"Igorance is no defense" is one that has always bothered me. Judges and lawyers spend years studying the law and even they don't know everything, yet we, the public, are expected to know what is right and what is wrong with zero training. UK law seems tilted in the ciminal's favour and also seems to be a complete ass.
I got a parking fine. When i argued there was no signage saying I couldn’t park there i was told It didn’t matter ignorance is no excuse. The signs were removed to make way for construction fencing.
Criminals absolutely have the upper hand in the UK, and they know it. If somebody attacks you with a knife, that person MIGHT be arrested & be charged with murder, but you are still dead. Self-defence laws in the UK are completely outdated & need amending.
The idea is that you proceed through life with good intentions in areas you know about, and cautiously in areas you don't. So long as you do this you won't fall foul. A good citizen doesn't need to know much more than the 10 commandments and the highway code if a driver.
the best thing I learned while working alongside the police is to make sure in your statement that you tell them how scared you were and fearful at the time you used force. emotional stress, adrenaline and being scared carry a lot of weight when it comes to having to justify your actions.
Spot on. I'm 6ft and nearly 20 stone, if some 9 stone junkie pulls a knife on me and I hit him hard enough to kill him tough, he had a choice I didn't.
@@tictoc5443 erm if someone wants to attack you you're going to be attacked regardless there is no other choice or option other than to defend yourself and talking things out gets you nowhere and if retaliating in self defence lands you in court then so be it better ending up there in self defence than being buried 6 foot under
Seems that the law protects the bad people. If you break into someone's home while the home owner is in, no matter your intent, all bets are off. If the home own kills you well tough, don't go breaking into their home then.
Before the tony martin case you would've definitely ended up inside for defending your home against intruders. Now as long as it's defence and not revenge odds are you would be acquitted.
I was arrested and questioned 25 years ago. It was self defence. I did strike first. Released then for further enquiries. Cops listened to my side of the story, then confronted my accuser he melted.. I was released from bail nfa. Thank god they actually listened to me.
I've always found it disgusting and deeply disturbing that except in extreme cases police can use whatever means necessary to arrest or even simply harass people and that also killing a cop is treated like it's a particularly deplorable act of murder compared to just killing an ordinary civilian. Special treatment for those who really don't deserve it, especially these days considering how appalling their reputation is
I had a break in a few years ago, i was being threatened with murder and kidnap in my own home, it staggers me that if i had used force to defend myself, my property and my family then i could of ended up in trouble too, that single event makes me want to have the right to defend myself but even if i had that right there is no legal way of really doing it
@Bob Mule How does a person reliably apply sufficient force to dissuade or disable an attacker without risking permanent maiming? Most people are not trained in martial arts. What if the person trying to defend themselves is a child, old, infirm, or disabled? An untrained person under pressure cannot be reasonably expected to know precisely the sufficient amount of force to be both effective and legal, surely?
@@caityreads8070 That is essentially what I am arguing in my recent post above, you are going to go into primitive survival mode. In such a case what you need is a good barrister afterwards. What bothers me about a lot of the law, is that it is theoretical law and not a law of physics or mathematics. Essentially we are bio mechanical beings and the product of our evolution, and don't go into thinking about case law if we are attacked, I am sure even our esteemed Black Belt Barrister doesn't do that, if he is a black belt etc etc, then he has practised katas until he has nothing but muscle memory and reflex left.
@Bob Mule Hey Bob, in my scenario, i've never fought anyone before, never even really thrown a punch before and infront of me is a man with a hatchet threatening allsorts, with another man rummaging around my house, if it was to come to what they were threatening, i would of had no chance of physically overpowering them, meaning i'd need a weapon of some kind and if these people are prepared to kill me then i must be prepared to do the same right? if i don't then im dead, then it's how far do you go once you have that weapon?
Glad thats cleared that up. Now I know if I'm being brutally attacked by someone and there's a handy brick nearby I won't go near it for fear of using excessive force. Thanks UK legal system. You're the tops!!!
The video made it quite clear your can use a weapon for self defence, just not carry a weapon for self defence. It's peoples stupidity that leads to myths.
@@kevinhammond9864 he knows that, but that brick could be just on the floor near where he/she is being attacked, in that case it is not carrying a brick in a bag preparing to defend with it, dl you see the issue, do you think someone fueled by adrenaline would think "hmm if I pick that brick up and hit the attack is that legal or not".
You could tempt the frying pan away from the attacker with some eggs, or perhaps even sausages. Once the frying pan respects you as it's caregiver it will be easy then to turn it on the attacker, and all your legal bases are covered. :)
No, and courts don't expect you to. But maybe worth imagining what you would do in advance while considering all eight minutes of the video. If it's something illegal then you should probably reconsider.
It is very frustrating. A vulnerable person has little chance against someone who is big and tough or works as a group. I tend to remove myself from situations when I see it is iffy but when I get older, I won't be able to do this.
As a UK resident US person (and licensed to carry a concealed pistol in several states of the US) I find the UK laws regarding self-defense to be insane, and put criminals on the same footing as non-criminals. My stepson-in-law told me that if you're being attacked in the UK by a mugger, you need to be careful not to call him/her bad names, or you might get in trouble for causing offense. If you survive the attack, that is.
He's winding you up. You can call him anything you want as long as no one is offended. You have to remember to say please and thank you though, not have a nice day.
The main issue with self defense is the jury , and been judged by your peers. Trrouble is they aren't your peers a lifetime of martial arts movies means the general public think martial artists must be able to do some mystical power to subdue an attacker safely . After 30 years doing numerous martial arts I know there is no such thing .
Yes, I always ask my attacker to wait for a while whilst I carry out a proportionate-response assessment and then a risk assessment after that, then I inform him that he may continue the attack.
This is the correct way to think about it. Your goal in a dangerous situation should be to _leave._ If someone is stopping you from leaving safely, then you can only do what is _necessary_ to enable you to be able to leave safely. Your goal should not be to "win the fight". Don't challenge them beforehand (seriously, watch your mouth). Don't pursue them afterwards (this looks terrible on video). Pack your pride up and don't rise to any insults. If your genuine focus is on what you _need_ to do to keep yourself and others safe, it's going to be a lot easier to convince the police and prosecution that was what you were doing.
That is by definition what reasonable force is. You do have to define 'hurt' though. If by hurt you are talking about a low level punch up in a pub where the person is clearly a bit tipsy, unarmed and, even if they did manage to connect with a punch, hurt would be no more than a swollen lip. Then going all Rambo on them is probably not reasonable. On the other hand; your down a dark ally, you have your partner with you, you are faced with multiple attackers armed with something or other, who have made it quite clear their aim is to assault your partner while you watch reasonable can be considerably upgraded. Lethal force if required, even in English law.
0:40 Whilst Pava or CS gas is illegal in the UK, paint or dye isn't. So you can use a product such as Farbgel which is a red dye which takes days to wash off. It doesn't harm the attacker but it does make them identifiable and also makes them think twice.
wasp spray is legal, as long as your primary purpose in carrying it is to repel insects, you can buy it in Pava spray sized aerosols, and a face full of wasp repellent is actually more effective at temporarily reducing sight and respiratory function than the Pava spray the police carry.
@Richard Fox the majority of gun violence and deaths in America happen in states with the strictest gun laws, mass shootings generally happen in so called gun free zones. Banning law abiding citizens from using a weapon to defend themselves only helps criminals because they don’t give a shit if it’s illegal or not they will still stab or shoot you regardless.
@Richard Fox you say it like it’s the gun who did the killing, we have a massive problem with people getting stabbed in the uk, and guess what carrying knifes is banned but people are getting stabbed daily. focusing solely on firearm fatalities and homicides ignores the other side of the equation, people who use a gun to defend themselves, something that’s not nearly as well documented. The annual firearm death rate in the United States, from 2015 through 2019, was 11.9 per 100,000 residents. Of those deaths 4.3 were homicides, and 7.2 were suicides. Do you really think those deaths wouldn’t happen if guns where banned? You really cannot be that naive.
@Richard Fox any who, long story short is guns are designed to kill, they exist, no going back, yes the world would be a better place if they didn’t but they do and stopping law abiding citizens from having them only aids criminals. The main reason the people in America have guns is because they fought for real freedoms, inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from a corrupt government. People are much easier to control when they’re not armed.
@@mattschofield5375 it's actually not band if the blades is 3 inches or under , non lockable and foldable and the knife crimes are committed from kitchen knives not pocket knives
Lawyers mind games. How in hell am I to tell if an attacker is not trying to kill me (even if accidentally) and use appropriate force. UK law has become bonkers.
Ask him politely if he has a weapon and intends to use it while he's charging at you and hope he responds before you receive damage. If you start to get circled by his gang of hoodies, then it's time to play dead and hopefully they will lose interest.
@@gamewithadam7235 I was told by a policeman when a man lunged at me tryihg to scare me while I was walking alone in the park during the daytime 'what did you say'? I said 'to him 'That was not funny' and walked off. Then the police said, if that happens again' don't say anything'. No wonder the crims see women as 'easy targets'. So if a man attacks me with a weapon, you can't say Get off me, 'as it will encourage him' What a mess, Yet if a man wants to rape me it is I must say No. Conflicting messages.#england
Appropriate force means exactly that. Enough force to stop the threat. If you believe someone is going to attack you and you pull a knife and stab them then obviously that isn't appropriate force. Same if you hit them with a baseball bat, it's not appropriate unless they are also armed. A lot of it comes down to common sense. You can strike first in self defence but if the person goes to the ground and you keep hitting them then again this obviously isn't appropriate force.
"Offensive weapon...."...Where the law departs from commonsense. The definition of which is yet another example of how you need at least an A-Level in UK law to avoid inadvertently committing a crime.
Not really its about intent you can carry a knife if you intend to do bushcraft, but even a tactical pen is an offensive weapon if you intend to protect your self with it.
A complicated point of law easily explained here. Often is the case where the victim becomes the defendant in the eyes of the law. Thank you again for taking your time explaining. Much appreciated. 👍
In winter months Iam usually walking to and from work at silly hrs, and I look at it like this, I am not going down without a fight, if iam set apon. I hold the other person responsable for the injuries they will receive, even if the Law does not.
If someone attacks you either singly or in a group then it is you have the right to defend yourself from injury using whatever force is necessary to repel them .. At the end of the day you don't know if they will seriously harm you or even kill you... The law says if memory serves: retreat until you can no longer retreat.. If you can no longer retreat and are trapped in fear of your life then it is for certain you can use whatever deadly force available to escape...
So, the best reaction for an attempt on your life is to fatally stop the attacker, because no-one has the power to decide how much force to use, when under duress and adrenaline rush, to meet all the convoluted laws imposed. Then get rid of the body in such a way, it will be impossible to recover or will take so long before it is found that you have lived a happy stress free life and died of old age in you sleep. I rest my case your Honor
7:20mins... That's all you need to remember when you feel under physical threat, be first, be fast, and be ferocious when talking or evasion are no longer options.
While living in Leytonstone, London I've seen an approximately 17-year-old black youth repeatedly stab an elderly man in his face for refusing to move from his front seat in a double-deck bus, Pretty sure the elderly man lost his eye in that attack, nearly his Life. But yet UK law states the you can't carry a weapon to defend yourself. Ridiculous
I walk my dogs all hours of the day and night - basically when I'm able. Don't carry a weapon but the dog has a very heavy chain lead. I also need a torch, to see where I'm going - a very heavy one!
In other words, if someone attacks you just lay down and play dead, the poor unfortunate attacker will say that he's good to his invalid mother and suffers from being victimised, he'll get let off with community service and you'll get a life sentence of flashbacks and pain!
With cases of police brutality currently in the media, what would be the situation if you were being unlawfully assaulted by a police officer (that you knew to be a police officer) and you fought back (perhaps because you feared serious injury)? Obviously, in reality, you would be tasered, restrained and charged with assaulting a police officer. But, for the sake of argument, if you did manage to disarm and disable a police officer that you could show was using unreasonable force and a potentially dangerous level of violence toward you, would you still be charged with assaulting a police officer or would self defence stand?
Also like 12 angry men movie , the jury might not understand the questions or and be smart enough to determine if someone is bad or not, the system is crazy. What sort of crazy person would make a system where many idiots can be part of a jury.
English law on use of lawful force in self defence is wholly unrealistic and impractical. It adopts as its starting point a 20/20 hindsight approach to judge "proportionate" force in any given situation without any or proper regard for the fear and uncertainty faced by a victim of violence.
some other myths disproven ; the prevention of crime act 1953 (offensive weapons ) do not apply to a private place . A space behind a shop counter and a front garden are private places you can use firearms in self defence however if you dont have a certificate you will be liable to weapons charges also you if you carry a weapon in a public place for self defence you do NOT lose your right to self defence but will face weapon charges - R vs Fagan 1973 no duty to retreat US castle doctrine is based on English self defence law the banning of carrying anything for self defence does not affect the criminal . It leave the law abiding totally at the mercy of street robber etc because criminals do carry weapons regardless of what the law says . The very least pepper spray should be made legal to carry just like in much of Europe ! some EU countries allow carrying tazers etc and they have a lower violent crime then the UK - just one example is the check republic
If anyone breaks into your home, they are fair game for any amount of force, including lethal force. Sadly, in the UK, you are unlikely to be backed up by the court system. They have forfeited their Article 2 rights, once they enter your home.
There have been a lot of cases of police attacking protersters with batons. It would seem reasonable to use, say, a walking stick or baton of some kind to defend oneself against a police officer using a baton as an offensive weapon.
What is "reasonable force" when you find yourself surrounded by up to half a dozen toughs who obviously intend to rob you,beat you up,or even "accidentally" kill you? And if somebody is carrying a weapon in the first place they clearly mean to use it. In the time the attack is taking place it is almost impossible to judge the severity or outcome,instant reaction being the life saving reaction. Very few people are used to being attacked or provoked in any way,so how can they be expected to react "appropriately"? The atmosphere in a courtroom discussing the incident possibly several months later can have no bearing whatsoever on the incident itself. Not only that,but by that time the "facts" surrounding the attack will have been distorted to such an extent that any justice will be impossible.
In defence of a defendant using self defence as a defence, the people should agree to defend the right to defend that defendant. Don't mean to cause personal offence when I'm offensively defending the rights of a defendant. Great vid as always, appreciate the info. 😁
I would add a personal story.If a police officer is trying to arrest you and disregard that you are calling emergency services as you are feeling sick ; if he insist to arrest you and obstructs you from talking to emergency services ; if you punch them or shove them in the process is can be considered self defense.
Dual.purpose items , when walking the dog I carry a cree metal torch, it helps.me see where I'm going main purpose . It's also powerful enough to temporarily blind the attacker to five time to escape failing that it's perfect for aiding striking .
so this doesn't apply to our police force who go over the top dishing it out to the innocent, for that what we all are il the eyes of the law until proven otherwise..
I was arrested in the UK for a traffic offence. I stumbled as they were pushing me towards the van, I said "Hang on" - meaning give me time to walk. They beat the shit out of me and it went down as "resisting arrest". They dragged me with the rigid hand cuffs to the point I had deep gashes in my wrists... FYI - I was 100% guilty of the traffic offence, but DID NOT resist...
Thanks for taking the time to make videos with such clear and easily understood content. One question though, is the idea of reasonable force dependant on level of training - would it be different for someone with martial/military training compared to a typical member of the public?
A friend of mine was held up at knife point at his news paper shop in Sydney Australia. He pulled a baseball bat from under his counter and the attacker took off out of the shop. he chased him down the street and struck the offender on the jaw. As fate goes, my former boss a sergeant stationed in the local area and attended the scene, and called for immediate medical attention for the offender. The offender was laying on the pavement he was in a bad state.But unfortunately at the time the law allowed the offender to sue my friend for the injuries he sustained from the attempted robbery. My friend lost his house due to to the compensation claimed by the offender. The law has now changed where an offender cannot profit from the proceeds of a crime. A bit of a judicial chane but a bit too late for my friend.
Chasing the attacker is generally not allowed anywhere. The law does not treat the streets as combat zone so "preventing the enemy from regrouping" is not an option.
A wine bar I used to use was attacked one night by a gang of thugs from the boxing fraternity who started multiple fights with customers, one jumped over the bar & tried to stab the bar manager, he grabbed the knife they used to slice lemons & stabbed the guy multiple times killing him. Jury acquitted him on self defence grounds. I wasn't there that night but a friend witnessed it from 2 or 3 arm lengths away. On the day of the dead mans funeral his friends threw a Molotov cocktail through the bar window & burned it down.
What a weird story. Why on earth would his friends burn down the bar, it wasn't their fault. Surely, its the boxing fraternity they should have burnt down? Strange.
@@tonyt5218 It was a few years ago & have tried to find the story about the boxing match brawl, an incredible amount of brawls happen at boxing matches it seems if you google it. It was all over the news at the time, Birmingham City Football fans were involved, they're known as Zulu's. Emotions mixed with drink on funeral day will have had something to do with it, plus gang stuff. Bar manager did receive 8 or 12 years in prison 12/24 months later for having a huge quantity of 'E's. Bar was used as an all night rave & think it was refurbished & re-opened after fire.
Question I am keen to have answered: Walking back home from the gym last sunday a man about my age (extremly drunk and still holding a plastic cup in his hand) was walking in my direction ( this is on the highstreet and he was heading the other direction presumably). However, once he got closer to me he very randomly went out of his way to block me from walking past him and was essentially, what can only be discribed as growling. Now, i took my headphones out and very aggrssively asked what he was doing and what was wrong with him and he VERY lightly punched me in the stomach (I'm talking more of a tap if anything. Not at all painful and honestly zero actual force seemed to be applied) - but both his fists were clenched none the less. Now, I opted for grabbing his wrist and holding it down and asking what his problem was and probably threatening him (tbf i can't really remember). However, I thought many times in this 30 or so seconds of either headbutting him or choking him out. As, at the end of the day, he was in my personal space and was posturing aggressively and how am I supposed to know if he was carrying a knife etc? I have, until watching this video, been under the illusion that I had to wait for this person to swing a proper punch at me first, before I could do anything about this (So thank you for this video). However it has been bugging me since then, as I feel I shouldn't have even let him get this close to me and I shouldn't have taken the high road. Not to sound like knob, but I am above average in size and have boxed for a few years and have some experience grappling, so I think it was more the fact that I was confident enough that because of how drunk he was, if he did swing for me I would have flattened him; so I didn't do the things I have thinking of/wanting to do. But anyway, context now given, what did I have the right to do in this situation legally? Could I have choked him till he was unconcious and gotten someone to call the police while i held him down? Or, was holding his wrist down and ultimately walking away while calling him classic english insults like p**** the right thing to do? Sorry I appreicate this is a long winded comment but, I really am eager to know what I should/could have done. I hate how soft we've become as a country and the whole thing has left me quite annoyed. I can't believe I let someone get that close to me and risked my own safety, because I was worried that I would end up being the one done for assault and had work the next day lol.
Basically if you can retreat from the situation, you cannot use force on him is my understanding. Self defense can only be valid if you have retreated until you cannot retreat anymore. That drunk is slow, you can just run. His posturing doesn't allow self-defense
tbh the propotional force aspect is a total farce, if someone is attacking you, you dont know if they are gna get worse and worse, so its always best to disarm or disengage them, even if that means your force is not "proportional". Better them than you. It is your life, not the laws life, do as you please.
I find your vids very interesting and informative however, on this one I have to say the point re reasonable force must have been madeby someone who had obviously never been attacked. When attacked I suspect the last thing on most peoples mind is "am I using reasonable force and will I be able to prove that if I get out of this alive". :-(
Carry a small super bright flash light, and record on your phone if you are in an altercation. Clearly tell the aggressor you will defend yourself unless they go away
Also another thing if there is no evidence of the victim or attacker, but the attacker is more damaged, how can they pick who the attacker is and who is not, this is when they should use a brain scam and lie detector test like a polygraph etc. But yes cctv with audio should be in most public places to avoid other waste being used. Because it is not fair for some innocent person being put in prison or fined because there is no evidence.
Thankyou for explaining. I’ve been try to convince my nephew that a “training” butterfly knife ( used just for tricks ) could still be classed as an offensive weapon. You have helped my argument. Thankyou
Wait, it's possible for a jury to conclude that a defendant didn't use "reasonable" force but still did not intend to kill (or cause GBH) what would the verdict be if they were charged with murder? Why would anyone "raise" self-defence, the burden to prove intent to kill seems to be removed and replaced with a new burden to prove force was "unreasonable" which sounds really vague, it varies massively from person to person what sort of force is or is not reasonable.
Thanks for taking the time to post.these videos Sir. I find them very interesting and informative. Would owning and using a sturdy, perhaps "tactical" umbrella, in self defense be allowable?
Whether using for self defence would be legal depends on the individual circumstances - are you genuinely under attack and is using it reasonable force or is it more violent than necessary? But carrying it in public for self defence purposes is not legal. You're not allowed to carry anything for use as a weapon.
Honestly I don't care. If you try to hurt me or my family or break into my home then I'm doing everything I can to make sure that you are not moving after so you are no longer a threat to me or my family. How can you possibly judge reasonable force under that amount of adrenaline while your in danger?
Recently a man killed 3 people in self defence and faced no charges, its a very interesting case look the guy up: Gurjeet Singh from London - in my opinion this case is a win for self defence here in the UK
One of the best government systems for the rights of self defence is the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic actual respect a persons right to defend their lives from violence, so much so that a new law has just been passed in the Czech Republic to allow the citizens of the Czech Republic to own fully automatic machine guns fr home defence.
That quite literally is a response for the developing situation in Ukraine. Nothing ACTUALLY about self defense. I doubt fully armed multiple attackers scenario is very common in Czech Republic
would you be able to do a video on cannabis possession and personal use? I feel like it is not very clear as different people say different things about how much you can possess for different punishments and so on, also things like the canna card? which is supposed to prevent you from any punishments to do with possession of cannabis
People say different things because different Police forces use different guidance. This is all immaterial though I think as Cannabis is still illegal so no amount will be totaly/reliably safe for you to carry. But yes I agree, a good video on it would be interesting. :)
Can you please give your thoughts about this? I had to use self defence yesterday, an 80 something year old neighbour ( I'm 42) woke me up at 5am in the morning making loads of noise outside (it's not the first time and I have asked him loads to wait for a reasonable time) this time was the earliest he has done it so I wasn't happy and used bad language which I'm not happy about, he raised a yard brush and went to hit me, I backed up and he lowered it, I then warned him if he tries it again I will defend myself, after a few more words I started walking away, I then heard him coming up behind me and saying he is going to knock me f-ing out, I turn my head and seen him about to hit me with the brush again so I quickly pushed him, he fell to the ground and apparently he has cuts on his back. I was recording on my phone the whole time and it's not a very good recording but what he says and for a second shows him behind me with the brush raised are shown. I was planning on reporting him for attempted assault, is this a good idea or should I just forget about it? I suffer from anxiety so last thing I want is to end up been arrested if the police take his side because of his age, I did take into account his age when defending myself which is why I pushed him instead of a punch
It certainly sounds like self defence to me. Make a full note of what happened and keep the phone recording. Screenshot your comments here, too. If the police come to question you, exercise your right to free legal advice before being questioned.
what if you took a legally owned shotgun from your gun cabinet and pointed it towards the attackers ? Not shooting it, but handling it ? And before anyone mentions Tony Martin. His gun was illegally held and he shot as the threat was leaving .
Depends on the circumstances, really. If you felt your wellbeing or life was in threat and you would not be able to defend yourself in a less lethal way, you may well have a defence. If you're disabled or infirm and couldn't use physical force to defend yourself, you may well have a stronger case for reverting to a gun, than you would if you were buff and bigger than the spindly assailant. In most of Europe, it all comes down to circumstances really, but it's normally not as dire as you might think.
Does your actions after defending yourself effect the outcome . For me if I’m being violently attacked then for me the ideal way to defend yourself is to neutralise the attacker as quick as possible ( maybe by using force that could be seen as excessive ) but once the threat is neutralised you immediately give them first aid and call emergency services and stay with the attacker until police and paramedics arrive ?
The law seems so unfair and seems to protect criminals. As a woman, how am I supposed to use so-called "reasonable force" against a man twice my size, or even just the average man attacking me? The average man is much stronger than the average women and I think people vastly underestimate this, I'm hardly going to be able to punch or wrestle him and I may not even be able to escape. But if I grab something within reach to hit him with and seriously injure and/or kill him that would be considered excessive even if I genuinely feared for my life.
As a fellow black belt (3rd Dan jujitsu) we were taught that if you do ever have to defend yourself using any taught techniques. Should you then be questioned by the police you should not state or freely give the information that you are a martial artist. Would you agree with this ??
Obviously, I am not BBB, but the rule of thumb would be don't say ANYTHING without your lawyer present, and don't volunteer information that has not been requested (unless you have a legal obligation to do so anyway) A police interview is conducted by people with specific training in it, with a view to reaching a particular conclusion, NONE of which is revealed to you at the time, so while it may feel or indeed be framed as uncooperative, you shouldn't be looking for ways to help them "extra" to what is actually asked of you The system is set-up to make use of the things you say in a way that is not to your benefit, guilty OR innocent. On the other hand, it's not something you should hide or lie-about either.
@@leeshellam3150 It is a different skill set - solicitors will have the experience for interviews, barrister generally do not do them - and require additional certification to do so.
Another thing is, people are all scared by what a victim done to them, for example some bellend kept kicking me at school then I kicked him hard and he went running crying to the headteacher. But later in time he continuing to test me, now if I broke his leg basically did more punishment to him either on purpose or by accident, then that person would less likely to be a bellend to me in the future. Sure there is other who still will be a bellend in the future, even if they was very damaged by the victim, but sane people won't. So my point is no one should even start on anyone for no good reason, unless they want to end up worser than thd Victim, because harassment is also a law, so (ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law) even though I am not a fan of that sentence, in terms of the uk it seems to be fact.
So, you have to let someone attack you first and then try to reasonably asses how much they were trying to hurt you, then you have to reasonably asses how much you are allowed to defend yourself? Nah mate, I'll smash him first and do the assessing later, thank you very much. The courts are a complete joke for the most part anyway, so even if you do try to do the right thing, you will more than likely get shafted anyway.
no you dont see Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814 and Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130 ".... where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ....".
@@geezerp1982 is entitled to repel force by force? So, you have to let them get the first shot in? The next time I find myself in a confrontation with an asshole, I'll be sure to be a nice guy and let him have first punch 😂
@@mrade5321 no you dont ! case law also backs up pre-emeptive stike . if you read LJ parker wrote, he he meet force with force and even kill the aggressor , thats pretty clear
@@geezerp1982 It's not clear though. To meet force with force, the aggressor has to inflict force upon you first. I'm more about prevention than cure. That is something that any court in the land will never understand. How is any judge, that wasn't there, going to tell you what someone else's intentions were? It's all speculation and the outcome will be to the benefit of who the court favours. Facts don't come in to it.
@@mrade5321 there is case on this topic however, in reality if some idiot decides to have a go and you need to defend yourself, then just run off afterwards and dont report it ! then again in felon loving UK it wouldnt surprise me if the street robber goes to the police and says i have been attacked because i was trying to rob someone with my knife
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in regard to "reasonable force" wasn't there a famous judgement given many years ago that said something like "someone being attacked cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety the level of force that they use to defend themselves"? Also reasonable force will depend on the relative size of victim and aggressor. If a 5' woman was defending herself against a 6' 6" man then almost anything could be considered reasonable since she wouldn't stand a chance if he got the upper hand for even a moment.
Reasonable force appears to be rooted in old trail by combat procedures. Laws, where each contender were armed with equal weapons. It was heavily honour based, and the outcome was supposedly judged by god. In regards to women and men fighting each other. The males were put in a hole up to the waist, and fought using an inferior weapon compared to females. This inequity balanced out the reasonable force between each party.
So basically its a snake-pit on whether your found guilty or not guilty ! The only defence you could put up would be to say ``I thought he was going to kill me``
I always carry a very strong pen, because you always need to write something down. If I’m on the underground I always take a strong but short umbrella because the weather always changes and it can provide me with shade if it’s hot. However, I would allow open carry and the freedom to own a gun in the UK. Good people don’t go around murdering people, and the bad guys have guns and knives already.
What about resistance against a person in police uniform, that gave you with his actions the doubt of being a real officer? Do I have to let my Mother be kidnapped, just because the thugs were wearing uniform?
Police is 99% right. It is not your call to decide. All those stories about refusing the wear the mask, or being drunk, or not believing you should be in place "X".. it is not your call.
please can you do a video explaining our self defence rights when assaulted by police officers. I am lead to believe that if police make unlawlful physical with me (assault and battery), then i would have the right to use reasonable force to prevent it, but how do i know what level of force would be appropriate, and if said police officer commits this offence does he still have the protections of an officer or would they be classed as a civilian in such a case?
Wasn't that covered in this video? In theory you have the same self defence rights if you are unlawfully attacked by police officers or by anyone else.
Not sure what you mean by "protections of an officer". Yes it's very hard to get police officers prosecuted but that's because the police are in many ways one big gang and they tend to stick together. It's not because they have formal legal protection.
@@barneylaurance1865ah, by saying "protection of an officer, i mean if i was to end up in court for physically defending myself from the officer, would the officer be charged as a civillian due to him/her acting outside their scope of authority, and therefore have to arrange their own legal representation ect, or would they still be treated as an officer and have the police force and their legal teams to help them.
@@mr.manson8932 I don't know what sort of representation they'd have formally but in most cases I expect their colleagues would try to help them anyway. Probably the Police Federation would offer to help as well. But in practice it's very hard to get a police officer charged at all - who's going to do the investigation and submit a case to the prosecutor?
@@barneylaurance1865 im aware that i can file a private prosecution in certain cases, but like you say im pretty sure the police force and cps would do everything they can to protect the officer, and as for the i.o.p.c, i have known them to straight up lie to defend them, even though they're supposedly independant they are clearly on the side of the police. i have been battered by police on numerous occasions for simply refusing to give them my details, when im under no obligation to do so, and am trying to learn so that i can lawfully protect/defend myself when they inevitably do it again.
I got a self defence case coming up, a man came at me with a bar stall I tried to de escalated the situation, deflecting the bar stall and telling the guy to calm down and gave him a hug he then pushed me away and I thought he was gonna whack me soo I struck first… he lost a tooth and banged his head off the floor.
As someone involved in sport shooting in the UK, I get into a lot of conversations with Americans where I have to explain that "self defence" simply does not exist in law in the UK, I'll just point them towards this video in future and save myself a lot of keyboard time!
What happened to the bill of rights of 1689? the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
Why do directors for large multi-national companies seem to avoid prosecution for offences, (ie. money laundering and other business related criminal offences) as compared to director's of small companies?
Quick question: I used to carry a Jif Lemon loaded with chilli powder as a self-defence weapon (also very nice to use on a bag of fish&chips or a kebab), so I was basically carrying a food-item for my own use. How would I stand if I was to have squirted that in an attacker's eyes?
If it were proved that you were carrying it with intent to harm, you risk being charged with possession of an offensive weapon! Sounds far fetched, but that's how it is...
@@BlackBeltBarrister Thanks for replying. Yeah, it does sound a bit daft, but I figured it would probably go somewhere along those lines. I like your channel; it's one of the more interesting ones I've discovered lately.
Judging by that description, the answer is "no" because you could almost certainly escape by simply running, or even walking briskly, away from him/her/it.
A couple of weeks ago a 14 year old was stabbed near West Croydon Station. He managed to walk to the hospital but died there .I wonder what section of what act would have saved him .?
"Igorance is no defense" is one that has always bothered me. Judges and lawyers spend years studying the law and even they don't know everything, yet we, the public, are expected to know what is right and what is wrong with zero training. UK law seems tilted in the ciminal's favour and also seems to be a complete ass.
I wonder if this applies to police officers?
I got a parking fine. When i argued there was no signage saying I couldn’t park there i was told It didn’t matter ignorance is no excuse. The signs were removed to make way for construction fencing.
Criminals absolutely have the upper hand in the UK, and they know it.
If somebody attacks you with a knife, that person MIGHT be arrested & be charged with murder, but you are still dead.
Self-defence laws in the UK are completely outdated & need amending.
The idea is that you proceed through life with good intentions in areas you know about, and cautiously in areas you don't. So long as you do this you won't fall foul.
A good citizen doesn't need to know much more than the 10 commandments and the highway code if a driver.
It's very simple...
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Reasonable force is ANYTHING THAT KEEPS YOU ALIVE.
I have never heard it put so funny,but correct. Thanks for saying what we are thinking in your own lighthearted way.
the best thing I learned while working alongside the police is to make sure in your statement that you tell them how scared you were and fearful at the time you used force. emotional stress, adrenaline and being scared carry a lot of weight when it comes to having to justify your actions.
So to cut a long story short, the law is completely riddled with loopholes and inconsistencies, causing the victims to be utterly defenceless.
If I need to defend myself I will do it regardless of the what the law says it’s my life at the end of the day it’s not the countries or the laws.
Spot on. I'm 6ft and nearly 20 stone, if some 9 stone junkie pulls a knife on me and I hit him hard enough to kill him tough, he had a choice I didn't.
@@sambrooks7862 you might be able to walk away or talk them out of it
There is normally another option than attack
@@tictoc5443 defence isn't attack, I've got nearly 30 years experience in CP and as anyone in the industry will tell you, you don't piss about.
@@tictoc5443 If you are a woman and a man wants to attack you, it is less likely to happen.
@@tictoc5443 erm if someone wants to attack you you're going to be attacked regardless there is no other choice or option other than to defend yourself and talking things out gets you nowhere and if retaliating in self defence lands you in court then so be it better ending up there in self defence than being buried 6 foot under
Seems that the law protects the bad people.
If you break into someone's home while the home owner is in, no matter your intent, all bets are off. If the home own kills you well tough, don't go breaking into their home then.
Before the tony martin case you would've definitely ended up inside for defending your home against intruders. Now as long as it's defence and not revenge odds are you would be acquitted.
I don't think that is what you can take out of this video.
I was arrested and questioned 25 years ago. It was self defence. I did strike first. Released then for further enquiries. Cops listened to my side of the story, then confronted my accuser he melted.. I was released from bail nfa. Thank god they actually listened to me.
Interesting how this all goes out the window when cops beat the crap out of someone.
Yup they are the worst kind.
And they can carry ofdensive weapon with them all the time!
I've always found it disgusting and deeply disturbing that except in extreme cases police can use whatever means necessary to arrest or even simply harass people and that also killing a cop is treated like it's a particularly deplorable act of murder compared to just killing an ordinary civilian. Special treatment for those who really don't deserve it, especially these days considering how appalling their reputation is
American problems tbh
@@snuggleseal Happens in the UK often enough
Note: The music at the start was painfully loud and drowned out your voice
Yes it was an assualt on my ears, GBH in fact, you are going down Mr Barrister :)
It did make it hard to understand him at the start
Sorry!
I had a break in a few years ago, i was being threatened with murder and kidnap in my own home, it staggers me that if i had used force to defend myself, my property and my family then i could of ended up in trouble too, that single event makes me want to have the right to defend myself but even if i had that right there is no legal way of really doing it
@Bob Mule How does a person reliably apply sufficient force to dissuade or disable an attacker without risking permanent maiming? Most people are not trained in martial arts. What if the person trying to defend themselves is a child, old, infirm, or disabled? An untrained person under pressure cannot be reasonably expected to know precisely the sufficient amount of force to be both effective and legal, surely?
I think there’s another presentation on this, he mentioned at the start.
@@caityreads8070 That is essentially what I am arguing in my recent post above, you are going to go into primitive survival mode. In such a case what you need is a good barrister afterwards. What bothers me about a lot of the law, is that it is theoretical law and not a law of physics or mathematics. Essentially we are bio mechanical beings and the product of our evolution, and don't go into thinking about case law if we are attacked, I am sure even our esteemed Black Belt Barrister doesn't do that, if he is a black belt etc etc, then he has practised katas until he has nothing but muscle memory and reflex left.
@@inregionecaecorum Yeah, and he still may not be able to fight in a real situation.
@Bob Mule Hey Bob, in my scenario, i've never fought anyone before, never even really thrown a punch before and infront of me is a man with a hatchet threatening allsorts, with another man rummaging around my house, if it was to come to what they were threatening, i would of had no chance of physically overpowering them, meaning i'd need a weapon of some kind and if these people are prepared to kill me then i must be prepared to do the same right? if i don't then im dead, then it's how far do you go once you have that weapon?
Glad thats cleared that up. Now I know if I'm being brutally attacked by someone and there's a handy brick nearby I won't go near it for fear of using excessive force. Thanks UK legal system. You're the tops!!!
The video made it quite clear your can use a weapon for self defence, just not carry a weapon for self defence. It's peoples stupidity that leads to myths.
@@rwentfordable as he said quite clearly if you reach for a brick and use it that is NOT reasonable force. Watch again.
Exactly the law is stupid
@@kevinhammond9864 he knows that, but that brick could be just on the floor near where he/she is being attacked, in that case it is not carrying a brick in a bag preparing to defend with it, dl you see the issue, do you think someone fueled by adrenaline would think "hmm if I pick that brick up and hit the attack is that legal or not".
@@rwentfordable You're right. There are miscarriages of justice when a juror can't tell the difference between a shove and a full-on knife attack.
So if someone attacks me with a frying pan, would I have to think through all eight minutes of this video before I could defend myself?
Well, you’d have to think carefully or you’d be in the Dock.
It almost seams you would only be allowed to hit your attacker with another frying pan.
You could tempt the frying pan away from the attacker with some eggs, or perhaps even sausages. Once the frying pan respects you as it's caregiver it will be easy then to turn it on the attacker, and all your legal bases are covered. :)
No, and courts don't expect you to. But maybe worth imagining what you would do in advance while considering all eight minutes of the video. If it's something illegal then you should probably reconsider.
@@barneylaurance1865 sensible answer. 👍
It is very frustrating. A vulnerable person has little chance against someone who is big and tough or works as a group. I tend to remove myself from situations when I see it is iffy but when I get older, I won't be able to do this.
As a UK resident US person (and licensed to carry a concealed pistol in several states of the US) I find the UK laws regarding self-defense to be insane, and put criminals on the same footing as non-criminals. My stepson-in-law told me that if you're being attacked in the UK by a mugger, you need to be careful not to call him/her bad names, or you might get in trouble for causing offense. If you survive the attack, that is.
He's winding you up. You can call him anything you want as long as no one is offended.
You have to remember to say please and thank you though, not have a nice day.
The main issue with self defense is the jury , and been judged by your peers. Trrouble is they aren't your peers a lifetime of martial arts movies means the general public think martial artists must be able to do some mystical power to subdue an attacker safely . After 30 years doing numerous martial arts I know there is no such thing .
Simple and quick solution to ensure you can defend yourself in the UK, DONT CALL THE POLICE AFTERWARDS,
Don't go to the police,don't use the courts and don't get court
Yes, I always ask my attacker to wait for a while whilst I carry out a proportionate-response assessment and then a risk assessment after that, then I inform him that he may continue the attack.
Exactly what I'm thinking.
@Richard Fox
I haven't but you missed the point of the comment if you asked that question.
@Richard Fox
It depends where you live.
I had an honest held belief that I and others were in iminant danger so took action to end the danger using reasonable force.
In a self defense situation, it is best to get out intact. A judge won't kick you in the head, while you are on the ground.
This is the correct way to think about it. Your goal in a dangerous situation should be to _leave._ If someone is stopping you from leaving safely, then you can only do what is _necessary_ to enable you to be able to leave safely.
Your goal should not be to "win the fight". Don't challenge them beforehand (seriously, watch your mouth). Don't pursue them afterwards (this looks terrible on video). Pack your pride up and don't rise to any insults.
If your genuine focus is on what you _need_ to do to keep yourself and others safe, it's going to be a lot easier to convince the police and prosecution that was what you were doing.
@@nickwilliams8302 👍🏻
Prison is better than being dead so couple years in jail for protecting for self got to be a win no!! 👍🏻
Or just use reasonable force, defend yourself and avoid a criminal conviction?
Till me how reasonable force is going to help you from over Powering some nutter🤪 with a weapon that wonts to Hurt you or even kill you ?? 👍🏻
That is by definition what reasonable force is. You do have to define 'hurt' though. If by hurt you are talking about a low level punch up in a pub where the person is clearly a bit tipsy, unarmed and, even if they did manage to connect with a punch, hurt would be no more than a swollen lip. Then going all Rambo on them is probably not reasonable.
On the other hand; your down a dark ally, you have your partner with you, you are faced with multiple attackers armed with something or other, who have made it quite clear their aim is to assault your partner while you watch reasonable can be considerably upgraded. Lethal force if required, even in English law.
@@chrisburns2172 . Yes but what is reasonable? If i break the blokes arm so he cannot punch me anymore, is that reasonable?
@@Raysnature you're missing the point that these laws are arbitrary by design
0:40 Whilst Pava or CS gas is illegal in the UK, paint or dye isn't. So you can use a product such as Farbgel which is a red dye which takes days to wash off. It doesn't harm the attacker but it does make them identifiable and also makes them think twice.
wasp spray is legal, as long as your primary purpose in carrying it is to repel insects, you can buy it in Pava spray sized aerosols, and a face full of wasp repellent is actually more effective at temporarily reducing sight and respiratory function than the Pava spray the police carry.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, best channel.on you tube. You learn so much within a short space of time. Thanks again. 👍
Thanks so much 🙏
Congratulations; you've proved the law in the UK is an ass and not fit for purpose.
@Richard Fox it works in America, although the news would have you believe otherwise.
@Richard Fox the majority of gun violence and deaths in America happen in states with the strictest gun laws, mass shootings generally happen in so called gun free zones. Banning law abiding citizens from using a weapon to defend themselves only helps criminals because they don’t give a shit if it’s illegal or not they will still stab or shoot you regardless.
@Richard Fox you say it like it’s the gun who did the killing, we have a massive problem with people getting stabbed in the uk, and guess what carrying knifes is banned but people are getting stabbed daily.
focusing solely on firearm fatalities and homicides ignores the other side of the equation, people who use a gun to defend themselves, something that’s not nearly as well documented.
The annual firearm death rate in the United States, from 2015 through 2019, was 11.9 per 100,000 residents. Of those deaths 4.3 were homicides, and 7.2 were suicides.
Do you really think those deaths wouldn’t happen if guns where banned? You really cannot be that naive.
@Richard Fox any who, long story short is guns are designed to kill, they exist, no going back, yes the world would be a better place if they didn’t but they do and stopping law abiding citizens from having them only aids criminals.
The main reason the people in America have guns is because they fought for real freedoms, inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from a corrupt government.
People are much easier to control when they’re not armed.
@@mattschofield5375 it's actually not band if the blades is 3 inches or under , non lockable and foldable and the knife crimes are committed from kitchen knives not pocket knives
Lawyers mind games. How in hell am I to tell if an attacker is not trying to kill me (even if accidentally) and use appropriate force. UK law has become bonkers.
exactly
Ask him politely if he has a weapon and intends to use it while he's charging at you and hope he responds before you receive damage. If you start to get circled by his gang of hoodies, then it's time to play dead and hopefully they will lose interest.
@@gamewithadam7235 ha, that will work lol
@@gamewithadam7235 I was told by a policeman when a man lunged at me tryihg to scare me while I was walking alone in the park during the daytime 'what did you say'? I said 'to him 'That was not funny' and walked off. Then the police said, if that happens again' don't say anything'. No wonder the crims see women as 'easy targets'. So if a man attacks me with a weapon, you can't say Get off me, 'as it will encourage him' What a mess, Yet if a man wants to rape me it is I must say No. Conflicting messages.#england
Appropriate force means exactly that. Enough force to stop the threat. If you believe someone is going to attack you and you pull a knife and stab them then obviously that isn't appropriate force. Same if you hit them with a baseball bat, it's not appropriate unless they are also armed. A lot of it comes down to common sense. You can strike first in self defence but if the person goes to the ground and you keep hitting them then again this obviously isn't appropriate force.
I really appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge.
Thank you and keep up the good work.
"Offensive weapon...."...Where the law departs from commonsense. The definition of which is yet another example of how you need at least an A-Level in UK law to avoid inadvertently committing a crime.
Not really its about intent you can carry a knife if you intend to do bushcraft, but even a tactical pen is an offensive weapon if you intend to protect your self with it.
Not really. You just can't have anything for the purpose of self defence.
A complicated point of law easily explained here. Often is the case where the victim becomes the defendant in the eyes of the law. Thank you again for taking your time explaining. Much appreciated. 👍
In winter months Iam usually walking to and from work at silly hrs, and I look at it like this, I am not going down without a fight, if iam set apon. I hold the other person responsable for the injuries they will receive, even if the Law does not.
You have every right to defend yourself, and I will defend you in your right to defend yourself!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Thank you, good to know.
That is one good bit of the law, you can defend before you even get hit, by using body language or threats etc.
If someone attacks you either singly or in a group then it is you have the right to defend yourself from injury using whatever force is necessary to repel them .. At the end of the day you don't know if they will seriously harm you or even kill you... The law says if memory serves: retreat until you can no longer retreat.. If you can no longer retreat and are trapped in fear of your life then it is for certain you can use whatever deadly force available to escape...
So, the best reaction for an attempt on your life is to fatally stop the attacker, because no-one has the power to decide how much force to use, when under duress and adrenaline rush, to meet all the convoluted laws imposed. Then get rid of the body in such a way, it will be impossible to recover or will take so long before it is found that you have lived a happy stress free life and died of old age in you sleep. I rest my case your Honor
Love it.
😂👍
Sounds a great way to spend a long time in prison
7:20mins... That's all you need to remember when you feel under physical threat, be first, be fast, and be ferocious when talking or evasion are no longer options.
While living in Leytonstone, London I've seen an approximately 17-year-old black youth repeatedly stab an elderly man in his face for refusing to move from his front seat in a double-deck bus,
Pretty sure the elderly man lost his eye in that attack, nearly his Life. But yet UK law states the you can't carry a weapon to defend yourself. Ridiculous
I walk my dogs all hours of the day and night - basically when I'm able. Don't carry a weapon but the dog has a very heavy chain lead. I also need a torch, to see where I'm going - a very heavy one!
If you can walk away from a fight do so! Thankyou for sharing very interesting,
In other words, if someone attacks you just lay down and play dead, the poor unfortunate attacker will say that he's good to his invalid mother and suffers from being victimised, he'll get let off with community service and you'll get a life sentence of flashbacks and pain!
And shame. Which is arguably worse.
Not flashbacks just pain and trust me you if you are like me would spend a long time in prison for the same thing and I am telling the truth
So basically you’ve got to wait until you seriously hurt to defend against murder
With cases of police brutality currently in the media, what would be the situation if you were being unlawfully assaulted by a police officer (that you knew to be a police officer) and you fought back (perhaps because you feared serious injury)?
Obviously, in reality, you would be tasered, restrained and charged with assaulting a police officer. But, for the sake of argument, if you did manage to disarm and disable a police officer that you could show was using unreasonable force and a potentially dangerous level of violence toward you, would you still be charged with assaulting a police officer or would self defence stand?
Also like 12 angry men movie , the jury might not understand the questions or and be smart enough to determine if someone is bad or not, the system is crazy.
What sort of crazy person would make a system where many idiots can be part of a jury.
English law on use of lawful force in self defence is wholly unrealistic and impractical. It adopts as its starting point a 20/20 hindsight approach to judge "proportionate" force in any given situation without any or proper regard for the fear and uncertainty faced by a victim of violence.
some other myths disproven ;
the prevention of crime act 1953 (offensive weapons ) do not apply to a private place . A space behind a shop counter and a front garden are private places
you can use firearms in self defence however if you dont have a certificate you will be liable to weapons charges
also you if you carry a weapon in a public place for self defence you do NOT lose your right to self defence but will face weapon charges - R vs Fagan 1973
no duty to retreat
US castle doctrine is based on English self defence law
the banning of carrying anything for self defence does not affect the criminal . It leave the law abiding totally at the mercy of street robber etc because criminals do carry weapons regardless of what the law says . The very least pepper spray should be made legal to carry just like in much of Europe ! some EU countries allow carrying tazers etc and they have a lower violent crime then the UK - just one example is the check republic
Good to know. Thank you.
UK law you need a license to be able to be in possession of fire arms as proof of ownership or something but having a pocket knife you don't need such
If anyone breaks into your home, they are fair game for any amount of force, including lethal force. Sadly, in the UK, you are unlikely to be backed up by the court system. They have forfeited their Article 2 rights, once they enter your home.
There have been a lot of cases of police attacking protersters with batons. It would seem reasonable to use, say, a walking stick or baton of some kind to defend oneself against a police officer using a baton as an offensive weapon.
i laughed so hard when you said if someone pushes you and you smash them in the face with a brick is not reasonable, literally creasing lol
What is "reasonable force" when you find yourself surrounded by up to half a dozen toughs who obviously intend to rob you,beat you up,or even "accidentally" kill you? And if somebody is carrying a weapon in the first place they clearly mean to use it. In the time the attack is taking place it is almost impossible to judge the severity or outcome,instant reaction being the life saving reaction. Very few people are used to being attacked or provoked in any way,so how can they be expected to react "appropriately"? The atmosphere in a courtroom discussing the incident possibly several months later can have no bearing whatsoever on the incident itself. Not only that,but by that time the "facts" surrounding the attack will have been distorted to such an extent that any justice will be impossible.
In defence of a defendant using self defence as a defence, the people should agree to defend the right to defend that defendant.
Don't mean to cause personal offence when I'm offensively defending the rights of a defendant.
Great vid as always, appreciate the info. 😁
I would add a personal story.If a police officer is trying to arrest you and disregard that you are calling emergency services as you are feeling sick ; if he insist to arrest you and obstructs you from talking to emergency services ; if you punch them or shove them in the process is can be considered self defense.
Dual.purpose items , when walking the dog I carry a cree metal torch, it helps.me see where I'm going main purpose . It's also powerful enough to temporarily blind the attacker to five time to escape failing that it's perfect for aiding striking .
so this doesn't apply to our police force who go over the top dishing it out to the innocent, for that what we all are il the eyes of the law until proven otherwise..
I was arrested in the UK for a traffic offence. I stumbled as they were pushing me towards the van, I said "Hang on" - meaning give me time to walk. They beat the shit out of me and it went down as "resisting arrest". They dragged me with the rigid hand cuffs to the point I had deep gashes in my wrists...
FYI - I was 100% guilty of the traffic offence, but DID NOT resist...
Basic rule of thumb, if they kill you, then you are within your rights to use something as a weapon or extreme force!
Thanks for taking the time to make videos with such clear and easily understood content. One question though, is the idea of reasonable force dependant on level of training - would it be different for someone with martial/military training compared to a typical member of the public?
Many, many years ago my cousin accidentally killed someone and because he was a boxer his hands were deemed to be lethal weapons.
@@onlybugwitThat's a fallacy
A friend of mine was held up at knife point at his news paper shop in Sydney Australia. He pulled a baseball bat from under his counter and the attacker took off out of the shop. he chased him down the street and struck the offender on the jaw. As fate goes, my former boss a sergeant stationed in the local area and attended the scene, and called for immediate medical attention for the offender. The offender was laying on the pavement he was in a bad state.But unfortunately at the time the law allowed the offender to sue my friend for the injuries he sustained from the attempted robbery. My friend lost his house due to to the compensation claimed by the offender. The law has now changed where an offender cannot profit from the proceeds of a crime. A bit of a judicial chane but a bit too late for my friend.
Chasing the attacker is generally not allowed anywhere. The law does not treat the streets as combat zone so "preventing the enemy from regrouping" is not an option.
A wine bar I used to use was attacked one night by a gang of thugs from the boxing fraternity who started multiple fights with customers, one jumped over the bar & tried to stab the bar manager, he grabbed the knife they used to slice lemons & stabbed the guy multiple times killing him. Jury acquitted him on self defence grounds. I wasn't there that night but a friend witnessed it from 2 or 3 arm lengths away. On the day of the dead mans funeral his friends threw a Molotov cocktail through the bar window & burned it down.
What a weird story. Why on earth would his friends burn down the bar, it wasn't their fault. Surely, its the boxing fraternity they should have burnt down? Strange.
@@tonyt5218 It was a few years ago & have tried to find the story about the boxing match brawl, an incredible amount of brawls happen at boxing matches it seems if you google it. It was all over the news at the time, Birmingham City Football fans were involved, they're known as Zulu's. Emotions mixed with drink on funeral day will have had something to do with it, plus gang stuff. Bar manager did receive 8 or 12 years in prison 12/24 months later for having a huge quantity of 'E's. Bar was used as an all night rave & think it was refurbished & re-opened after fire.
People are losing their jobs and this guy is talking about the highway code. Marvellous
Question I am keen to have answered:
Walking back home from the gym last sunday a man about my age (extremly drunk and still holding a plastic cup in his hand) was walking in my direction ( this is on the highstreet and he was heading the other direction presumably). However, once he got closer to me he very randomly went out of his way to block me from walking past him and was essentially, what can only be discribed as growling. Now, i took my headphones out and very aggrssively asked what he was doing and what was wrong with him and he VERY lightly punched me in the stomach (I'm talking more of a tap if anything. Not at all painful and honestly zero actual force seemed to be applied) - but both his fists were clenched none the less.
Now, I opted for grabbing his wrist and holding it down and asking what his problem was and probably threatening him (tbf i can't really remember). However, I thought many times in this 30 or so seconds of either headbutting him or choking him out. As, at the end of the day, he was in my personal space and was posturing aggressively and how am I supposed to know if he was carrying a knife etc?
I have, until watching this video, been under the illusion that I had to wait for this person to swing a proper punch at me first, before I could do anything about this (So thank you for this video). However it has been bugging me since then, as I feel I shouldn't have even let him get this close to me and I shouldn't have taken the high road. Not to sound like knob, but I am above average in size and have boxed for a few years and have some experience grappling, so I think it was more the fact that I was confident enough that because of how drunk he was, if he did swing for me I would have flattened him; so I didn't do the things I have thinking of/wanting to do. But anyway, context now given, what did I have the right to do in this situation legally? Could I have choked him till he was unconcious and gotten someone to call the police while i held him down? Or, was holding his wrist down and ultimately walking away while calling him classic english insults like p**** the right thing to do?
Sorry I appreicate this is a long winded comment but, I really am eager to know what I should/could have done. I hate how soft we've become as a country and the whole thing has left me quite annoyed. I can't believe I let someone get that close to me and risked my own safety, because I was worried that I would end up being the one done for assault and had work the next day lol.
Basically if you can retreat from the situation, you cannot use force on him is my understanding. Self defense can only be valid if you have retreated until you cannot retreat anymore.
That drunk is slow, you can just run. His posturing doesn't allow self-defense
@@zurielsss fair enough, thank you for taking the time to read my angry rambling as well haha
tbh the propotional force aspect is a total farce, if someone is attacking you, you dont know if they are gna get worse and worse, so its always best to disarm or disengage them, even if that means your force is not "proportional". Better them than you. It is your life, not the laws life, do as you please.
I find your vids very interesting and informative however, on this one I have to say the point re reasonable force must have been madeby someone who had obviously never been attacked. When attacked I suspect the last thing on most peoples mind is "am I using reasonable force and will I be able to prove that if I get out of this alive". :-(
Brilliant ! Take heed people.... Never cross that line..
Carry a small super bright flash light, and record on your phone if you are in an altercation. Clearly tell the aggressor you will defend yourself unless they go away
Also another thing if there is no evidence of the victim or attacker, but the attacker is more damaged, how can they pick who the attacker is and who is not, this is when they should use a brain scam and lie detector test like a polygraph etc.
But yes cctv with audio should be in most public places to avoid other waste being used.
Because it is not fair for some innocent person being put in prison or fined because there is no evidence.
Thankyou for explaining. I’ve been try to convince my nephew that a “training” butterfly knife ( used just for tricks ) could still be classed as an offensive weapon. You have helped my argument. Thankyou
Wait, it's possible for a jury to conclude that a defendant didn't use "reasonable" force but still did not intend to kill (or cause GBH) what would the verdict be if they were charged with murder?
Why would anyone "raise" self-defence, the burden to prove intent to kill seems to be removed and replaced with a new burden to prove force was "unreasonable" which sounds really vague, it varies massively from person to person what sort of force is or is not reasonable.
Germany’s self defence laws are what we should follow. Maybe do a video on that as a comparison
Great idea!
I really enjoy a real lawyer reacts series on legal Eagles change. It's cort room accuracy. A uk sentric series would be good
Thanks for taking the time to post.these videos Sir. I find them very interesting and informative. Would owning and using a sturdy, perhaps "tactical" umbrella, in self defense be allowable?
Whether using for self defence would be legal depends on the individual circumstances - are you genuinely under attack and is using it reasonable force or is it more violent than necessary? But carrying it in public for self defence purposes is not legal. You're not allowed to carry anything for use as a weapon.
@@barneylaurance1865 but I'm carrying it in case it rains...
Love the cheeky telescope in the background.
Honestly I don't care. If you try to hurt me or my family or break into my home then I'm doing everything I can to make sure that you are not moving after so you are no longer a threat to me or my family. How can you possibly judge reasonable force under that amount of adrenaline while your in danger?
Recently a man killed 3 people in self defence and faced no charges, its a very interesting case look the guy up: Gurjeet Singh from London - in my opinion this case is a win for self defence here in the UK
One of the best government systems for the rights of self defence is the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic actual respect a persons right to defend their lives from violence, so much so that a new law has just been passed in the Czech Republic to allow the citizens of the Czech Republic to own fully automatic machine guns fr home defence.
That quite literally is a response for the developing situation in Ukraine. Nothing ACTUALLY about self defense. I doubt fully armed multiple attackers scenario is very common in Czech Republic
Fantastic and very insightful video.
would you be able to do a video on cannabis possession and personal use? I feel like it is not very clear as different people say different things about how much you can possess for different punishments and so on, also things like the canna card? which is supposed to prevent you from any punishments to do with possession of cannabis
Upto 10kg but dont hit anyone over the head with it because what is basically drug dealing can be turned into attempted murder ....Your welcome mate
People say different things because different Police forces use different guidance. This is all immaterial though I think as Cannabis is still illegal so no amount will be totaly/reliably safe for you to carry. But yes I agree, a good video on it would be interesting. :)
And I just love how all this is like a rehearsal on how/ what to do, what bullshit. No one knows how their gonna act in these situations.
Can you please give your thoughts about this? I had to use self defence yesterday, an 80 something year old neighbour ( I'm 42) woke me up at 5am in the morning making loads of noise outside (it's not the first time and I have asked him loads to wait for a reasonable time) this time was the earliest he has done it so I wasn't happy and used bad language which I'm not happy about, he raised a yard brush and went to hit me, I backed up and he lowered it, I then warned him if he tries it again I will defend myself, after a few more words I started walking away, I then heard him coming up behind me and saying he is going to knock me f-ing out, I turn my head and seen him about to hit me with the brush again so I quickly pushed him, he fell to the ground and apparently he has cuts on his back. I was recording on my phone the whole time and it's not a very good recording but what he says and for a second shows him behind me with the brush raised are shown. I was planning on reporting him for attempted assault, is this a good idea or should I just forget about it? I suffer from anxiety so last thing I want is to end up been arrested if the police take his side because of his age, I did take into account his age when defending myself which is why I pushed him instead of a punch
It certainly sounds like self defence to me. Make a full note of what happened and keep the phone recording. Screenshot your comments here, too. If the police come to question you, exercise your right to free legal advice before being questioned.
what if you took a legally owned shotgun from your gun cabinet and pointed it towards the attackers ? Not shooting it, but handling it ?
And before anyone mentions Tony Martin. His gun was illegally held and he shot as the threat was leaving .
Depends on the circumstances, really. If you felt your wellbeing or life was in threat and you would not be able to defend yourself in a less lethal way, you may well have a defence. If you're disabled or infirm and couldn't use physical force to defend yourself, you may well have a stronger case for reverting to a gun, than you would if you were buff and bigger than the spindly assailant. In most of Europe, it all comes down to circumstances really, but it's normally not as dire as you might think.
Does your actions after defending yourself effect the outcome . For me if I’m being violently attacked then for me the ideal way to defend yourself is to neutralise the attacker as quick as possible ( maybe by using force that could be seen as excessive ) but once the threat is neutralised you immediately give them first aid and call emergency services and stay with the attacker until police and paramedics arrive ?
Yes of course it will play a part.
The law seems so unfair and seems to protect criminals. As a woman, how am I supposed to use so-called "reasonable force" against a man twice my size, or even just the average man attacking me? The average man is much stronger than the average women and I think people vastly underestimate this, I'm hardly going to be able to punch or wrestle him and I may not even be able to escape. But if I grab something within reach to hit him with and seriously injure and/or kill him that would be considered excessive even if I genuinely feared for my life.
As a fellow black belt (3rd Dan jujitsu) we were taught that if you do ever have to defend yourself using any taught techniques. Should you then be questioned by the police you should not state or freely give the information that you are a martial artist. Would you agree with this ??
Obviously, I am not BBB, but the rule of thumb would be don't say ANYTHING without your lawyer present, and don't volunteer information that has not been requested (unless you have a legal obligation to do so anyway)
A police interview is conducted by people with specific training in it, with a view to reaching a particular conclusion, NONE of which is revealed to you at the time, so while it may feel or indeed be framed as uncooperative, you shouldn't be looking for ways to help them "extra" to what is actually asked of you
The system is set-up to make use of the things you say in a way that is not to your benefit, guilty OR innocent.
On the other hand, it's not something you should hide or lie-about either.
I would say exercise your right to free legal advice before being questioned!
@@BlackBeltBarrister that is definitely good advice ! But ! Is a duty solicitor as good as a paid private solicitor or barrister??
@@leeshellam3150 It is a different skill set - solicitors will have the experience for interviews, barrister generally do not do them - and require additional certification to do so.
@@BlackBeltBarrister isn't a trial basically a big interview? Interviewing witnesses or the accused ? 😉
Another thing is, people are all scared by what a victim done to them, for example some bellend kept kicking me at school then I kicked him hard and he went running crying to the headteacher.
But later in time he continuing to test me, now if I broke his leg basically did more punishment to him either on purpose or by accident, then that person would less likely to be a bellend to me in the future.
Sure there is other who still will be a bellend in the future, even if they was very damaged by the victim, but sane people won't.
So my point is no one should even start on anyone for no good reason, unless they want to end up worser than thd Victim, because harassment is also a law, so (ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law) even though I am not a fan of that sentence, in terms of the uk it seems to be fact.
So, you have to let someone attack you first and then try to reasonably asses how much they were trying to hurt you, then you have to reasonably asses how much you are allowed to defend yourself? Nah mate, I'll smash him first and do the assessing later, thank you very much. The courts are a complete joke for the most part anyway, so even if you do try to do the right thing, you will more than likely get shafted anyway.
no you dont see Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814
and Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130
".... where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ....".
@@geezerp1982 is entitled to repel force by force? So, you have to let them get the first shot in? The next time I find myself in a confrontation with an asshole, I'll be sure to be a nice guy and let him have first punch 😂
@@mrade5321 no you dont ! case law also backs up pre-emeptive stike . if you read LJ parker wrote, he he meet force with force and even kill the aggressor , thats pretty clear
@@geezerp1982 It's not clear though. To meet force with force, the aggressor has to inflict force upon you first. I'm more about prevention than cure. That is something that any court in the land will never understand. How is any judge, that wasn't there, going to tell you what someone else's intentions were? It's all speculation and the outcome will be to the benefit of who the court favours. Facts don't come in to it.
@@mrade5321 there is case on this topic however, in reality if some idiot decides to have a go and you need to defend yourself, then just run off afterwards and dont report it !
then again in felon loving UK it wouldnt surprise me if the street robber goes to the police and says i have been attacked because i was trying to rob someone with my knife
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in regard to "reasonable force" wasn't there a famous judgement given many years ago that said something like "someone being attacked cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety the level of force that they use to defend themselves"?
Also reasonable force will depend on the relative size of victim and aggressor. If a 5' woman was defending herself against a 6' 6" man then almost anything could be considered reasonable since she wouldn't stand a chance if he got the upper hand for even a moment.
Reasonable force appears to be rooted in old trail by combat procedures. Laws, where each contender were armed with equal weapons. It was heavily honour based, and the outcome was supposedly judged by god.
In regards to women and men fighting each other. The males were put in a hole up to the waist, and fought using an inferior weapon compared to females. This inequity balanced out the reasonable force between each party.
My safety > The law
So basically its a snake-pit on whether your found guilty or not guilty ! The only defence you could put up would be to say ``I thought he was going to kill me``
I always carry a very strong pen, because you always need to write something down. If I’m on the underground I always take a strong but short umbrella because the weather always changes and it can provide me with shade if it’s hot. However, I would allow open carry and the freedom to own a gun in the UK. Good people don’t go around murdering people, and the bad guys have guns and knives already.
I always have a metal pen, which i often use for making notes - but in a pinch could use it to defend myself.
What about resistance against a person in police uniform, that gave you with his actions the doubt of being a real officer? Do I have to let my Mother be kidnapped, just because the thugs were wearing uniform?
Police is 99% right. It is not your call to decide. All those stories about refusing the wear the mask, or being drunk, or not believing you should be in place "X".. it is not your call.
please can you do a video explaining our self defence rights when assaulted by police officers. I am lead to believe that if police make unlawlful physical with me (assault and battery), then i would have the right to use reasonable force to prevent it, but how do i know what level of force would be appropriate, and if said police officer commits this offence does he still have the protections of an officer or would they be classed as a civilian in such a case?
Wasn't that covered in this video? In theory you have the same self defence rights if you are unlawfully attacked by police officers or by anyone else.
Not sure what you mean by "protections of an officer". Yes it's very hard to get police officers prosecuted but that's because the police are in many ways one big gang and they tend to stick together. It's not because they have formal legal protection.
@@barneylaurance1865ah, by saying "protection of an officer, i mean if i was to end up in court for physically defending myself from the officer, would the officer be charged as a civillian due to him/her acting outside their scope of authority, and therefore have to arrange their own legal representation ect, or would they still be treated as an officer and have the police force and their legal teams to help them.
@@mr.manson8932 I don't know what sort of representation they'd have formally but in most cases I expect their colleagues would try to help them anyway. Probably the Police Federation would offer to help as well. But in practice it's very hard to get a police officer charged at all - who's going to do the investigation and submit a case to the prosecutor?
@@barneylaurance1865 im aware that i can file a private prosecution in certain cases, but like you say im pretty sure the police force and cps would do everything they can to protect the officer, and as for the i.o.p.c, i have known them to straight up lie to defend them, even though they're supposedly independant they are clearly on the side of the police. i have been battered by police on numerous occasions for simply refusing to give them my details, when im under no obligation to do so, and am trying to learn so that i can lawfully protect/defend myself when they inevitably do it again.
I got a self defence case coming up, a man came at me with a bar stall I tried to de escalated the situation, deflecting the bar stall and telling the guy to calm down and gave him a hug he then pushed me away and I thought he was gonna whack me soo I struck first… he lost a tooth and banged his head off the floor.
Fascinating and useful. Thank you.
Why is a rape alarm even considered a 'self defence product', no one takes any notice of them.
As someone involved in sport shooting in the UK, I get into a lot of conversations with Americans where I have to explain that "self defence" simply does not exist in law in the UK, I'll just point them towards this video in future and save myself a lot of keyboard time!
Explain ! when a Footballer uses shin pads is he searching for mortal combat or is he protecting his career ?
What happened to the bill of rights of 1689?
the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
What about FARB spray ????
If you carry a small compact torch which could be used to blind a potential attacker or used as a weapon - is that legal?
Why do directors for large multi-national companies seem to avoid prosecution for offences, (ie. money laundering and other business related criminal offences) as compared to director's of small companies?
SmartBreederTV: They can afford to pay bigger bribes :-/
Quick question: I used to carry a Jif Lemon loaded with chilli powder as a self-defence weapon (also very nice to use on a bag of fish&chips or a kebab), so I was basically carrying a food-item for my own use. How would I stand if I was to have squirted that in an attacker's eyes?
If it were proved that you were carrying it with intent to harm, you risk being charged with possession of an offensive weapon! Sounds far fetched, but that's how it is...
@@BlackBeltBarrister Thanks for replying. Yeah, it does sound a bit daft, but I figured it would probably go somewhere along those lines. I like your channel; it's one of the more interesting ones I've discovered lately.
As a bjj guy, if I was attacked, is it legal for me to hold an attacker on the floor until the authorities arrive?
For an indictable offence and using only reasonably force
6 degree black belt and a barrister. If you ever lose your sight you basically become Dare Devil.
What if the attacker is a 20st, facial tattooed, gold toothed, roid monster. Is a brick ok then?
I'd prefer a shotgun loaded with buck an ball myself.
Judging by that description, the answer is "no" because you could almost certainly escape by simply running, or even walking briskly, away from him/her/it.
Never judge a book by its cover.
@@Chequr_Prostate The story in this book was of an attacker.
@@philcliffe6909 Stereotyping?
A couple of weeks ago a 14 year old was stabbed near West Croydon Station. He managed to walk to the hospital but died there .I wonder what section of what act would have saved him .?
Keep up the good work…
Bless you.