What's the deal with self defense in the UK?

[John Harrison]

CS SPRAY MAN FACES LEGAL ACTION

A DISABLED man who used CS spray to fight off a robber is now facing the threat of legal action.

Wheelchair-bound Nicholas Ashworth, aged 22, sprayed his alleged attacker in the face with the CS spray.

Today after being released on police bail pending further inquiries -- which could result in police prosecution -- Mr. Ashworth defended his use of the CS spray. He said he bought it to protect himself after being attacked in Bridgeman Street three weeks ago. On that occasion his attacker hit him in the face before pinning him back in his chair. The man then rifled through his pockets and stole £100.

<snip>

Mr Ashworth said the attacker held a knife at his throat and threatened to stab him. When he refused to hand over his money the man pushed him across the road and into bushes on the other side of the carriageway. He said when he was threatened again he grabbed the CS canister and sprayed the man in the face.

Self defense is supposed to be legal, but CS/Pepper spray is illegal, as are other tools that would be useful for a disabled person. What the hell are they supposed to do? :confused:

Does anyone else find this totally ridiculous?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by John Harrison

Does anyone else find this totally ridiculous?

Yes. Most of britain does. Unfortunately their are two obastacles to restoring common sense to the law. 1- the loony left whose hearts bleed for the poor muggers, murderers, robbers and rapists. 2- Our judges, who seem to live on planet X so out of touch with reality are they.

[BobK]

It's not allowed.:)

[corplinx]

You can defend yourself with anything that isn't illegal to have. I hear that that leaves wiffle bats for pedestrians.

[Richard G]

Yes. Most of britain does. Unfortunately their are two obastacles to restoring common sense to the law. 1- the loony left whose hearts bleed for the poor muggers, murderers, robbers and rapists. 2- Our judges, who seem to live on planet X so out of touch with reality are they.

You forgot another obstacle. Your all disarmed now. When all your grievances are ignored, and justice is not upheld, you have no final means to correct the intolerable situation.

Not only can the criminals have their way with you now, but so can the judges and legistlaters...with no fear of retaliation.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Richard G


You forgot another obstacle. Your all disarmed now. When all your grievances are ignored, and justice is not upheld, you have no final means to correct the intolerable situation.

Not only can the criminals have their way with you now, but so can the judges and legistlaters...with no fear of retaliation.

We were almost all disarmed before. In over thirty years, I've never met one single gun owner, past or present.

No burglar in Britain would ever have been afraid of meeting a gun in a house even before the law changed. Such things do happen now and again, but it's such a rarity that it's not a worry. We simply don't have a gun culture here.

As for self defence laws, I found what looks like a well informed webpage here (http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/lawnav.htm) .

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
You can defend yourself with anything that isn't illegal to have. I hear that that leaves wiffle bats for pedestrians.

But can they still use marshmallows?

I'm not being sarcastic here (well, not much). The town of Elizabethtown, PA has banned marshmallows at the Marshmallow game:

The letter explains that, "For safety reasons, marshmallows and other such objects that can be thrown will be confiscated at the gate." I know that I’ve seen the movie, "Ghostbusters," but I thought it was only my generation who believed that a marshmallow could cause such serious Stay-Puff damage.

But at the same time, "We’re asking spectators to make a donation to those effected by Sept. 11. We want to give instead of spending money on marshmallows," said Director of Athletics Nancy Latimore.

http://www.etown.edu/etownian/Fall2001/102601/sports3.htm

Our governments lost what little sense they had after 9/11.

Besides, coins and money can be thrown. Are they confiscating that? What will people spend at the concession stand? And shoes can be taken off and thrown; are they taking those, too?

[Stig]

This makes me soooo mad. If I got burgled and managed to injure the burglar with my cricket bat I would probably get done for assault:confused: What I'm supposed to do if I get burgled is cower in another room while he nicks my stuff and then cower some more until I'm sure he's gone. Then phone the police who will not be able to do anything about it (unless the burglar is very unlucky).

If I was to get attacked in the street by some violent and drunk youth I'm allowed to defend myself with "reasonable force". This however is completely ridiculous. There was recently a case where I live, it went something like this. A guy was walking up the street and started having a go at a guy who had parked on a yellow line. They swore at each other a bit and the man who was illegaly parked drove off. A few minutes later they ran into each other again (both on foot this time) and the guy who had earlier illegally parked was punched in the face by the other chap. So, the guy has been assaulted and doesn't have to stand there waiting for more punches. He hits the guy back as hard as he can and broke the attackers eye orbit. The guy who did the damage gets done for assaulting the other!!! In court the Magistrate said he "Went too far".

What the ****.

Stig

[Jon_in_london]

Morning Stig.

Its one big problem with the phrase 'reasonable force'- If I get attacked on the street, I do not know my attackers intentions. Does he just want to hurt me a little bit? does he want to just break one of my arms? does he actually want to kick me to death?
How am I supposed to know?

So if I get attacked on the street Ill fight my attacker until he is no longer capable of posing a threat to me, using whatever means are available to me to do so.

This may mean mt attacker will be killed.

This may mean I will be charged and possibly go to prison.

However, I would rather to a short stretch in prison than possibly suffer brain damage or death at the hands of an attacker.

So there.

[Stig]

Morning Jon,

Exactly!

Does he wan't to scare me a bit or does he wan't to kill me? I'm not going to wait and see either.

Stig

[Tony]

What can you guys in england do to reform these draconian laws?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Tony
What can you guys in england do to reform these draconian laws?

Tell your MP that your vote depends on it. If a sufficient number of people do this then the law would likely be changed.

As the link I posted explains, you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force in self defence. That includes killing an attacker, IF you have grounds to believe that your life is at stake.

But killing an attacker just on the offchance that he plans to kill you? No, thankfully not.

[a_unique_person]

Tony, at present, a majority seem to believe that they like it the way it is. Unfortunate, but true.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
As the link I posted explains, you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force in self defence. That includes killing an attacker, IF you have grounds to believe that your life is at stake.


Dont you think, that if I am attacked I might belive that my life is at stake. Regardless of what the assailant might think- I might have a different idea if hes kicking me in the head. No?

So its bascailly impossible to get an objective view on how seriously your attacker wants to damage you when you are lying on the ground getting the **** kicked out of you. So the whole thing is nonsensical really. If you assault someone, you run the risk that the person might respond with lethal force- whether he intends to or not.

Solution: dont assault people.

[Richard G]

Solution: dont assault people.

Don't defend yourself either. Lie down on the ground, grovel, and beg for your life. If your French, try to surrender.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Richard G


You forgot another obstacle. Your all disarmed now. When all your grievances are ignored, and justice is not upheld, you have no final means to correct the intolerable situation.

Not only can the criminals have their way with you now, but so can the judges and legistlaters...with no fear of retaliation.

Right, because if they had guns they could then shoot the judges? :rolleyes:

Not having guns has nothing to do with this. Having a stupid law against using non-lethal forms of self protection is the issue. We have guns in America. Do you think that our laws are kept in check because state offical fear an armed revolt by an American militia? :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with stupidity. Why there would be any law or any desire to take action against the sef defender I have no idea, and I suspect that there is more to the story then what has been posted.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Why there would be any law or any desire to take action against the sef defender I have no idea, and I suspect that there is more to the story then what has been posted.

The action is being taken because it is illegal to own and use cs/pepper spray in England.

[max]

If I were being attacked I'd deck the bugger then de-bollock him, he'd barely live to tell the tale, then I would deny all knowlege

[Stig]

I have one of these and would love to be able to carry it but I think even this is illegal to carry in the UK.

This is a 4 inch long piece of aluminium and you can keep it on your keys. If you strike someone on the ribs or maybe a joint they will be taken out long enough for you to leg it. Imagine a jab in the rib from that! oof:eek: The thing isn't even pointed, it's not a prime choice for a criminal, they'll just have a knife.

We should be allowed to have defensive weapons on our person.

Stig

[Stig]

You can get one in the uk here but take a look at the disclaimer:eek:

Stig

http://www.kungfukit.f9.co.uk/html/access/ac011.htm

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by John Harrison


The action is being taken because it is illegal to own and use cs/pepper spray in England.

Well, it the person was using an illigal device for self defense then that's the problem obviously. If a device is iligal then its illigal. The problem is obviously with the law, which proves obviously that legality and morality are two different things.

Hopefully something good will come of the case, perhaps they wil be made legal. If they are not willing to make them legal then there is no choice but to follow the law is there? What use is there to have laws which are not to be upheld?

If he were not to be prosecuted then someone could use a gun in self defense and get away with that too.

IMO, at the very least, all non-lethal devices for self-defense should be legal, as far as lethal devices I don't really feel too strongly on that issue either way. There are pluses and minuses for having lethal weapons illigal.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Well, it the person was using an illigal device for self defense then that's the problem obviously. If a device is iligal then its illigal. The problem is obviously with the law, which proves obviously that legality and morality are two different things.

Hopefully something good will come of the case, perhaps they wil be made legal. If they are not willing to make them legal then there is no choice but to follow the law is there? What use is there to have laws which are not to be upheld?

If he were not to be prosecuted then someone could use a gun in self defense and get away with that too.

IMO, at the very least, all non-lethal devices for self-defense should be legal, as far as lethal devices I don't really feel too strongly on that issue either way. There are pluses and minuses for having lethal weapons illigal.

I'm glad that you believe that non-lethal devices should be legal.

However, the "if it's illegal, then it's illegal" bothers me a bit. Does a British subject have a duty to submit to robbery or even murder to prove one's law abiding nature?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Dont you think, that if I am attacked I might belive that my life is at stake. Regardless of what the assailant might think- I might have a different idea if hes kicking me in the head. No?

The vast majority of assaults are not fatal - I don't have figures but I'm sure there are far more assaults than there are murders. So I would say that it is not reasonable to believe that an assault has lethal intent unless you have some special reason to believe that it does.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


The vast majority of assaults are not fatal - I don't have figures but I'm sure there are far more assaults than there are murders. So I would say that it is not reasonable to believe that an assault has lethal intent unless you have some special reason to believe that it does.
I see, so you can take comfort in this fact as you're getting the s**t kicked out of you, maybe you'll only be disfigured or paralyzed. What a low worth you put on one's right to self defense.
In light of this, it's no wonder that Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the world. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml)
I guess you Brits like it that way, or else you'd be pressuring your lawmakers to repeal these ridiculous laws.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


The vast majority of assaults are not fatal - I don't have figures but I'm sure there are far more assaults than there are murders. So I would say that it is not reasonable to believe that an assault has lethal intent unless you have some special reason to believe that it does.

An assulter is commiting a felony. he has demonsrated that he holds both you and law in contempt. How can you possibly guess what is on a given bad guy's mind. Tell me, if you had a weapon would you use it or would you just beg?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by WildCat

I see, so you can take comfort in this fact as you're getting the s**t kicked out of you, maybe you'll only be disfigured or paralyzed.

It's not meant to provide "comfort". It's meant to provide a reasonable framework for self defence, and it does.

What a low worth you put on one's right to self defense.

If you want to turn this into personal attacks on one another, then you will have to do it without me I'm afraid.


In light of this, it's no wonder that Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the world. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml)

And you have some proof that there is a causal relationship there? Or are you just guessing?

I guess you Brits like it that way, or else you'd be pressuring your lawmakers to repeal these ridiculous laws.

Yes, that does seem to be true. The majority of people seem to be perfectly happy with the law as it is.

[Zep]

Originally posted by WildCat

I see, so you can take comfort in this fact as you're getting the s**t kicked out of you, maybe you'll only be disfigured or paralyzed. What a low worth you put on one's right to self defense.
In light of this, it's no wonder that Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the world. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml)
I guess you Brits like it that way, or else you'd be pressuring your lawmakers to repeal these ridiculous laws.

Quote from that same report:
Criminologists believe that a note of caution needs to be introduced into analysis of the data, because of the different ways in which UN member countries record crimes.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


The vast majority of assaults are not fatal - I don't have figures but I'm sure there are far more assaults than there are murders. So I would say that it is not reasonable to believe that an assault has lethal intent unless you have some special reason to believe that it does.

Seis- the other thing is that even if its NOT the attackers intention to cause permanent serious and lasting damage or death he might still end up causing it anyway- Filling someone in is hardly an eaxct science and mistakes can be made. eg: I know a guy who got into a fight in a pub. He suffered brain damage as a result and has basically no sense of balance anymore. It probably wasnt his opponents intention to do that, but it hapened anyway.

I still maintain that if attacked you should be able to respond with whatever means neccessary to subdue your attacker.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Stig
This makes me soooo mad. If I got burgled and managed to injure the burglar with my cricket bat I would probably get done for assault

As long as you can show that you have the cricket bat because you play cricket, and not just to bash burglars over the noggin with it, you'd be fine. But most burglaries occur when the occupants are out the house anyway or (particularly wrt burglary involving older people) whilst the homeowner is distracted by an accomplice.

With regard to the main topic, a can of deodorant or hair spray can be just as effective as CS spray, and it's legal to carry the them around (although the police might be suspicious of claims of personal use to justify having a can of Brut 33... :) )

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I still maintain that if attacked you should be able to respond with whatever means neccessary to subdue your attacker.

There's an interesting bit on the page that Seismosaurus linked to; under common law you can use reasonable force (ie force which is proportianate to what you perceive the threat to be at the time) to defend yourself, other people or your property. But then statutory law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent crime or to assist in the arrest of (suspected) offenders, so you could argue that you used reasonable force to defend yourself (under common law) and statutory law to prevent the commission of a crime (the attack on you). You could probably extend this further to argue you used reasonable force to subdue your attacker so he could be arrested by the police.

[max]

if anyone is really nervous at being attacked ....Dethlac is the answer. It's a spray for killing insects but it is the most powerful one I have come across and it sure gets to the lungs. Not pleasant. A spray in the face of that and the attacker would be unable to carry out his/her assualt

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I still maintain that if attacked you should be able to respond with whatever means neccessary to subdue your attacker.

You can subdue them. You can even kill them. The law merely says that you can only kill them if you think you really need to.

It is even a subjective judgement - you only have to convince the jury that you thought you had to use lethal force, not that you actually had to, objectively speaking.

The law is a lot more in favour of self defense than people think. The real problem is that every time somebody clearly does overstep the mark the media make a huge deal of what a hero he is.

Tony Martin, for instance - he used an illegal shotgun to shoot a burglar in the back as he was running away. But because he tried to claim self defence, the papers jumped on the bandwagon and tried to make a few million from selling him as a hero instead of a murderer.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by BillyTK
You could probably extend this further to argue you used reasonable force to subdue your attacker so he could be arrested by the police.

Yes indeed. If somebody attacks me and I subdue him, I am then perfectly entitled to use reasonable physical force to restrain him until the police arrive. I'm under no obligation to let him go if he retreats once I have fought him off.

[Stig]

A couple of very good points there, Seismosaurus. I wonder how many acts of self-defence have been proved in court and no legal penalty has been incurred by the defender?

Perhaps we have only seen the most extreme cases where the person who defended themselves really did go "too far".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,217535,00.html

I found the above article in which the people who were burgled successfully attacked the burglar without recrimination.

Stig

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Stig
A couple of very good points there, Seismosaurus. I wonder how many acts of self-defence have been proved in court and no legal penalty has been incurred by the defender?

The media are only going to pick up on cases where there is some controversy - that's what sells papers and gets ratings. I did a little googling for statistics on this kind of thing but couldn't find anything.

Perhaps we have only seen the most extreme cases where the person who defended themselves really did go "too far".

I think that's quite likely.

[iain]

Originally posted by WildCat

I see, so you can take comfort in this fact as you're getting the s**t kicked out of you, maybe you'll only be disfigured or paralyzed. What a low worth you put on one's right to self defense.
In light of this, it's no wonder that Britain has one of the highest crime rates in the world. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml)
I guess you Brits like it that way, or else you'd be pressuring your lawmakers to repeal these ridiculous laws. I haven't seen the report, but it may not be all it seems.

Since 1995 crime in England & Wales has been falling steadily and is now down by about 40% from that peak, back to levels last seen in 1980. This can be seen from the two "official" sources : crimes reported to the police and the British Crime Survey, which goes out and asks people about crime and so picks up those which are never reported.

The perception is that crime is a real problem but since most people have very limited first-hand experience of crime, I guess that perception is mostly picked up from the media which has an interest in hyping up the issue and making it seem worse than it is.