VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:17:52 06/17/01 Sun
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: Legal definitions of assault and self defence

One common question which crops up within martial arts discussion is whether or not we're truly allowed to aggressively attack someone to defend ourselves.

Before we do so, let us examine exactly how the law defines "assault."

"An assault occurs when one person injures another, but does not kill them. A case for assault can be made out even if the accused never touched the victim. In the case of Barton v. Armstrong the accused would ring the victim late at night and say that he and his friends were about to break in and murder the victim's family. They never did; however the threat, coupled with the fact that the victim believed the accused was about to murder his family, was enough to convict the accused.

A conditional threat, such as 'Don't move or I'll kill you' is still an assault. This is even though, technically, if the victim does not move, they will not be killed and have nothing to fear. This is because the basis of the offence is the creation of fear, and someone will always be scared with a knife in their back.

The slightest touching of someone could be an assault. However merely bumping into someone on a train would not be assault. This is because it is considered 'non-hostile social contact'. Some social contact can be assault though. Being kissed without your consent is assault and battery."

Now with assault defined, the law then defines self defence as:

"This is a complete self-defence. If the jury consider that self-defence is established, the defendant is acquitted and can go free. Otherwise the defendant is found completely guilty of the offence. There is no way the jury can use a compromise, and find the defendant guilty of a lesser offence. The accused person has admitted both mens rea and actus reus; thus it is an all or nothing defence. In order to establish self-defence, the defendant must be genuinely acting in self-defence. Furthermore, no greater force should be used than the accused reasonably beleived was necessary. This harmless looking phrase is the subject of a great deal of controversy; for it is through this rule that a person can be convicted of murder if they kill an intruder who has broken into their house.

This is because to kill someone in self-defence, it must be fairly clear that they are about to kill, or seriously wound you. But an intruder in your house is most probably just going to steal, and then leave. Thus to kill them when they were not going to hurt you would not be self-defence. Furthermore, if a petty thief sees you with a knife, they may think you are about to kill them, so they could justifiably kill you in self defence."

In short, if somebody makes any hostile action towards you, or even verbally threatens to do so, then you are legally entitled to hit them. So if someone just says, "I'm gonna hit you," you CAN initiate the first strike as defence.

However, you can only use equal or lesser force than your assailant. If your assailant threatens to punch or kick you or attempts to punch, kick or grab you, you cannot then stick a knife in them, as you would be using greater force.

Likewise, if someone tries to grab your wallet, it becomes very problematic if you then broke their arm or dislocated their shoulder -- as it would be seen as a use of excessive force.

In terms of legally defending yourself, there are two important things to remember:

1. You don't have to wait to be hit before you hit back. If a person even raises a hand in anger, or sounds extremely hostile, then you CAN strike -- but only as much as you think needs be.

2. You can only use equal or lesser force. You cannot overly excessive force and you cannot use a weapon against an unarmed foe.

Therefore, so long as you remain within these legal realms, you can by all means use martial arts as self defence.

Reference:
Parker and Derwent, Justice, Law and Society, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1991. pp.158-177

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.