The legality and ethics of pre-emptive striking

Happy new year hannibal.

This might sound a bit odd, but I would like to understand. If the state does not kill people for violent crimes such as murder (Ie, the death penalty was abolished in 1965) why does the administration of the law which is overseen by the state, permit someone to commit murder in the name self defense?

 

In ENGLAND

Hi All,

I'm not a solicitor (Lawyer) but my understanding is...

You are not 'PERMITTED' to kill someone - BUT if you have a legal right to defend yourself then the law does NOT insist of you weighing your response to a nicety - SO if you were fighting an attacker and you hit him (trying to knock him out) and he died - then PROBABLY you will not be in breach of the law.

HOWEVER - each case will be looked at by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service on an individual basis - so - guess what - conflict carries risks!!!!

RUNNING - GOOD, FIGHTING - BAD.

Or if you prefer...

"A stranger is just a friend you haven't met yet"

Or if you prefer a quote from Abraham Lincoln...

"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

All the best.

Robert.

 

I'd never hit anyone if he didn't try to hit me first or "attack" my personal space while I'm backing away , thats the way i'm made. However I understand the pros and cons of my type of behaviour.

On the other hand sucker punching me is quite hard if I have visual view of the attacker. I'm always aware for signs of physical conformation and adjust the distance between myself and others accordingly.

 

Happy New Year to you too Pats!

"Murder" by definition is an illegal killing - i.e. unlawful. Killing another in self-defence is not illegal if the defender's action were necessary to preserve their own life or the death was an unfortunate consequence of their defensive actions.

The death penalty is retributive and pre-planned. Killing someone in self-defence is more spontaneous

does this help?

 

Thanks for the reply:

A couple of points - Where's the handbag come from? I did a bit of a type and left teh space out of "hand back" so that maybe causing confusion ! No theft/robbery motivation here I'm afraid

Second, the approach does not constitute a sexual assault in the law becuase the action towards the individual is not sexual in nature, it is aggressive.

Thirdly, you have no power to arrest as a citizen for D&D!

The point I was hoping would come up (but didn't!) is that if you are willing to "take a shot" before you respond to an assailant, would you let your partner/child/grandparent take one before you defended them?

It is worth noting that the law makes no distinction whatsoever betwen a strike and a lock or grab - they all constitute force used in self-defence. In other words, if you are willing to push someone away then that counts as a pre-emptive measure in the same way as a punch. The proportionality is what is measured

For the record, the drunk would be going down very hard if it was me...assuming my slightly feisty wife hadn't decked him first!

 

It is to do with the letter of the law

I "think" means effectively "I am not sure" so the actions you took in response could possibly be perceived as criminal

I "honestly believed" translates as "It was definitely going to happen so I reacted accordingly"

It may seem like a matter of semantics, but in interview for an assault I would be grilling you to explain why you broke someones teeth and a response of "I wasn't sure if they were hostile so I hit them" would not cut it!

By the way, there has to be a correlation between the "honestly held belief" and teh action taken - it is not a "get out of jail free" phrase, but it is worth remembering if you ever find yourself in a bit of a legal pickle

 

Thanks Hannibal

 

Yes, handbag/hand back confusion, oh well.

It's still an assault though

That I didn't know. Good job though really. Although i meant the citizens arrest in conjunction with the 3 things really, well 2.

No, not a chance. Legally correct or not.

 

It is an assault, but until the punch lands and causes damage it is only a section 39 (or "Common") Assault and consequently has NO pwer of arrest (even for a bobby). There is an offence of affray, but again a citizen cannot arrest on that

So it's hit 'em or nowt!

 

Killing or maiming someone, is unquestionably retribution. You could just Ko em,
after all your a MA you should know the techniques. Just playing devils advocate.
You already know my thoughts on the subject.

Oh, by the way. My kids are no longer at home; son left after getting his masters and
is living about 40 miles away, and daughter away at uni 220 miles distance so I could
not defend them. As for my Mrs, she's 5ft 4in and weighs 18 stone (X 14 for our
American cousins) and would only have to fall on a potenial assailant to take them
down. As an aside, she's a tax inspector, and deserves everything she gets. After all,
you can't annoy that many customers and hope to get away with it for ever !!!

 

If you feel like you are about to be struck, by striking first,I wouldn;t consider that a "sucker" punch...?

Ethically I think it is fine. You only have to be brutally honest with yourself...did you REALLY think you were about to be attacked. if the anser is yes, you have every ethical right to pre-empt. What Bush did in Iraq, was NOT ethically moral however....not to digress, but to make a point. We were NOT threatened here in the US.

 

Hanibal,

Looking at your argument. Surly by practicing MA, you have to be guilty of pre-meditated violence? Therefore be extension, if in the result of your 'self-defense' this results in maiming or death, you have pre-planned the murder by virtue of the training you have undergone?

 

Not neccesarily. Perhaps you can argue that true martial arts is much more than a physical art, thus the reasons for studying. Self defense is just part of it. Also, by virtue of the training, you have become more astute to real threats. Your post is excellent food for thought....

 

An act of self-defense is different from pre-planned acts of violence. Self-defense is reactive and pre-meditated violence is proactive. You don't defend yourself with the intent to kill. You defend yourself with the intent to stay alive.

However, a pre-meditated act of violence can occur in the course of self-defense. Imagine if a mugger's victim successfully defends him/herself from the mugger, scaring the mugger away. Then, the would be victim decides to chase after the mugger, catching and killing the mugger. That would be a case of pre-meditation.

 

How come, when 99.9% of training is in the physical art? If it were to be 50/50 or 60/40 biased towards the moral side of it, I would be inclined to agree with you, but not as it stands.

Happy Jan 2nd.

 

Interesting logic Pats, but fundamentally flawed

If I give you a knife you can cook with it or kill with it. Your INTENTION defines the tool, not the tool itself. The same with an MA. The consequence of my self-defence may be death, but the intention isn't

Gotta fly, but see you soon

 

What matters most is what you say and how you conduct yourself after the fight.
If someone is displaying threatening behaviour and gobbing off then that is common assault, at this stage if you fear for your safety you are within the law to launch a pre-emptive strike.

If during the confrontation you are saying "get away from me I dont want none of this macho ********" before launching your strike it will be totally different than saying "common you ****** I am gonna tear you a new arsehole."

Also what you say after the incident to witnesses and police will bear alot of weight on how this will affect any judicial decision, also bear in mind that in the UK most establishments and town centers are heavilly monitored by CCTV.

 

:

this is semantics
its down to convincing the guy and hes not gonna be convinced by your vocabulary
its your NVC theyre trained to read

MF

 

Hey Hanibal. Remember that the vast majority of the population do not practice any form of MA. Therefore when the prosecution barister (lawyer) says to the accused I understand you practice and have a working knowledge of Ma, what level have you achieved?". The jury, of which I doubt any member would be a MA'st, will hear 'killing machine'. Which way do you think the verdict will go?

 

Depends on the circumstances. There are too many variable to draw a conclusion from your statement.