I was watching the TV documentary Boozey Britain the other night. It showed how police forces up and down the country dealt with binge drinkers and people fighting after the bars have closed. In one scene it showed three police officers struggling to restrain a drunken youth. I started thinking. If it takes three trained police officers to restrain a drunk, who is as uncoordinated as he will ever be, then what hope does the average citizen have against a determined burgler or mugger. What truly constitutes reasonable force?
Limb destruction, bone destruction, organ destruction, and of course a KO. Elbows and knees to the face, Sao Choys to knock him out, and Pantherfists to the sternum and ribs, most likely throat as well (repeatedly) if necessary.
Don't quote me, but I was trained that "Reasonable Force" is the rough amount of damage that MUST be done to an assailant in order to safely end the confrontation and prevent any further harm being done to oneself. Killing someone is almost NEVER considered "Reasonable Force", as is permanently crippling, maiming, or disfiguring someone. You can typically say that continuing attacks against an assailant that is rendered relatively harmless will get you in HUGE trouble, i.e. pummeling someone who is down, pushing a submission past the breaking point, striking someone held in an entrapping lock, etc... However, keep in mind that the sate of justice in this world is often in the hands of double-speaking lawyers. You could be attacked while coming home from school by a mugger with a knife. You, being a scared high school student, respond by screaming at the top of your lungs and swinging your bookbag at his head. In court, the defense attorney turns you into a government trained robot assassin who abused an innocent knife salesmen by assaulting him with a "deadly" weapon and causing permanent ear canal damage. In addition, because the "salesman" was also (insert ethnicity), you are now branded as a racist nazi guilty of a hate crime. May you achieve Satori
For me, reasonable force is enough to hurt your opponent so you have time to either scare him off, or get away. It can range from a slap to the face to a fully blow teep to the head. Either way, if my life is on the line, I would not hesistate to bite someone's neck tendon and then throw his face into the ground.
OLD TOPIC, but its the million dollar question. What constitutes reasonable self defense in one spot is deadly force in another. You really need to check your own local laws.
Well, put it this way - if you don't stop them they will possibly kill you right? So if they are using deadly force, it is reasonable to reciprocate with deadly force. My personal view - use deadly force. Nothing less is acceptable. It is very rare that you know the complete situation - your attacker may have friends or a weapon that they have not exposed yet. It is not enough to throw this person down or even break a limb if they end up having a gun in the boot or sommat. Do what you have to do to finish them, and then deal with the legal stuff l8r. If you are concerned about the legal when being attacked, you don't have your mind on what really matters - your life.
In Australia at least the ammount of force necessary is always one step above what your assailant is throwing at you, if they grab you, you can punch them out, if they are using a knife well....
Are you sure about that and the interpretation? What I mean is, does the law really chop it that finely? I've heard the same thing about self defense laws in the States. It usually turns out that non-deadly illegal force justifies non-deadly force in self defense while illegal deadly force justifies deadly force (with several important qualifications).
The police would be trying to restrain the drunk without causing injury. Subduing someone while not injuring them is alot harder than injuring/attacking them.
I will give you an example that I used in court (I was aquitted as my actions were clearly self defence) - not proud of going to court but the judical system can be a bit naff some times. "If I did not hit the man that attacked me I would not be here I would be a victim in an assault, If I hit him twice it might be concieved as excessive force. So logic dictates once must be reasonable force you honour" It worked for me and I was completly the innocent party.
In response to Tellner, thats what my book says in what i can and cant do in a security situation, so i suppose thats all i can go by.
Society has this twisted habit of 'blaming the victim' - someone could be knifing you and you'd go to jail if you as much as farted on him.
You might want to talk to an attorney who can tell you about the law authoritatively. An hour or two of his time will be money well spent.
