[Closed] legal question around assault

I've been amused by how many posts following the CPS links have directly contradicted them.

I'm with Graham Chapman on this stuff, run away!

+1 for running away.
If you can and do paste him he could always retaliate at a time when you least expect it or brick your window or some other vindictive act. If you run away he will feel like he has won, no-one gets hurt and everyone's happy, well err mostly.

+1 on the CPS links 8)

but also to echo points around trying to evade conflicts like this, the US military ethos is correct (coming from that background as well), avoid where possible. However as we do not know the exact circumstances around the altercation it is all too easy for the righteous STW massive to jump in. If you are cornered, evading is not going to work, therefore a pre-emptive strike (within reason) is why the law exists. contrary to popular belief the UK Law system is actually fairly well thought out in that manner..

Also, for those who did martial arts as kiddies had it drilled in, that whilst our skills would help us out, always avoid conflict where necessary

Also, for those who did martial arts as kiddies had it drilled in, that whilst our skills would help us out, always avoid conflict where nessasary

Ahh so you're on jury-service OP...

if the OP is on jury service (i bloody hope not) - he'd be in rather large doo doo's

As for quoting the US Military. They seem more intent on blatting anything that moves especially their allies to bother wasting time worrying about conflict avoidance....

If the OP is on Jury service I'd be a pissed off that he'd need to ask a forum the bloody obvious.

Ahh so you're on jury-service OP...

[i]If the OP is on Jury service I'd be a pissed off that he'd need to ask a forum the bloody obvious. [/i]

It's not the Huhne retrial still is it?

eek...if you are on jury service, you're probably going to jail if they find out about this thread!

I recommend soap on a rope.. You won't drop that in the showers...

Not jury service. Sorry to disappoint! I have thoroughly enjoyed patriotpro's suppositions though. Genuinely laughed out loud.

OP is a magistrate.

Aye- shoving someone away- putting an arm out not attack.

Foolish. That's the best way to get yourself injured - you either don't defend yourself or you make sure the person can't harm you. That either means restraining them or if you are unable to, hitting them till they back off or are unable to get back up.

You can kill someone and it can still be deemed reaosnable force depending on the situation.

An old friend of mine got 18months when he did that to a Burglar. Mind you he did give him a kicking at the bottom of the stairs too.

On the other hand my brothers defence for hospitalizing five rugby players (self defence) worked, despite the fact that the fight moved all the way across town.

I don't thimk it's fair that you can be judged as to what is deemed acceptable in defending your own home, when you decide you need to fight you have to turn off a switch in your head and in the heat of fear mixed with aggression anything can happen. Burglars should expect that.

OP is Lionel Hutz.
RM.

Common sense.

A is in the wrong since he started intimidating/threatening B.

A deserves all that he gets.

A is a loud mouth smack daddy.
B is a STW'er. Hard as nails offline

To quote US military doctrine -
"De-escalation, deterence and avoidance should be your top three priorities for survival."
"Always move away from your enemy wherever possible - distance is your freind."

So far, in spite of the enjoyable discussion around the whole thing, the CPS links have proven the most helpful. Thanks.

During the riots the cops came to my shop with a rules of engagement leaflet. We didn't have to wait to be attacked before defending ourselves merely to feel threatened.
Not sure if that ties in with this situation.

During the riots the cops came to my shop with a rules of engagement leaflet. We didn't have to wait to be attacked before defending ourselves merely to feel threatened.

This made me lol - "rules of engagement" hahah...since when did the police like people taking the law into their own hands? Reminds me of a time my housemates chased some lads off the porche and up the street with a bat, the police turned up and I kid you not said "Looks like you did our job for us, do you mind if we get going?".

I thought they were going to be arrested tbh and I wouldn't count on that happening again.

porche

Porsche ?
Porch ?

😉

I know of someone this happened to, he headbutted the aggressor, he duly got done for assult, due to the Headbutt, Judge/Magistrate said something along the lines of, if he had used Queensbury Rules, i.e. Fists then his defence would have stood a chance, but a Headbutt was too aggressive.

Seen this twice when in the TAs. The headbutt is considered something of a trait and not a natural reaction. I witnessed one myself and it was very clear that B was just waiting for enough 'ammunition' to respond in such a way. Nothing happened in either case.
Edit, though all were up on a charge.

I saw some of the leaflets which zippykona referred to and they were woefully written and even more poorly understood imvho.

Thx1138 self defense is less a legal minefield and more a factual one

The problem with this though, is that it can often be quite difficult to establish what the facts are. If you take the scenario the OP describes, we have very little information as to what actually happened. What was the situation/history that led to the incident, what was said exactly, physical characteristics of both parties, previous convictions etc. If you imagine that scenario with no witnesses, no cctv etc, then what you have is someone who's been headbutted, and someone admitting to doing so. Very possible the police would see the actual admitted 'assault' as the greater crime than the alleged 'threat'.

So each incident would have to be carefully examined on it's own merits, and all factors taken into account, and then it's often down to the interpretation of the courts. Seldom very simple.

I don't think it's fair that you can be judged as to what is deemed acceptable in defending your own home, when you decide you need to fight you have to turn off a switch in your head and in the heat of fear mixed with aggression anything can happen. Burglars should expect that.

As much as it may be exciting to fantasise about what macho things you'd do if faced with an intruder, as a result of recent knee-jerk legislation regarding reasonable force in home invasion, burglars will inevitably go armed if they fear a greater threat. Human instinct. And then begins the arms race. And eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

Is A or B Steven Gerrard?! Whichever he is will get off scot-free!

As much as it may be exciting to fantasise about what macho things you'd do if faced with an intruder, as a result of recent knee-jerk legislation regarding reasonable force in home invasion, burglars will inevitably go armed if they fear a greater threat. Human instinct. And then begins the arms race. And eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

Have you ever been in a position whereby you've felt that a family member is being threatened?

I'm guessing no - if burglars start arming themselves with firearms then it's the job of the police to crack down on the illegal arms trade. It is not fair that the fearful actions of people in their own home should be questioned (except in extreme clar cut cases, like shooting people in the back with an illegally held shotgun).