# Assualt in self defence?



## Robdemanc (Apr 19, 2014)

I'm in the UK. Does anyone know what the legal outcome of assault would be if the perpetrator had to defend themselves against two attackers and ended up causing either one serious harm (like knocking them unconscious) AFTER the threat to them had been subdued.

Example: In my story I have a character (male) who is attacked by two men, he is assaulted by them but manages to get the upper hand but attacks them with enough force to knock one of them out. The one he knocks out ends up with head injuries.

I am trying to establish how a court would respond to this. Would they focus on the strength of retaliation AFTER the threat from the attackers has gone - i.e. the person being attacked manages to fight them off but then uses force to cause one of them injuries.

Would the court decide it was not in self defence?


----------



## dither (Apr 19, 2014)

Interesting question,
the law, such that it is, seems to be very undecided right now, and might well turn it's back on the two assailants.


----------



## popsprocket (Apr 19, 2014)

The court would probably decide it was excessive force for self defense and he'd be facing battery charges of his own.

The rule of thumb for self defense is that under no circumstances can you throw the first punch and any retaliation has to be of equal or lesser force to the threat. If someone punches you in the face and you retaliate by breaking their arm then that'd be excessive force, but if someone pulls a knife and you truly feel like they are going to kill you then it's quite possible to get away with killing them in self defense.


----------



## Robdemanc (Apr 21, 2014)

So would the law entertain the idea that the victim was so afraid he lashed out with such strength to cause them damage. Would they take that into account?


----------



## Cran (Apr 21, 2014)

The rule in self defense is "reasonable force"; that is, the amount of force a "reasonable person" could be expected to use in a given set of circumstances. For that reason, self defense matters are more often determined by jury trial rather than a bench trial. 

In the incident you describe, it's not yet clear whether the act of rendering one attacker unconscious was to end or mitigate the threat, or occurred after threat was clearly ended. By that I mean, had the attacker no chance of returning with a fresh attack before being rendered unconscious? In a melee of two against one, it would be a poor defense lawyer who not could argue the need to render one attacker unconscious in order to "even the odds", and that therefore the force used was indeed "reasonable force". In the instant of action, motions and motives are rarely calculated and more commonly instinctive - the exceptions are highly trained persons (military, police, black belts and professional fighters) who are then held to a higher standard of "reasonable force".


----------



## popsprocket (Apr 21, 2014)

It's quite possible. There is no good answer to give you. The laws vary so widely that you would just about have to ask a judge of wherever the story is set to clarify for you.

Given that he was attacked by two people his claim in court would certainly be that he felt he was in enough danger to justify the use of that kind of force. The distinction would be if he inflicted that extra damage after the threat was subdued with the intention of harming his attackers - and whether or not anyone could prove that he was actively trying to inflict damage and not just defending himself.

Basically it's up to you. It could go either way and I'd not have a problem with it.


----------



## popsprocket (Apr 21, 2014)

By the way, 'reasonable force' is not what is reasonable according to the defendant. Reasonable force is determined by the court.

In a case where the court determines the force used to be excessive, but the defendant truly believed it was justified at the time, self-defense does not apply, but they might receive reduced charges compared to the charges if the attack had been unprovoked.


----------



## dither (Apr 21, 2014)

We ARE talking different nationalities here.
There was a story in the papers here in England, where a small self employed builder caught two people breaking into his yard to steal diesel,
obviously I don't know the full story but he leathered one, took a wooden post off the other and broke his leg, arm or something.
Well anyway, it went to court, I can't remember exactly what the outcome was but no action was taken against the builder, and the judge was less than sympathetic towards the thieves, I DO believe that tide is turning here, common sense IS prevailing.


----------



## Greimour (Apr 21, 2014)

I am from the UK, I can give three true stories for you that are in some ways similar.

1. Two teenagers attacked a young man in an attempt to steal his phone. The man, older than the two - defended himself and beat the two youths - going so far as to partially chase them down the street. It was caught on camera. He was told that, legally, he was in the right - until the point he won the fight... chasing them down the street was the wrong thing to do. Due to the stress and anger of the moment though, it was fully understandable and all charges were pressed against the youths.

2. Two men in the street were arguing - a third man who had nothing to do with the situation went over to try and calm them down. Kids could see it after all. The two men turned on him and started punching, kicking and hitting him. After staggering and falling about, the man leaped forward and tackled one - picked up a brick off the floor and wrapped it round the head of the other who was falling upon him.
- Again, the majority of it was caught on camera... the police said - if it was not for the camera, he would have probably gotten done for GBH and Assault with a Deadly weapon. Thankfully the camera shows it is self defense and only the two men were charged with assault and public disorder. The man who used the brick though, self defense or not, was told he was extremely lucky to avoid charges himself. To the point it was the biggest argument in the court - whether or not he was equally in the wrong for using a weapon.

3. With no cameras in sight and only witness statements to work out what happened, three men were charged equally.
- 2 attacked a male from behind - one with a wooden bat. After taking a bit of damage over the course of a half a minute or more, he somehow disarmed the one with the bat. Fighting back against both assailants, things looked bad. (At hearing this much I was surprised not a single witness had as of yet joined in.) Finally the man picked up the discarded bat and started swinging it at the two men - hitting one hard enough to crack a rib and air-line fracture to the bone by the shin bone. The other sustaining heavy bruising and a broken nose.
The courts found both attackers guilty, but charged him to. They said he used too much force and went too far - his actions were dangerous and potentially life threatening.
Personally, I stand behind the man who was attacked, he was in the right - but it largely comes down to the Judge and/or Jury you get, as well as the competence of the barristers etc...

Self Defense? 


As said, it comes to judge and jury - what they believe and the moral views of those judging.


----------



## dither (Apr 21, 2014)

Justice as with medical assistance is there, how much money have you got?


Greimour, it really is a grey area.


----------



## Gofa (May 30, 2014)

Where there are two attackers it's very easy to say you are fearful of losing your life. One on one I feel reasonableness can be a measure but faced with two the threat is substantial. If someone turns away it's a bad idea to continue the fight. To clarify your circumstance write in that the altercation was caught on camera or not. Don't have your character use a weapon nor his feet. Best way to accidentally injure some one is an elbow backwards as it has real power and with two people explainable. A forward elbow strike shows martial arts knowledge and you back to having a weapon. So knock one out by an elbow to the temple while twisting around to respond to an second attacker behind you. The legal defences are nicely open


----------



## Tyler Danann (May 30, 2014)

Robdemanc said:


> I'm in the UK. Does anyone know what the legal outcome of assault would be if the perpetrator had to defend themselves against two attackers and ended up causing either one serious harm (like knocking them unconscious) AFTER the threat to them had been subdued.
> 
> Example: In my story I have a character (male) who is attacked by two men, he is assaulted by them but manages to get the upper hand but attacks them with enough force to knock one of them out. The one he knocks out ends up with head injuries.
> 
> ...



It depends. Is he up against a magistrate or a Crown Court jury?

Was he using weapons that he carried? If so he'd be automatically up against it in court.

If he pursued them after the assault, THEN did the damage to them the court would lean more towards the criminal.

If it was during then there would be a good chance the jury will find them not guilty.

The court will tend to use the 'reasonable force' line to typically be against the victim of the incident and usually lean towards the criminal.  The UK's judicial system, especially the Crown Prosecution Service is sympathetic to criminals compared to elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Morkonan (May 30, 2014)

Robdemanc said:


> ...Would the court decide it was not in self defence?



What does "after the threat to them had been subdued" mean? Do you mean that the "them" is the "defender" and that the assailants were no longer a threat to them? In that case, and I'm not familiar with UK law, I would say that the "defender" would have been then defined as an "assailant." 

However, understand, in every Western Nation that I can think of, "mitigating" circumstances are applied to "sentencing" in most cases. So, while the defendant might be found "guilty" of being an "assailant", the fact that he had just been defending himself from these "attackers" would likely be taken into account during his sentencing. (Unless there are mandatory sentencing guidelines, which I don't philosophically agree with, but it ain't up to me, is it?  )


----------



## archer88iv (Aug 4, 2014)

Pretty sure the "equal or lesser" thing is not true--at least not where I'm from. The rule is that you can do whatever is reasonably necessary to end the threat. That doesn't mean that, if he punches you in the nose, you're only permitted to punch him back.


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 4, 2014)

archer88iv said:


> Pretty sure the "equal or lesser" thing is not true--at least not where I'm from. The rule is that you can do whatever is reasonably necessary to end the threat. That doesn't mean that, if he punches you in the nose, you're only permitted to punch him back.



Equal or lesser force _is _necessary force, and it has nothing to do with 'he punched me once so I get to punch him once now'. The idea is that the force used in a self-defence situation should only be used with the goal to put an end to the violence and should be a proportional response. If someone punches you in the nose and you deem that they pose a threat to your person, you can punch him back to deter him from doing it again. That's a proportional, reasonable response. However, if that same man punches you in the face and you deem he poses you a threat, a court probably wouldn't find in your favour if you decided to defuse the threat by punching that man in the throat and breaking his arm. That's excessive force for the situation.

Which is why the rule of thumb is equal or lesser force. In most cases, the use of equal or lesser force will allow you to make a successful claim to self-defence. In limited situations a disproportionate response may still lead to a successful self-defence claim (including the use of deadly force as response to a threat), but it will/may be much harder to justify to a court.


----------



## Reject (Aug 4, 2014)

Have a read up on the Tony Martin case.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/30/tonymartin.ukcrime2


----------



## Robdemanc (Aug 4, 2014)

Yeah, I know about the Martin case. 

My character has two attackers, they come at him from behind, he takes a few hits but then manages to knock one to the ground. The other attacker runs off. Then my character loses it for a moment and kicks the other one, who is still on the ground. Then my character runs off.  Turns out later, the one on the ground was kicked unconscious but comes round in hospital later.

I have my character sent to prison for 6 months for GBH.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> The court would probably decide it was excessive force for self defense and he'd be facing battery charges of his own.
> 
> The rule of thumb for self defense is that under no circumstances can you throw the first punch and any retaliation has to be of equal or lesser force to the threat. If someone punches you in the face and you retaliate by breaking their arm then that'd be excessive force, but if someone pulls a knife and you truly feel like they are going to kill you then it's quite possible to get away with killing them in self defense.



Different localities = different laws. In some places, you can defend yourself without your attacker throwing a punch. I was a 'mall-cop' for a short time, and was told by the local police that if someone drew back in preparation of throwing a punch, that would be considered assault and I would be within my rights to thrown the first punch. 'Reasonable and proportional' is a good rule of thumb.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Aug 4, 2014)

The best example I can think of happened in my hometown (Baltimore). In 1980 an elderly man shot two teenagers throwing snowballs at his house after years of harassment killing one of them. He had to stand trial and I suppose because of some sympathy surrounding the circumstances he was acquitted. As guess as far as your story goes I could see him possibly being arrested and even charged but perhaps could be acquitted in a trial though like most of the others say it really is a gray area.


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 4, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Different localities = different laws. In some places, you can defend yourself without your attacker throwing a punch. I was a 'mall-cop' for a short time, and was told by the local police that if someone drew back in preparation of throwing a punch, that would be considered assault and I would be within my rights to thrown the first punch. 'Reasonable and proportional' is a good rule of thumb.



Whether or not a person has a right to defend themselves is based on the perceived threat - if you reasonably think someone is going to hurt you even if they haven't done so yet, then you have the right to protect yourself. What I meant was that you can't start the fight/pick the fight.


----------

