Know the law

[DWx]

When we're talking self defense or talking weapon usage and ownage, I wonder how many of us have actually looked into our local laws concerning these things? We throw around these terms like "reasonable force" and talk about what we can carry for self defence but how much of our own laws do we actually know about?

So out of interest I did a bit of digging into UK law*:

Wikipedia has a basic summary but if you really want to know what's in our laws, you can search at the legislation.go.uk website or take a look at the Crown Prosecution Service website: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

If you're in the UK, you need to know about these laws (amongst others):

Criminal Law Act 1967: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents

Relating to knives and other weapons:

Criminal Justice Act/Offensive Weapons order of 1988, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents

Offensive Weapons Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/26/contents

Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/37/contents

Prevention of Crime Act 1953: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/14/contents

Relating to guns:

Firearms Acts, 1920, 1937, 1968, 1997: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=firearms%20acts

Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/contents

Not going to bore you all by going through them so I thought I bring up some of the more interesting bits and pieces.

- For starters, there are a number of weapons you definitely cannot own and carry.

Aside from the obvious no blades, no guns rule, here's some of the more unusual ones that you can't carry: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019/schedule/made

- You won't get penalised for pre-emptive strikes nor will you be penalised if you don't walk away at the first opportunity: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Pre-emptive_strikes

- What about reasonable force?

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." Criminal Law Act 1967, Part I, 3

You can defend your property, whether that be your wallet or something bigger like your house. You can also prevent an attack on another person or defend yourself from an attack if you can justify that the force you used was reasonable and you can use force in a lawful citizen's arrest.

So guys, I know a lot of you are LEO's, what's your take on self defense and how to apply your local laws? what's your professional insight? And how do laws like this compare between countries and between states?

*I'm not lawyer nor an expert so this is just my interpretation. If you want definitive advice, go find yourself a lawyer friend

[MasterPain]

The U.S. varies state by state, so some research is necessary. In Illinois, a 3inch bladed folding knife or sheathed knife is legal to carry, and an all around useful tool anyway. We have no duty to retreat, though if possible, I prefer to leave usually anyway. Castle Doctrine applies if the entry to the home is violent and you believe they are entering to commit a felony- SO LOCK YOUR DOORS. It'll be all the difference in the world if you have to kill someone. Willful and wonton disregard for life is always illegal, so never chase a fleeing criminal or harm an incapacitated attacker. Lethal force is only acceptable when it is necessary to prevent serious harm, death or a forcible felony upon yourself or another.

Of course, you should check it out yourself, as I'm just a redneck with a construction job.

[tallgeese]

State by state is the big thing here in the states. And they can vary a great deal. Generally, if you set your trigger for defense of life, you won't be wrong.

Reasonable is the key, and the ability to articulate it. When it comes to LE work, the Supreme Court case of Graham vs. Conner really effects how force is used and what goes into reasonable force. The key is what you knew, at the moment force was used, without the 20/20 hindsight of an in depth investigation. Objective reasonableness of an action is based on a lot of deeper issues, but it's based on what the same person with the same amount of training and experience as you would have done in the same situation. Understanding these things is imperative for cops and a good starting place for everyone else.

One thing to be careful of is the whole forcible felony thing. Tennessee vs. Garner dealt with the issue of shooting the fleeing forcible felon. It determine that we could only use deadly force against those fleeing felons that were engaged in violent forcible felonies. The list for actual forcible felonies is long and included some that don't warrant deadly force (burglary) and those that are hard to define (treason).

Setting one's mental trigger, in most self defense situations, to protection of life and limb is the easiest, safest bet to take care of one's self and stay safe.

[Liver Punch]

I love the concept of predicting something such a forcible felony.

Step 1: Determine that there is a problem

Step 2: Determine that the problem places you in danger

Step 3: Identify a target

Step 4: Weigh all available evidence as though the target were on trial

Step 5: Identify if said evidence is enough to place the target in a correctional facility for more than 1 year

Step 6: Use the appropriate amount of force based on steps 1-5.

[MasterPain]

Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

[JusticeZero]

This is again part of why I tell my students to completely remove the idea of "damaging the attacker" or "not damaging the attacker" from their game plan. instead, I demand that the goal be set on getting everyone out of the situation.

I feel that this also provides some protection; should a technique cause a lot of damage - say, knocking them down so their head hits a rock - I can honestly respond that my goal was to create space or move the guy away from me so that I could escape and get any other people with me away safely, rather than to kick behind to some prescribed level.

[darksoul]

Here are the laws concerning Self Defense for Canada (these are federal)

Defence of Person

Marginal note:Self-defence against unprovoked assault

*

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

*

Marginal note:Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

o

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

o

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

* R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34;

* 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

Self-defence in case of aggression

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

*

(a) he uses the force

o

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

o

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

*

(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

*

© he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

* R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

Marginal note:Provocation

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

* R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

Marginal note:Preventing assault

*

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

*

Marginal note:Extent of justification

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

* R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.

[bushido_man96]

tallgeese summed things up pretty well, I think. There are variations from state to state, but a little research will help to clear that up.

Now, from what I've seen in my experiences in the jail, when cops roll up on a fight, the parties fighting get arrested, usually for something like disorderly conduct, or battery, depending on the damage done. If a bit of investigating can be done to figure out who started it, and why, then perhaps one party can be absolved at that time, with the instigator being arrested in stead. However, what is usually ended up with is one group pointing fingers at another group, with no clear answer. So parties get to sort out their differences in court.

Now, this is what I've seen come out of basically bar brawls...drunk guys mouthing off and getting into a fight. I've also seen aggravated batteries in which there is usually a clear instigator, and that person is arrested, but the victim didn't have a chance to defend themselves, or couldn't. I haven't seen any instances in which someone defended their lives by injuring another severly, let alone taking another's life. I believe it can happen, but I haven't seen it yet. It would take some investigation and hopefully some good witnesses (which are hard to come by) to help an officer fill in the blanks to come to an informed decision based on the "totality of the circumstances."

[yamesu]

I think that's where CCTV comes in handy!

[madtanker]

The U.S. varies state by state, so some research is necessary. In Illinois, a 3inch bladed folding knife or sheathed knife is legal to carry, and an all around useful tool anyway. We have no duty to retreat, though if possible, I prefer to leave usually anyway. Castle Doctrine applies if the entry to the home is violent and you believe they are entering to commit a felony- SO LOCK YOUR DOORS. It'll be all the difference in the world if you have to kill someone. Willful and wonton disregard for life is always illegal, so never chase a fleeing criminal or harm an incapacitated attacker. Lethal force is only acceptable when it is necessary to prevent serious harm, death or a forcible felony upon yourself or another.

Of course, you should check it out yourself, as I'm just a redneck with a construction job.

Here is the rub, you have to be careful when using a weapon of ANY kind for defense, and N E V E R for offense!! The rules are different in each state, jurisdiction, and even different countries (of course). In Georgia, even a simple stick used in an overhand fashion is considered a 'killing' blow for defensive purposes. (If someone comes at you with a baton or escrima, and they raise the item above shoulder level and swing, it is considered DEADLY force). Some jurisdictions consider carrying of a knife to be misuse of deadly force or carrying a 'concealed' weapon. It is (just like learning any art) up to the person that is considering the method of defense, to be knowledgeable as to how they employ defensive tactics. I have had concealed weapon (gun/firearm) carry permits in 3 states, and in each, the laws are different. Excellent observation!