Yahwe Thread

[Nodrog]

Youre a legal type; could you clarify how the laws relating to self-defence in the UK currently stand? I was reading a thread on somethingawful about someone who got assaulted on a bus by a group of 12 year old girls, and was scared to fight back partly because of potential legal reprecussions. A lot of the British posters who replied made comments along the lines that 'self-defence in Britain is practically illegal', and while I'm aware this is a fairly common opinion, I'm not sure to what extent it's grounded on facts.

I dont really want a vague statement of the law in terms of 'reasonable force', I'm curious about what actually happens in practice. What about situations where a person isnt defending themself, but is intervening on behalf of someone else who is being hassled (this was another major topic of the thread)?



This is a "no shitty-Androme-posts" thread, possibly the only safe haven of its kind on GD.

[Structural Integrity]

What's with this "being assaulted by 12-yr old girls"-thing?
I don't get it; surely giving them a kick under their arse and telling them to piss off would do the job, no?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

What's with this "being assaulted by 12-yr old girls"-thing?
I don't get it; surely giving them a kick under their arse and telling them to piss off would do the job, no?

I dont know if GBS is open to the public but the thread is here:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=1522500

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Flavius

imagine 50 12-year old girls

attacking you!



/drool

[/dace]

You are a seriously shitty poster these days and you need to stop posting.

[lokken]

I'd say if he took reasonable steps to get away from them and alert the bus driver or enough force to make them **** off there would be little problem with that. It's if he overpowers them and kicks the living shit out of them where he goes over the top.

[Ste]

yeh we can read that thread.

EDIT I'm afraid reasonable force will probably be the answer. Use restraint rather than punching them.

EDIT2 I would have got up as soon as they started annoying me and complained to the driver and stayed standing downstairs for the rest of the journey. I don't like confrontations...

[Tomkat]

Surely 12 year olds have shorter legs.

He should have "done a tomkat" (that involves running away screaming like a girl) - because his legs were longer, we'd hope he could get away from them.





I'm sorry. I know I haven't contributed to this thread at all.

[Dante Hicks]

I find it difficult to believe that someone would genuinely be thinking about possible legal ramifications while they were in the process of being assaulted. Although having read the link I can kind of empathise and it makes more sense.

On other people's failure to act I don't think you can really blame the law for all / most of the problem. People fail to act on anothers behalf partially because they're afraid and partially because they're alienated from each other. It's getting to the point now where it's so rare that you speak to a stranger on the bus that it's actually noteworthy when it happens.

But without wishing to make my normal point, is this a surprise? You've had twenty years of solidarity breaking down and then people are surprised when no-one gives a shit about each other? I don't really see how not caring about someone being beaten on the bus is that much different from a "I don't care if the poor starve" type attitude. Solidarity isn't just about supporting trade unions or economic equality it is about actively looking out for other people.

Also though, and just so this has all the hallmarks of a clichéd Dante post, I'd like to take this opportunity to blame over-reliance on the state. Dependency culture isn't just for people on council estates...

On topic : There is a problem in that the law in a lot of areas only acts as a restraint on (and punishes) people who would have acted reasonably anyway.

[roadrunner_0]

to be fair, having been in a very similar place on a bus before, i would have slapped one of the girls, it would have shocked her, then when her friends attacked me, i could have slapped them all out and got away with it. and yes, i have done similar in the past

[s|k]

I would forcibly make my way off the bus. Whatever it took, without leaving marks. If you make a reasonable effort to avoid violence, I think legally you're okay if you end up bruising a couple.

[Yahwe]

i don't understand what you want me to say.

I don't understand why there is so much public excitement.

its all common sense. the law hasn't changed in years. just do whaqtever you think is reasonable for god's sake

stop whining about it like retarded children.

if someone punches you and you think he's going to do it again, feel free to punch him, hit him with whatever artcle comes to hand if you think that's necessary.

you can use reasonable force in defence of yourself or another or your own property.

REASONABLE IS NOT A LEGAL QUESTION. IF SOCIETY HAS DECAYED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU PEOPLE HONESTLY HAVE NO ****ING CLUE WHAT REASONABLE FORCE IS THEN THERE'S STILL NO NEED TO WORRY, YOU'RE ALL SO OBVIOUSLY SPASTIC THAT YOU'LL KILL YOURSELVES OFF IN A FEW YEARS AND I CAN LIVE IN PEACE

[lokken]

Tony Martin has ****ed up people's perception of self-defence big time IMO when it's actually quite simple.

[Nusselt]

Im assuming that once they'd hit me id be allowed to hit them back/restrain them, id probably ask the driver to stop the bus and throw them out, before that happened if they were just verbally abusing me i assume id only be allowed to shout back at them (though would that be escalation?).

Dante i don't agree entirely that this is a 'new' social phenomenon, loud lowlifes have always been a problem, infact i remember my dad telling me stories about what used to happen when he was younger. I think its nostalgic (to an extent) to look back and think times were better. The present problem is the public not knowing to what extent they can/cannot intervene.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

[b]REASONABLE IS NOT A LEGAL QUESTION. IF SOCIETY HAS DECAYED TO THE POINT WHERE YOU PEOPLE HONESTLY HAVE NO ****ING CLUE WHAT REASONABLE FORCE.

Most people have a solid idea in their head as to what is "reasonable force". And it's pretty consistent (or at least seems to be within an individual social group - I'm not sure how much it varies among different classes of ethnicities or whatever*). The problem is that people aren't sure whether their notion of "reasonable" will be shared by the legal system.

This is not necessarily their fault as such but is symptomatic that knowledge of the law in this country is utterly disgraceful. At school I spent what seemed like hundreds of hours studying the Tudors but I really didn't leave school knowing what exactly was illegal, or how our legal system really worked. The only time I remember the law being discussed explicitly was in a debate about abortion and in lessons on drugs (a policeman came into the class to tell us we'd be bum raped in prison if we took drugs). But in my GCSEs, A-Levels (which included 'Government and Politics') and even in my degree I learnt next to nothing about the law.

Where the law is covered in the press it's almost always from a simplistic "Judge lets out paedophile to molest our kids" , 'Lawyers make billion quid off legal aid' or 'There's a law against wearing blue shoes" type angles. It's only from having to work with the law in my job and from outside reading that I realised that a lot of the time it pretty much is only the judges etc that keep the government from sliding even more into stupidity.

* = On an anecdotal basis I'd say people from poorer backgrounds or more traditional cultures tend to support 'more' force than those from middle class backgrounds. Growing up I don't think I knew a single person who would have thought killing a burgular was 'unreasonable'. My girlfriend (who is from an Oxbridge educated family) finds the notion utterly unthinkable.

[Yahwe]

whether force used was reasonable is a question left to the jury.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Dante i don't agree entirely that this is a 'new' social phenomenon, loud lowlifes have always been a problem, infact i remember my dad telling me stories about what used to happen when he was younger. I think its nostalgic (to an extent) to look back and think times were better.

Maybe. I agree there were always "gangs" and to an extent they got up to exactly the same sorts of things that kids get up to today. And in many ways things were much worse because poverty generally was worse so you had more people who were hanging around bored and such.

But from hearing people talk, I think there were some key differences.

- One was that there was simply less legal protection for kids. This was undoubtedly a bad thing but it meant that things happened then that simply don't happen now (or at least not in the same way). One of the people at my work was saying when he was a kid him and his friends would mess around, get into trouble, tresspass, steal from farms (he lived on the periphery of London) and that kind of thing. He said that on at least two ocassions a farmer would chase after them and fire a shotgun at them (it was probably more of a warning shot but still). Could this happen today, in a major city without some sort of legal action being taken?

- Two is that I do think there washas been an increase in the amount of what I'll term 'alienation' within our society. I'll try to keep this non-Marxist so think about your parents and grandparents generation. They almost certainly had larger families (or families who lived together) than today (on average). This means that they had more cousins, brothers, friends of brothers, etc that they knew.

People were more likely to stay in one area for a longer time than today so people did just end up knowing a lot more people in their neighbourhood than people do today. What effect might that have? I love living in London as I've said n times before, but most of the time it does feel like a city of strangers. I'm a hell of a lot less likely to intervene if I see a stranger getting mugged than I am a friend, or even a friend of a friend.

You're right, it's easy to be nostalgic about the past which for the most part was utterly appalling. But I don't think the converse is helpful either, where we just presume the past was exactly the same as today. I did part of my Undergrad degree on the history of the East End. To give one small example, it was the done thing for people on a street to look out / visit an elderly person if that person lived by themselves. That kind of thing happens less and less nowdays. People either don't care, don't have time or think it's someone elses responsibility (often the state/NHS/whatever).

I think also there is probably a negative trend among people (especially white middle class people to generalise massively) towards passivitiy. I don't know what it is, perhaps it's because people do a lot less manual labour, or are just scared or because people know less people (see above).

There is a Michael Moore quip about how September 11th wouldn't have happened in the same way if the planes had been full of black people as they would have stood up for themselves. Obviously he's being an idiot but you can kind of see what he's getting at. I remember at my work someone from West Africa (I forget where exactly) telling a story about how a girl had been robbed (or something) on a train and the passengers had got together, searched the train, found the guy and beaten the shit out of him. Now, undoubtedly their actions were hasty and probably wrong (they probably picked the wrong guy anyway) but I couldn't help thinking that if a girl came into a carriage on a London train saying she had been robbed most people would stare out the window and try desperately to ignore the whole thing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by big_horn

because i'd feel embaressed/ashamed of hitting young girls...... it's not a very nice experience

Yeah I was going to say this earlier. Most people I know who would "have a go" (or even just stand up for themselves) generally are the people who have a "never hit a girl" type philosophy. I personally think it's a stupid rule to have but I would certainly be less likely to tell people the story if I had to punch a girl in the face, even if she had put a cigarette out on my hand.

[JonnyBGood]

Apparently the ideal community size is like 110 people (obviously this is subject to variation due to the individuals composing that community but the general idea that as you scale off towards the millions it becomes increasingly difficult to form a non-fragmented community is fairly clear).

PS big_horn is your point that tv did change their lives or didn't? I really don't follow what you're saying that well.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

...over-reliance on the state.

I thought you were a Communist? I assume that I am being laughably naive, but I remain curious.

[JonnyBGood]

He remains a filthy red.


And I don't mean filthy in the sense of morally disgusting I mean he literally doesn't shower as often as he should.

[Dace]

He doesn't shower, he bathes once a week (the length of time it takes the bird bath to refill with rain water)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I thought you were a Communist? I assume that I am being laughably naive, but I remain curious.

I am a Communist yes.

[Dante Hicks]

Anyone who thinks TV alone can over-ride social behaviour patterns / structures in a short space of time is a loon. In fact, I suspect the whole experiment was a bit of a strawman.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by lokken

Tony Martin has ****ed up people's perception of self-defence big time IMO when it's actually quite simple.

I think most people realise that shooting someone in the back as they run away is neither self defence nor reasonable force.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I think most people realise that shooting someone in the back as they run away is neither self defence nor reasonable force.

I was referring to the mass media hysteria which went OMG what do we do more than the minority people with their heads screwed on.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I think most people realise that shooting someone in the back as they run away is neither self defence nor reasonable force.

Why?

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Stew

Why?

because someone running away doesn't present an immediate threat to you anymore, shooting and killing someone who doesn't present a threat isn't done.

[Stew]

They could be running away to get weapons to kill you first.
I think it's reasonable to be allowed to shoot someone who has burgaled my property.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I think most people realise that shooting someone in the back as they run away is neither self defence nor reasonable force.

He was left with little choice; how could he be expected to shoot him in the front?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by big_horn

maybe shoot him in the foot, or calf at least.... give the poor bugger a chance, maybe they were starving

They were little bastards who deserved to suffer, shooting one of them in the back was wrong though.

As for your other point, it's also a little hard to be specific about where you shoot someone with a shotgun.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Stew

They could be running away to get weapons to kill you first.

I think even if the courts used the balance of probabilities as their standard of evidence you'd struggle to get anywhere with that one.

I think it's reasonable to be allowed to shoot someone who has burgaled my property.

I think it's reasonable to shoot homophobic people, fortunately for our country the majority disagrees with us.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I think even if the courts used the balance of probabilities as their standard of evidence you'd struggle to get anywhere with that one.

on the request of the other lawyers on the forum i have been chosen to ask

"what are you on about?"

and

"do you know any law at all"

these two questions were whittled down from the many thousands of 'what the ****' reactions to your non sensical babble.

please respond,

kindest regards,

yahwe

PS lezzers are just wrong

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

on the request of the other lawyers on the forum i have been chosen to ask

"what are you on about?"

If, as a lawyer, you are unfamiliar with the concept of differing standards of evidence for civil and criminal cases then you really should go back to school. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials and "preponderance of the evidence" (also known as "balance of probabilities") is the standard for civil cases.

and

"do you know any law at all"

Only as much as I need to make you look foolish whenever you try this my dear.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

If, as a lawyer, you are unfamiliar with the concept of differing standards of evidence for civil and criminal cases then you really should go back to school. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials and "preponderance of the evidence" (also known as "balance of probabilities") is the standard for civil cases.

see this is why you go wrong.

knowing a little.

very dangerous.

i know how to use a fish knife but i don't use it to eat soup.

you posted your grain of knowledge in relation to whether shooting someone in the back was self defence.

the fact that he shot him in the back (the fish course if you follow) was not in dispute (nor could it have been)

the question was whether that was self defence (the soup)

do you see why you made a mistake?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

see this is why you go wrong.

knowing a little.

very dangerous.

i know how to use a fish knife but i don't use it to eat soup.

you posted your grain of knowledge in relation to whether shooting someone in the back was self defence.

No I didn't, I said shooting someone in the back because they might be running away to get weapons to come back was unlikely to hold much sway with a jury/court.

the fact that he shot him in the back (the fish course if you follow) was not in dispute (nor could it have been)

the question was whether that was self defence (the soup)

And the jury decided 10-2 that it wasn't, that has nothing to do with my point though.

[Yahwe]

i got some of the soup in my mouth, well, a little, i tasted it.

this is like your weight problem gayle honey

you can't see it.

others can

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

And the jury decided 10-2 that it wasn't, that has nothing to do with my point though.

What is your point, exactly?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by lokken

What is your point, exactly?

tricky. tricky

i was starting her on basic things, things she could understand, like food

let's not plunge in head first.

give her time to read man. she'll cotton on

[lokken]

ok, it's like riding a bike i suppose.

[MAdnRisKy]

Yawhe now is not the time or place to inflict your bitterness on someone in the name of "trolling"

Go back to your fields of lonely dasies and quaint "gates".

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by lokken

ok, it's like riding a bike i suppose.

something you'd know a lot about, having ridden a lot of bikes in your time....

[lokken]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

something you'd know a lot about, having ridden a lot of bikes in your time....

I started off with a white Raleigh Bumper, had 2 different sized orange/black raleigh mustangs, I currently have a Raleigh North Cape with 18 gears, and I have to say it's done me proud.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by lokken

I started off with a white Raleigh Bumper, had 2 different sized orange/black raleigh mustangs, I currently have a Raleigh North Cape with 18 gears, and I have to say it's done me proud.

do you lend it out lots?

[JonnyBGood]

Almost as much as his fat mother am I right?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

I think most people realise that shooting someone in the back as they run away is [not] reasonable force.

Are there any rigourously conducted opinion polls which prove this statement? Don't get me wrong, you are probably correct but I think it can be dangerous to assume what "most people" think when referring to such a diverse population. You can of course reflect on what most people you've met or encountered think of course but that is different.

[Radical Edward]

pick one up and use them as a weapon against the others. seen it done, rather funny. this

often the trick lies in what one says more than what one did - always attempt to talk your way out of a fight first (unless you are just mugged) or try to get out of the fight without fighting (run away if possible). Once it is clear that one is not in it to beat the crap out of someome, it becomes less problematic.

If it does come to a fight, fighting against groups is often easier to "get away with" than fighting with a single person, because one has a better justification for incapacitating one person (since another person may be a threat and it is rather difficult to fight against multiple people) and so serious injury is more forgivable. I recall Ray Park (the guy who played Darth Maul in SW ep1) and his girlfriend were attacked buy ten guys with knives bricks and bottles (he has a 6 inch scar by his jugular to show for it). He tried to talk himself out of the situation but they atacked him anyway - he snapped arms and put people in hospital for quite some time, and when charges were brought against him he won by virtue of the fact that he had tried to talk a way out first, and then he was overwhelmed by numbers.

[Cooling]

Here is a fairly typical version of self defence as found in your average everyday Crimes Act (this is not the UK crimes act, however the wording will be fairly similar I would imagine)

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

Now you werent looking for a bald statement of the law, but it is interesting that the section allows for the defence of other persons.

Also as I read it, your interpretation of the circumstances will be the one the court will hold, but the force that you apply will be determined objectivly, using somthing like the fiction of the "reasonable person".

If you look at the defence of other people, what would happen if you attempted to prevent staff from entering into an abortion clinic without the use of force (lets say you just block the doorway). The clinic might like to bring you up on charges of Tresspass , so could you argue that you were acting in the defence of another?

[Yahwe]

no

[Cooling]

obviously

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Stew

They could be running away to get weapons to kill you first.
I think it's reasonable to be allowed to shoot someone who has burgaled my property.

I think that reasonable force does not include this. In the end, the question arises "Why do you have a gun?". A gun is a lethal weapon, by having one available to you in the home, you are showing an intent to use it, and I believe the law takes a grim view on this. In the US where guns are common, this may be different, but in the UK, I think having/using a lethal weapon tends to imply some level of intent beyond reasonable force.