The law states that reasonable force may be used to defend yourself if attacked. Can anyone define reasonable force and how it would apply to a martial arts person?

in my opinion reasonable force is enough force to put down an attacker but not to nececarily injure them for life. Just as long as there down, your up and can run away. For instance: My Karate sensai works part time as a bouncer at a night club and once had to send 3 people out who were causing a disurbance. At the end of his shift they were waiting for him in the car park with bottles and bats, when they attacked him 1 recieved a broken nose 1 a broken collar bone and 1 got 2 broken ribs. Naturally they all went down but weren't injured permanently I think this is a pefect example of reasonable force but not according to the law because he was done for Grevious bodily harm. But what annoys me is that he would not have recieved that sentence if he didn't do martial arts so that proves there is a lot of discrimination agianst martial artists. So my opinion is that it is resonable force for a normal person but not for a martial artist WHY?...

Exactly my point! He used reasonable force but the law goes against him....Why? If he was not trained then he may of been killed!

Better to be judged by 12 than carried away by 4!!!

Why is martial arts seen people outside of it as a weapon. In actual fact it is a sheild for us and those around us, so .......is some kind of education going to be useful here?

Here ia a true story...

Be careful of taking the staement . "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 4" literally

I have a closeness to an example of this that may make you decide to run every time a situation arrises.

A few years ago a college of mine (Mr X) wandered into pub with his girl friend and another couple (Mr & Mrs Y). The girls went to the bar and the guys went to the toilet. To get there they walked past the pool table which was occupied by 3 guys and a girl, all rather rowdy. The loudest of which Mr A had a distinct "Northeren" accent. As Mr X amd Mr Y approached Mr Y, in a jokingly Northeren twang requested to pass by. Mr A went mad swearing and screaming and threating violence on Mr Y. Mr X stepped in to calm the situation only to be set upon instead with Mr A lashing out towards him with an empty pint glass.

Mr X reacted instinctivly, blocking and counter attacking. A scuffle broke out and Mr X got away and thought best to leave. It turned out Mr A had suffered a broken and cut nose.

Mr A feeling sorry for him self having come off only slightly worse (Mr X had a black eye and bruising) decided to press charges and got the police involved. Mr X being well known in the area was informed that the police wanted a statement. Having nothing to hide he went to the police to explain how this was a pure self defence situation.

Mr A and his 3 witnesses could not give a description of Mr X so the police wanted an ID parade. They could not find enough men to make a line up so they put Mr X on the tube station at 4pm with the OAP's and school kids and still only 2 out of the 4 picked him out. (They were infact only 2 adult males to choose from). So off to court goes Mr X. Still pleading inocence, which meant crown court and a jury was the next step.

Mr A and co started to colaberate thier statements, they said Mr X had been in the pub for over an hour wondering around with an empty bottle threatening people, looking for a fight. They said he was getting angry because he wanted to use the pool table, and sat on a window ledge making "racist" remarks due to their Northern accents. Eventually to defend his honour Mr A approached Mr X to ask him to stop, at this point Mr X smashed the bottle and stabbed Mr A in the face with it.

Because of the not guilty plea by Mr X the charge got esculated from simple ABH to section 18 (One below attempted manslaughter). But still pleading not guilty and with the witnesses and facts all on his side, including the pub owner, the bar maid and door man who saw them arrive, the fact the window ledge is too small to sit on, the fact there was no broken glass or bottles in the area, Mr X feels confident that "the 12" will see that he is not guilty.

Youve probably guessed the ending, "the 12" for some reason did not see the facts the way every one else did. Why who knows? Maybe it was Mr A's wife crying, or they did'nt like the colour of Mr X's blazer or the fact that he had trained in martial arts, or they had fallen asleep and missed a whole section of the facts, who knows.

The conclusion, Mr X got put on remand for 2 months and asked to consider how much compensation he could pay Mr A.

After 2 months he was sent back to the judge, he offered £1000, his entire savings. The judge said thank you, but the minimum sentance for this offence is 4 years, yes thats right FOUR YEARS, so four years is what Mr X got.

The law is funny, when Mr X was in prison he met someone who punched a man at a football match, he fell to the ground hit his head and died, for that he recieved 3 years. So does that mean killing someone is less a sentance than self defence?

I cant explain it either, but let this be a warning "the 12" are not always a reliable end to a self defence situation.

If you do use this article could you please with hold my name and address to protect the ID of Mr X. Thank you very much.

Thanks for letting us share that story - it is shocking to hear the out come. It is very sad to know that the people involved that caused the fight can get away from it and that the witnesess in the pub did not want to help or get involved. This is true in most self-defence cases - however the facts are there and the man HAD to defend himself - its a mad mad world. Once again thanks for this information

I have been reading with interest your views on law & self defence, here is some info which you may be interested in.

THE LAW & SELF DEFENCE

THE FACTS

The law states that you may use reasonable force to defend yourself. However, what constitutes reasonable force and under what circumstances you may use it is open to discussion and may have to be decided by the courts.

PLEASE NOTE:
The following information is given on the basis of best advice and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it condone the use of force other than for self defence purposes


1. If attacked you have every right to use reasonable force to defend yourself against an unlawful attack.

2. You are equally entitled to use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful attack upon yourself, your family or your property.

3. Under the Criminal Act 1967 you can use reasonable force to prevent an unlawful attack upon anyone.

4. In court, the claim of self defence is proved if the defendant, genuinely believed they were being attacked, or where in imminent danger of attack and the responce was proportionate to the perceived threat.

5. If you are attacked, the courts will not expect you to calculate an exact amount of reasonable force.

6. If you perceive you are threatened, you are entitled to act in self defence and not be penalised by the courts - "...if the defendant makes a genuine mistake about the exsistence of a threat, they are entitled to rely on self defence as a defence even if no threat actually existed.....".

7. In law you do not have to wait for the first blow - ".... a defendant need not wait until they are struck before using force in their defence...." The court of appeal has ruled that, - "......a defendant is entitled to use self defence by striking their assailant before they are struck; and in exceptional circumstances, arm themselves against an expected imminent attack.

8. Although you are expected to show reasonable restraint, as a matter of law you are not obliged to retreat or show unwillingness to fight.

9. The law does not give a person 'carte blanche' to beat someone up ".... a defendants actions must be proportionate to the perceived threat...."

10. If the attack is a murderous one, then the defendant would be entitled to use extreme violence.

11. If a defendant is under attack and reaches for the first available object that comes to hand, the use of that object is likely to be deemed as reasonable.Everyday items such as pens, hairbrushes, rolled up magazines etc. can be used against an attacker.

12. You cannot by law carry anything that could be described as an offensive weapon.

I hope this helps clarify the law a bit!!I always advocate the use of the Pre-emptive strike, whether it is palatible to you or not just read point No.7. Can I just say that confrontations are life changing events and our ego's will sometimes lead us down a path of tragic events, so what I am trying to say is if you can just walk away, leave these animals in their own cesspit, you are a much better person with a better life, do not jump into their world as you may be unwittingly feeding their passion for violence. Stay safe

I profess to not know much about the law but think that the sooner we start to stand up for what is right the better.

I was once attacked by catweazel a local down and out after trying to loan him just ten pence. feeling that this was the right thing to do I immediately summonsed the local constabulary who arrived and did nothing more than persuade me to join the specials...what kind of servive do you call that...especially when i had already got my own neighbourhood watch in place for the last 6 months anyway

What I am trying to get you to hear me now is just to say that we must all try and do our best to speak with the right people when in difficulty and this will leave us freee from the chains that are reasonable force

Having listened to news reports about people being attacked, burgled, robbed, its about time the law and the sentences made sense. To put someone in jail for defending their home or family against an attacker is ridiculous. If someone breaks into my house I should be able to do what the hell I like to them, its not their house so why should they be treated with sympathy and be able to sue me if I hurt them. If my partner were raped you should be allowed to subject that person to the same level of abuse. Kill a member of my family and the consequence should be death!!! There are too many do gooders out there and its about time we stood up and made a statement - I'm fed up with our softly softly approach and society will get worse if we don't take a harder line. When people work hard and live properly it is unreasonable for others to just steal and take at their will and the law protect them, deal with the problem hard and quickly.

Have read the above posting with intrest.
Just recently I've been in contact with the Police regarding the Law & Self Protection. The
"helpful" WPC told me that you are not allowed to hit anyone with a pre-emptive strike. I asked her that if I was being threatened then that person has commited a crime(Common Assualt) therefore if I feared for my safety then I was allowed to hit first with a pre-emptive stike?
Her response, "don't hit them, come & phone us"
Must try that next time I'm about to have a bottle in my face.

If you think someones gonna give you a pasting (and we all know when something like that is gonna kick off) if u can,t calm down the aggressor my advice is, smack them first then ask questions later,as for the law why do coppers go around in pairs and carry batons!!!! (one to carry the dounuts and one to carry the coffee)

After reading all the interesting messages that have been sent by various people, I felt I should share some legal knowledge to clarify a few points.

NONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW ARE INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON.

1. I agree with the majority of points raised by Mickey with regard to the law and self defence. To elaborate slightly, it is acceptible to make a pre emptive stike, where you fear for your safety, and as Mickey said it is irrelevant as to whether or not the other person intended to attack you, so long as YOU had reasonable cause to believe that they would. (Point 6)

2. This is correct, but NOT if you have been drinking or taking drugs.

3. Approximately 65% of all crimes committed are by those under the influence of drink or drugs. Thus the law does not take kindly to people who have been drinking or taking drugs.

4. Therefore if you are for example in a bar with your girlfriend and you have had a few beers it is better to wait for an attack to come your way before you counter attack, or to run. From an Instructors point of view I would say hit first as I am sure most Instructors will agree. But from my legal perspective I would say run, as they could always argue they were an old friend for example (thus having no intent themselves), and that you hit them for no cause thus YOU having intent. Having had a few beers the judge would quite rightly (based on facts AS PRESENTED)direct the jury (if tried on indictment) to convict YOU under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

5. Thus to conclude on the above points you can defend yourself by causing a pre-emptive stike whether the person intended to attack you or not, so long as you felt fear which YOU would have to prove. If you have had some alcohol, you can only defend yourself under the same rules if YOU ARE being attacked. You take the risk on the pre emptive strike because if you can not prove the other persons intent (which is hard to do when they lie) YOU will be convicted. Thus run instead of fight.

6. In response to Lee Lawrences comment regarding his Sensei - a few points.

7. As per Mickey's statement you can use like force for like force, but consider where one participant is small and the other is large. If there is a fracas whereby the large person is hitting the smaller person with 'normal' force this will be common assault. But where the smaller person uses ALL his ability and stength to beat the larger opponent (as he would have to anyway) this is GBH as he intended to cause serious injury and didnt use like force for like force.

8. As for Lee's Sensei I have sympathy, but consider the legal position. A reasonable person (jury) would more than likely have run away. Although as Mickey pointed out you no longer have to show retreat, you are expected to retreat where it was possible to do so. The concept of retreat in case law changed somewhat whereby people who had no opportunity to retreat were deemed to have committed assault on a pre emptive strike. The law changed somewhat by allowing people to attack first where they no longer need to retreat AS THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Thus where your Sensei could have retreated he decided to get involved thus intent to fight. Where fighting more than one person, you fight almost the same as under the small person example I gave in point 7. Thus, you must intend to cause GBH to get one person on the floor or at least out of the way, so as for your to fight the other two, regardless of how less the injuries sustained were or how well trained you are.

9. Just another point to consider, what if the victim (the perceived attacker) dies. Obviously where one dies due to injuries cuased by another this is either murder or manslaughter, based upon intent. But consider where the victim chooses to die. In English Criminal Law the requirement to have committed either GBH or murder is the same "intent to cause serious injury", just that for murder the 'victim' needs to die. So where you intend to cause GBH and the victim dies say in hospital you are indicted for murder. But where say the victim is a Jehovah's Witness who refuses a blood transfusion due to religeous grounds and they die, you are STILL indicted for murder not merely GBH.

10. Although the point raised in no.9 above is drastic, it would seem the law prefers you to walk away. In the case of Lee's Sensei, it is clear he committed GBH as far as the LAW is concerned, but assuming one of them had lost some blood and refused anymore, or doctors had mis- administered drugs in hospital (we all know hospitals are extremely busy under the Labour Government) then the Sensei would still be tried for Homicide.