Sorry- I was still thinking about Simon's thread; http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122461 I decided to include my spouse as a chat over dinner. She normally does not discuss martial arts, but she does, discuss violence, defense, especially when something comes on television or up for rhetorical discussion After speaking with her on it, she decided to take a look/read on the thread. In her view, she stated that she would have anonymously phoned the police away from the view of the group while remaining inside the sanctuary of the business That said, she remembered and reminded me of two (out of many) situations that she witnessed when we were together out for a social evening The first one, was when a group of males, started exchanging threatening words to each other and it was starting physical. She was concerned and suggested that I "do something". But for me to do it without confrontation. From memory, I made a somewhat statement to her was it was best to not get involved. But she is one not liking to see such a display I remembered that it took some short moments to gather my thoughts to find a solution. I went outside pretending I was going to my car, when I yelled; "Hey-stop, someone inside (pointed at a whole different business) called the police." After a few other short verbal exchanges amongst each other, they dispersed The second one (per our conversation), we were at a cafe when a guy and his girlfriend started to argue-loud and heavy. My wife kept nudging my leg under the table. The guy stood up, grabbed the girl and pushed her into a nearby wall and pulled back his fist. My wife stood up much faster than I, and that was my cue to intervene. From a distance, I told the guy it was none of my business what they were arguing about, but I am not going to sit there and allow him to hit her. I told him to cool down. Realizing he was making a spectacle, he left without her. My wife, decided to talk to the girl, per "girl talk" After a few minutes, the guy returned and they were off. We spotted them much later in a shopping mall giggling. As I passed, the guy gave me a stern frown as the girl gave my wife a smile I don't know if self defense is the prevention/action of a situation for oneself or helping someone out of a situation. Wouldn't that make the "self" in self defense a misnomer or the situation a conundrum?
Interesting topic there. Firstly fair play to the creative thinking you showed in your first story. In response to your question I think it can still be self defence if your acting to help another person. As long as you act in a way designed to keep your self safe (and help increase the safety of the 3rd party) and not run in swinging punches then you have still used the same self defence principles. That's only my interpretation of self defence and how it relates to the question you posed. It might make use of the word 'self' slightly inaccurate but I can't think of a better term to use.
That's keeping your head The last time I stuck my nose in someone else's altercation, 2 men and one woman - all three of 'em ****ed, all of them gave me one of the worst hidings I've ever had. I think the girl, the "victim", was more upset at me getting involved than anyone else. I suppose it depends on the circumstances and location. Cafe's tend to mellow people out. Or maybe the more laid-back tend to frequent those kinds of places.
In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service defines self defence as follows: I think it's therefore perfectly acceptable to say you were using self defence, even if not directly defending yourself.
This is risky for me with the ridiculous threat of me being labelled a troll ,but I have to say it as I see and it is right there in the law..... First the full title that these laws are written under is Self defence and the prevention of crime. Second it clearly separates the sections by which you are allowed to use reasonable force. Self defence Defence of another Prevention of crime Lawfull arrest This kind of situation would come under defence of another or prevention of crime going by these laws. That's the initial reason for getting involved. I don't know if ,after it kicked off, a lawyer would then change it to self defence , as I am not a lawyer. But common sense suggests that if that was the case there would be no seperate sections and it would all just be Self defence. As it is, it is called self defence and the prevention of crime and it clearly separates self defence from defence of another. So I can logically say that choosing to get involved in a situation is a choice decided by a person and so not self defence. That is my personal view that's debatable. But the law also does not call it self defence but defence of another or prevention of crime. So if I'm a troll my grandmas a MacDonald coffee.
Personally getting involved when an innocent person is getting injured or worse is a form of self defence because it would help prevent the mental harm and anguish I'd feel if I didn't.
Interesting posts, but at what point does intervention becomes "self" defense? The first scenario or the second? Wouldn't it be more acceptable (per moral and in the legal view) to intervene, per actual confrontation in the second scenario whereas the first, using a scare tactic. After all, could the first actually be a "self" defense, and for whom? Without knowing the details of the first, who is to state who needed the actual defense. As for the "prevention of crime", wouldn't this be more of a classification of citizenship and not "self" defense? As for reasonable force to prevent a crime, that would depend on the situation, but a initiated action to "prevent crime", is it really "self" defense? Legal action (esp in the US) can be brought upon someone "preventing a crime" from a would-be criminal with a good attorney. Which comes down to the actual criminal activity or situation. Was the physical prevention for the protection of a person and how can it be proven unless physical action takes place (along with verifiable witness) Then after all of the legal has cleared, what is to prevent the accused or their friends and family to seek out retaliation? I have witnessed, been involved in many intervention-type confrontations. heck, even a fight in our youth, between my brother and I was intervened and those that had, my brother and I ganged up on them. We all went to court and we testified it was a disagreement among relatives and the judge through it out. Some time afterwards, the others whom we fought, came after my brother and I. (Along with destroying property in stealth) Provided you can tell who is innocent in the first scenario Reflecting on Simon's scenario, he pretended he was on the phone with someone else. He did not have to even do this if he had stayed inside.
That's a good point. The problem with terminology is how and where it is used. As an example there was no statute law here that actually used the term 'self defence' until 2008. Before then the statute was the CLA of 1967, the HRA of 1998 and how these were applied came down to Common Law. The CPS have used that title to make it clearer when you can use force because not everyone immediately thinks that preventing crime or aiding others is self defence. The Human Rights Act 1998 refers to the ability "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence; b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." The Criminal Law Act 1967 refers to the ability to use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” But what 'is' considered self defence by the courts is outlined in part 10 of Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which states: "(10) In this section— (a) “legitimate purpose” means— (i) the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or (ii) the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b); (b) references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and (c) references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used." I hope that makes it clearer than the CPS guidance. The law clearly states that references to self defence include acting in defence of another person.
Depends on if the law is in the particular "law books" of the State But, is it still "self" defense, or defense of another? And, as I stated, the legal system could turn if it is thought someone reacted on a situation that may have been avoided by some other method
Obviously laws will vary from country to country and in some countries from region to region. Here I was merely pointing out that the law stipulated that self defence also meant acting in defence of another person. If force was required to do so then the guidance in the same section (76) of the same law cited go through the criteria for it being considered reasonable. Under this same law you are judged on the circumstances not as they were but as you might reasonably have believed them to be, even if that belief was false, so long as you were not intoxicated.
Surely Crown vs Gerrad 2009 sets precedent for intoxication as defence for false belief? (scandalously so).
That's case judgement rather than statute, as such it can be dismissed. The 2008 Act simply indicates that intoxication may mean that a false belief will not be considered to be reasonably held. It does not mean that you cannot claim self defence or that a jury will not believe your claim. In Gerrard's case the jury believed that despite being 7/10 drunk he had acted in self defence.
I intervened a few times and was told to mind my own business by the victim. Today my attitude is unless the person is a minor, unable to ask, or calling for help I just keep on walking. My wife on the other hand will drag me into a strangers altercation on the drop of a hat. She jumps in for a female faster than you can crack your knuckles. I am then forced to intervene at that point to protect my wife, although she is probably a better fighter than I am ;( how do you think the law would react to that one?
The stand your ground law is in effect in Michigan. But I find nothing regards to defense of others by a private citizen. Still It becomes stand your ground IMO once my wife is involved wrong or right of her to step in.
I think to fully understand ,the difference between what the CPS is and what a criminal justice act is, needs to be known. That is not that simple. The CPS is the number one prosecuting authority. The criminal as justice act is a legislation. Also the other parts 1 to 9 need to be read and understood in relation to part 10, which is referencing things said in parts 1 to 9. I know if it was me ,I know would plead defence of another.
The CPS is the Criminal Prosecution Service. They look at initial statements and evidence and decide whether an incident merits prosecution. The material on their website is guidance to help people understand the law. Guidance is not the same as law. You can act within the letter of the law and still go to court because the CPS may be uncertain (according to their guidelines) that you did and as a result feel that a trial is necessary. The guidance is there (in theory) to make the law simpler for people to understand (and most people don't look up the law). In some instances in this country governmental department guidance can cause issues (http://www.nfps.info/_blog/NFPS_Blog/post/guidance-is-not-law/). The CPS guidance outlines how they will look at things before making a decision whether to prosecute or not, whether you are convicted of a crime or not depends on how your actions are judged against the letter of the law, not against the letter of departmental policy. Professor of Law Gary Slapper noted that the CPS had found in 2005, when they looked at prosecutions over the preceding 15 years, there had been over 20 million crimes that they had looked into with regard to the use of force, but during that time there had only been 11 cases where people had been prosecuted for excessive use of force in self defence. Knowledge of the law (more so than the guidance in my opinion) can not only help shape your actions (and any training you deliver in fields regarding the use of force such as self defence, breakaway, physical intervention, holding and restraint) in such a way that you stay within it, but also enable to describe your actions in such a way as to make undergoing the subsequent stress of a prosecution less likely. Here is Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in full (it has been given numerous times in this forum): Human Rights Act 1998 Criminal Law Act 1967 That is listed in law as one of the situations in which you can use reasonable force and is a viable claim, especially if phrased correctly. But be aware that acting in defence of another is also now classified as self defence under the 2008 legislation. As to justifying 'why' you might intervene, Section 76 comes into play. If it was your honest belief that had you not done so a serious injury might have occurred, and that belief was reasonably held, then you have acted within the letter of the law. An example of such an occasion might be when you think things are going to kick off and you don't think the police will be there in time to stop it.
