[Closed] Acid Attack - Would you be allowed to retaliate

Would you be prosecuted? I doubt it.

Would 'retaliation' be against the law? Probably.

Think anyone would be too busy screaming in agony and trying to find help/water

Allowed? Who would stop you?

Your decision to retaliate or not should probably be predicated on whether or not you have any idea how to actually fight or realistically defend yourself.

whether or not you have any idea how to actually fight or realistically defend yourself.

In this instance it wouldn't matter as you'd have Acid Face! Not quite as good as Iron Fist but still pretty useful. That's if you had the presence of mind to actually do anything but scream...

Aside - 's gotta be a contender for weird thread topic of the year or something.

Academically; the answer lies in the realms of 'reasonable and proportionate'; would you be justified in using reasonable/proportionate force to defend/detain an individual; I think yes. Would you be actually in a position to? Seems unlikely in a genuine acid attack. Unless it were lemon juice, or vinegar.

IANAL or PO.

You're allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and 'reasonable force' is determined by a jury, and only a jury. You're not allowed to retaliate.

If someone had just burned your face off I think any jury would be more than willing to accept an explanation that you feared a second attack and attacked the perp in order to defend yourself.

If you openly stated you were retaliating they'd probably technically have to convict, but personally, I wouldn't if I was on a jury.

I have to say attacking someone who has just burned your face off reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight!

'don't touch me maan'
[img] [/img]

The guy sauntering off suggests he was walking away and you persued him to attack him, I'm not convinced that would stand up as fearing being attacked again. It would also depending on your attack, if you punched him once on the nose maybe but beating him half to death might not be seen as reasonable force even more so when he had walked off.

the guy saunters off

No self-defence justification there then, unless you can convince the jury that you reasonably believed he had sauntered off to replenish his bottle and was coming back for round 2.

given that (chemically) his attack is still in progress

No, it isn't - the attack is no longer in progress, even if the effects of the attack are still being felt - no different to someone shooting or stabbing you and then leaving - the fact that you are still bleeding does not mean that the attack itself is still in progress.

+1 for what a weird topic to start!

EDIT: IANAL

The guy sauntering off suggests he was walking away and you persued him to attack him, I'm not convinced that would stand up as fearing being attacked again.

You would just say you believed he was going on to attack others. I'm sure the self defence law caters for defending others.

By just say you mean prove he was a further threat to others and the force you used was appropriate but yes it does covers not just one person.

Your probably allowed to throw Caustic Soda on him in an attempt to neutralize the threat.

* Not really. Chemistry joke innit.

sauntered off to replenish his bottle

This guy's sounding very casual and laid back for an acid attacker. From what I've read they usually leg it afterwards, none of this sauntering shit.

Also, where would someone replenish their supply...?

By just say you mean prove he was a further threat to others

Also, where would someone replenish their supply...?

It's not a funny topic at all, but anyone else see that baddie from Robocop in their mind?

You wouldn't be able to.
You'd be on the ground writhing and screaming in agony, probably unable to see never mind respond in any hero-in-action-film-bullshit manner.

Hardware store, supermarket, motor supplies place, lot's of places.

All within easy sauntering distance, too, I'd imagine.

By just say you mean prove he was a further threat to others and the force you used was appropriate

The burden of proof works the other way round. The jury would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the retaliater *didn't* think the acid attacker was a threat to others.

I think the jury would find it *very* hard not to accept a "self defence" defence in the circumstances the OP described.

IAMAL but I'd have thought there might be other defences - not guilty due to temporary insanity die to the pain for instance. Necessity is always a defence. (I'm not saying either of those defences are workable - just that there are probably defences in this kind of situation that none of us are even aware of.)

Best approach would be love not war. Hug him and hope some of the acid transfers.

Not hard to prove that a guy who just flung acid in your face (I presume unprovoked) wasn't a threat to others.

Well it would be that's the point. Just because he struck one person doesn't mean he automatically is going to strike another immediately.

You're allowed to use reasonable force to prevent crime. This is the 'citizens arrest' argument; doesn't have to be self defence.

This is the 'citizens arrest' argument; doesn't have to be self defence.

Prepare to die!

Its the "proportionate" part of this which is doing my head in.

It just seems amazingly cold blooded to be planning (and carrying out) these life changing attacks. And I really feel for the victims knowing that the "law" is lagging miles behind treating these attacks as GBH.

Perhaps this really is a time when justice should get Biblical

Perhaps this really is a time when justice should get Biblical

A plague of locusts?

Perhaps this really is a time when justice should get Biblical

Turn the other cheek, and get that burned off too?

Its the "proportionate" part of this which is doing my head in.

If I was on a jury and someone had thrown acid in your face, goaded and smirked as they went away, and you the chased him and beat him up - I'd let you walk free.

v8ninety - Member

I don't think the law IS lagging behind, it's just a particularly nasty new way of one human inflicting nasty damage to another.

Apparently the rise in some types of acid attacks was as a direct result of tougher sentencing for possession of knives / knife crime. Kind of horrible and ironic.

But knife crime has risen too?

technical answer: no you are never allowed to assault as retaliation. Provocation is only a defence to murder but if it succeeds it results in a manslaughter verdict not an acquittal. You can use reasonable force to defend yourself from an honestly perceived threat of attack and you can use reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest.

practical answer: I have certainly achieved an acquittal from a jury for a "decent bloke" who had to chase a scrote down a street and catch him in order to defend himself from him.

"I really feel for the victims knowing that the "law" is lagging miles behind treating these attacks as GBH."

??? an acid attack is GBH with intent it carries life imprisonment section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act. The guideline would suggest between 9 and 16 years after a trial. It is reporters and MPs knowledge that is lacking not the Law lagging.

Go away with your facts and experiences we don't have time for that here.

crankboy - Member

technical answer: no you are never allowed to assault as retaliation. Provocation is only a defence to murder but if it succeeds it results in a manslaughter verdict not an acquittal.

So provocation is a defence in murder but not in any other scenario?

You can use reasonable force to defend yourself from an honestly perceived threat of attack and you can use reasonable force to effect a lawful arrest.

Would the reasonable force a private citizen can use to defend oneself honestly, or to effect a citizens arrest be roughly similar to the amount of force a police officer could use in the same situations?

If I was on a jury in a case where somebody beat seven shades of shit out of somebody for throwing acid in their face, I wouldn't want to convict them of anything. I think in all likelihood they would be in way too much pain to do anything. If they still had the wherewithal to fight back, I'd say limb breakage would be a fair response to having your face ****ing melted off.

It may not be obvious from the above, but I'm not a solicitor or a police officer

Acid Attack - Would you be allowed to retaliate

If you know you will be a living dead with your face/head melted ... the entire world owe you. Your suffering will be so immense living is a torture if you no longer have a face. Sort the law.

The person who attack you is no long entitle to a life, his/her life belongs to you so do as you wish.

Even hang, drawn and quartered are more humane than face melting.

Jimjam the answer to both your questions is yes.

Are there any established guidelines or maps for such events?