dumb self defense laws

[DominikDoherty]

many countries have ludicrous laws pertaining to self defense. a lot of countries require you to use "minimal force" but there is a flaw in that in the heat of the moment you will not be able to gauge what the minimal force required to stop an attacker will be. say for example someone the size of andre the giant rushes at you foaming at the mouth with rage and/or high on drugs you dont know how much pain they would be able to take so in that moment in time the most appropriate course of action is using as much force as you can. some countries do have stand your ground laws but these have flaws also such as someone could just shoot someone else and say "they attacked me and i stood my ground" thus they are free. what i think should happen is all self defense tools knives,tazers, mace and batons etc. should be made legal everywhere because by taking any and all weapons away you leave the innocent vulnerable and the criminals have an easier time obtaining weapons and attacking someone and better laws pertaining to self defense need to be put in place. before people say "if you ban such and such there will be less crime" hogwash if criminals want something they can get it or they dont even need knives or mace to attack someone two things they can use instead of those are kitchen knifes and vinegar or aftershave. does your country have ridiculous self defence laws ?

[Harkon72]

I'll tell you a little story. It was remembrance day, London, a WWII veteran was attending a reunion party with his Parachute Regiment friends to remember comrades fallen and present. On this day he was recognized as the senior member of the group. In his honour he was presented with a Fairbairn Sykes commando dagger, it was beautiful and sharp. He had a couple of pints with his mates and he headed out of the club towards the tube station. On the way, he saw a group of teenagers that were fighting. As he got closer, he noticed it was three lads assaulting a young girl. The old gent shouted at them, and while the boys were distracted, the girl ran away. The three thugs now turned on the old man. He met the first one with a punch to the nose that sent him reeling into the street, the second fell to a right hook to the jaw, but he was not out. The third boy had a rounders bat in his coat and ran at the old soldier. The ex Para stepped back startled and drew the dagger, as the first two attackers stood up and the armed thug bared down on him, the veteran thrust the blade into the bat wielder's heart, killing him instantly. The other two kids ran away. The gentleman was arrested and charged with murder. Do you think he should face jail? Was his violence justified? Or did he end a young life unlawfully? What do you think?

[DominikDoherty]

I say it was completely justified the guy was going to rush him and he defended himself but from the point of view of the jury and other people as a soldier he could have handled it better but from my point of view I say he was well within reason to kill him as he was going to rush him with a bat.

[Harkon72]

What a jury would look at is what other options the man had to defend himself. A bat can kill just as sure as a blade. When you are faced with immediate danger, you have no time to think. The old guy reacted as he was trained to do. You can't hold that against him. He was convicted of manslaughter, it was not his intention to kill, he had not planned it. I cannot remember the jail term suggested but due to public support and his age and the obvious remorse that he felt; the judge suspended the sentence.

[DominikDoherty]

what you just wrote down epitomized what I am trying to say.

[jaypo]

I would say clearly self defense. Regardless of his training or knowledge, he was attacked by 3 younger individuals, one of which was armed. He simply met the threat with equal force. Why should the one quicker on the draw go to jail? Especially when he was at a disadvantage in the first place?

Sorry a man lost his life, but clearly a case of "him or me", and the "me" was just defending himself and possibly just saved a young lady's life.

[DominikDoherty]

that is what gets me about self defense today it is very hard to have solid proof of self defense if there are no cameras or witnesses and a lot of the time if you do defend yourself you can go down and the attacker can go free

[sensei8]

Yes, laws may seem far fetch, but they are the law of YOUR land, and they must be enforced by those who's job it is to enforce. In the USA, if you've a chance to get away, and you choose not to, then you're as guilty as the thug who attacked you.

Defend yourself, but that thin, and often invisible line, mustn't be crossed because we can't take the law into our own hands. Having said that, the "heat of the moment" isn't a defense in the courts, yet, I will do whatever I must do to protect my family and myself. After that, the courts can decide if I was within my constitutional right to do whatever it is that I'm accused of.

I do not hit, "it" hits by itself!!

[Lupin1]

My state actually has decent laws for it. You don't have to retreat from your own home or anywhere you have a legal right to be (the "stand your ground" law) as long as you're not the initial aggressor.

You're allowed to use deadly force if you reasonably believe a person is about to use deadly force on you or another person (as would apply to the veteran being attacked by the kid with the bat in the story above), someone's likely to use ANY illegal force while committing a robbery or any felony against you on your property, or some is committing about to commit a kidnapping or rape (which may also apply to the vet's story).

For non-deadly force, a person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:

(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or

(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or

© The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.

So basically, in my state the vet never would have been convicted of anything.

I've luckily never had to defend myself or another physically, but it's good to know that if I was ever forced to, I wouldn't have to worry about my entire life being ruined because of it (at least not legally... psychologically I can't say...).

[bushido_man96]

I'll tell you a little story. It was remembrance day, London, a WWII veteran was attending a reunion party with his Parachute Regiment friends to remember comrades fallen and present. On this day he was recognized as the senior member of the group. In his honour he was presented with a Fairbairn Sykes commando dagger, it was beautiful and sharp. He had a couple of pints with his mates and he headed out of the club towards the tube station. On the way, he saw a group of teenagers that were fighting. As he got closer, he noticed it was three lads assaulting a young girl. The old gent shouted at them, and while the boys were distracted, the girl ran away. The three thugs now turned on the old man. He met the first one with a punch to the nose that sent him reeling into the street, the second fell to a right hook to the jaw, but he was not out. The third boy had a rounders bat in his coat and ran at the old soldier. The ex Para stepped back startled and drew the dagger, as the first two attackers stood up and the armed thug bared down on him, the veteran thrust the blade into the bat wielder's heart, killing him instantly. The other two kids ran away. The gentleman was arrested and charged with murder. Do you think he should face jail? Was his violence justified? Or did he end a young life unlawfully? What do you think?

I would justify this mans' actions.

1. He was defending the life of another.

2. From the information you have provided, he didn't provoke attacks further, but the attention turned to him.

3. He was outnumbered, and there was likely an age difference of significance here.

4. One of the attackers brings a weapon into the mix, which can cause severe bodily harm or death. So, he met force with force, and at least where I am from, that is justifiable in self-defense.

There is no reason that this man should be doing time for murder, in my mind.