Because "It's the law!"

a reply to: oldcarpy
I've been on the right side of reasonable force law before now. I stabbed a burglar (just the once) knife was sticking out the other side of his shoulder area.
I tended his wound, wrapped a towel around it and phoned for an anbulance before asking for cops.
I was terrified and didn't know how many people were in the house so the Crown Prosecution service agreed it was reasonable and took no further action.
Too many people shoot themselves in the foot in police interviews saying they were angry or "he deserved it" etc, the only emotion allowed in defence is fear for safety.
It is an easy law to circumnavigate if one is careful.

a reply to: oldcarpy

oldcarpy,

Its all very well to read the statutes and so forth, but in practice, its virtually impossible to defend oneself within the law, unless one has significant training in unarmed combat.

Those who do have training can be expected to know when to stop. Those who do not, have only one recourse available to them. Either become victims, or continue swinging until someone stops you swinging, or until you can swing no more. All other routes an untrained person could take, have a good chance of resulting in being attacked again, by an assailant who has survived the initial response to their attack, stood up, and come at you again. Mercy is a luxury which can only be afforded by those who have training. For everyone else, its a risk that is not worth taking.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I never had knife training when I stabbed my burglar, I just plunged it into him while trying to avoid major organs.
Had I stabbed him more than the once then I would have had difficulty claiming it to be reasonable force, but I got away with it, especially because I then tended to his wound when he was no longer a threat.
I'm actually quite comfortable with UK reasonable force law, it tends to fit with my own moral code so isn't too hard to negotiate.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think its different with a knife. When you push the knife in, the sensation lets you know how serious the situation is. But when its just someone coming at you with fists, and you going back at them, its very hard to tell, until their face bones start to break down, exactly how close you are to being able to back off safely. Generally speaking, putting a knife in someone is the end of the fight, and there is rarely a need to go for a second stab. Not so with fists.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Good point, as soon as it went through he started screaming and dropped to the floor. I tended to him as soon as I realised he was on his own. I actually felt sorry for him then and wasn't angry, just sad I'd really hurt him.
I'll never forget it though and still wince uncomfortably when I think about it.
...and to be honest, even if it was legal to kill a burglar I still wouldn't do it, just stop their threat. It isn't the law that stops me killing burglars, I personally think death is a bit harsh.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I wouldn't say Hitler would like me as a citizen per se only because I think most people in authority (politicians, not so much judges) are sorely incompetent and are out of touch.

Anyway, your perceptions and moral guidance come from your life's experiences as a strong man, I am assuming along with your mates' general agreement on social and moral appropriateness. An isolated general consensus, so to speak.

As a petite woman without combat training my life's experiences have revealed to me the wide range of others' skewed social and moral behaviour towards women, weaker men and children (the weaker more helpless of us) and I can tell you CG that I thank any and all laws that are in place that may help to protect the weak and helpless from those that do not take another person's feelings or well being into consideration before they act out of misguided negative self-interest or selfishness.

a reply to: TrueBrit


I did not post the statutes, I posted the CPS' guidelines for prosecutors - it's all in there.

Yes, of course it's easier if you are trained in unarmed combat. If you read the guidelines it is not as one sided as you appear to think.

If you are attacked with lethal force you don't really have the option of "not worth taking" the risk of defending yourself as you would wind up dead.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: oldcarpy


Absolutely. I suppose what I am saying is, that the attacked party (that automatically being a homeowner in the event of a home invasion, the car owner in the event of a carjacking, or the victim of the first assault of an exchange in a public space) should be under no legal pressure to protect the life of the person who attacked them.

Lets say a person just goes for you in the street, and you don't know why.

Why are you under any obligation to be careful in the way in which you defend yourself? In such a situation, I for one would have to assume the worst, just to react at all, but if that happened, I would have to give control of my body over to my amygdala, and mine has two settings. Either everything is fine, or everything that comes at me is getting wiped out, totally, even if I break my fists and wrists in the effort to destroy my assailant. Its not a conscious decision, its not a choice I have at that point. Either I react without limit, or I do not react at all. I do not even flinch unless I am fully released from all limitations, by handing over control to my fight or flight response, all of which is automatic.

I would need training to be any other way, and yet I am somehow legally responsible for actions I take in defense of my person, from a criminal act on someone elses behalf? No matter how you frame it, that seems damned weird to me.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: CornishCeltGuyI can tell you CG that I thank any and all laws that are in place that may help to protect the weak and helpless from those that do not take another person's feelings or well being into consideration before they act out of misguided negative self-interest or selfishness.

We are in agreement then, I support punishment of people who deserve it.
You are not one of the types I'm on about in the OP though are you? You know, those who say "It's the law" for pretty much anything, like the law in itself is morally or ethically just.

Take minor laws like paying for on-street parking. I've never paid in my life, I've been caught 3 times but the amount I've saved over the years vastly exceeds the 3 penalty charges. Some would be outraged because I flout the law, in fact I know some people who have said as much to me.
Me, I'm like meh, it is just a game.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Gosh mate, I stopped seeing the red mist years ago, surely you must stop when you put someone to the floor? Or do you do the worst possible thing and follow him to the floor? That's when their mate kicks you in the head.
Honestly, I think the UK's 'reasonable force' legislation is, well, reasonable.
The only circumstances I would disagree with it would be extreme like someone raping my child or whatever, then I imagine I would be less than reasonable, just careful so I didn't get caught.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

At my last house there was no parking allowed in front of our homes, a stretch of say 100 feet, but then there was legal parking further down the street. Do you how many times people parked in front of my driveway, blocking me in, just as I needed to leave and get somewhere. I'll tell ya, I became one of those people you are talking about. It's different when the people disregarding parking laws affects one directly.

I also have a big problem with anyone parking in a disabled parking spot when they are not disabled because my sis thinks herself disabled and will park in a disabled spot whenever she wants. I don't think that is right, but then again she feels she is disabled, so who is in the right?

a reply to: InTheLight
Lol, you are talking about something different though, I have never and would never block someone's driveway.
I'm talking about regular parking spaces in regular streets with ticket machines to pay for the space. The only entity inconvenienced by that is local government which loses out on my money.
Nope, I'll never buy a parking ticket unless it ever turns out that the fines end up costing more than I've saved over the years.

EDIT
I'm with you on disabled spaces, I wouldn't park on one, but not because it is the law, just because I wouldn't want someone disabled to be inconvenienced.
Another driving related crime is I'm supposed to have a picture card licence now and I refuse to apply or pay for one. My passport is king of all ID so I stick with my scruffy text only paper license. I've had cops remind me it is a criminal offence but not one has ever been inclined to report me for the offence, all they care is if I'm legal to drive and insured.
Oh, and I checked with my insurance company, my cover is still valid even though I don't hold a picture card licence. It is a pointless law when my passport proves who I am and the police computer already knows I'm legal to drive.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Its not quite red mist... I know whats going on, I am just not in any control of it whatsoever. Impacts feel deadened, as if I am recovering from anesthesia, and as for following to the floor... You have to understand, I have rarely been attacked by one individual at a time. Its usually more two or more, so you never get on the floor, no matter what those spandex wearing idiots who do MMA might tell you! Theres just movement, impact, movement impact, impact, impact, movement, impact... until no one comes near you anymore, and then you gain back some control, and find somewhere to have a pint and clean your wounds.

My brain assumes it is outnumbered, and that anyone who attacks me is seeking to kill me, so it directs my body to destroy everything that comes near me, until I no longer feel a threat. It doesn't matter if there are collar bones breaking, or veins being crushed, because I likely as not do not realise it at the time its happening, and have no agency in stopping it at all in any case. Only a state of peace can turn me off, once I am on, if you know what I mean.

I can tell someone afterwards, what happened, its not a black out. But its like you are watching a movie. Its not you catching a guys charge and slamming the side of his head into a brick wall, or you wedging your fist into their throat then kicking them directly in the chin while they choke, its just a thing you saw happen at that point. Again, I cannot see why anyone ought to be held responsible for that, while under attack from others. Others should leave well enough alone, and if they die because they didn't, thats a shame, but not something a person ought to go to jail for.

a reply to: TrueBrit
To be honest, if someone attacked you first and I saw you give them a savage beating I wouldn't grass you up to the cops, not a chance. Live by the sword and all that, but I would shout 'Police!' if I saw you stamping on someones head after they went down. 'Police!' is a brilliant thing to shout if you wanna snap someone out of a rage lol, works every time.
...if some guy had raped your child or something though I'd let you have as much revenge as you liked. Again, that's just me running on my own moral code, the law is irrelevant to me.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

So, are you saying you think my sis, who considers herself disabled, has no moral right to park in a disabled parking spot?

a reply to: InTheLight
No, I'm just saying I wouldn't park in a disabled spot because I'm not disabled.
If someone considers themselves disabled enough to merit the use of such a space who am I to argue with that, it's not like I'm a medical doctor lol
EDIT
...another law which I love seeing broken is when someone draws a moustache or whatever on the queen's face on banknotes, some people are really artistic with their ideas, and it's only a £200 fine maximum if you were ever caught.
Just for the laugh in court it would be worth 200 quid.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Sorry for the clickbait title but I've seen this posted a lot lately and I just can't get my head around it.

There's effectively two types of law. There's the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. Both have their place.

The letter of the law is important, because we want fairness in the courts. To bring about that fairness, it is important to have precise legal definitions of things so that there is no gray area. If a speed limit was 70ish mph, do you charge one person with speeding for going 74 and let another off for 73? It will vary wildly by the police officer and the judge in question. To avoid this we need a precise definition.

On the other hand, the spirit of the law can be important too. Years ago I was into a hobby called wardriving, which basically involved driving around city streets and hopping onto unsecured wifi networks. I wasn't doing anything bad with them, I was just making a map of where wifi was available. Going by the letter of the law that was a pretty big crime though, unauthorized network access like that is a felony with decades long punishments, for every instance of the crime. That law was intended to protect people against hackers, but the letter of the law was worded such that it caught many others inside of it's definitions.

The legal system needs an overhaul to remove some laws from the books, but it also needs an overhaul in order to better define what is actually a crime.

If it were up to me, legal charges would be drafted over breaking the spirit of the law, while innocence and guilt would be determined over what you did. Thus opening up the possible defense of a laws intention and why it shouldn't apply to a specific charge instead of only arguing definitions.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I wouldn't say Hitler would like me as a citizen per se only because I think most people in authority (politicians, not so much judges) are sorely incompetent and are out of touch.

Me too. That's why I aspire to be a competent Hitler.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: InTheLight
No, I'm just saying I wouldn't park in a disabled spot because I'm not disabled.
If someone considers themselves disabled enough to merit the use of such a space who am I to argue with that, it's not like I'm a medical doctor lol
EDIT
...another law which I love seeing broken is when someone draws a moustache or whatever on the queen's face on banknotes, some people are really artistic with their ideas, and it's only a £200 fine maximum if you were ever caught.
Just for the laugh in court it would be worth 200 quid.

In the US where chronic pain is a major issue, many people take those spots who appear totally fine, but what you may not realize is their medication might only be good for 30-60 minutes, and then they're completely disfunctional.

It can be difficult just by glancing at someone and never speaking to them, to understand why they're using such a spot. This may be naive of me, but I assume people aren't lying when they take those spots.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: oldcarpy


Absolutely. I suppose what I am saying is, that the attacked party (that automatically being a homeowner in the event of a home invasion, the car owner in the event of a carjacking, or the victim of the first assault of an exchange in a public space) should be under no legal pressure to protect the life of the person who attacked them.

Lets say a person just goes for you in the street, and you don't know why.

.

That's the thing though. Self defence is justification for fighting back but it has to be proportionate and reasonable force only must be used.

So, it depends on what somebody actually does to you - going for someone in the street covers a lot of possible scenarios. Say, if someone comes up to you and pushes you that would not make it OK for you to then batter them to death. Reasonable force only.

Mind you, if they spilled your pint or looked at your bird then all bets are off. Obviously.