 

[Gnarlie]

In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Juany118]

In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Well I would say that, after almost 20 years as a cop in one of the highest per capita crime areas in the US, that you are letting TV and movies get in the way. Regardless the law honestly doesn't care what one person may think. What matters are the facts, in detail, that you can articulate, not mear thoughts because those amount to feelings.

Or you can say "forget the cop who has experience and has quoted case law including case law relevant to GB itself." Because I admit my practice is the US. Common Law however applies to this topic in both Nations because mine would not exist without the other.

The choice is yours.

 

[Gnarlie]

Well I would say that, after almost 20 years as a cop in one of the highest per capita crime areas in the US, that you are letting TV and movies get in the way. Regardless the law honestly doesn't care what one person may think. What matters are the facts, in detail, that you can articulate, not mear thoughts because those amount to feelings.

Or you can say "forget the cop who has experience and has quoted case law including case law relevant to GB itself." Because I admit my practice is the US. Common Law however applies to this topic in both Nations because mine would not exist without the other.

The choice is yours.

Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.

US and UK law, interpretation of written law and case law regarding self defence are very different.

The choice is mine, and I've done my research and lived it, so...

 

[Tez3]

Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.

That's how it works in reality here, if you have two scrotes lining up against each other then the 'defendant's' word is not likely to mean anything but you have the proverbial good law abiding citizen up against a scrote then it will always go the citizen's way unless it's a road rage case >sigh< then it seems the good upright citizen turns into a raging bull but no one has any claimed self defence though it's always 'the other person's fault'. When it comes to self defence then people are considered here, it's been demonstrated enough times when cases haven't been prosecuted against people defending themselves. It' not so much the cases that go to court but the ones that don't that is significant. When deciding whether to prosecute the main consideration is In the context of cases involving the use of violence, the guiding principle is the preservation of the Rule of Law and the Queen's Peace. In self defence cases the CPs will look at whether the person defended themselves acted reasonably and in good faith. The law says "There is often a degree of sensitivity to be observed in such cases; this is particularly important when the alleged victim of an offence was himself/herself engaged in criminal activity at the relevant time. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence in such cases, a prosecutor must be satisfied there is enough reliable and admissible evidence to rebut the suggestion of self-defence. The prosecution must rebut self-defence to the criminal standard of proof.However, it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not prosecuted for such action. The CPS have published a joint leaflet with ACPO for members of the public making clear that if householders have acted honestly and instinctively and in the heat of the moment, that this will be the strongest evidence for them having acted lawfully and in self-defence."

The CPS : The Code for Crown Prosecutors

Common law only applies when defending one's person, family or other people, criminal law covers the 'defence' of protecting property. This is why a man here was convicted of manslaughter when he found a burglar in his ex wife's house, the stabbing took place just outside the house, the man claimed self defence but the family wasn't at home. the suspicion was that the man found someone in the house and assumed it was a lover/boyfriend of the ex wife's and he killed him out of jealousy, he'd plenty of time to call the police from a place of safety but didn't.


The Beckford v The Queen case is a Jamaican case, while Jamaican law is based on common law it, like Scottish, Irish and Isle of Man law has variations from English law, the reason that case was cited is becauset he defendant has the right of appeal to the Privy Council here. Jamaica has the death penalty and we don't another big difference. The difference thinking here is what allowed the appeal to stand. Our legal system doesn't include the Privy Council. I will also add that no British police officer would be issued with a shotgun in that manner nor are shotguns weapons in use much here against people.