hypothetical Uk 'resonable force' question

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by dragon_bunny, Nov 28, 2004.

  1. dragon_bunny

    dragon_bunny Valued Member

    no idea if that title makes sense but never mind :)

    the questions is (to those people in the know)
    if a woman was attacked by a threatening guy would she be able to do more damage to him than a male victim? :confused:

    was just wondering as a guy might just think the man was trying to mug him/ looking for a fight where as a woman may be more worried that he'd rape her.

    now i know i'd be more aggressive over my body than a wallet but i was just wondering if reasonable force is roughly the same for everyone eg it'd be ok to KO him but not break anything if your a man or a woman.

    just a thought :)
     
  2. YODA

    YODA The Woofing Admin Supporter

    Officially -No.

    Practically - almost certainly IMO.
     
  3. GojuKJoe

    GojuKJoe Valued Member

    i think that if a man attacks a woman like that, she should be allowed to do whatever it takes to stop him.
     
  4. Visage

    Visage Banned Banned

    In the eyes of the law, the female gender is weaker than the male (this is not me saying this, its the way that the law views the subject), so therefore, in terms of "reasonable force", women are able to "get away" with much more than a man would.
    One thing to remember (i was told this by my Tai Chi instructor, [he supposedly signed up today]) is that if you cant reasonably justify what you did to an attacker in one sentence in court, then you've had it.
     
  5. reikislapper

    reikislapper see you on the flypaper

    To be honest with you, and this is a personal view so please don't all jump at once lol.
    OK! We are usually known as the weaker sex but it's only through mens eyes and not through ours (sorry guys). If you are a MA then you get treated the same as any bloke who's been arrested for going beyond "reasonable force" and it's got nothing to do with gender. If and when I get into the position of being attacked then I would just use what I've learnt and worry about "reasonable force" if I got arrested. If in court then I would have to be honest and tell the truth and hope that they would see sense and give a not guilty verdict.
    I also know the tai chi instructor and he'll say something I suppose about this one lol.
    lisa xx
     
  6. Ghost Frog

    Ghost Frog New Member

    Very true. What you say in your statement after the event is all important. If you say, "he said he was going to rape me", then you can justify a lot. If you say "he looked at me wrong", then you can't.
     
  7. oldshadow

    oldshadow Valued Member

    I can’t tell you about the UK and it’s laws but the basic for the US is. A smaller weaker person gets more lead way for force used. Being that most females are smaller and have less upper body strength then most men they get the benefit on how much force they can use. You can find cases where a female has shot and killed an unarmed male attacker through a door. The male attacker was trying to kick the door in. When the door started to give she shot through the door and killed him. I would think it would be hard to come up with excessive force on a male attacking a female unless he was down and she just keep at him. I wonder (other then the use of a firearm) how much different the UK law sees it then the US, as a lot of US law is based on UK laws.
     
  8. jokerlaughsatu

    jokerlaughsatu New Member

    I know in the Us you would have to be able to prove he was going to rape you.
     
  9. oldshadow

    oldshadow Valued Member


    This depends on where you live. As it is not the case where I am.

    I personally know of two cases where someone shot and killed a unarmed attacker. The first one a couple was sleeping. They had had break-ins before so they had purchased a shotgun. They woke up when they heard someone in their house. The man got up and got the shotgun. He confronted the intruder telling him he had a gun and to get out of his house. The intruder said ____ him and he would take the gun and put it where the “sun don’t shine” then stepped toward the homeowner. The owner fired one shot at close range killing the intruder. No charges were filed as it was considered SD.

    The other one was a older female who sold a TV to a guy who came back to her saying the TV stopped working and he wanted his money back. The female said it was sold as is and he knew it, so no money back. They got into a heated argument and he theatened her. This was all taken place on the porch. She retreated into the house he followed her threatening her. She got to a handgun she had and pointed it at him. He keeps coming. She dumped the clip into his chest ( she probably need to shoot him that many time as it was a 25 cal). No charges were filed as it was considered SD .

    In both cases the people feared for their life or great bodily harm. How does this compare with things in the UK. You can remove the gun and insert a cricket bat. I have seen one and it would make a very fine weapon.
     
  10. Mike Flanagan

    Mike Flanagan Valued Member

    Obviously there would be complications regarding the use of a firearm. However, the principle is essentially the same. Lets say you're in your own home and you awake to find a burglar. You pick up a weapon of convenience. You tell them to back off, but they come at you. You strike them and kill them. You could well get away with it, depending on the circumstances. A woman could rightly argue that the stronger, male attacker was about to take the weapon away from. She might reasonably fear that she was about to be raped and murdered. It would therefore be reasonable to use lethal force in self-defence. It all boils down to that word 'reasonable', and that is dependent on the particular circumstances. If you can convince the jury that you're actions were reasonable, given the circumstances, then you'll get off. Obviously hitting the attacker 10 times in the head as he lay unconscious would not be reasonable, but one or two well placed blows as he attacked sounds a lot more reasonable.

    I'd say that its better to do what you have to do to ensure your survival, then let the lawyers argue the pros and cons of it in court.

    Mike
     
  11. oldshadow

    oldshadow Valued Member

    Other then choice of weapon it sounds like the laws are very much alike.
     
  12. Dr NinjaBellydance

    Dr NinjaBellydance What is your pleasure sir

    I'm confused... surely if you have a firearm it would negate any possible leeway in terms of being 'smaller and weaker'? You got a gun, you are no longer under any disadvantage.:confused:
     
  13. Visage

    Visage Banned Banned

    Again, it all comes down to how the law see's the situation. A woman might be more likely to get away with shooting a man in self defence because (in the laws eyes) she is the weaker sex, and so it takes more extreme measures for her to protect herself against an aggressor of the so called stronger sex.
     
  14. Sgt_Major

    Sgt_Major Ex Global Mod Supporter

    In Uk, the weapon needs to be one of convenience, a bat beside the bed does not count, it shows some form of intent, but if you had played golf, and had left your clubs layin around, and you grabbed one in the heat of the moment, then you can explain that as instinct....you get the idea....
     
  15. Ghost Frog

    Ghost Frog New Member

    In the UK, a verbal threat of extreme violence can justify a preemptive strike. Hence, if someone tells you he's going to kill you, it is treated as a precursor to an assault. You don't have to wait until he puts a cheesewire round your throat. Unless he's a 12 year old child, that is.
     
  16. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    As Hannibal has often said, "You get into trouble by what you say, not what you do". If you leveled a firearm (or other weapon) at an assailent, who then realised the threat and backed off, using the weapon would not be SD IMO. If they continued regardless of the obvious threat, then they still regard you at a disadvantage, so using the weapon might be SD.

    As a additional thought, I read a case similar to this. A had seen B use a knife to slash his tyres, so picked up a hammer to challenge B with. In the confrontation B stabbed A with the knife and sucessfully argued SD.

    This is an interesting point. I believe in the UK the age of criminal responsibility is 12. Certainly with a rise in knives being taken into schools this might be another thing to consider. If you were unable to argue SD, you could well end up with serious assault charges, which could also mean you would be put on a child protection regisiter. The implications of this are quite obvious. Does anyone know about how the law might consider this particular angle?
     

Share This Page