 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Carrying on from the Gun Laws USA thread
'only law i agree with is the stand your ground.
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible. Such a law typically states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death
Now that I like.
Bet you get all the PC and holier-than-thou batteries firing at you pretty soon.
I'll stand alongside you."
We're under no obligation to retreat and it doesn't mean we can't claim to have been acting in self defence - r v bird 1985'
Lots of misunderstanding in the UK about this. we have self defence..
Common Law
S.3 Criminal Law Act
PACE Act
S.2 Human Rights Act (believe it or not)
It is also perfectly legal to make a pre-emptive strike, ie strike the first blow if you feel sufficiently threatened.
In all of these, it's about justification and reasonable force. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Problem is that a good defence lawyer will rip that apart because you cannot act until they have laid hands on you.
But in reality if for example someone broke into my house they would not get far before they were chewing on a baseball bat  but I know I would end up charged but worth it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Problem is that a good defence lawyer will rip that apart because you cannot act until they have laid hands on you.
But in reality if for example someone broke into my house they would not get far before they were chewing on a baseball bat but I know I would end up charged but worth it "
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Problem is that a good defence lawyer will rip that apart because you cannot act until they have laid hands on you.
But in reality if for example someone broke into my house they would not get far before they were chewing on a baseball bat but I know I would end up charged but worth it "
If you touch them on the ground floor, you will are liable.
If you touch them on the upper floor, it is classed as self defence.
Personally I use an old electro semi paintball gun, with solid training rounds. Sounds loud, and I am a fairly decent shot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Problem is that a good defence lawyer will rip that apart because you cannot act until they have laid hands on you.
But in reality if for example someone broke into my house they would not get far before they were chewing on a baseball bat but I know I would end up charged but worth it
If you touch them on the ground floor, you will are liable.
If you touch them on the upper floor, it is classed as self defence.
Personally I use an old electro semi paintball gun, with solid training rounds. Sounds loud, and I am a fairly decent shot."
It's not really as black and white. The principle is that you use reasonable force. If they are KOd on the floor and you stamp their head then it's not reasonable. If they are reaching for a dropped knife then you can boot them in the head as hard as you reasonably choose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You don’t have to wait to
Be struck . You can defend you, your property and anyone you believe are in danger of harm. As someone else has stated it’s all about reasonable force. Hubby found a guy in our kitchen at three years ago at two in the morning. Git him in a neck hold and twisted him up. (He’s a prison officer and had his cuffs at home ahem cough). Police came in a matter of minutes and he was hauled off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it has to fulfil 3 criteria which are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
If someone was coming at you with a knife, you can break their arm but you can’t then follow that up with a kick in the head. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Problem is that a good defence lawyer will rip that apart because you cannot act until they have laid hands on you.
But in reality if for example someone broke into my house they would not get far before they were chewing on a baseball bat but I know I would end up charged but worth it "
Anyone ca quite easily fall into a baseball bat  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Carrying on from the Gun Laws USA thread
'only law i agree with is the stand your ground.
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible. Such a law typically states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death
Now that I like.
Bet you get all the PC and holier-than-thou batteries firing at you pretty soon.
I'll stand alongside you."
We're under no obligation to retreat and it doesn't mean we can't claim to have been acting in self defence - r v bird 1985'
Lots of misunderstanding in the UK about this. we have self defence..
Common Law
S.3 Criminal Law Act
PACE Act
S.2 Human Rights Act (believe it or not)
It is also perfectly legal to make a pre-emptive strike, ie strike the first blow if you feel sufficiently threatened.
In all of these, it's about justification and reasonable force."
You are allowed to use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstance.
You are allowed a pre emptive strike.
At some point, I can’t renember what year it was, someone had a case and a high court judge ruled that
Reasonable force, was enough force to create a window of opertunity to escape.
So if you can sprint and don’t you may get charged with an offence.
Also people in my experience are often convicted on what they say ‘did you see the size of him, I wouldn’t let that fucker get back up’ will never ever get you off with following through with a good beating on the floor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence. "
Not to be pedantic but i didn't think you had to prove self defence. Don't they have to prove it wasn't self defence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Also other problems ....
Being trained . Boxers. Martial artists. Security staff. Police. Kung fu masters. Are all expected to act with restraint.
Military- now if serving traditionally your unit will do its best to get you handed over to the military for punishment, this could be good or bad for you.
Military- former, and ex, and even Walt’s have got reduced tariffs by claiming ptsd, drug, drink, alcohol and just anger issues.
The waters have later been muddied by Home Secretaries saying it’s not on the public interest to prosecute some one who uses violence on a burglar etc.
And also with a few recent cases of people stabbing or severely beating violent intruders. Including killing offenders.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence.
Not to be pedantic but i didn't think you had to prove self defence. Don't they have to prove it wasn't self defence? "
They would have to prove you didn’t feel in imminent danger of attacks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence.
Not to be pedantic but i didn't think you had to prove self defence. Don't they have to prove it wasn't self defence? "
You’re right, in theory and indeed in law. If self-defence is raised, the Crown must “meet” and overcome that defence to secure a conviction. For practical purposes however, it’s in the hands of the defence solicitor, which is why I view it as trying to prove it as opposed to the Crown disproving it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In Scotland is it still the case where you have to get the police to remove a trespasser, but in the rest of the U.K. you can just throw em off yourself?
Also it always amused me on the white card(issued to all military while on armed guard in the U.K.) you could fire no more rounds than necessary if there was no other way to stop a suspect from escaping ...... except in Scotland!
WTF! The jocks just canna abide shootin a guy in the back or sommat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone done Krav Maga? "
Hubby dabbled with it in the past, more for keeping fit, HM prisons frown upon people with “a certain set of skills” using them. Regular control and restraint courses are the norm |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone done Krav Maga? "
Krav is like defence lab, wing chun, akido and systema in that people either love it and think it’s fantastic or hate it and think it’s shite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence. "
Number 2 seems very fair to me, a bottle for a punch. If you hit me I have lost all respect for you, there for anything goes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In Scotland, self-defence has 3 tests.
1. Imminent attack/ongoing attack/fear of imminent attack.
2. Proportionate response - you can’t go to punch me in the pub and I bottle you, for example.
3. Must be no other option available other than to resort to violence - the most common one being if you can get away, you should.
Courts and juries are told not to judge actions too finely but those are the basic requirements. Tricky thing to prove, self-defence.
Number 2 seems very fair to me, a bottle for a punch. If you hit me I have lost all respect for you, there for anything goes."
I know someone who got away with glassing some one who threw a few punches at him by claiming he just reacted, block/cover/punch and forgot in the heat of the moment the glass was in his hand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm Irish we have different attitude towards violence, we accept it more.
It was one of the hardest things about being in the UK, having to stand and not hit someone insulting me and begging them to shut up and just hit me and them never doing it. Rage inducing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm Irish we have different attitude towards violence, we accept it more.
It was one of the hardest things about being in the UK, having to stand and not hit someone insulting me and begging them to shut up and just hit me and them never doing it. Rage inducing."
Try Canada, punching someone in the face is treated in pretty much the same way as bottling or slashing them.
#learntowrassle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone done Krav Maga?
Krav is like defence lab, wing chun, akido and systema in that people either love it and think it’s fantastic or hate it and think it’s shite. "
Can't comment on krav maga but wing chun is an absolute pile of shit. You can watch a wing chun master challenge a very average MMA fighter called xu xiaodong and get absolutely destroyed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone done Krav Maga?
Krav is like defence lab, wing chun, akido and systema in that people either love it and think it’s fantastic or hate it and think it’s shite.
Can't comment on krav maga but wing chun is an absolute pile of shit. You can watch a wing chun master challenge a very average MMA fighter called xu xiaodong and get absolutely destroyed. "
Yeah but Alan Orr is a wingchun and MMA man. He explains it quite well as to how to apply the drills.
You can probably watch videos of wing chun masters and technicians battering folks all day long too.
In Eastern Europe they do it padded up and full contact in some circles.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
