 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Legal opinions please, and if you can cite the specific law, all the better.
The scene:
A fight begins, in which Person A is being very provoking. His demeanor is intimidating, and his body language clearly expresses a desire to get physical.
Person B stands calmly while being harangued by Person A, and only when Person A steps very close to him does B even put up an arm to create more space.
A few more words are said by A, when suddenly B launches forward with his head and hits A in the chin and a fight erupts. The fight lasts a matter of seconds, and B clearly defeats A.
Now, I understand that in law, provocation is no defence, on which basis, B's headbutt could count as assault. But if B maintained that A's words words were that he was 'going to 'F' you up, right now!', is it equally true that it is with the specific, threatening words that an assault begins?
I'd have thought B is in a world of trouble here.
I'm not sure 'Getting my retaliation in first' is a defence but it's worth a try 🙂
Threats can be construed as an assault so it will then probably be down to whether nutting someone is 'reasonable force'.
I'm minded of this vid
A has threatened assault. B has carried out assault.
Was B standing with his back to a wall?
Its legal to 'strike first' in self defence if you believe that you are about to be hit - so on the basis of A saying he was 'going to 'F' you up, right now!' and subsequent body language, B would be in the clear.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Pre-emptive_strikes
Nor was B under any duty to retreat
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Retreating
oh, and one other thing if I'm reading between the lines - whatever you do, don't be talked into a caution and [b]shut the **** up and say nothing till you've seen the duty solicitor[/b]
Does person 'B' (you?) give a shit as long as he leathered person 'A'...
Good on you (Person B) btw, person 'A' sounded like a an ass-whipping waiting to happen.
The correct answer is what ever the magistrates or jury think. B's defense is to say he genuinely believed he was about to be attacked and his response to that belief was a reasonable act of selfdefense and he did no more than he needed to stop the attack he anticipated . No legal duty to retreat no legal duty to let the attacker get the first blow in. On the version of events you have provided I would be reasonably confident of B's aquital .
B just brought into play the age old adage when in situations like that, where getting physical looks pretty unavoidable - always get the first punch in!
I'm not sure where specifically its written into law, but I'm sure its there somewhere under 'common sense' 😉
If person B can prove he felt threatened and only used as much force as was necessary he'll be fine. Proving is hard though.
That'd be a bit tricky given this:If person B can prove he felt threatened
Person B stands calmly while being harangued by Person A
Why didn't person B leave the situation at this point?
Have you reported person A for assault? Better to get your retaliation in first in that department, too.
Why didn't person B leave the situation at this point?
Perhaps he felt that turning his back on someone was more dangerous, as you wouldn't see a blow to the head coming?
NB If you're going to get hit in the head, the front has the most padding for the brain and therefore lowest chance of brain injury / concussion. Side / rear blows are much worse and easier to knock someone out.
How injured is/was person 'A'? How is their physical build compared to you (Person B)?
If person B can prove he felt threatened
Person B doesn't have to prove anything!
Have you reported person A for assault? Better to get your retaliation in first in that department, too.
This!
B's defense is to say he genuinely believed he was about to be attacked and his response to that belief was a reasonable act of selfdefense and he did no more than he needed to stop the attack he anticipated . No legal duty to retreat no legal duty to let the attacker get the first blow in.
THIS
Why didn't person B leave the situation at this point?
Has no beaqring it is not against the law to not retreat when someone threatens you you can stay there as it is legal to do this.
If as you describe and the response was swift and reasonable i would expect [s]Steven Gerrard[/s] B to be fine
The crime of assault is committed when someone (A?) causes someone else (B?) to believe that that are in immediate danger of physical violence. The actual violence, should it occur, is actually the crime of battery.
Person B doesn't have to prove anything!
Really? Given that person A beat up person B I think he's got some explaining to do.
I like person B
Person B is in trouble IMO similar thing happened to me where I was person B. I ended up accepting a caution which so far hasn't impacted on getting a job or foreign travel etc. I didn't try a tell a porky to get out of it, just told the coppers my version of events.
Really? Given that person A beat up person B I think he's got some explaining to do.
Oops I got my A and B the wrong way around - B beat A!
Person B just needs to say they drove into them with their car, should get off without any points.
'Self defence' is a legal minefield. I'd not employ some of the commentators on this thread as my lawyers, that's for sure.
Not really sure that headbutting someone would be seen as 'reasonable force' by many judges and juries. Violence can only be used as defence if all other avenues of preventing assault/injury have been exhausted. In the scenario described, more likely either both parties would be done for affray (and possibly ABH in 'B's case), or both told to piss off if the police attending had any common sense.
Oh I don't know - Jay Kay gets butted:
B is in big trouble. I've been in the position of B a few times. I've defused/de-escalated the situation. One local nutter in Hebden even shoved/pushed me around and I still remained calm.
Its clear that B wasn't using self-defence. If B felt fear/threatened he/she should have backed away.
Self defence is perfectly valid if person B had genuine reason to fear for their immediate safety. Given the story as presented by the OP I would think a headbutt would still count as reasonable. At what point in the subsequent fight that right to reasonable self defence becomes battery or ABH is a different matter.
Beware if this goes to the local beat bobby who is looking for an easy caution to reduce his paperwork under so called restorative justice. I was told by our bobby that we could shout and threaten each other as much as we liked but the first one to touch the other "loses" in the eyes of the law. Which is not actually the case at all.
What does it matter if it was a headbutt or a wet kipper 'B' used...Better a forehead than a pint-pot in 'As' mush!
Self defence is perfectly valid if person B had genuine reason to fear for their immediate safety
Aye- shoving someone away- putting an arm out not attack.
I know of someone this happened to, he headbutted the aggressor, he duly got done for assult, due to the Headbutt, Judge/Magistrate said something along the lines of, if he had used Queensbury Rules, i.e. Fists then his defence would have stood a chance, but a Headbutt was too aggressive.
A hefty hoof to the cobblers would surely be the perfect answer?
Another reason to continually try and defuse a situation (that hasn't reached punching) is you may headbut the person - who then switches into no rules and ends up stamping on your head repeatedly.
Always walk away if possible.
Or throw them down a flight of stairs?
Or throw them down a flight of stairs?
An old friend of mine got 18months when he did that to a Burglar. Mind you he did give him a kicking at the bottom of the stairs too.
Oh I don't know - Jay Kay gets butted:
Entirely different legal issue. The mere presence of Jay Kay would be seen as extreme provocation, giving the defendant no option but to resort to extreme violence. A good kicking would be seen as perfectly reasonable behaviour, and no court in the land would convict.
Firstly person A (having started this) should not in any way shape or form be going to the police....what a wimp....thats just asking to have your car burnt out on top of a good pasting.
Secondly there is some flexibility in the law for self defence/pre emptive strike etc etc....we had a member of staff who was called to an address under the pretence of a 999 emergency, once inside the house the caller locked the door and delivered a barrage of abuse at my colleague which had him genuinely believing he was about to be attacked....he hit the aggressor with the torch he was carrying and demanded to be let out of the house, the caller ignored the request and was then told to 'stay back' before he was hit again....this was repeated several times until the caller was so incapacitated that my colleague was able to let himself out of the situation....this was all captured on a recorded phone line as the caller had left the phone off the hook when the ambulance arrived.
My colleague didnt suffer any legal repercussion.
To quote US military doctrine -
"De-escalation, deterence and avoidance should be your top three priorities for survival."
"Always move away from your enemy wherever possible - distance is your freind."
In other words, at the first sign of trouble, scarper. It's served me well. Mind you, I'm a lover, not a fighter...
Thx1138 self defense is less a legal minefield and more a factual one my last successful jury trial was exactly the op's scenario except that the person b was in fact two people . So two defendants on to one person A the jury and indeed the judge had no difficulty accepting self defence for the use of a headbut .
Pigface did you actually go beyond what you needed to do to protect yourself ?
Decide whether you are gonna risk charge/court from the outset and stick to your plan - if you are, argue your version of events all the way to court. But - you need to consider.......
Has the incident been captured on CCTV? Are there any winesses? (independant of both A & B) Are there any other sources of info that could come out at a later stage that would bias a persons assessment
of what actually took place? This will probably determine the eventual outcome in favour of A or B. If it's purely down to A's word Vs B's word, (plus previous convictions etc) then it will come down to who the magistrate believes on the day.
Has person B already been visited by the Police? If not, has person A actually filed a complaint against person B already? Without a complaint there is no case to answer.
I think everyone should read the link rattrap posted before replying to this thread, it would take a lot of the guesswork out of it 🙂 Very interesting reading. It says that as long as the initial use of force was justified then the consequences are irrelevant - i.e. if you (justifiably) punch/headbutt someone once in self-defence, and they fall down and crack their heads and die then legally that is not your problem. Equally the reverse of this is true.
How many self denfence classes suggest that you should headbutt some one as your first line of defence?
Having said that, I do know that a few years back a couple of mates were pissed up at a stag do and were play fighting in the street. Local shop keeper came up and told them to F-off (quite rightly) and a mate not involved in the play fight told the shopkeeper to F-Off.
Shopkeeper then head butted mate, and then all 3 jumped on Shokeeper. They all got cautions and the shopkeeper got nothing.
Troll
Run away?
boblo - Member
Troll
Not.
I can't reveal too many details, but neither A nor B are me. The entire event has been clearly captured on CCTV, and what I described is exactly what unfolded on screen.
So far, in spite of the enjoyable discussion around the whole thing, the CPS links have proven the most helpful. Thanks.
So far, in spite of the enjoyable discussion around the whole thing, the CPS links have proven the most helpful. Thanks.
I've been amused by how many posts following the CPS links have directly contradicted them.
one of the tenets of STW is to not read the whole [i]thread[/i] before commenting, you expect us to read the [b]links[/b] aswell?I've been amused by how many posts following the CPS links have directly contradicted them.
I'm with Graham Chapman on this stuff, run away!
+1 for running away.
If you can and do paste him he could always retaliate at a time when you least expect it or brick your window or some other vindictive act. If you run away he will feel like he has won, no-one gets hurt and everyone's happy, well err mostly.
+1 on the CPS links 8)
but also to echo points around trying to evade conflicts like this, the US military ethos is correct (coming from that background as well), avoid where possible. However as we do not know the exact circumstances around the altercation it is all too easy for the righteous STW massive to jump in. If you are cornered, evading is not going to work, therefore a pre-emptive strike (within reason) is why the law exists. contrary to popular belief the UK Law system is actually fairly well thought out in that manner..
Also, for those who did martial arts as kiddies had it drilled in, that whilst our skills would help us out, always avoid conflict where necessary
Also, for those who did martial arts as kiddies had it drilled in, that whilst our skills would help us out, always avoid conflict where nessasary
Ahh so you're on jury-service OP...
if the OP is on jury service (i bloody hope not) - he'd be in rather large doo doo's
As for quoting the US Military. They seem more intent on blatting anything that moves especially their allies to bother wasting time worrying about conflict avoidance....
If the OP is on Jury service I'd be a pissed off that he'd need to ask a forum the bloody obvious.
Ahh so you're on jury-service OP...
Your not? 😯 if you are.. Bend over...
[i]If the OP is on Jury service I'd be a pissed off that he'd need to ask a forum the bloody obvious. [/i]
It's not the Huhne retrial still is it?
eek...if you are on jury service, you're probably going to jail if they find out about this thread!
I recommend soap on a rope.. You won't drop that in the showers...
Not jury service. Sorry to disappoint! I have thoroughly enjoyed patriotpro's suppositions though. Genuinely laughed out loud.
OP is a magistrate.
Aye- shoving someone away- putting an arm out not attack.
Foolish. That's the best way to get yourself injured - you either don't defend yourself or you make sure the person can't harm you. That either means restraining them or if you are unable to, hitting them till they back off or are unable to get back up.
You can kill someone and it can still be deemed reaosnable force depending on the situation.
An old friend of mine got 18months when he did that to a Burglar. Mind you he did give him a kicking at the bottom of the stairs too.
On the other hand my brothers defence for hospitalizing five rugby players (self defence) worked, despite the fact that the fight moved all the way across town.
I don't thimk it's fair that you can be judged as to what is deemed acceptable in defending your own home, when you decide you need to fight you have to turn off a switch in your head and in the heat of fear mixed with aggression anything can happen. Burglars should expect that.
OP is Lionel Hutz.
RM.
Common sense.
A is in the wrong since he started intimidating/threatening B.
A deserves all that he gets.
A is a loud mouth smack daddy.
B is a STW'er. Hard as nails offline
😆 - Pretty sure that's their entire foreign policy, right thereTo quote US military doctrine -
"De-escalation, deterence and avoidance should be your top three priorities for survival."
"Always move away from your enemy wherever possible - distance is your freind."
oh, and
😆 😆
So far, in spite of the enjoyable discussion around the whole thing, the CPS links have proven the most helpful. Thanks.
Hold on - you're saying that the snapshot of the law prepared by lawyers with experience in the criminal law is more useful than the anecdotes about STWers' mates called Dave and quotes from Bravo Two Zero? Bugger me!
During the riots the cops came to my shop with a rules of engagement leaflet. We didn't have to wait to be attacked before defending ourselves merely to feel threatened.
Not sure if that ties in with this situation.
During the riots the cops came to my shop with a rules of engagement leaflet. We didn't have to wait to be attacked before defending ourselves merely to feel threatened.
This made me lol - "rules of engagement" hahah...since when did the police like people taking the law into their own hands? Reminds me of a time my housemates chased some lads off the porche and up the street with a bat, the police turned up and I kid you not said "Looks like you did our job for us, do you mind if we get going?".
I thought they were going to be arrested tbh and I wouldn't count on that happening again.
porche
Porsche ?
Porch ?
😉
I know of someone this happened to, he headbutted the aggressor, he duly got done for assult, due to the Headbutt, Judge/Magistrate said something along the lines of, if he had used Queensbury Rules, i.e. Fists then his defence would have stood a chance, but a Headbutt was too aggressive.
Seen this twice when in the TAs. The headbutt is considered something of a trait and not a natural reaction. I witnessed one myself and it was very clear that B was just waiting for enough 'ammunition' to respond in such a way. Nothing happened in either case.
Edit, though all were up on a charge.
I saw some of the leaflets which zippykona referred to and they were woefully written and even more poorly understood imvho.
Thx1138 self defense is less a legal minefield and more a factual one
The problem with this though, is that it can often be quite difficult to establish what the facts are. If you take the scenario the OP describes, we have very little information as to what actually happened. What was the situation/history that led to the incident, what was said exactly, physical characteristics of both parties, previous convictions etc. If you imagine that scenario with no witnesses, no cctv etc, then what you have is someone who's been headbutted, and someone admitting to doing so. Very possible the police would see the actual admitted 'assault' as the greater crime than the alleged 'threat'.
So each incident would have to be carefully examined on it's own merits, and all factors taken into account, and then it's often down to the interpretation of the courts. Seldom very simple.
I don't think it's fair that you can be judged as to what is deemed acceptable in defending your own home, when you decide you need to fight you have to turn off a switch in your head and in the heat of fear mixed with aggression anything can happen. Burglars should expect that.
As much as it may be exciting to fantasise about what macho things you'd do if faced with an intruder, as a result of recent knee-jerk legislation regarding reasonable force in home invasion, burglars will inevitably go armed if they fear a greater threat. Human instinct. And then begins the arms race. And eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
Is A or B Steven Gerrard?! Whichever he is will get off scot-free!
As much as it may be exciting to fantasise about what macho things you'd do if faced with an intruder, as a result of recent knee-jerk legislation regarding reasonable force in home invasion, burglars will inevitably go armed if they fear a greater threat. Human instinct. And then begins the arms race. And eye for an eye leaves us all blind.
Have you ever been in a position whereby you've felt that a family member is being threatened?
I'm guessing no - if burglars start arming themselves with firearms then it's the job of the police to crack down on the illegal arms trade. It is not fair that the fearful actions of people in their own home should be questioned (except in extreme clar cut cases, like shooting people in the back with an illegally held shotgun).