International Self-defense law literature?

[GreenieMeanie]

Anyone know of technical literature, similar to Massad Ayoob’s material, that covers the law generally in western countries? Autonomous self-defense, subsidiary self-defense? Which countries recognize concepts such as “doctrine of necessity“ and “doctrine of competing harms”? Possible differences in how you talk to police?

 

[O'Malley]

"Western countries" include a large number of countries, with legal systems that can vary wildly. As self-defence generally is a nuanced concept, it would be quite hard to make a guide that takes these numerous nuances into account.

There probably are common concepts and there might exist comparative studies in the academic world but I'd suspect that the geographical coverage would be quite limited and they might not be of great help to the average citizen. If you (general "you") are not a trained lawyer, please use common sense when traveling abroad and for the love of everything that's good DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. We lawyers have to research the law, put together a legal reasoning and still we might lose the case. I've heard some very stupid things from the mouth of "self-trained" would-be lawyers (I've also heard stupid things said by trained lawyers but that's another debate).

 

[GreenieMeanie]

"Western countries" include a large number of countries, with legal systems that can vary wildly. As self-defence generally is a nuanced concept, it would be quite hard to make a guide that takes these numerous nuances into account.

There probably are common concepts and there might exist comparative studies in the academic world but I'd suspect that the geographical coverage would be quite limited and they might not be of great help to the average citizen. If you (general "you") are not a trained lawyer, please use common sense when traveling abroad and for the love of everything that's good DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. We lawyers have to research the law, put together a legal reasoning and still we might lose the case. I've heard some very stupid things from the mouth of "self-trained" would-be lawyers (I've also heard stupid things said by trained lawyers but that's another debate).

Fair enough. Is there literature that covers the EU and UK perspective, on the above mentioned, including “disparity of force,” weapons, and “reasonable/proportionate” force?

 

[O'Malley]

I looked up Massad Ayoob's books on the legal aspects of self-defense so that I could understand what you mean by "technical literature". What I have found is actually a vulgarization book by a firearms instructor, aimed at providing general guidelines to gun owners on the situations where they are legally allowed to shoot at someone. While there may exist comparative academic studies on the concept of self-defense under the law of EU countries and the UK, I am not aware of any guide similar to what you describe.

From what I understand disparity of force is an American law concept justifying the use of deadly force (I guess this would mostly be relevant for guns). I'm not sure we have anything that really translates.

Your questions seem based on the assumption that one would find himself in a self-defense situation while packing a gun. Keep in mind that, as far as I know, in EU countries people are not allowed to carry a gun in public unless they have a special authorization from the authorities (e.g. police are generally allowed to carry).

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I looked up Massad Ayoob's books on the legal aspects of self-defense so that I could understand what you mean by "technical literature". What I have found is actually a vulgarization book by a firearms instructor, aimed at providing general guidelines to gun owners on the situations where they are legally allowed to shoot at someone. While there may exist comparative academic studies on the concept of self-defense under the law of EU countries and the UK, I am not aware of any guide similar to what you describe.

From what I understand disparity of force is an American law concept justifying the use of deadly force (I guess this would mostly be relevant for guns). I'm not sure we have anything that really translates.

Your questions seem based on the assumption that one would find himself in a self-defense situation while packing a gun. Keep in mind that, as far as I know, in EU countries people are not allowed to carry a gun in public unless they have a special authorization from the authorities (e.g. police are generally allowed to carry).

The more I’ve learned about martial studies, the more I’ve realized that guns are just one of many means for applying lethal force.

“Disparity of force” is considered a prerequisite for justifiable use of lethal force, which can include mob violence, intentional use of potentially lethal weapon (like a glass bottle), a gun, a knife, man versus woman, etc.

My question revolves around self-defense law generally. As far as I can tell, within my limited knowledge, there doesn’t seem to be much actual legal distinction with the tool used to force.

Of course, there are charges regarding the possession of illegal weapons, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to legal perspectives on the use of force continuum.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

What I have found is actually a vulgarization book by a firearms instructor, aimed at providing general guidelines to gun owners on the situations where they are legally allowed to shoot at someone.

Vulgarization seems a strange word to use. He uses pretty specific legal terminology, has made a career out of being an expert trial witness, references to particular legal texts that I can’t find anywhere except academic institutional paywalls, and his material comes recommended by defense lawyers in the field.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Personally, I think such literature is only useful in ethnically diverse countries that have individualist cultures. Even if other countries have similar laws on paper, they're going to favor their people.

There was a story over a decade ago of US sailors being assaulted in Turkey by local Turkish men. The sailors did not fight back or resist. This was even caught video. And it was a smart move on the part of the American sailors. Because there's a high likelihood that the Turkish police and courts would have favored the attackers and locked the American sailors up.

I hear that this is a common occurrence in the Philippines. If local Filipinos see a Filipino and a foreigner fighting, they'll all jump in and stomp the foreigner. Even if the Filipino was the initial attacker and is in the wrong, and the other Filipinos clearly saw that, it doesn't matter. They're going to join that Filipino in stomping the foreigner. And guess who's going to jail and getting locked up? The foreigner, despite what the laws on the books say.

Again, such literature is good... but is far more useful in some countries than others.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Personally, I think such literature is only useful in ethnically diverse countries that have individualist cultures. Even if other countries have similar laws on paper, they're going to favor their people.

There was a story over a decade ago of US sailors being assaulted in Turkey by local Turkish men. The sailors did not fight back or resist. This was even caught video. And it was a smart move on the part of the American sailors. Because there's a high likelihood that the Turkish police and courts would have favored the attackers and locked the American sailors up.

I hear that this is a common occurrence in the Philippines. If local Filipinos see a Filipino and a foreigner fighting, they'll all jump in and stomp the foreigner. Even if the Filipino was the initial attacker and is in the wrong, and the other Filipinos clearly saw that, it doesn't matter. They're going to join that Filipino in stomping the foreigner. And guess who's going to jail and getting locked up? The foreigner, despite what the laws on the books say.

Again, such literature is good... but is far more useful in some countries than others.

Thats more of a “travel safety” and “non-permissive environment” conversation. I’m referring more to EU and UK.

 

[gyoja]

Thats more of a “travel safety” and “non-permissive environment” conversation. I’m referring more to EU and UK.

Plan on traveling?

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Plan on traveling?

That obvious huh?

 

[O'Malley]

The more I’ve learned about martial studies, the more I’ve realized that guns are just one of many means for applying lethal force.

“Disparity of force” is considered a prerequisite for justifiable use of lethal force, which can include mob violence, intentional use of potentially lethal weapon (like a glass bottle), a gun, a knife, man versus woman, etc.

I get that, my point was that disparity of force is specific to US law and may not exist as is in other jurisdictions, and that it may have arisen from the fact that lethal force is relatively widely available to the population because of more lenient weapon carrying regulations.

My question revolves around self-defense law generally. As far as I can tell, within my limited knowledge, there doesn’t seem to be much actual legal distinction with the tool used to force.

The tool used will always be taken into account but there will be differences between jurisdictions in the way that use will be assessed (e.g. the disparity of force doctrine).

Of course, there are charges regarding the possession of illegal weapons, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to legal perspectives on the use of force continuum.

It's very relevant. Say **** happens and A kills B with an illegal weapon. A gets caught and charged with murder, then we go to trial. Then he has to convince the judge that his application of lethal force was legitimate, which is hard to do when you've used an illegal weapon (because you had no right nor legitimate reason to have it in the first place).

If you plan on traveling to Europe (welcome!) I also think it's important to know what you can bring with you so as not to get in trouble at the border.

Vulgarization seems a strange word to use. He uses pretty specific legal terminology, has made a career out of being an expert trial witness, references to particular legal texts that I can’t find anywhere except academic institutional paywalls, and his material comes recommended by defense lawyers in the field.

That's what vulgarization is, isn't it? Taking technical information and extracting the key takeaways for a non specialist audience.

Personally, I think such literature is only useful in ethnically diverse countries that have individualist cultures. Even if other countries have similar laws on paper, they're going to favor their people.

There was a story over a decade ago of US sailors being assaulted in Turkey by local Turkish men. The sailors did not fight back or resist. This was even caught video. And it was a smart move on the part of the American sailors. Because there's a high likelihood that the Turkish police and courts would have favored the attackers and locked the American sailors up.

I hear that this is a common occurrence in the Philippines. If local Filipinos see a Filipino and a foreigner fighting, they'll all jump in and stomp the foreigner. Even if the Filipino was the initial attacker and is in the wrong, and the other Filipinos clearly saw that, it doesn't matter. They're going to join that Filipino in stomping the foreigner. And guess who's going to jail and getting locked up? The foreigner, despite what the laws on the books say.

Again, such literature is good... but is far more useful in some countries than others.

Bollocks.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Bollocks.

Refute it. Oh wait, you can't.

 

[O'Malley]

Refute what? Reread your post: it's wholly based on your imagination.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Refute what? Reread your post: it's wholly based on your imagination.

Nope. What happened with the American sailors in Turkey made the news here in the US, and there are numerous accounts of what goes on in the Philippines - both from when the US military bases were open there over 30 years ago, and to this day when "Passport Bros" in the Philippines are giving warnings to others who are considering traveling to the Philippines.

Disagreements are invalid without a rebuttal.

 

[O'Malley]

Nope. What happened with the American sailors in Turkey made the news here in the US, and there are numerous accounts of what goes on in the Philippines - both from when the US military bases were open there over 30 years ago, and to this day when "Passport Bros" in the Philippines are giving warnings to others who are considering traveling to the Philippines.

Disagreements are invalid without a rebuttal.

You mentioned the case of the US sailors and then made up a whole story : "they did not fight back but if they had I'm sure they'd have been jailed".

Then you say "I heard from some people that it's like this in the Philippines", which is good for small talk at the pub, but bad to draw general conclusions about criminal justice systems in countries you don't seem to know much about.

Assertions are invalid unless substantiated

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I get that, my point was that disparity of force is specific to US law and may not exist as is in other jurisdictions, and that it may have arisen from the fact that lethal force is relatively widely available to the population because of more lenient weapon carrying regulations.



The tool used will always be taken into account but there will be differences between jurisdictions in the way that use will be assessed (e.g. the disparity of force doctrine).



It's very relevant. Say **** happens and A kills B with an illegal weapon. A gets caught and charged with murder, then we go to trial. Then he has to convince the judge that his application of lethal force was legitimate, which is hard to do when you've used an illegal weapon (because you had no right nor legitimate reason to have it in the first place).

If you plan on traveling to Europe (welcome!) I also think it's important to know what you can bring with you so as not to get in trouble at the border.



That's what vulgarization is, isn't it? Taking technical information and extracting the key takeaways for a non specialist audience.



Bollocks.

Just so we’re on the same page, that you know what I’m talking about.

Scenario—woman in kitchen is having her throat crushed by 80kg athletic man. She realizes there is a knife by her, grabs it, icepicks it into his neck. She retracts it crudely at an angle, causing the blade to tear tissue on the way out. This is a proper kitchen knife carving a good hole, so he’s not living long after that. He reels, collapses, and she runs for it. (Obviously, we can nit pick the technicalities of how this would occur, but they are irrelevant to the conversation)

Then change the location, and make the weapon less scandalous, like hefty wrench or hammer for example.

What are the principles for how UK and EU law handle this?


Honestly, I’m not too familiar with the etymology of “vulgarization.”

 

[Hot Lunch]

You mentioned the case of the US sailors and then made up a whole story : "they did not fight back but if they had I'm sure they'd have been jailed".

And I base this on my own experiences in Turkey. Particularly, with a common scam where if you hand a taxi driver a 50TL bill, they'll claim it was only a 5 and demand more. I myself almost got arrested for this, until I caved and handed the driver more money in front of the officer. If a Turk wrongs you in Turkey, you'd better let them win unless you yourself are a Turk. Plain and simple.

Then you say "I heard from some people that it's like this in the Philippines", which is good for small talk at the pub, but bad to draw general conclusions about criminal justice systems in countries you don't seem to know much about.

And I told you what these sources were.

Assertions are invalid unless substantiated

Which means mine are valid

 

[GreenieMeanie]

You mentioned the case of the US sailors and then made up a whole story : "they did not fight back but if they had I'm sure they'd have been jailed".

Then you say "I heard from some people that it's like this in the Philippines", which is good for small talk at the pub, but bad to draw general conclusions about criminal justice systems in countries you don't seem to know much about.

Assertions are invalid unless substantiated

Common bruv—this isn’t court. While logical fallacies have their place, anecdotal evidence does as well.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Common bruv—this isn’t court. While logical fallacies have their place, anecdotal evidence does as well.

I don't know what I did to this guy. He came at me like a shark after blood.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I just googled this one. I think O'Malley needs to go in his comment section and tell him he's lying.