G20 attack cop, "comes forward"

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Caveat to that is that members of the public are expected to walk away if they can. Police officers are not as they have a duty to carry out.

[skwdenyer]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Caveat to that is that members of the public are expected to walk away if they can. Police officers are not as they have a duty to carry out.

vs

ExChrispy Porker said:

The law of self defence applies to everyone.

???

[skwdenyer]

ExChrispy Porker said:

I appreciate that you know nothing about the law in relation to self defence, so trust me on this one.
If someone is about to shoot at you, do you have to wait until he has done so before firing at him ? Think about that scenario, and then apply the principle of a preemptive strike to lesser degrees of force.

In short, if you have an honestly held , reasonable belief, that someone is about to assault you, you have the right to use reasonable force on them first in self defence.

I haven't got the time or inclination to look up caselaw on this but if you want to do your own research Lord Griffith in the case of Beckford v R would be as good an authority as any.

You are right that I know little about the law in relation to self defence. I had always taken a common sense approach; if I'm being attacked, I can (reasonably) defend myself. If I'm in grave and immediate danger of attack, I can (reasonably) defend myself (if running away isn't an option first). I have no trouble with that.

Where I find some moral difficulty is in saying that if an unarmed chap is threatening me verbally, or indeed if there is no verbal threat at all ("he looked like he might be thinking of hitting me") that I can make a pre-emptive strike. I can't help but think that any member of the public - as opposed to BiB - would have a hard time if, without witnesses, s/he attempted to use that line to defend an otherwise seemingly-unprovoked attack against a retreating "adversary".

In fact, as we saw with the unfortunate case of Mr Martin and the shotgun, the retreating nature of the adversary was held to be in law the key issue as regards the threat. I find that hard to square with your PoV, I'm afraid, irrespective of whether you are right or not.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

skwdenyer said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Caveat to that is that members of the public are expected to walk away if they can. Police officers are not as they have a duty to carry out.

vs

ExChrispy Porker said:

The law of self defence applies to everyone.

???

The two are not mutually exclusive.

That is why it is important you understand the law.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

SKWDYNER.

Pre-emptivd strikes as you describe are allowed. The tony martin case is the perfect example of when the member of public has an expectation they will walk away placed on them.

If case law sits badly with you take it up with the house of lords.

It seems perfectly sensible if you are backed in a corner with nowhere to go and you honestly believe you are about to suffer assault that you be able to take action to prevent it. If however you have an option to walk away then you as a member of the public cannot avail yourself in most cases of that defence. Police officers are not expected on duty to run away at the first signs of trouble.

[skwdenyer]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

SKWDYNER.

Pre-emptivd strikes as you describe are allowed. The tony martin case is the perfect example of when the member of public has an expectation they will walk away placed on them.

If case law sits badly with you take it up with the house of lords.

It seems perfectly sensible if you are backed in a corner with nowhere to go and you honestly believe you are about to suffer assault that you be able to take action to prevent it. If however you have an option to walk away then you as a member of the public cannot avail yourself in most cases of that defence. Police officers are not expected on duty to run away at the first signs of trouble.

You'll see that my earlier response was along these lines, as in what I saw as "common sense".

I haven't read the judgements in full, but my understanding (am I wrong?) of the Martin case was that, as the "aggressors" had their backs turned, they must have been retreating, hence no threat. I was contrasting that with the BiB in the extant case apparently assaulting a non-aggressive individual from behind. If I've misunderstood the Martin case then I apologise, but Martin couldn't "walk away" in defending his property.

If we can treat the current situation as a hypothetical, for a moment, is "an assault from behind" warranted where, for instance, there are 4 or 5 of you (BiB) who could easily just grab the arms of the "aggressor" and prevent him from doing anything? Does the preemptive strike have to be the most appropriate course of action, taking all circumstances into account, or is there a blanket allowance for it to be based upon nothing other than uncorroborated fear?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

skwdenyer said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

SKWDYNER.

Pre-emptivd strikes as you describe are allowed. The tony martin case is the perfect example of when the member of public has an expectation they will walk away placed on them.

If case law sits badly with you take it up with the house of lords.

It seems perfectly sensible if you are backed in a corner with nowhere to go and you honestly believe you are about to suffer assault that you be able to take action to prevent it. If however you have an option to walk away then you as a member of the public cannot avail yourself in most cases of that defence. Police officers are not expected on duty to run away at the first signs of trouble.

You'll see that my earlier response was along these lines, as in what I saw as "common sense".

I haven't read the judgements in full, but my understanding (am I wrong?) of the Martin case was that, as the "aggressors" had their backs turned, they must have been retreating, hence no threat. I was contrasting that with the BiB in the extant case apparently assaulting a non-aggressive individual from behind. If I've misunderstood the Martin case then I apologise, but Martin couldn't "walk away" in defending his property.

If we can treat the current situation as a hypothetical, for a moment, is "an assault from behind" warranted where, for instance, there are 4 or 5 of you (BiB) who could easily just grab the arms of the "aggressor" and prevent him from doing anything? Does the preemptive strike have to be the most appropriate course of action, taking all circumstances into account, or is there a blanket allowance for it to be based upon nothing other than uncorroborated fear?

Depends on objective.

If your objective is just to gain ground then you want the person out the way and that is it.

You have not got resources to restrain violent offenders - takes 4 officers and you have ground to take and hold. If you hold one then you stop and take the officers out of the situation. Ground or objective lost.

I have already said on just what we see I don't see the need for the strike, I do for a push but not quite so hard.

Edited by Mr_annie_vxr on Sunday 12th April 12:22