I am from the UK (Scotland) and WAS charged with assault as a teenager when defending myself. I was being attacked by two guys who claimed to have a knife at the time. I threw one punch which knocked one of them to the floor while they attacked me, and then I ran like no tomorrow. Police caught up to me about 3 months later, and I was charged with assault even though there were witnesses who said I was defending myself. Police just wanted to charge me and move on, when I mentioned the threat of a knife I was told if I didn't have proof of the claim then they wouldn't be adding it to my statement. The court ended up dropping the charge against me because it was a minor offence and I was never in trouble previously, while the two guys that attacked me had previous for both carrying knives and assaulting other people. Before this happened my career plan was to join the police and work toward being a detective. Unfortunately, since that day, I have never trusted the police or justice system in our country. I have had similar experiences since then with being assaulted on nights out in the street and robbed at knifepoint in broad daylight with the police refusing to even look at CCTV of both incidents.
@@TheEulerID They shouldn't have the ability to do that, but they do. Being a young naive teenager who had no idea how these things worked, I believed the police officers at the time. Growing up I was told to always trust the police etc.
Yes. I've done it loads of times. The trick is some restraint and a valid reason. I.E opponent had a weapon (or bigger than you) and you needed to end the fight quickly....Don't spend 5 minutes kicking the shit out of them. Be fast, be brutal, be efficient, then get cops called after you subdue him and explain why you needed to take him down hard and fast. You can snap arms and break legs to achieve that. The aim is to end the fight in 30 seconds or less and then stop. Remind the Police you are entitled to survive and the opponent chose the consequences.
@@tonysheerness2427I think this is about the worst case to use. The burglar and his mates weee nasty pieces of work. However Tony Martin was wrong on in how he went about defending himself and was no saint himself. I found him very horrid person in my experience.
Yeah but that's twitter remark, they well come after you for , they have no time for murder ..anyway you can stab someone fine as long as your a tick box , just on a dress and say your trans , and he misgendered you
Rough translation: It is unlawful for a normal citizen to defend themselves using a weapon, unless, by sheer luck, they stumble across a weapon whilst being attacked, and are somehow able to successfully grab the weapon and then successfully use it against the attacker. Of course, it is far more likely the attacker uses the weapon on you and beats you half to death. Though, don't worry too much. The police may be taking a break from policing naughty words online, and be in a position to recover your body. Welcome to the UK everyone!
As with literally everything the police ever get involved in, self defence and weapons laws would be much better if the police didn’t get involved in them.
One piece of advice I got from my solicitor was to use any means necessary to defend yourself but as soon as police arrive, produce a business card for your solicitor and refuse any and ALL questions without a solicitor. Not a duty solicitor who works next door to the police station & knows all the cops on first name basis, but an actual defence solicitor who knows the nuances inside out. The police always "just want to understand what happened" and then use it against you. Say nothing at all without a lawyer in the room.
@@Messimagician83 Having the card of a "non-in-house" lawyer goes a long way to making them think twice about messing with you. Business cards are free, just make sure you have one in your wallet beforehand.
@@MSM4U2POM yeah but i know people with actual video of evidence they know they are and their names and still not prosecuted. just given the police number sorry nothing we can do. What is reality and law are very different things. Most burgularys go unsolved sometimes police dont even come to properties when a crime has been comitted. I have seen all of this happen. I had a neighbour where people rob there house 5 times in one year because they can get away with it.
@@liamhancox2824 I think you are confusing two different things, my friend. The law is one thing, but law enforcement is quite another, and in the instances you cite it is the police who are to blame - not the courts. But I take your point: when the police are reluctant to act then inevitably criminals will exploit it to the full. It is important to realise though that this is not the fault of the law itself, but the body which supposedly enforces it, and the procedures and processes leading up to trial which are far too lengthy and stressful for the defendant. You are quite right that at the moment these are both unfit for purpose.
@@tanfosbery1153AGREED Two words. "Tony Martin" used his gun to defend against a burgler in his farm which is TOTALLY reasonable and was Jailed! Eg. If you have a weapon or means of defense and USE IT TO DO SO YOU WILL BE JAILED! - So this is utter BOLLOX. You can Defend yourself as long as you DON'T do it SUCCESSFULLY!!!
@@AB-C1 Tony Martin DIDN'T use his gun to defend himself, he shot before he could even see who he was shooting at, and continued firing even as they tried to leave the property.
@@AB-C1 this is not the best example of self defence tbh..... and shooting an unarmed man is hardly reasonable is it lol..... he could have told him to lay on the floor and wait for police.......that would have been reasonable...... you cant just shoot people lol, even if they are on your property......
I am now in my seventies, too slow to run, too old too fight fair. If someone breaks into my home at night, and if I hear them I shall use the maximum force to prevent them causing injury to myself and my wife, I shall assume that they intend to cause harm to us and use lethal force if I have to. At my age life in prison is not much of a deterrent when there is a chance that the perpetrator would have possibly fatally injured me anyway.
See that is why the system falls apart. Attitudes like I'm gonna kill someone who intrudes in my house just incase is why the state always seeks to take or liberties away. I have seen off home intruders in the past with two words. Nobody hurt, nothing taken. I agree it's a scary thought as you get older. But seriously get some security instead it's better in the long run.
@@captainchaos3053 I guessed you missed the part about life imprisonment not being that much to fear aged 70? Not only would you have to consider whether the person is fit enough to stand trial but could you keep them detained in poor health. Surprising there aren't more older offenders.
@@captainchaos3053 attitudes like his aren't the problem. Attitudes like yours, where you think you're a big hard man, are the problem. Truth is, if someone broke into your house with ill intent, your words aren't going to frighten them, and you'll end up getting your teeth knocked out or worse.
@@captainchaos3053 The state is not a living organism. It is a machine that does what it's told. If citizens are too lazy to actually command that machine then brainless politicians will use it to their own ends. There is absolutely no logical way for you to say "I was able to see off intruders with words" and apply that to every scenario. If you break into someone's house you should consider yourself lucky if you walk out alive.
Those who are asking what is reasonable force. 1. Did you offer your attacker a cup of tea. 2. Did you allow your attacker to take regular breaks and 3. Did you ensure their mental well being was taken care off
I always ask any home invaders if they have a lethal weapon before I decide how to respond...& if they say no, I make sure by adding "Do you promise me that you're telling the truth?"
And did you ask their pronoun, not use any rude, nasty, hurty words or use any traumatizing name-calling, or at any time show any degree of racism, homophobia, transphobia, or prejudice of any kind. this sort of behaviour will definitely negate any claim of self-defense and will, in fact, result in you being charged and imprisoned. Be careful out there.
Rule 1. your opponent can have a weapon and you cannot (unless you're in a bear Grylls documentary and one just happens to appear next to you) Rule 2: you have to keep in mind the wellbeing of the possible murderous psychopath because someone who wasn't present at time can claim you went overboard and punish you rule 3: When you're forced to defend yourself you better start praying the judge isn't in a bad mood or have personal beliefs that put you at a disadvantage Nope, our justice system isn't stacked in the criminals favour at all
So, I'm "allowed" to defend myself under UK law - how gracious of the state - but I am not allowed to prepare a weapon in order to do that. I'm glad that the government deems it acceptable, at least, to meet home intruders with a lamp whilst they are armed with machetes and baseball bats...
I've been attacked and had to defend myself. It is impossible to determine what is reasonable during the event when full of adrenaline and in fear of your life.
The laws on self defence very explicitly do allow for the heat of the moment issue, and are very much favourable to the perception of risk at the time. In general, if there are prosecutions on this matter only when it has tipped over into revenge. For example, running after somebody clearly fleeing and then setting about them with a cricket bat would not count as legitimate self defence if there was no credible threat.
@@TheEulerID That's easy to say and each case is different. In my experiance the attacker can only be considered neutralised if they are unconscious, have broken bones or are trailing blood. Most attackers are druggies who feel no pain and can display phenomenal strength.
Ive slashed a knifeman, with his knife, while he was holding his own knife. But he was hired by our local kiddy fiddling cop Sam Brown, Fife Scotland. Funny how the police chose not to investigate their own crime ?
The moment you enter somebody's home intending to burgle it, you should be considered to have signed a waiver indemnifying the occupant against any claim you or the state may have for harm to yourself.
Well he can't directly criticise the system, since they would be petty and remove his Bar licence off him. But you can Tell BBB is not himself happy with the current standards of Law in the UK.
I value someone who actually knows and understands the law and works within the justice system's position on having faith in said system over people who don't.
Fully agree, it's very subjective and basically boils down on how good the defence is vs the prosecution.. There is a very fine line between reasonable and none reasonable in regards to the other side of things..
This is such an important video. As a DV (domestic vi*lence) survivor the police told me I wasn’t aloud to defend myself while being attacked. In fact I got arrested the one time I did. I’ve met many women who’ve been arrested & served prison sentences for defending themselves against their attackers. It’s a real issue for women that nobody really talks about.
This happened to me . I was assaulted many times by my ex girlfriend . I retaliated one night while I was dragged out of bed naked and assaulted for not partying with " guests " . 8 months in jail . She lied and got a moved to a new new council house . No protection for men
Lawyers can talk for hours about the intricacies of the law, but I know one thing for sure. If anyone attacks me or my family, in the street, or in my home, then all the force that I can muster will be used against them. I can always get someone like you to speak for me when the government or their bully boys come for me, as they no doubt will. Such is the sad state of the world we have to live I these days. However, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that my family are safe.
A lad with a golf club ran at my mother who was now in early motor nouron disease on her door step holding two walking sticks, my brother took a oversized heavy huge novality baseball bat with the curved end cut off into a angle for maximum PULP EFFECT and leathered that chav black n blue also breaking bone are estate went mad when he wasn’t bailed and my mother shat her self trapped in the living room unable to get upstairs to the toilet trying to charge him with gbh 10s of people went to the station we don’t think so a good clubbed teen 6 foot tall attacks a 5 foot old women with motor nouron he got what he asked for a good clubbing
I have only one thing to say on this subject, "Having two feet in the dock is better than being six feet in a grave". Do what you need to do and worry about the law later.
The system ... the police ... are more concerned about achieving their targets (as introduced by Blair). They won't waste time on trying to find a guilty person if it's easier to stitch up an innocent person. Immigration police operate in the same manner. I have first hand experience and numerous accounts of this.
The case of a crazy dude breaking into a teenager's room when he was home alone and beating the shit out of him until the teenager grabbed a knife from the bedside table and stabbed the guy in the stomach while he was on top of him led to the teenager being charged for murder and convicted because the attacker was unarmed. That example alone tells you you cannot defend yourself in the UK. If a literal child being beaten on by a full grown larger man who broke into his house cannot use a weapon to defend himself
UK citizen here. If someone breaks into my house to steal my hard earned belongings, then they are going to get it. We should have the final decision protecting our house/family and belongings. Reasonable force is such a wide ranging get out. The Law should make it clear if you break into someones house/property then there is no protection on you the thief.
Just playing devil's advocate here: let's suppose the law does work in the way you want it to, and the homeowner always has the final say. What's to stop you luring someone into your home under false pretences, murdering that person, and claiming afterwards that he or she had no lawful right to be on your property? How would your proposed framework deal with situations like that? No-one can be the judge in his own case, my friend. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
@@MSM4U2POMwow you had a pretty good point but you said it like a total knob well done. Police would obviously look into why said person was there. Motive. You wouldn't lure some random inside. They'd find you out
@@callumgreen6383 What in God's name would be the point of a police investigation if the outcome were dictated by one of the parties being investigated??? ROFL! Even on RU-vid it's rare to see such absurd and self-contradictory nonsense. Add to that the dangerously naive assumption that this situation would never arise, and it's pretty clear who the real knob is here, my friend. You really haven't thought this through at all.
@@MSM4U2POM firstly no assumption was made, bad things happen daily, so I don't know why you're suggesting I "dangerously naively" suggested that it wouldn't. I know people who were attacked in their own home. But take this as an example, You've just wound me up with your condescending demeanor. If I then invited you to my house, you came, and you were never seen again, wouldn't it be painfully obvious what happened? That's my point. Same as how if someone has died in odd circumstances the police look into everyone they are associated with and consider any previous altercations etc. Hence why loved ones are often treated as suspects in the early stages of a murder investigation. It's the polices job to investigate you tool what else are they meant to be doing? Busting pot smokers? Haha. Not many people are going to be inviting people over in order to murder them, and if they are, then i doubt the law would influence their decision. So you can climb back under the rock you just came from, you absolute weapon
@@flemit35 One famous case that springs to mind is the farmer that shot at the men that were robbing his machinery. There are very many such cases. I assume from your brief comment that you think such 'examples' don't exist?
The justice system is so broken that no one trusts it... And how can a jury make an informed decision when lawyers bend the truth and when they don't know the answers they will word something so it sounds like you are guilty when you've got video evidence to prove you're not... They don't want the truth, they want the gossip, and gossip turns into untruths and opinions and opinions are heard by the jury, and THAT'S what they act on...
Had that by bringing a complaint to a Pub Landlady whom lied and pulled out of a contract! Her husband also then got away with headbutting me which Police denied seeing caught on CCTV. I do not recognise my country.
You can twist the semantics any way you want, but British courts, police and the establishment in general absolutely hate the idea of people being able to defend themselves. And the idea of someone actually using FORCE to defend themselves sends them into a shiver. It's nothing to do with stopping vigilante mentality and everything to do with keeping the general population totally dependent on authority.
IMO one of the biggest problems with our laws is the use of words like "reasonable". They are so open to interpretation that they can be twisted to allow loopholes in both prosecution and defence.
It’s by design. This is so that rich and connected people can get off the hook for anything, while the poor and middle classes are ruled over with an iron fist by a tyrannical 2 tier system hidden in plain sight. If a normal non-wealthy person defends themselves it’s automatically deemed unreasonable in every way and the maximum penalty needs to be sought. To get a “reasonable” verdict you need expensive lawyers at minimum.
Problem is, there's a bloke in court who's paid job it is to convince the judge / jury that your actions were excessive and not acceptable as self-defence.
And the other bloke who is defending you is his best mate who only knows how to defend genuine murderers and maimers and is unprepared as his case doesn't involve intimidating witnesses into doubting if the defendant is really who they saw. It's not like most cases as the physical evidence and witness testimony is not in dispute, it's about a moral argument about whether the thing that was done was right which English barristers are familiar with in condemning but unfamiliar with in advocating.
Not in the UK. When Police kill people they quote " I believed that my life and the life of others were in danger" that's all they say or need to say. You try that if you kill some burglar in your house. You'd almost certainly be arrested then bailed while further investigations were made. The CPS would be looking to try to convict you not to be looking for a way to convict you.
"Can You REALLY Defend Yourself in the UK?" No you can't. A man tried to murder me in my kitchen by blugeoning me to death, I got arrested and locked up because I defended my life inside of my own home. This happened in Lancashire 2020.
Dude I’m genuinely sorry to hear that. The important thing is you’re alive, getting locked up is a major downside, but at least you can live the rest of your life.
I was once involved in an attempt on my life - in the process of defending myself I kicked the attacker in the chest - there were actually questions on whether or not I would be charged with assault..!! No, you can’t defend yourself in the uk, and if you do you should expect to be arrested for it…
Yep... just like how the system hates us for catching pedophiles and goes out of its way to protect them . . Its time people WAKE UP and realise the people they keep voting in are criminals in disguise . . Also people need to wake the hell up and question why the royal family needs 24/7 armed security just like the drug cartels need cus they have enemies cus of the terrible things they have done to get rich . . But people worship them and wont connect the dots so here we are.... . Living in a system which protects the criminals before its citizens 🤦♂️
@@chrisl461 Because in times of crisis, an innocent person whom was attacked should not have to worry about these type of things. Instead, a criminal can create a situation, innocent person reacts and they are screwed over for it. However, if the criminal was not born or was not a prick in the first place, the situation would have never happened. Therefore, the fault lies on the criminal being an arsehole which caused the entire mess in first place. If a criminal is in your home, you should be allowed to kill simple as. It is your castle and you are the king. Don't want to die? Okay cool, don't enter into peoples homes. It's a damn simple easy to follow rule. (As just one example)
Don't be stupid. You have the choice to also be a criminal and use whatever force you want... but it will not be supported by the law. Similarly, the criminal isn't exactly being supported by the law either... so don't pretend they are somehow "allowed" to use more force than you are.
@@LordDaveKoreshuk police are also required to use “reasonable force” but they also have access to batons tazers pepper spray and guns ive seen 8 officers with bats and shields unable to take down one overweight man with a knife to where they called 2 squads of firearm officers if even our own police cannot protect us we must be allowed to do so ourselves the “reasonable force” argument also makes no sense as how many handcuffed men are on video being battered by multiple officers but one innocent person with no training is expected to become jackie chan and disarm criminals “reasonably” rather than taking the measures to ensure they do not become a victim
The British approach to self-defence is grossly inadequate for the modern age. Many new arrivals have brought their barbarism to our shores, and they treat us as they would their countrymen; as soulless possessors holding desirable items. If criminal breaks into a home, he does so with clearly malicious intent. If he dies as of a result of these actions; the state should leave the incident to rest. We cannot allow the state to further victimise the victims: criminals should face prejudice under the eyes of the law; not sympathy.
I think it all depends on the situation. Not everyone breaking in has malicious intent. There could be people who have been goaded into breaking in but do not intend to rob the whole house, there have been the odd people who were drunk or,on drugs and broke into a home not realise it or they knew they partly what they were doing but due to their intoxication thought it was their own home. There’s also the odd occasion where gangs have forced young members to break into homes. So I wouldn’t attack unless the person breaking in either tried to lash out, grabbed hold of a family member/pet or had a weapon or something that could be used as a weapon.
@EmilyCheetham A) what is a meme ear? B) it seems you are very naive. I actually fear for your safety if you, as a young woman, wake in the middle of the night with a burglar in your home.
@@EmilyCheetham I hope to God that you have someone competent around you in such an event. Your nativity is a weakness that they will exploit; you will be killed.
My friend defended herself against her ex boyfriend who had a knife. Because he reported it as "she went for him" with a knife, she was put in jail for 4 months and is currently wearing a tag. Her word against his, yet the police are totally going by his word. 👌 her barrister is confident she'll get off but in the mean time she lost her house and a good job. The law is shit.
@@Jafmanz Well her barrister is very confident that she'll be found innocent. I've known this friend for over 20 years and nothing close to this has ever happened to her before. I bumped into him not long after the incident and he started to spew lies which I know are lies because I've seen the police pictures of the "wounds" and the police interview with him, so yeah, I'm pretty sure of the injustice, thanks for your input. Did you leave a pointless reply to all the other comments here that have had a very similar experience with the uk police and justice system? Because my friend is certainly not the only one.
it does not matter what you believe nor what I believe nor anyone else reading the comments. The only thing that matters is what the justice system decides! The internet is awash with lies, half-truths, ignorance and deception. You might be telling the truth about what you believe but you might also be wrong! you might be partially correct and missing some key information.. or you could be a very good story teller with some other agenda. It could be a combination of many of those and some I've not mentioned.. who knows? I don't believe a word because I have no logical reason to do so. The first thing that strikes me is that your friend defended herself. That means she was being attacked by a man with a knife. Is she 6 foot tall and 275lb's? did she also have a knife? a gun perhaps? did he attack her with a knife with his eyes shut? half heartedly poking into the air around her? you have omitted so much! and yet divulged a very unbelievable scenario! I hope that makes perfect sense! In other news I was sent to prison in 2003 I was attacked by 2 men with swords and they twisted it around and said I had a sword... I obviously won the engagement but the police believed them because well you know I told them there was 2 of them with swords... To be clear here if the scenario was accurate and not much of note was omitted then I hope and trust that any man who attacks a woman with a knife (without fearing for his own life because x,y,z) gets a very long time in prison picking up the soap. @@gardian1701
There is something more to your story that you are not mentioning because the opposite is what normally happens! The man regardless of innocence has everything against him in cases liek this.
I've used self defence and it was deemed as such. My sister organised a 6th birthday party for my nephew at a local village school hall one Saturday afternoon. All the kids were having a blast of a time until one mother urged me to come quickly. In one of the back rooms there was a man with a rucksack looking very uncomfortable being surrounded and confronted by about half a dozen mothers. They were simply asking him why was he there and could they help him but he just grimaced without really saying much. Suddenly he shouted "Do not mess with me!" and he pulled a Stanley knife out of his pocket, albeit with the blade still retracted inside the handle/body bit. I felt we were all in danger at that moment so I hit him once. Ok, I'm a 6'1" 17 stone bloke and I guess my punches if they land hurt. I knocked him out with one hit breaking his jaw (and my hand) in the process. I kicked his knife away and held him subdued but also in the recovery position as didn't want him choking or anything until the police arrived. The police took statements from us all and arrested the man. i was not arrested. Nor charged or anything. The police were satisfied it was self defence. The intruder was later charged and convicted under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if my memory is correct. It may have been Section 139A if that means more to the experts on here? The one added bit to this story is the man's rucksack contained newly purchased adult as well as kid's clothing most with the price tag/labels still attached. The police at no time seemed bothered to even to make any serious note of concern at this fact but it was my sister who suggested - and I think she is right - that the change of clothes was to evade and avoid detection on CCTV etc... later. She thinks he was after a kid that day.
The system goes out of its way to protect child predators . They spend millions of our tax looking after them... giving them fresh identities... a home... a life... etc . Then when they get caught reoffending (as they always do) . The system snarls at the people who caught the pedo and more tax money gets used up on them . . The systems run by a bunch of corrupt criminals who hide behind their stupid pompous accents . Fact
I asked an officer this before and they told me that if I hit someone in self defence I would be arrested for asualting them. I asked "so the only way I would be able to actualy press charges against an attacker would be if I just LET them attack me, even if it left me hospitalised or dead? " and the officer said "yes". Either that officer, like many, doesn't actually know the law or they just like trying to stop you from pressing charges against an attacker because it is to much paperwork.
I'm sure lots of people hit others in self defence and don't get arrested. I wouldn't pay too much attention to what this one officer said. Do you think every security guard or bouncer who ever hits someone gets arrested?
@@barneylaurance1865 they actually have licences that allow them to physically remove people or break up fights. but yes I have known bouncers being sued by people for getting physical with people when they haven't had a need to. thing is most of the time they end up hitting someone drunk who isn't going to bother actually following up on making a complaint.
I am a pensioner .From previous videos it's obvious that the law favours aggressors . If I admit that in my home I've kept some item to defend myself against an intruder . Well I haven't actually designated any particular item . But let's be clear I have dozens of items that I will use to defend myself . You may expect me to wait until I'm defending myself well I will use whatever is at hand to neutralise the intruder unless he just back off and goes of his own volition . Rather face people in court who in nice warm calm environment decide will decide my fate better than a hospital visit or worse . As for calling police I have witnessed police rushing from the local police station twenty minutes after being called to serious fraca .
I hate that the laws were created by people that haven’t ever had to defend themselves. When someone is trying to hurt you, how is it possible to ‘go to far’ in defending yourself?
My local pub, guy was attacked by some other guy and his brother (all with boxing experience) in the car park. Guy defends himself, victim knocks out guy No. 1, goes down, cracks head. Dead. Arrested, charged with manslaughter. Jury watches the pub CCTV video, the victim walks (correctly). Turns out he was attacked from behind, without warning. Jury took less than an hour to decide. Who in the police thought this case had legs? Cost tens of thousands to bring the case to court. Wasted.
My house was broken into as child and it was a very scary situation to be in. Im now 25 and im a self trained "professional" archer, i just love archery. If someone broke into my family home again, they would be met by me at the top of my stairs with a drawn bow and arrow ready to loose. I would verbally command them to leave the property and phone the police if possible at the same time. If said intruder ignored my verbal commands and proceeded up stairs i would have every right to protect my family from this intruder with my bow that is stored in my bedroom? Or would i get in trouble for confronting the intruder in my home with a bow and arrow if those circumstances did arrive. I honestly think its reasonable to put an arrow in someones chest if they broke into yyour home and continued their advanced after being told to leave.
Problem is how quickly can you reload before they run at you with a knife have you heard of the 21 foot rule? That's with a gun. Just pray we never need it.
I don't think you would get into trouble if you only confronted an intruder in your home. Your 'sporting goods' are not on the proscribed list of offensive weapons which cannot be possessed even in a private home. However, if the intruder did not leave, but instead rushed towards you, I think you would get in trouble if you loosed an arrow (even if it didn't hit them). Your actions would have strayed into the use of unreasonable force. A better choice would be to use the bow to keep them at arms length, essentially using it as a staff. Not taking an arrow with you when you grabbed the bow would be a much better option for a legal defence.
@@illegalopinions4082ideally yea but no. A bow takes time to set up and this would most likely be determined as premeditation. I’m a trained archer myself and unfortunately our laws suck ballz
I agree with you, you should be allowed to do that but the law says no. It's premeditated and arguably excessive force. An arrow through the chest would very likely kill them. You'd never win in a UK court. Please, find another way or you'll be in the slammer too. It really annoys me that not lethals like pepper spray are illegal.
FOR THE VICTIM OF CRIME TO BE FURTHER TRAUMATIZED AND TREATED AS THE GUILTY ONE BY BEING FORCED TO SUBMIT TO INTERROGATION AND TRIAL IS A GROSS INJUSTICE AND A CRIME WITHIN ITSELF
@@Doddster1983 Do you mean defended yourself in court or from an attacker? If from an attacker you probably got that because you went beyond defending yourself or you incriminated yourself with the words you used.
Warning: If you strategically place items at home which are not intended as weapons, but can be used as such (heavy ornaments, walking sticks etc) you face a risk of the INTRUDER picking them up to use upon you as well…take that into consideration, also I’ll bet police will assume that too much a ‘convenient placement’ of a weaponised domestic item will be regarded as a pre-meditated set up…so ensure such placements look to be a natural fit for your home. For example1: a stiletto heel snatched from a bedroom wardrobe looks natural….a fireman’s axe by the bed does not. Example2: A cast iron door stop is a reasonably located ‘weapon’, whereas a club or lump hammer left on a hall table is not (unless you have a junk filled house with garage tools spread around as your normal situation), but again, if you can grab them so can an intruder, so some partial concealment under or behind something else is a wise precaution.
Also this happened to me , was in my Uber driving , when person cut me up , road rage ensued, he chased me for several miles ,throwing objects at my car , at a t junction I couldn’t pull out , he got out of his car and stormed at me , leaning in my window agresively shouting and grabbed my shirt , he got a face full of de iced, he staggered back to his car , I drove off , 25 mins later passing same place , he is there in ambulance and cops their , I stopped told cops what happened , other guy agreed with my tale , I was arrested,in police station I gave “ statement of complaint “ answered no questions , but was very clear that I am allowed to defend my self with any thing u legitimately possess not kept for sole purpose of self defence , my solicitor quoted several case law of people defending themselves with , hairspray , air rifle even a joiner with a hammer , wasn’t charged
Today I saw a police car stopped in middle for a small round about waiting on a thief who rides illegal motorbike/dirt bike on the roads with no number plate and face completely covered, they tried to go around the round about to chase him but he did a dangerous driving act and went the other way speeding off, they didn't pressured him or bother chasing him, but he did taunt them on. It shows that us Law-abiding citizens are the ones to pay the price of being a "criminal" for small errors or for "ignorance" by the police eyes, Yet the real criminals are prised as the good guys and the police will ignore them. It shows that no one has faith in the police or the system and IT IS at it breaking point! It got to be fixed properly and to ensure the safety and fairness for law-abiding citizens, not just criminals who make millions from drugs/illegal goods/guns/robbery, etc...!
The fact that I would have to spend a lot of time and money to learn skills with which to defend myself effectively in the UK is ridiculous. Why shouldn't I be able to carry an item purely for the purpose of self defence? For example an extending baton as used by the Police. I feel that I should be able to carry that item or an item, as I would never attack someone as the aggressor, only ever in self defence. Me carrying such an item for self defence should never be judged as carrying an offensive weapon as by definition, I would never use it in offence, only defence. Prosecuting innocent people for carrying something for defence because some others out there are bad and would use it for offence using a blanket strategy of prosecute-all is frankly bollocks. The police can't be relied upon for keeping us safe so I should be able to do so myself, with a tool for that purpose.
How can you determine reasonable force when you defending your self?self preservation kicks in,the police will take the line of least resistance i.e. The victim.
Disable your attacker and escape. Don't disable your attacker and continue to inflict harm them as a form of punishment for attacking you. It's quite simple really.
In Regina v Palmer the Judge conceded that "it is accepted that it cannot be weighed to a nicety, the amount of force required". I'm paraphrasing here, I cannot remember the exact wording.
Many years ago I defended myself against an attacker who was injured by falling and banging his head against the ground. I was charged and convicted although punished only by a small fine. If I ever had to do the same again I'd be long gone before the police arrived. Before they can charge you they have to find you. These days they're far too busy protecting terrorist supporting marches or arresting people who said hurty things on social media.
I've been practising a range of martial arts since 1973 and I've seen a gradual erosion in what you can get away with while defending yourself compared to what the criminals are allowed to get away with while attacking you. Until the minor illness lie and the subsequent lock-downs I was teaching self-defence to adults. I always taught them not to get involved in physical or other altercations if you can possibly avoid or escape them. I always advised them that, in the event they were unable to avoid violence, to do what they had to do and then walk away. Never brag about it, never tell. It seems that the police FARCE have a hard-on for criminalising the law abiding while allowing the scum to rule the streets. Look at the vigour with which they follow-up hurty words, yet allow criminals to maim and kill with seeming impunity. And don't get me started on theft, shop-lifting, and burglary. The only time the police FARCE is interested is if the victim fights back, then you will feel the full FARCE of the law. Remember the Ninja films and the subsequent banning of weapons which cannot be properly used unless you are trained in their use. Ive seen a lot of idiots hit themselves with Nunchuks as they don't expect it to bounce back after hitting something or someone. Now there are massive restrictions on what you can carry, and purchasing knives or swords. However, we still have people being hacked to death and that poor actual Policeman being murdered in London a few years ago by one of the people responsible for so much cultural enrichment in the UK. Not so long ago the EU was trying to tighten up the already vague wording about "reasonable force" to "minimum force". Who does that help? Not the law-abiding citizens who didn't even elect them. It would have made it even easier for shyster lawyers (respect to you) to easy the criminals past the consequences of their actions. I love your videos but you often seem to be swimming against the tide of filth which is, for want of a better word, the UK legal system.
My feeling on self defence is as soon as its done, get off and away, don't explain yourself, say nothing, if asked about it say "what are you talking about? Never happened" get out of the area and don't ever talk about it again.
not so. pepper spray is thoroughly illegal in the UK and you cannot use any firearm with the intent of using it for self defence. some things you can own, just not with the intent of using them for defence. you can only use what is to hand. Personally I believe we should have those rights, but sentencing should be extremely lengthy if they are misused against others. @@barneylaurance1865
The problem with that is any weapon that might be usable for defence also has a role in offence. That even includes things like mace, pepper sprays or tazers. If something is purely defensive, like a rape alarm, then it is legal as that is clearly not an offensive weapon.
The right of self-defense, is in Inalienable right. It is not up to a government or anyone else to decide whether you should have it or not. If you cannot defend yourself, you are not free, simple as that.
The inherent philosophy in the UK, whether articulated or not, is that only the State has a monopoly on violence. As another person commented you can 100% defend yourself and the State then has a right to test to see if you can be penalised for taking a violent action which was not sanctioned by the State. I don’t mean to disparage the UK, or western democracies, but thought it would be useful to help people think about some of the underlying concepts.
Some judges and jurys will never understand how a person felt in that moment defending themselves or fearing for there lives until you are a victim of crime you will never no what your capable of doing.
No..Many years ago i came to the defence of a young lad who was being choked by two men, i say men but they looked around my age which was about 18 at the time, It was at a bus stop so i approached the two men and pleaded with them to let him go, one of the men looked at me, hurled some abuse and walked towards me in a threatening manor, he raised his fist and just before i thought he was going to punch me, i threw a left jab and he fell to the floor, his friend then rushed for me and amazingly walked into my left jab and hit the floor also, by that time the young lad had run away but i heard from one of his family members who said he was ok..The police obviously turned up and i, yes i was arrested.. I told the exact story to the police, that i hit two men in defence of the young boy and then to defend myself..It turned out that both the men were highly intoxicated and one didn't even remember that i hit him , but being honest i owned up to hitting them both..The police totally twisted everything, they tried to claim that i had repeatedly punched just the one man over and over again, and i kept saying no, i hit two men only the once as the one punch was enough to stop their advance..I ended up in court and was charged with actual bodily harm..I tried my best to give a clear account of what occured and i was so nervous..But the prosecutor was good, she kept accusing me and i kept denying to the point i got frustrated and got angry..no one likes to be accused of something that they feel is not entirely their fault, anyway as soon as i got angry she smiled..basically i showed the jury that i had a temper, and what with the police saying i attacked this man, the jury found me guilty..So a lesson learned, you can defend yourself, but there's a chance you might be charged also, depending on wether you get a policeman who gets a bonus for everyone he arrests..That hasn't put me off helping anyone i see in distress though. i would do the same thing again and take the same punishment to save a child from grown bullies..But i would definatly keep my mouth shut untill my lawyer arrives..
@@nagyzoli not really. Most of them don't work and are just for show and if its self defence a lot of the time it wont even be reported and so the cameras (if there even are any) will not be looked at.
@@aikighost So basically you gamble on 4 things: 1.) The cameras near your house happens to not work 2.) Nobody files a missing person report 3.) No neighbor see and report you 4.) The guy did not have a lookout friend
I tried to support the cops, but I cannot abide by that female police officer who caused distress, and abused her rights as an officer against an autistic child. Why that woman wasn't fired, I will never know.
The word we need to be careful of is 'reasonable'. What is reasonable and gets to define it? What is reasonable should be down to the person who was there at the time and it shouldn't be up to them to prove it was reasonable; it should be up to the state to prove that it wasn't. The 'reasonable man' doesn't exist and is, in fact, anyone... until proved otherwise.
"What is reasonable and gets to define it?" -- that's why we have juries. 12 ordinary people chosen from the street get to decide what's reasonable. At least, that's the theory. Like all systems, it isn't perfect.
I think most people's problem is the "reasonable Force" part, since that is a very flippy floppy thing and really varies on a person by person basis. And most people ain't combat experts and so won't really know what is or not too much force or unreasonable. Sometimes a weaker person might need to use more force or a weapon to defend themselves from a bigger stronger person. Like a 110 pound woman having to use a bat to fight off a 200 pound male burglary. Let's not also forget in our current legal system, some "minority" groups seem to get given more leeway and protections than your normal folks do. I do feel Reasonable Force is way to malleable, that too many innocent people are getting done by the courts for defending their homes.
For 5 of the 9 years that I worked as a minicab driver in a garrison town, I worked the Saturday night shift. Some drivers carried a baseball bat with them, but that was clearly intended to be used as a weapon - there are no baseball teams anywhere near the town. But my muscles would stiffen up from the long periods of sitting and so I carried a can of Deep Heat spray. Someone pointed out that it could be used to spray into the eyes of would-be attackers, but fortunately I never had to find out if it worked or not. Letting idiots be idiots and not arguing with them was probably the best self-defence, but at least once a month a driver got into trouble. When I changed cab companies, I stuck to day driving. Too many close calls and changing drinking habits made the risk financially unviable. If police are able to carry pepper spray for self defence, why can't other people?
My son got mugged at an ATM, police appeared and the muggers ran away. My son was arrested for fighting on the street and put in the cells for the weekend. Nobody would believe that he was attacked, now I have utterly no faith in the police whatsoever. Nowadays it is a career with a good pension, nothing to do with protecting the public.
Why do you think the federal state in the US wants to 'grab their guns'. Plenty of people don't get it over here cause we're legally neutered. 'Gun nuts'? or smart to enshrine it in their constitution.
2 people attempted to get at my bank whilst using the cashpoint when i was 15, i knocked 1 to the floor and the other ran off. I was interviewd without the pressense of an adult and Derbyshire Police sent ne to court and i got GBH. I shoupd have said no comment but as somewhat vunerable at that age i wasnt to know. I now dispise the Police!
How on earth did they turn that into GBH?! That's rhetorical mostly, but it shouldn't even make the criteria for aggravated assault. Plain assault and battery should have been the most you ever had to face (says this arm-chair lawyer, anyway). GBH was never intended for something like that.
you can defend yourself like i did, but you will probably spend a night in the cells, be investigated under suspicion of ABH then wait for the police to check the CCTV and only months later then find out the police have dropped the investigation against you (and did nothing about the guy attacking me).
Reasonable Force is if your attacker is no longer attacking you then you are supposed to stop. But what happens when he keeps GETTING UP and he’s 30 years younger than you and you are FAILING fast physically? You do something to keep him down and the damn courts are going to come for you. Reasonable force needs a different interpretation for assailants who are much younger / fitter than you are.
If someone breaks into an occupied home at night you must assume they are tolled and ready to deal with the occupants of the property, especially if they are coming up the stairs.
The dark grey line with self defence and pre-empting a punch to the face is the only thing that stopped me hitting someone last weekend. One of the most vile individuals I've ever had the misfortune to share words with. Extremely threatening, approached aggressively, was an absolute gobshite for no less than 10 minutes throwing out all kinds of insults and threats about what he would do to me and what he'd done to men bigger than me. All because I asked him why he was parked in a blue badge bay without a blue badge.
Fair play. So have i. Lots of times i go to park and some twat is parked in one. In fairness, most of the time i do not display the badge as i had one stolen once and next time someone might smash teh windows to get the badge.. @@danthedroneman5771
I read about a man in my local paper a few years ago. The story was a man was out drinking with friends when another man started shouting threats across the street at him, this other man then made his way over to him, then punched him (witnesses said) then the victim who happened to be a boxer hit back (once) knocked the guy out and when he fell he fractured his skull on the pavement. I don't know if he went guilty or not guilty but he got 6 months custodial because the judge said "you are a boxer and so should of known not to hit him so hard" ffs
The UK case, Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, always comes to mind when hearing about proportionate and disproportionate force in defence of self and property.
Tony Martin was on his own and had been consistently harassed and threatened by the "travellers." The Police response time would have been no help to him. In effect, he was not protected by the Police and had no choice but to defend himself in the best way he could. This is why in rural USA (and other countries) people carry arms. At the same time, there should be no need for people in urban areas to be similarly armed, and despite the second amendment, by and large, they don't.
Hi. My mother lives in a cul de sac. There are limited areas for parking. Last week police attended as a 46yr old called 'Paul' living two doors away, beat my mothers partner who is a 73yr old man because he didnt like where he parked on a public road. Photos were taken showing bloodly injuries along with bruising and torn clothes from him being thrown. The police did not arrest the perp despite this being witnessed by two other neighbours. (The guy has been prosecuted for this kind of thing before and of beating his ex). However, it gets worse. One day later this man threatened 3 old ladies who live eitherside of him. He then proceeded to revving up a motorbike outside their gates purposefully intimidating them. Again the police did nothing. These ladies are in their 80s and obviously frightened in their own homes now. They are all buying nest cameras in the hope of some peace of mind. Why didnt the police arrest that man? The law clearly provides nothing for 3 old ladies and the old chap who was attacked. Is there something I am missing?
Coppers are coward, they would never fight and arrest someone who can give them a struggle or fight. Notice they only arrest the elderly, disabled like that girl with autism or willing people. Most coppers are out of shape and unfit for battle.
There is no money in arresting people for violent crimes… accidentally drive just over the speed limit though and the filth will be all over you like a rash 💰
Ageism in action. The police aren't bothered because it's only old folk being assaulted or bothered. With younger folk involved this could easily escalate to something far more serious. I know it would if this happened to me, but then again I'm a very vindictive & revengeful person.
Update: It subsequently turns out my mothers partner had a head fracture (It will heal on its own). The A&E dept told him to report this to the police. They duly attended the station and unfortunately it was the same young man/officer who effectively turned them away. They asked for a senior officer but he said they were all busy. What do you think? Corruption?
Unless you can read the intruder's (in your house) mind, therefore know their intention (after all they have entered your home with some level of intent more than asking directions), how are you really going to determine how much force to use. To assume they intend harm to people in the house is reasonable IMO. You may not know how big/strong/psycho they are and your own fear/instinct will kick in (fight, flight, freeze). Going back to the Tony Martin case years ago, I hope things have swayed in favour of the home owner?
Reasonable force. If the guy keeps on getting up because he’s 30 years YOUNGER than you are, and you are tiring out VERY quickly, you will feel an awful feeling that soon you will not be ABLE to fight your attacker off anymore. I feel in these circumstances, the older person being attacked should be allotted a better proportion of safety from prosecution by the courts. Being attacked by someone 20 to 30 years younger than you is not a laughing matter and should be taken into consideration.
I have no faith in the system. The only solution is to carry your own body cam all the time!! I remember being asked, as a witness, to give a statement in a firearms case, and the officer taking the statement was clearly trying to put "words into my mouth", to make the circumstances more serious. I had to say to him that I would not sign it, unless he wrote exactly what I said which pissed him off royally. (Why he thought I couldn't write I have no idea). Clearly he was trying to stitch someone up. Call the Police --which century, in the countryside - do you want them to respond in?
Depends on your job as well,if for example you worked in the nhs or another organization like teaching as far as they are concerned as soon as you are arrested you are guilty ,even if found not guilty in court,your career is pretty much done for. So make that self defence choice wisely.
If you work for any of these outlined organisations the police will not convict if practically possable, teachers and NHS staff are protected by the police.
Actually seen or seen reported? I wouldn’t worry, with the latest government consultation results regarding large knives, and the results indicating that the majority are opposed to the proposals, the government is bravely going to implement more legislation and ban another inanimate object, for which the use they are trying to prevent is already covered by existing legislation. Thankfully they have the courage to ignore the fact that despite more and more legislation in this area, violent knife crime is becoming more widespread (according to them) and the introduction of said bans and legislation is clearly not working. It’s also lucky they are refusing to consider the real reason for increase in “lawlessness” is the net result of years of cuts to services and the marginalisation of vast swathes of the public. I feel safer already.
The gubberment can ban or restrict anything they like, criminals aren't worried about said laws or bans. That's why they carry guns and machetes and Joe Public who abides by said laws carries nothing!
@@AlexP1-y4g I haven't but that would seem to be a fairly isolated incident. The vast majority of people in the UK will never encounter a person in public wielding a machete in their lifetime.
2 things 1. I carry a pocket knife that falls within all the legal boundaries, I use it at work and day to day things. In an extreme circumstance could that be used and how would you argue that you wasn't carrying it for self defense in the first place. 2. How much force can be used against an animal? My friend was attacked by a dog and ended up in hospital. Does self defense laws apply here or is there other president in such a case. Love the channel, keep up the good work.
You can defend yourself as long as you are a strong person. Weak people aren't allowed prepare to defend themselves by carrying a weapon, so they can't. Also, it's unsatisfying that "you are not expected to make fine judgements about the level of force" but we have at least three categories of force and which ones you can use depend on what you are defending. It leaves room for doubt about how your actions will be judged.
My younger brother is no longer with us sadly. When he was around 20 years old 3 men with knives chased him. He didn't know what to do. There was a police station nearby, so he jumped the wall and smashed a police car up. It wasn't realistic for him to fight 3 armed men and he had to find a way to make a noise and alert the police quickly. It worked, the men ran off & got away with it. My brother ended up with a conviction for criminal damage. It's always seemed extremely unfair.
I'm so sad this happened... police clearly did not live up to, well, as one might hope. When you say your younger brother is no longer with you, do you mean, well, deceased or conviction for criminal damage means he is imprisoned? (Apols for my confusion... either way this is horrible).
@@fenlandwildlifeclips Oh goodness. I am so very sorry to hear this. Lost for words other than to say - well, hugs, and I hope you are managing as best you can and ideally thriving as he would have wanted. x
Why would somebody jump wall into a police station and smash a car up rather than go into the police station itself? If the police station was closed at the time, then it's not obvious how smashing up a police car would attract the police anyway. This doesn't make much sense.
We all have human rights. Sadly yours don't come into effect until they're taken away as when this happens the perpetrators rights automatically become upheld.
@BlackBeltBarrister Just looking at what has been banned since July 2021 by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2021, and I see “Blowpipe” or “blow gun” A hollow tube out of which hard pellets or darts are shot by the use of breath. Did the UK Gov really just make kids pea shooters illegal to own in the home?
Didn't work for me. Got attacked with repeated threat to my life.Assailant came off second best. Wanted compensation and revenge. Went to police. They criminalised me. CPS wanted GBH. Crown court judge reduced this to ABH. Got found guilty. Outcome ruined my life. I had to have surgery to treat wounds. Where's the justice in that?
"Well your honour, in my defence, I was awoken at 3am by someone climbing through my window without permission thus they were (as you rightly know), committing a crime of both trespassing and disturbance of the peace. It was just by pure coincidence I had an axe nearby. Fortunately, for the deceased offender, the department for benefits grants managed to find a range in U-shaped coffins." PS: "Can I have my axe back, please? I never know when I'll need it again!"
The problem with this law is your relying on "reasonable people" to decide on a jury if someone is guilty or not.....and we seem to be running out of reasonable people in the uk these days. You will always get in trouble if you defend yourself, its crazy how much the system sides with criminals these days....especially if there not from these shores.
Thank you for recording this film. I was once asked by a student in secondary school, "If you are attacked with a knife, could you defend yourself with a knife?" I subsequently spent much of a summer holiday researching an answer to that question, or at least trying to. Would it be true to say that in your home, you could defend yourself with anything you wanted to use if you were attacked like that, but in public, NOBODY should be carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches. In public, you might be deemed to have taken part in a knife fight = criminal. You could use martial arts to defend yourself. I consider this one of the most intelligent and important questions I was asked in nearly 20 years of classroom teaching. I wish I could have answered it better at the time. I spent weeks trying to find the right answer and in many ways am still trying to find the right answer.
when you're forced to defend yourself in the UK you're forced to do it twice, one against the aggressor and again against a state looking for blood. The easiest way to avoid becoming a double victim is by allowing the aggressor to have his way with you Ahhh, justice
