Is reasonable force reasonable?

[Cyclone]

Reasonable force being what a jury of your peers would agree is the action of a reasonable person to take in self defence, defence of your property or another person or in performing an arrest.

 

This would specifically exclude continuing violence against someone who has stopped fighting back or is incapable of fighting back.

 

So, is that reasonable, or should you be allowed to go a little bit further in revenge? If so, how far. If you get punched on a night out, should you be able to hospitalise your aggressor (by continuing violence once you've knocked them to the floor), should you be able to kick them to death? Or should you stop once the immediate threat is removed?

[Thunzi]

To me, reasonable force means stopping when the immediate threat is removed. Disabling someone who threw a punch in the street is a different circumstance to someone in your house threatening your family though.

 

I think I remember reading a story a few years ago where a guy had chased a burglar out of his house onto the street, after stabbing him a few times with a screwdriver. The man continued to chase the robber and continued to stab him in the head until he died. The man tried to argue that he had used reasonable force to protect his family but was rightly in my opinion, jailed for a lengthy period.

[Cyclone]

Indeed, and Tony Martin was jailed for shooting a burglar in the back as he tried to climb out of a window to escape...

 

On another thread saxon has said that if you chase a thief you should be allowed to administer a bit of a beating as punishment. And that most people think this way, so I thought I'd see what everyone else thought.

[Halibut]

The situation as described in your first two paragraphs is fine with me.

I'd have serious concerns about the mental state of anyone who'd want to go further in the manner described as in GazE's example. That person was as Gaz sats, rightly locked up.

[Swan_Vesta]

Agree with GazE. Using an amount which incapacitates them (without splattering brain everywhere) or enough to make them back off - Incapacitating them and then proceeding to kick 7 bells out of them while they're down is not cricket.

 

I would admit though that if it were in a pub then I'd use enough to make them back off but in my own home then I'd probably go for incapacitating them to hand over the boys in blue.

[Fareast]

I think another element that's worth considering [ and presumably IS considered in any kind of trial ] is the state of mind of the person defending his/her self at the time and the precise circumstances surrounding the act of defence or reasonable force.

 

If some drunk takes a swing at you in a pub, for example, it would be reasonable to give him one back to deter him/her, or to use a comparable amount of violence to prevent the drunk going further.

 

However, if a person is at home with their wife and children, say, and they hear the noise of an intruder downstairs, then what goes through their minds ? How many intruders are there ? Are they violently inclined...or potentially violent ? Have there been similar incidents like this in the area where the householder has been attacked seriously ? All these thoughts may zoom through a person's mind in a matter of seconds. They haven't got the luxury of sitting back and weighing up the situation in a calm, rational way.

 

They might then rush out of the bedroom with a weapon and start battering whomsoever they " see " in the dark. Later, it may transpire that they need not have acted with so much vigour but that's easy to point out in retrospect. I would imagine that a good case could be made out for " temporary insanity " in many cases-----i.e. acting with too much violence due to panic. In the case of Tony Martin .......et al....there was certainly a mixture of premeditation on the victim's part but the circumstances of the break-in must have been terrifying too.

 

So, it IS a complex problem ! As a general rule, I would say that where there are two elements involved-----the perpetrator and the victim-----if there are any doubtful or ' grey ' areas, then the balance should come down on the side of the victim. In other words if you decide to screw somebody's house at midnight and the householder polishes you off, then just regard it as one of the hazards of being a burglar and don't moan about it . OOps, sorry, you can't moan when you're dead, can you ?

 

Or if you like to take a swing at people in pubs, just hope they can't fight back that bit harder or faster than yourself.

[Cyclone]

That's correct Fareast. One of the things that would need to be established in court is the level of threat that you perceived you were in.

If you mistakenly thought they had a knife (and can convince the jury) then using lethal force in response could be considered legal. If they did have a knife and you thought they were going to kill you, then lethal force would almost certainly be justified (even if you were wrong and they only intended to threaten you).

If they are running away or trying to escape, or lying on the ground, then no force is justified (at least in self defence, arresting, possibly for the running or escaping ones).

[LibertyBell]

If you mistakenly thought they had a knife (and can convince the jury) then using lethal force in response could be considered legal.

 

Similarly, if someone points a gun at you whcih you believe to be real and loaded, they are giving you permission to kill them.

[BlackVelvet]

I carry a large maglite torch at work on nights. Not the best light beam around, but good and sturdy should i need it, if you see what i mean . can hardly be classed as an offensive weapon in a case of self-defence. after all, I do need to carry a torch and being slight of frame, would be hard pushed to fend off a beligerant drunk with my bare hands

[LordChaverly]

I remember attending a case at the High Court in London, where a woman jailed for road rage was appealing against her conviction. Apparently, she had got out of a car and punched another woman repeatedly in the face. Her appeal against the sentence hinged on how many blows she had struck. One blow meant that there may not have been intent to harm - several blows put her in a different category. Anyway, the judges took the view that she had landed several blows, so rejected her appeal.