Unacceptable Face of Conservatism

[dwynnehugh]

The law states that you may use reasonable force – however there are circumstances to qualify this statement as to what is reasonable force. You may also make a pre-emptive strike if you think that someone is about to strike you but I suspect that that would also include such scenarios as someone about to throw liquid etc. on/towards you.  I think one of the main problems the guy had was simply “where could he take hold of the female that would not have put him into a possible indecent assault position”.  Serves her bl**dy right I say.

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[oldtimer]

Dave referred to the look on the man’s face.  What I noticed (and I watched the clip several times to be sure) was the look on HER face. It starts off surprised or even angry but half way out it suddenly turns to a satisfied grin when she realises she was on telly being “manhandled” by a tory. There is more potential in that than in anything she could say, or any disruption she could cause.

Its easy when you know how

[Dave Rice]

I just cannot understand why anyone is apologising for his behaviour. I cannot imagine any of you acting in the same way.

When you watch the full footage there is no excuse for it. He was not surprised, it was not a spur of the moment action, there was no threat of violence to himself or others. Plenty of other people were passed before he took action.

[Bob Williams]

It was an attention-seeking act by an idiot who had not considered what might happen as a result. Had there been anything like professional Security at the venue, she might have wound up on the deck, possibly injured.

Should think herself lucky to live in a country that allows deluded idiots to carry out stupid, irrelevant ‘protest’ wherever and whenever they wish. Had that happened in the USA, she might well have been shot. Had I been in this guy’s shoes at that moment, I would have carried out more or less the same actions. Using ‘all reasonable force’ of course.

Fully expecting litigation by this female muppet.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

She publicly stated that she would take no action against him, except she recommended that he went on an anger management course.

[dwynnehugh]

The below is a 2004 Daily Telegraph definition of reasonable force:

Definition of reasonable force is calculated in each individual case

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

The law generally allows a person to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of self-defence. Similar rules apply to defence of someone else or defending property from an unlawful act.

However, there is no easy definition of what force is reasonable: it is a matter to be decided in each individual case.

That is because self-defence is governed by the common law – the accumulated wisdom of the courts as expressed in decided cases.

Yesterday, MPs called for the law to be codified by Parliament, so that people would know where they stood. But that might not take matters much further.

There is already a statute setting out how much force can be used to prevent crime or to arrest offenders. But the Criminal Justice Act 1967 says no more than that a person “may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances”. In reality, it would be impossible to list all the circumstances in which the courts would regard force as reasonable.

A comparison of recent cases in which burglars were shot demonstrates that each case must be judged on its own facts.

As was reported yesterday, Kenneth Faulkner, 73, a retired quantity surveyor from Derbyshire, was not prosecuted for firing a shotgun at John Rae, 22, a burglar who had previously stolen shotguns from his gun cabinet. Mr Faulkner wrongly, though understandably, believed that Rae was armed and fired, leaving Rae with shotgun wounds to his leg.

The CPS decision not to prosecute, approved by the judge who sentenced Rae to prison on Monday, appears to have been based on the assessment that the degree of force used by Mr Faulkner was reasonable in the circumstances, and could therefore be regarded as self-defence.

By contrast, the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was initially convicted of murder after he shot a burglar in 1999.

His use of lethal force was regarded as excessive in the circumstances. Martin had his conviction reduced to manslaughter on grounds not related to self-defence.

The difficulty of deciding on which side of the line the law will fall is compounded by the fact that the common law has changed over the years. In 1924, a court said that “in defence of a man’s house, the owner or his family may kill a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it”. That would not be regarded as good law today.

On the other hand, the courts are sympathetic to those who use more force than is necessary. Deciding an appeal from Jamaica in 1971, one of the law lords said that the courts did not expect a person defending himself to weigh the exact measure of his defensive action.

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest continued: “If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.”

The degree of force used will not be regarded as reasonable unless the accused person believed that level of force was necessary. However, necessity by itself is not sufficient: the force must also be reasonable.

And a person who mistakenly believes he is being attacked may still be able to rely on self-defence, provided he used no more force than was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to have been.

 

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[Bob Williams]

Dwynne, I have a question, based upon what happened to a family member a few years ago.

An intruder breaks into someone’s home and utters a verbal threat to kill the occupant, heard by a witness next door. Would the threatened occupant have a valid defence in stating that he (or she) was in fear of their lives, after using force to defend themselves, which culminated in severe injury to the intruder?

I’ll tell you the outcome after reading your opinion.

 

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[dwynnehugh]

Bob, I think that my answer will not agree with probably what happened in the case you mention – simply because of the way the question is put to me.

I would refer you to para 1-3 of my above post. Each and every case that relies on this is a subjective matter as to what happened – for argument sake – you see a guy hitting a female, you intervene to defend her, strike the guy and he falls to the ground. (No problems) However once on the ground you decide to give him a good kicking just to remind him that you do not hit females – you now have problems.

That is why it is almost impossible to codify such circumstances – what is reasonable in once set of circs, may be totally unreasonable in another. That’s life and the law!!

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[Bob Williams]

Thanks Dwynne.

My query was in regard to a case within my family around 1983, involving my big brother, then in the first stages of what became the lung cancer that killed him. He was living alone at the time, after the death of his wife my lovely SIL. He phoned to tell me that there were 3 thugs banging on his doors and walls, after a pub argument they came to his house. I advised him to call the police and made my way down there, a few streets away. My big bro was a very hard guy, in his mid 50’s then but still handy. I had asked him to wait for the police, but watching them tear up his wife’s roses was too much. By the time the police arrived one thug was unconscious, he was holding another in a full Nelson, and the third had run off.

When I arrived, the Sergeant who was the Senior Officer turned out to be an old schoolmate. He was very apologetic, but had to carry out his duty, arrested my brother and sent for an ambulance. Both my brother and I understood that. There was an elderly witness next door, who gave a statement to the effect that he had been threatened by the thugs and told not to interfere.  The ambulance medics discovered that Thug One had a broken jaw and other facial injuries. Brother, (not for the first time), was summoned on an ABH charge, bailed and attended court: I took him.

The magistrate threw out the case. The Thugs appealed and that was refused. They then tried to make a case out of the fact that the arresting officer and I were old friends and that is how their case was put together. Unfortunately they had the Sergeant as arresting officer, when in fact it was his PC who carried out the arrest. This affair simmered until after my brother’s death in ’88, when it boiled over and I was attacked by thugs One and Two whilst walking home late from the Welfare. Unfortunately for them, I had been trained by my brother and the Army: I got up and decked them both, then used a street phone to call the police. Both Thugs were arrested, which cheered me up, and both received heavy fines.

I tell this story to illustrate the snowball effect that can ensue from one stupid act of what is seen as revenge. I understand “Reasonable Force” and what a necessarily ambiguous phrase that is. Either of the above events could have resulted in my brother or myself being convicted and possibly jailed, but that did not happen because of the checks and balances represented by our justice system and the common sense of associated personnel.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[dwynnehugh]

I think the fact that ‘one was out cold and the other had a broken jaw’ might have been considered, at that time and in the circumstances to be an excess use of force. The fact is ‘what is reasonable in the circumstances’ and that can very wildly from one case to another.

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[Bob Williams]

You misread Dwynne: “The ambulance medics discovered that Thug One had a broken jaw and other facial injuries.”

Brother was enraged enough to leave the house and try to prevent damage to the roses his wife had loved. That was what the thugs wanted, but they should have been careful what they wished for. They attacked him and he defended himself against 3 attackers: having no time to pull a punch, he hit thug 1 perhaps harder than he should have, turned to thug 2, wrestled him to the ground and sat on him until first I and the police arrived, within minutes of each other. Thug 3 ran away. Thug 1 was out cold, had a broken jaw from bro’s punch and the same punch caused other facial damage. Only one punch, but if you had ever met my big bro, you would have seen an ex-Naval stoker and ex-miner, who was also an ex-amateur boxer.

The village was a typical mining village at the time, in that violence was seen as a way of settling disputes. Family feuds were common and that was the reason for the same thugs (all from one family) attacking me later. I agree that my bro caused disproportionate damage, but if anyone is attacked and outnumbered, there can be no doubting the defender’s right to defend themselves and there is no time in that scenario to consider what is or is not ‘reasonable force’. I do not defend the times and the actions, but they were of their time and place.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

Circumstances, circumstances  – sorry but you did not include ALL the relevant info in the question you posed to Dwynne. As I keep saying to my wife – what the hell is the context!

[dwynnehugh]

Bob – from what I read and it would help if new info wasn’t drip fed in, your brother did appear to have a propensity towards violence with, if I remember correctly, convictions for assault.

It is impossible at this time to delve into the full ‘ins and outs’ of that particular situation he was involved in, he was 1 against 3 but he did severely injure 1, KOd No. 2 whilst No.3 fled whilst he was able to.

Several criteria would have to be met one being the use of reasonable force to defend uprooting flowers, size / age of those involved in causing the damage etc. etc ad infinitum. The police and CPS must have felt that they had sufficient evidence to charge him with some form of assault and to institute proceedings against him – in fact I feel he was VERY lucky to just face a S47 ABH charge – S20 with intent to cause GBH could also have been considered here imho.

You say: “The magistrate threw out the case. The Thugs appealed and that was refused” – the Mags would more than likely have found him NG and to appeal the defence would have had to go to Crown Court to do so.

To discuss this fully, there are insufficient facts presented, too much water has passed under the bridge and memories fade.  He wasn’t convicted – let’s just leave it at that.

The more you meet people the more you understand why Noah took animals instead of humans

[keith with the teef]

What About Putin today. Liberalism is Obsolete.

What a wako.

Clown faced fart.

[The Duke]

What’s he done?

[Bob Williams]

The Duke wrote:

What’s he done?

Well Steve, there’s this:    http://tinyurl.com/y4t4ax55

Then this:   http://tinyurl.com/y39qq9jt

Then the Headmistress ticked him off:   http://tinyurl.com/y5hkk9a8

Just look at TM the (temp) PM’s face: doesn’t she look p****d off to have to see Mad Vlad again? Don’t worry, Theresa, that’s probably the last time. Just make sure to count your fingers and wash your hands.

And doesn’t he look like I did at primary school, when the headmistress ticked me off for being on the school roof?

 

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Dave Rice]

Usual mouthing off crap at the G20. Theresa May gave him a stern talking to!

She’s planning to do the same to all the other naughty men there as well, but not Trump.

[Ed P]

Better leave poor old sick Angela out of the stiff talk, she appears to have uncontrollable tremors and the start of Parkinson’s.

[Les.]

Ed, I thought maybe Parkinson’s. Not just the tremor, but her face is looking flat and more expressionless than in the past. One of the signs of the disease. Usually though, Parkinson’s starts with stiffness, typically in one shoulder, them progresses. The tremors are mostly a side effect of the L.Dopa medication I think. Perhaps a symptom without the medication in some, not certain.

Les..

[Bob Williams]

Angela Merkel is not my favourite Statesperson, but I have to admire the way she has always fought for what she believes is best for her country and Europe. She has worked long hours and days, to finally be obstructed by a Right wing German and European revival and a recalcitrant coalition, which is what I think has contributed to her obvious medical problems. I have always thought that there is still something of the Ostpolitik about her methods. Having had a relationship with someone who had escaped from the former DDR with her parents, I know that their philosophy is different to what used to be called the West German way.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Author]

Posts