PDA

View Full Version : Discussion of British law relating to self-defense



Joseph Svinth
7th September 2000, 08:44
http://www.bsdgb.co.uk

Bottom line: "The response must be reasonable/ proportionate. This is the most important aspect of the defence. Despite the suggestion of total objectivity in the word 'reasonable', the test of whether the accused acted reasonably is judged by the reactions of the reasonable person, who finds himself in the accused's situation."

As for how this fits CQB, well: "The accused, a soldier on duty in Northern Ireland fired four shots at a car (later known to be stolen) which failed to stop at a checkpoint. The Court accepted that the first three shots were fired either in self defence or in defence of the accused's colleagues, but the fourth, which killed a joyrider in the car, was not so fired on the ground that the car had by then passed the checkpoint by some 50 feet. The House of Lords upheld the accused's conviction for murder. It made no difference that the force had been used in the prevention of crime or arresting an offender or that the accused was a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty."

Neil Hawkins
7th September 2000, 12:28
Northern Ireland has always been a hazardous place for the British Army, there are many stories of soldiers getting jail time for doing their job. When ever the military is placed on the streets with the public and expected to do a military job by civilain rules you're gonna have trouble.

Neil

Michael Becker
7th September 2000, 19:52
Self defense? Dont you think Northern Ireland might be considered an extreme example, as at that time it was nothing short of a war zone?

A more relevant example might be the case of the farmer who was found guilty of murder after shooting dead a sixteen year old boy and wounding his adult accomplice who had attempted to burgle his farm. Not surprisingly this has stirred up quite a controversy.

B.T.W. I believe Private Lee Clegg was later cleared murder and subsequently returned to the Parachute Regiment.

TommyK
8th September 2000, 02:04
Greetings,

I know this will be a sensitive post, so please try and be objective in the reading of it.

First of all, I firmly believe that every soldier believes he is doing his duty, however, as we learned in Vietnam, things can be seen in a different light.

The 'other side', right or wrong, just sees the army (US regulars, British regulars, ARVN, ROK, or whatever country's troops that are involved) as an occupying army.

Therefore it is fair in the eyes of these citizens, in the occupied land, for them to fight as 'guerillas', thus provoking the cycle of guerilla attacks on BOTH sides.

At some point an 'innocent' will be killed by the occupying troops, in return for some guerilla activity, and the cycle continues as it has in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, etc.

The point is that it all depends on where in the world this type of incident happens. I also agree that Northern Ireland is not the best example to have been given.

I also believe that this type of senseless fighting must STOP, and the first step in doing so is to send the troops home, as fast as practical.

Regards,
TommyK

Joseph Svinth
8th September 2000, 02:48
But as long as Our Leader sends soldiers to Somalia or Bosnia or Ireland, then the individual soldier is required to obey the letter of the law, as interpreted by judges and politicians. And, regardless of how the British Army viewed service in Ireland, in the eyes of the Crown Northern Ireland was evidently NOT a war zone.

The scenario sounds plausible, though, as had a US Marine Security Guard assigned to the embassy at Mogadishu shot someone, then that would probably have been grounds for court-martial. (The SEAL team attached to the embassy could shoot, but not the Marines.)

If this sounds odd, remember that Rules of Engagement are everything in this sort of scenario. Furthermore, it is possible under NATO acts for a soldier to be charged under host nation laws for actions actually ordered by the commander. (For which his commander, being a general, will of course slide.)

Remember -- scapegoats are always picked at the lowest level possible; thus William Calley goes to jail and William Westmoreland gets a medal. Self-defense in professional situations therefore requires one to know the commander's intent.

But, basically, if there aren't bullet holes in the wall behind you, then you probably shouldn't be shooting, and if there is not a clear field of fire, then you probably shouldn't be shooting unless specifically ordered by a field grade officer or unit commander. As one USMC colonel (H.M. Koppenhaver, 1977) put it, while no one denied anyone his individual right to self-defense, no one denied the commander his right to give said individual five years in Leavenworth either.

Walt Harms
8th September 2000, 13:54
The big problem here and most similar cases is using the Army/Marine Corps etc. as police. They (as a rule) have neither the training nor the screening (psy) for that job.
Lastly they did not expect to be used as policemen when they enlisted. If this form of deployment continues perhaps new training could be implemented and some special units be formed. Your average infantry soldier just is not a policeman.

Okami
11th September 2000, 00:43
Originally posted by TommyK
Greetings,

I know this will be a sensitive post, so please try and be objective in the reading of it.

First of all, I firmly believe that every soldier believes he is doing his duty, however, as we learned in Vietnam, things can be seen in a different light.

Agree.




The 'other side', right or wrong, just sees the army (US regulars, British regulars, ARVN, ROK, or whatever country's troops that are involved) as an occupying army.

Therefore it is fair in the eyes of these citizens, in the occupied land, for them to fight as 'guerillas', thus provoking the cycle of guerilla attacks on BOTH sides.

At some point an 'innocent' will be killed by the occupying troops, in return for some guerilla activity, and the cycle continues as it has in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, etc.

The point is that it all depends on where in the world this type of incident happens. I also agree that Northern Ireland is not the best example to have been given.

I also believe that this type of senseless fighting must STOP, and the first step in doing so is to send the troops home, as fast as practical.

Regards,
TommyK



IMHO, the problem is that the real motivatiion for country to send their units in another is never humanitarian!There are always other political,strategical reasons...
So the question are:

"Is the sending of soldiers (who mostly donīt care about the country there in) really a help to anyone?"

"Are there really real solutions to the very old "vendettas" ? (put aside that mostly no one knows where theyīre started and many donīt want that they end (for various reasons)"

"Does anybody really care?"

etc.

I donīt think there is anyone who can give the real answers...

And Mr.Harms ís absolutely right!

TommyK
11th September 2000, 01:53
Greetings Mijo,

Well put!!! Given your location, I bow to your expertise and experience in this area. However, in the case of Ireland, many of the peoples there see the British Army as another chapter in a continuing saga of an 800 year occupation. Personaly, I'd love to see a permanent and just peace there and in every troubled corner of the world!

Peace!!!

Regards,
TommyK
"True wisdom is in knowing when to make a stand and when to turn the other cheek."

Okami
11th September 2000, 02:35
Originally posted by TommyK
Greetings Mijo,

Well put!!! Given your location, I bow to your expertise and experience in this area.


Thanks for the "well put".But Iīm certainly no expert (the only expert is someone who lived for a few thousand years and saw all the factors,I donīt think there are many around in this forum ;) ).




However, in the case of Ireland, many of the peoples there see the British Army as another chapter in a continuing saga of an 800 year occupation. Personaly, I'd love to see a permanent and just peace there and in every troubled corner of the world!

Peace!!!

Regards,
TommyK
"True wisdom is in knowing when to make a stand and when to turn the other cheek."

Well,the problem is that the kids in Ireland etc. hear the old stories of the "bad" people from the other side (no one is telling them to forget what was before x years!)...

Another thing is the old rule: when the people are too occupied with hate they have no time to look at the things their politicans do ;) .So this is a great motivation for some politicans etc. that they keep the hate up...I could write here some stroies from my country but I think everyone know some from his own...

And youīre surely not the only one with the (<b> utopic </b>) wish for peace.I think If everyone works on himself this world is already a better place.

Good night,and thank you.

--------------

Mijo "who is still on the internet altough itīs 3:37 AM in the morning -AAAARGH! But this is the last time (a lie?)" Rebic

Joseph Svinth
13th September 2000, 12:51
Ooh, continuing on this topic, here's an interesting one for those of you who live in Britain and carry pointy things:

http://www.met.police.uk/police/mps/mps/youth/you-004.htm

Why? Well, how about that thousand pound fine for carrying a sharp implement or a pepper spray canister? Eek.

Rik
13th September 2000, 13:00
Yeh,

Pretty expensive huh? Saying that though, it doesn't seem to have had much effect on the situation. Funny though because the majority of knife injuries sustained in fights are actually self inflicted (accidently of course). I guess this tells us that the sort of person who carries a knife in public is on average a retard. No surprises there then.

Neil Hawkins
14th September 2000, 00:03
I've been reading some stuff from various combatives and knife fighter sites, and it positively scares me, some people that carry knives shouldn't be allowed outside the assylum let alone on the street!

Neil

Michael Becker
14th September 2000, 23:13
HM Goverment banned switchblades in the 1950's. That this and other subsequent legislation has had no effect whatsoever on violent crime is lost on politicians.
The fact is they are more intrested in soundbites and grand gestures, their sole motivation being to stay in power.

Banning this and that looks good, is easy to do and doesnt get the do-gooders bleating about the poor victims of society that commit crime and damn well should be spending time behind bars instead of getting off with a slap on the wrist.

Ģ1000 fine? Yeah right. Like your average smackhead has a grand to give away. The juvenile gangs that go around tooled up simply dont give a tinkers damn about fines they dont have the money to pay.

Until criminals fear the penalties of the law thew will do as they please.

UK law may seen tough, but believe me, the criminals dont think so,( No death penalty, no three strikes and your out ).

The matter of using a knife for self defense is an intresting subject. If you can legally do so, why not use Mace or an ASP batton instead? What about a firearm? Each of these give a distance advantage. Surely a knife is not the best way to go.

At the very least think about all the nasty diseases that that junkies blood might be carring ( HIV/AIDS, Hep B & C, etc ).

Then there is 'problem two'. I dont think a jury would be very sympathetic towards the color photos that they would get to see from the autopsy report. The prosecuting attorney would have a field day.

Use a knife if you have no other choice, but I agree that some of those that glory in knife fighting probably would be better off in a psychiatric hospital.

Okami
18th September 2000, 23:21
Originally posted by Michael Becker

HM Goverment banned switchblades in the 1950's. That this and other subsequent legislation has had no effect whatsoever on violent crime is lost on politicians.
The fact is they are more intrested in soundbites and grand gestures, their sole motivation being to stay in power.

Banning this and that looks good, is easy to do and doesnt get the do-gooders bleating about the poor victims of society that commit crime and damn well should be spending time behind bars instead of getting off with a slap on the wrist.

Ģ1000 fine? Yeah right. Like your average smackhead has a grand to give away. The juvenile gangs that go around tooled up simply dont give a tinkers damn about fines they dont have the money to pay.


:)



Until criminals fear the penalties of the law thew will do as they please.

UK law may seen tough, but believe me, the criminals dont think so,( No death penalty, no three strikes and your out ).


Do you mean that serious?If this is the case,then why there are still murderers,rapers etc. in countries with death penalty?And the criminal rate is very often much higher than in countries with no "tough" laws...No penalty will stop someone from doing it!To prevent criminal behaviour the state should work on prevention,like getting the kids of the streets etc.This is the harder way but ,IMHO,more effective.



The matter of using a knife for self defense is an intresting subject. If you can legally do so, why not use Mace or an ASP batton instead? What about a firearm? Each of these give a distance advantage. Surely a knife is not the best way to go.

At the very least think about all the nasty diseass that that junkies blood might be carring ( HIV/AIDS, Hep B & C, etc ).

Yep,AIDS and similar is a big problem.There is one police officer in my hometown (not Zagreb) who got infected by it because of a junkie.


Then there is 'problem two'. I dont think a jury would be very sympathetic towards the color photos that they would get to see from the autopsy report. The prosecuting attorney would have a field day.

Use a knife if you have no other choice, but I agree that some of those that glory in knife fighting probably would be better off in a psychiatric hospital.

A very good ending of your post.

Regards,

Michael Becker
19th September 2000, 18:24
Hello Mijo

I dont think laws will prevent people commiting crimes but if criminals are in jail it is very hard for them to reoffend. Make no mistake, it is those that persistantly reoffend that are the main problem.

So many called 'petty' criminals, like buglars, end up with multiple convictions. Many 'petty' criminals move onto worse crimes such as mugging. As controversial as it may be I do support the three strikes and youre out policy.

I do agree with you that social problems such as povery need to be addressed, but like you said, some people will not be put off criminal behaviour. These are the ones that should spend time in jail so that society can be protected.

Okami
24th September 2000, 21:35
Some interresting thoughts.I agree with you on some terms exept that I have some problems with the "strike out" policy.

I have stated my opinion earlier so ther is no need to repeat myself...

Thank you for this nice conversation.Too bad the karma stuff isnīt in yet :) .

Kkido
26th September 2000, 15:41
Hello,

I find it interesting that one must condemn a person to an Insane Assylum, or that they should be locked up, just because they carry a knife, or having trained in a knife fighting defensive style...

Over a year ago, while setting up a Martial Arts seminar tour in Scotland, I contacted the "Home Office" British Ministry about teaching and selling knives there in Scotland. The letter I received in response was anything but receptive to the idea.

I quote " The Government is fully committed to doing everything possible to deal with the Evil of illicit knife carrying" enquote... (Restictions of Offensive Weapons Act 1959)

There is also an Offensive Weapons Act of 1996, and a Knives Act of 1997.

The stop and search rule (Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994) strengthened the powers of the POLICE regarding the possible concealment of said weapon (KNIFE)...

Here in Canada (Unknown Statute Law reference), you can carry a knife, but only for purposes that are work related, or for opening things like boxes, (Not people)... If you say to the Constable/Officer that you have it for defense, then look for having your Dinner in "LOCKUP" on that day.

I teach a Knife Defense called the "Kkido Blade". I teach this as one of the seminars on my tour...

Many people do not believe, or will allow, "GUNS" in their respective homes, yet everyone I know has a KNIFE in their home... (Checked your kitchen lately?)

Teaching people, for defensive purposes, of how to use a knife as a weapon of defense in your home is not insane (IMHO). Not knowing how to use it is "INSANE" (IMHO)...

NOW, Where's my Straight Jacket at? Eh!!!

Thanks,

OSU,

Dano Meadows (Kkido formerly Dantek1)

[Edited by Kkido on 09-26-2000 at 09:47 AM]

Rik
27th September 2000, 14:40
Perhaps this isn't the place for a discussion on the relative merits of available punishments for knife users, or any other criminal for that matter, but I can't help responding to Micheal Becker and Okami.
Okami,
I don't think Mike was suggetsing that by increasing the severity of punishment (i.e. frying the b'stards) the crime problem in the UK would decrease, he was merely saying that the situation is pretty slack over here and people get away with little 'punishment' compared to many countries.
Mike,
Maybe we should introduce punishments like amputation or something. Personally I see it as an eye for an eye and have no problem with watching knife carrying violent types being given a taste of their own medicine.

Just a thought..

Michael Becker
27th September 2000, 19:06
I have no problem with people learning how to use a knife for self defence. I myself know how to behead a man with a sabre. It's not the knowing ( I know my Sun Tzu ) but the doing that is the issue here.

Frankly, as I stated before, there are better tools available for self defence, IMO.

Also, in most western societies now, if you use a knife for self defence then you are likely going to get hell from the prosecution and the jury. Like it or not, that is the simple truth.

Some of the OTT instructors out there with their bloodthirsty publicity will be right up to their necks in the shit if they ever have to justify themselves to a jury-as will students of these people.

Speculation on my part? No, because for one, I have read some of Massad Ayoob's case studies. Some of them could keep you awake at night. Secondly, just take a look at how the media portrays weapons and tell me this doesnt have an effect on Joe Public.

You are allowed to carry a folding non locking knife under British law. What the home office were refering to was the increasing habit of youth gangs to prowl the streets tooled up. I myself own some very nice knives, ( vintage Almar Hawk's among others for those that are curious) that I cannot carry without some justification now. I am not happy about this but that is the law and I will abide by it while I live in the UK.

Amputations...hmm.

I believe I have already mentioned my skills with a sabre...

No, while I am in favour of an eye for an eye in a sense, I am not sure I would get literal. I prefer jail time because, at the end of the day there are miscarriages of justice.

Jail's do have a wonderful way of preventing reoffending. That is probably the biggest problem for UK crime rates at this time. ( Give me a fool proof method of prosecution and I would have no problem with the death penalty-but not until then ).

Okami
27th September 2000, 23:21
Originally posted by Kkido
Hello,

I find it interesting that one must condemn a person to an Insane Assylum, or that they should be locked up, just because they carry a knife, or having trained in a knife fighting defensive style...

I donīt think youīre insane!Where did you get that from?
I only think people who are walking around armed (a knife is a weapon,if you need a knife for work then it is another thing) and waiting (in one way or another) for beeing attacked,so that they can see how "good" they are,are insane!And yes,I really mean that!

Besides,if everyone who trains in MA is insane then .... ;)


Originally posted by Rik
Perhaps this isn't the place for a discussion on the relative merits of available punishments for knife users, or any other criminal for that matter, but I can't help responding to Micheal Becker and Okami.

See above!


Okami,
I don't think Mike was suggetsing that by increasing the severity of punishment (i.e. frying the b'stards) the crime problem in the UK would decrease, he was merely saying that the situation is pretty slack over here and people get away with little 'punishment' compared to many countries.

Well,this is maybe the case...But the laws are only the smallest problem,as I stated before.



Originally posted by Michael Becker


Give me a fool proof method of prosecution and I would have no problem with the death penalty-but not until then .


Aha,and for what would you give a death penalty and for what not?Where is the straight line betwwen death penalty and jail sentence (sp?)?No,no donīt answer,just think for yourself :) .

Bye.









[Edited by Okami on 09-27-2000 at 05:28 PM]

dbruere
1st October 2000, 02:43
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
[B]http://www.bsdgb.co.uk

"Bottom line: "The response must be reasonable/ proportionate. This is the most important aspect of the defence. Despite the suggestion of total objectivity in the word 'reasonable', the test of whether the accused acted reasonably is judged by the reactions of the reasonable person, who finds himself in the accused's situation."


There is more to it than that.
The defendents state of mind is also taken into account. If (for example) you pre-emptively laid someone out because you *thought* they were reaching for a knife, and could justify why you thought so, then that qualifies as a 'reasonable response'. Even if they have no knife.

As for Northern Ireland, for those who are not British or familiar with the situation, the 'problem' is that a majority of people in the North want no part of Eire. They wish to remain as part of Britain.

Also, troops went in (IIRC 1969) in order to protect the Catholic minority (generally Irish nationalist) from the Protestant majority carrying out what today would be called 'ethnic cleansing', with the largely Protestant police standing aside.

The BIG mistake was to place the army under local (Protestant) control. By the time that was rectified the cycle of violence had begun.

Historically, the 'Troubles' has its roots in religion and ethnicity, but to give you a taste of their (largely Protestant) POV consider Eire up until (say) 1980ish.

Eire since its formation has been an almost theocratic Catholic state. By law, no abortion, no contraception, no divorce and almost every state decision had to be rubber stamped by the Church. Not to mention that it was considerably poorer than the North.

Things have changed very substantially in the past 15yrs which is why a peace is quite likely. North and South are converging in terms of culture (or at least the things that used to grate so much). Also, with both becoming provinces in the EU nationalism on both sides isn't quite what it was.

Gassho
Dirk