According to a scottish lawyer i am not supposed to present a defense statement only a plea of guilty and take a deal with the crown prosecution Its utterly disgusting
Although thankfully I have never been in a proper fight in my life I am fully aware that if I or my family were attacked I would have to use extreme force to prevent it. Using anything less may not deter the assailant from having a second go thus beating or killing us.
What about when overzealous police officer/officers use excessive physical force to identify you for a routine check which results in injury, what can you do???
Take down the officer's name and collar number, which they have to give to you by law if and when requested, and report them to the IOPC, formerly known as the IPCC
@@wreck-it235let's be really honest, what do you think the IOPC will do. We've reported the three times to no avail. You want the police to investigate the same police. They are institutionally corrupt to the core.
@@shadyninja1 The 'I' stands for 'Independent' meaning they are independent from the police yet investigate incidents of misconduct, so it's not really the police investigating the police. It's more like the police being held accountable for any unnecessary use of force an officer uses. I don't know what happened in this instance, I do, however, know what powers the police have and what rights we have. When reporting the incident, what response did you get??
I’m in the states, and I’m an ex cop (retired). Your law and most states are very much the same. The problem I see these day I’d too many rights are given the criminal. Force is the level to stop the threat, so to stop, you must be more violent than your attackers.
The problem is this lawyer neglected a very important piece of legislation* that just arbitrarily changes the definition of "reasonable" where it just decrees any degree of force disproportionate is automatically not reasonable. All a prosecutor has to do is prove the force you used isn't the same as the force the criminal aggressor used then you're just as guilty as the criminal for defending yourself. A jury is just not allowed to consider that disproportionate force could ever be reasonable. *Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76, subsection 6
@@Treblaine I'm loathe to agree with the respondent above you, but with him I grudgingly, and you wholeheartedly, agree that a degree of superior force is justified for not only its utility in stopping your attacker, but in deterring him from subsequent violence against others.
@@Treblaine Part of that post is incorrect, my friend: juries can effectively consider whatever force they like to be reasonable, because no juror can be ever be punished for his verdict. This has been a fundamental principle of english law since the late 1600's. Any juror who wishes to completely disregard all the evidence produced in court, and all direction from the judge or any other court official regarding the verdict may do so with complete impunity, because the court cannot take any action against him or her. But for some strange reason, they never tell them that!
@@MSM4U2POM That is just jury nullification, that is not specific to self-defence, you could even get someone off for any crime. Even premeditated murder! Depending on a jury to ignore instruction to get justice is hopeless. It's like hoping someone will assemble IKEA furniture for you when authority figures are all telling them not to. For practical purposes any one of the jurors may reveal this to the judge and then the judge can kibosh it. The essential part of jury nullification is that the judge doesn't find out before the judge can declare a mistrial. Effectively there are majority verdicts for a conviction but a veto against any acquittal.
@@MSM4U2POM Okay, but it doesn't change that acting in self-defence puts you on the same levels as actual criminals where you depend entirely on the sympathy of strangers rather than your factual reasonableness.
Local kids threw rocks. Mates threw them back in hopes they'd back off. The kids' dad came out telling us to leave. We did. Would they have any chance of winning if they chose to prosecute?
@Daniel Barnett Bit of an awkward one. What if someone you have been told has a knife, is then knocked out behind you, so therefore you do not know they are unconscious. You then turn around and they are on the floor and you think they are reaching for the knife by their side so you kick out. Can that be claimed as self defence as you thought they were about to attack you.
What would happen if you have a FAC or a shotgun license and someone burgles your house? Are you allowed to point it at them and NOT pull the trigger to ward them off? And if they are armed with a firearm - are you allowed to pull the trigger?
In Australia that would be a hard no. You are never allowed to use a firearm for self defence, regardless of what your assailant is armed with. Licensed shooters who use a firearm in self defence, even if it is not loaded, will have their firearms seized, license revoked, hit with a firearms prohibition order, and possibly spend substantial time in prison. Besides, we have to keep them locked in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition locked up separately. Therefore they are all but useless in most situations where you'd think they might be helpful. Maybe some sort of 'electrical fault' involving your door knobs might serve better as a deterrent 🤔
I was attacked in Ireland. A man charged me and grabbed me and said I'll kill you. I was not able to run away. I slapped him. Was this act lawful? Thanks
Should you be attacked and get yourself killed the law won't give a damn,your tough luck. Your assailant will get all the legal help he needs. Should you survive the law will try to convict you for whatever "crime" you have committed. Your assailant will get all the legal aid he needs. You will get nothing.
palmer is good case law on the subject and ; Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) ".... 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 ....".
What if you kill the attacker? Take the samurai sword example if someone is attacking me with a samurai sword and I use some weird martial art and deflect the blade back to him and it ends up killing him is it still justified?
@@goawakeneveryone4365 It resulted in a death, hence manslaughter, in England, you would recieve a sentence, you would need a very good barrister to prove you were 💯 Innocent it is of course circumstance to circumstance that will vary considerably in court. But to say without doubt that you wouldn't serve a sentence is naive at best. The more likely option depending on the prosecution and defence would be either manslaughter or murder, very rarely are you let off 💯.
@@snakeman9902 but that would be reasonable force in this example. The guy swings a sword at you and you deflect it back is definately reasonable force and would be self defence. It’s like that guy who was being robbed, they had a screwdriver get to his neck he gets a knife and kills one and it didn’t even go to trial.
@@TheFridge0x Each case is different and it fully depends on the quality and strengths of the defence and prosecuter... When there is a death, the prosecuter will go all out to get a sentence.. Let me give you a couple of scenarios.. Many years ago, my town and a neighbouring town use to hate one another, a person from my town went to the neighbouring town for a beer, a guy started a fight with him, he attacked the person from my town. There were witnesses to vouch for this. The person from my town punched him once, he fell back, banged his head on the pub wall, then collapsed.. Result, he died. The person from my town recieved 7yrs for manslaughter. Now, a person I personally know.. Him and his best friend went for a beer. They've grown up together since they were 5years old. They got into an argument and decided to step outside to sort their differences, similar circumstances, the guy I know. Punched him, he fell back, banged his head, fell forward and smashed his head on the floor, result, died.. Went to court, the guy who died family actually spoke in favour of the person up for murder.. Recieved manslaughter and a 4 year IPP, 10 years later, he's still in jail.. Person no. 3...Nightclub (always the dam ale). He went to the toilet, when he come back, slimeball was chatting up his gf and her friend. He told him she's with me, he apologised and went on his way. Went to the toilet again and slimeball is at it again, This time, when told to back off he appologise and as soon as my friend turned his head, he got punched in the back of his head. My friend responded and slimeballs friends joined in my friend is no push over and got the better of slimeball and his friends. My friend went for a walk to clear his head, slimeball and his friends lived near by... As he was sat on a bench his gf screamed, slimeball wrapped a baseball bat around his head, my mate is a big bloke so the fight was on.. Mate eventually got the better, slimeball ran off, mate chased him and battered him, this unfortunately was caught on cctv. No death, but friend recieved 2 Yr IPP. 7 years later he was still in jail. He protected himself, his gf and her mate. See for every example you can give, I can give a counter situation. So I repeat... It depends on the situation, the defence and the prosecution.. I've worked in security, one night, you can punch someone and nothing happens, another night, you can get arrested. I'm a big bloke, if a robber breaks in and I hospitalise him, I may more often than not recieve a jail sentence, if my partner was on her own who is a small female did the same thing, she will more than likely get off with it... I hope this explains everything clearly and makes sense..
Can someone explain how Kyle Rittenhouse exercised self defense successfully? Nothing you've mentioned here makes sense for the jury to conclude how they did. While this is English law, I can't see how being chased warrants lethal force with a gun? Thank you for your good content
Apparently one person was in possession of a handgun and another tried swinging a skateboard at his head, since both of those scenarios would be classed as lethal force and Kyle would be justified in using lethal force back. Although common sense would be don't start on someone that has a rifle in their arms, apparently carrying a rifle for protecting someone's business is legal in that state (I say apparently here as I am not well versed in the law over in the USA)
the entire court case is online. I suggest you watch it and your question will be answered. BTW was the correct decision although wouldn't hold up in the UK.
Kyle was being chased and his life was in danger. He shot gage grosskreutz only when he pointed his gun at him. As this video shows its down to Kyle's perception. You would have to be insane to think that Kyle did anything wrong. Kyle was a hero that night. If Kyle and others weren't there, people would be dead.
So he was allowed to hold a firearm because a law prohibiting him from doing so didn’t apply due to clauses intended to allow minors to hunt. First, Rittenhouse was chased by a maniac who was throwing Moltovs at him. When Kyle heard gunshots, he turned around and shot the person who was throwing Moltovs at him. Later on, he was running and fell, he was rushed by a person who was trying to bash his head in with a skateboard. Kyle responded with a single gunshot. Then, some guy pretended to be friendly, and he pulled out a revolver to which Kyle responded by shooting him. This person later went on to say that his only regret was not killing Kyle. Pretty cut-n-dry case of self-defense if you ask me. Unlike the UK, the self-Defense laws actually make sense here in the US
Yes, you can be charged for assault, depending on the degree of harm you cause, however, if the use of force is proportionate to the threat, either presented or reasonably believed, then you should be alright in court
This is mostly, but not entirely, batshit. I'm sorry. Maybe thats bc I'm American. We have LOTS of problems, but we at least get self defense right. Every free country needs Castle Laws and maybe even Stand Your Ground.
@@richardhands904 I can live without SYG. It's problematic for a number of reasons, but every free society should have castle laws. And if someone is to be prosecuted for an act of self defense and acquitted, the state should pay for any damage caused, financial or otherwise.
@@alexanderangelo7284 In a world of "social contract", where I am morally obligated to abide. We should all strive to minimise the damage to one another. Given an American context of guns + not have the obligation t to run away, truly a scary combination. Do you not think we should be obligated to cause the minimum amount of harm to one another? The paying of lawyers fees is not necessarily the worst idea, however I can see it give rise to more injustice of the rich who disproportionately get away with more crimes. Mostly due to being able to afford more expensive lawyers (who have more time and expertise), literally getting away with murder on a technicality.
@@richardhands904Criminals violate that social contract when they try to harm you. Your dumbass idea of a social contract only empowers the criminals who know that their victims will be in the difficult situation of either giving up and possibly dying or defending yourself and being prosecuted for felonies. That’s exactly what happens in the UK. You have the right to self-defense on paper, but there’s so many stipulations that almost nobody would notice the difference if it was just flat-out illegal. It’s functionally worthless. And the US still has reasonable force laws. The difference is that they’re actually logical and applied fairly. You can’t pull a knife on somebody who called you a ninny and you can’t shoot someone for simply knocking on your door.
"disproportionate force is obviously never going to be reasonable" says who? That is not obvious. The opposite is obvious that if you must match their force in proportion then you have 50% chance of success, the criminal attacker is not entitled to any more than a 0% chance of success. If you cannot responds to attempts to shove you over other than shoving back then they can keep trying to shove you over until they have you on the ground to have their way with you.
@@chendaforest No, by definition unreasonable (force) is "(force that is) not based on good sense" It is NOT good sense to refuse to use "greater force than the force used against a victim" (that is the definition of "disproportionate force") you just have such a poor consideration of the matter you don't know right from wrong. You mistake meekness for goodness. Proportionality is for a boxing match! That is where the two fighters must be of equal build and use a very limited set of attacks, only a depraved and entitled elite could allow an attitude for sporting interest inveigled its way into the legal system. Good people resisting evil sadistic criminals is viewed like a gladiatorial arena by authority figures, they don't want the good to win all the time, they want a nice close fight.
@@Treblaine no, because the law permits pre-emptive striking which by definition would use greater force than that used against the victim, which would obviously be zero.
@@chendaforest think about the words you use, what is preempting what? There is still the absurd requirement to match threatened force with proportionate force. The pre-emption is really not much, it simply means if someone threatens to bash your brains in with a rock while wielding a rock threateningly you don't have to wait for the criminal to actually cave your head in to act.
@@chendaforest No that is not how the so-called "pre-emptive strike" rule works. That rule is simply that if someone is trying to punch you, you don't have to be utterly passive until they actually commit battery against you before you can use any force. This "rule" is just a logical consequence of actually being allowed to defend yourself from harm rather than allowing any harm against you to be immediately avenged. And that doesn't change the fact that if you're against career criminal who is an expert at beating people into submission with kicks and punches then this conflict must be rigged to his benefit by you only matching him on equal terms. Like this is a sport for the amusement of judges. Rather than if you really are justified to defend yourself you should logically be entitled to means that would guarantee your success. But this justified interpretation is arbitrarily excluded by statute.
![What counts as harassment and stalking? [Criminal law explainer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k8l7IodqxAg/mqdefault.jpg)
![My boss is demanding my fingerprints [LBC Legal Hour]](/img/1.gif)
I'm living through hell right now, I very much appreciate your video. Thank you
What happened?
I know the feeling
The same.
your not alone, thoughts are with you
Hey man same as me can I message you to get some advice
Thank you I have been seeking a clearer understanding of this thorny issue for decades. You have another subscriber.
Very clear explanation on a important issue for everyone
According to a scottish lawyer i am not supposed to present a defense statement only a plea of guilty and take a deal with the crown prosecution
Its utterly disgusting
Sounds wrong but Scotland has its own laws different to England & Wales
Although thankfully I have never been in a proper fight in my life I am fully aware that if I or my family were attacked I would have to use extreme force to prevent it.
Using anything less may not deter the assailant from having a second go thus beating or killing us.
Very clear explanation. Thank you sir ❤️
What about when overzealous police officer/officers use excessive physical force to identify you for a routine check which results in injury, what can you do???
Take down the officer's name and collar number, which they have to give to you by law if and when requested, and report them to the IOPC, formerly known as the IPCC
@@wreck-it235let's be really honest, what do you think the IOPC will do.
We've reported the three times to no avail.
You want the police to investigate the same police.
They are institutionally corrupt to the core.
@@shadyninja1 The 'I' stands for 'Independent' meaning they are independent from the police yet investigate incidents of misconduct, so it's not really the police investigating the police. It's more like the police being held accountable for any unnecessary use of force an officer uses. I don't know what happened in this instance, I do, however, know what powers the police have and what rights we have. When reporting the incident, what response did you get??
@@wreck-it235 treated the police like a hero and treated me like the villain
report it to the IPCC
I’m in the states, and I’m an ex cop (retired). Your law and most states are very much the same. The problem I see these day I’d too many rights are given the criminal. Force is the level to stop the threat, so to stop, you must be more violent than your attackers.
The problem is this lawyer neglected a very important piece of legislation* that just arbitrarily changes the definition of "reasonable" where it just decrees any degree of force disproportionate is automatically not reasonable. All a prosecutor has to do is prove the force you used isn't the same as the force the criminal aggressor used then you're just as guilty as the criminal for defending yourself.
A jury is just not allowed to consider that disproportionate force could ever be reasonable.
*Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76, subsection 6
@@Treblaine I'm loathe to agree with the respondent above you, but with him I grudgingly, and you wholeheartedly, agree that a degree of superior force is justified for not only its utility in stopping your attacker, but in deterring him from subsequent violence against others.
@@Treblaine Part of that post is incorrect, my friend: juries can effectively consider whatever force they like to be reasonable, because no juror can be ever be punished for his verdict. This has been a fundamental principle of english law since the late 1600's. Any juror who wishes to completely disregard all the evidence produced in court, and all direction from the judge or any other court official regarding the verdict may do so with complete impunity, because the court cannot take any action against him or her. But for some strange reason, they never tell them that!
@@MSM4U2POM That is just jury nullification, that is not specific to self-defence, you could even get someone off for any crime. Even premeditated murder!
Depending on a jury to ignore instruction to get justice is hopeless. It's like hoping someone will assemble IKEA furniture for you when authority figures are all telling them not to.
For practical purposes any one of the jurors may reveal this to the judge and then the judge can kibosh it. The essential part of jury nullification is that the judge doesn't find out before the judge can declare a mistrial. Effectively there are majority verdicts for a conviction but a veto against any acquittal.
@@MSM4U2POM Okay, but it doesn't change that acting in self-defence puts you on the same levels as actual criminals where you depend entirely on the sympathy of strangers rather than your factual reasonableness.
Local kids threw rocks. Mates threw them back in hopes they'd back off. The kids' dad came out telling us to leave. We did. Would they have any chance of winning if they chose to prosecute?
@Daniel Barnett
Bit of an awkward one.
What if someone you have been told has a knife, is then knocked out behind you, so therefore you do not know they are unconscious.
You then turn around and they are on the floor and you think they are reaching for the knife by their side so you kick out.
Can that be claimed as self defence as you thought they were about to attack you.
😂😂😂😂😂
4:30 Trying to order another pint while that guy's getting his butt kicked 🤣
What if your solicitir advised you not to take the stand in your own defence?
Very well explained, the logic
Thank you
What if someone punch me without a reason and he didnt hit but i punch back and hit him badly what would be my case on that?
Self defence. The fact he didn't hit you is irrelevant.
What would happen if you have a FAC or a shotgun license and someone burgles your house? Are you allowed to point it at them and NOT pull the trigger to ward them off?
And if they are armed with a firearm - are you allowed to pull the trigger?
Yes shoot the cunt in their legs
In Australia that would be a hard no.
You are never allowed to use a firearm for self defence, regardless of what your assailant is armed with.
Licensed shooters who use a firearm in self defence, even if it is not loaded, will have their firearms seized, license revoked, hit with a firearms prohibition order, and possibly spend substantial time in prison.
Besides, we have to keep them locked in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition locked up separately.
Therefore they are all but useless in most situations where you'd think they might be helpful.
Maybe some sort of 'electrical fault' involving your door knobs might serve better as a deterrent 🤔
Look up Norfolk farmer Tony Martin
@@goawakeneveryone4365 Even if you could use a firearm, shoot them in a small, moving target, or aim centre of mass 🤔
laymans guess: point it at them yes probably, fire it no. Unless they had a knife or gun.
I hit some one a lot of times after getting hit 3 times in the face and I'm being charged now it's crazy
I can relate😢
Were you in a fight (consensual) or were you defending yourself from someone that was inflicting violence upon you (non consensual)?
I was attacked in Ireland. A man charged me and grabbed me and said I'll kill you. I was not able to run away.
I slapped him. Was this act lawful? Thanks
What happened
In a fight, or was someone inflicting violence upon you?
Should you be attacked and get yourself killed the law won't give a damn,your tough luck. Your assailant will get all the legal help he needs. Should you survive the law will try to convict you for whatever "crime" you have committed. Your assailant will get all the legal aid he needs. You will get nothing.
palmer is good case law on the subject
and ; Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) ".... 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 ....".
What if you kill the attacker? Take the samurai sword example if someone is attacking me with a samurai sword and I use some weird martial art and deflect the blade back to him and it ends up killing him is it still justified?
You will be sentenced on either Murder or manslaughter.. Depending on the situation.
No you would not be locked up!
Because it is self defence!
@@goawakeneveryone4365 It resulted in a death, hence manslaughter, in England, you would recieve a sentence, you would need a very good barrister to prove you were 💯 Innocent it is of course circumstance to circumstance that will vary considerably in court.
But to say without doubt that you wouldn't serve a sentence is naive at best.
The more likely option depending on the prosecution and defence would be either manslaughter or murder, very rarely are you let off 💯.
@@snakeman9902 but that would be reasonable force in this example. The guy swings a sword at you and you deflect it back is definately reasonable force and would be self defence. It’s like that guy who was being robbed, they had a screwdriver get to his neck he gets a knife and kills one and it didn’t even go to trial.
@@TheFridge0x Each case is different and it fully depends on the quality and strengths of the defence and prosecuter... When there is a death, the prosecuter will go all out to get a sentence..
Let me give you a couple of scenarios..
Many years ago, my town and a neighbouring town use to hate one another, a person from my town went to the neighbouring town for a beer, a guy started a fight with him, he attacked the person from my town. There were witnesses to vouch for this. The person from my town punched him once, he fell back, banged his head on the pub wall, then collapsed.. Result, he died. The person from my town recieved 7yrs for manslaughter.
Now, a person I personally know.. Him and his best friend went for a beer. They've grown up together since they were 5years old. They got into an argument and decided to step outside to sort their differences, similar circumstances, the guy I know. Punched him, he fell back, banged his head, fell forward and smashed his head on the floor, result, died.. Went to court, the guy who died family actually spoke in favour of the person up for murder.. Recieved manslaughter and a 4 year IPP, 10 years later, he's still in jail..
Person no. 3...Nightclub (always the dam ale). He went to the toilet, when he come back, slimeball was chatting up his gf and her friend. He told him she's with me, he apologised and went on his way. Went to the toilet again and slimeball is at it again, This time, when told to back off he appologise and as soon as my friend turned his head, he got punched in the back of his head. My friend responded and slimeballs friends joined in my friend is no push over and got the better of slimeball and his friends. My friend went for a walk to clear his head, slimeball and his friends lived near by... As he was sat on a bench his gf screamed, slimeball wrapped a baseball bat around his head, my mate is a big bloke so the fight was on.. Mate eventually got the better, slimeball ran off, mate chased him and battered him, this unfortunately was caught on cctv. No death, but friend recieved 2 Yr IPP. 7 years later he was still in jail. He protected himself, his gf and her mate.
See for every example you can give, I can give a counter situation.
So I repeat... It depends on the situation, the defence and the prosecution..
I've worked in security, one night, you can punch someone and nothing happens, another night, you can get arrested.
I'm a big bloke, if a robber breaks in and I hospitalise him, I may more often than not recieve a jail sentence, if my partner was on her own who is a small female did the same thing, she will more than likely get off with it...
I hope this explains everything clearly and makes sense..
I can punch first😂 if I felt threatened
Can someone explain how Kyle Rittenhouse exercised self defense successfully? Nothing you've mentioned here makes sense for the jury to conclude how they did. While this is English law, I can't see how being chased warrants lethal force with a gun? Thank you for your good content
Apparently one person was in possession of a handgun and another tried swinging a skateboard at his head, since both of those scenarios would be classed as lethal force and Kyle would be justified in using lethal force back. Although common sense would be don't start on someone that has a rifle in their arms, apparently carrying a rifle for protecting someone's business is legal in that state (I say apparently here as I am not well versed in the law over in the USA)
the entire court case is online. I suggest you watch it and your question will be answered. BTW was the correct decision although wouldn't hold up in the UK.
What does this have to do with uk law?
Kyle was being chased and his life was in danger. He shot gage grosskreutz only when he pointed his gun at him. As this video shows its down to Kyle's perception.
You would have to be insane to think that Kyle did anything wrong. Kyle was a hero that night. If Kyle and others weren't there, people would be dead.
So he was allowed to hold a firearm because a law prohibiting him from doing so didn’t apply due to clauses intended to allow minors to hunt.
First, Rittenhouse was chased by a maniac who was throwing Moltovs at him. When Kyle heard gunshots, he turned around and shot the person who was throwing Moltovs at him.
Later on, he was running and fell, he was rushed by a person who was trying to bash his head in with a skateboard. Kyle responded with a single gunshot.
Then, some guy pretended to be friendly, and he pulled out a revolver to which Kyle responded by shooting him. This person later went on to say that his only regret was not killing Kyle.
Pretty cut-n-dry case of self-defense if you ask me. Unlike the UK, the self-Defense laws actually make sense here in the US
Would you be arrested for using reasonable force?
Yes, you can be charged for assault, depending on the degree of harm you cause, however, if the use of force is proportionate to the threat, either presented or reasonably believed, then you should be alright in court
yes falsely arrested for ABH until the dumb cops saw the CCTV footage and realised you acted within the law and they have no case (happened to me)
Are you of the international criminal law?
This is mostly, but not entirely, batshit. I'm sorry. Maybe thats bc I'm American. We have LOTS of problems, but we at least get self defense right. Every free country needs Castle Laws and maybe even Stand Your Ground.
It relates to harm reduction. Everyone should try to minimise the harm involved, as such I think stand your ground laws are batshit insane.
@@richardhands904 I can live without SYG. It's problematic for a number of reasons, but every free society should have castle laws. And if someone is to be prosecuted for an act of self defense and acquitted, the state should pay for any damage caused, financial or otherwise.
@@alexanderangelo7284 In a world of "social contract", where I am morally obligated to abide. We should all strive to minimise the damage to one another. Given an American context of guns + not have the obligation t to run away, truly a scary combination. Do you not think we should be obligated to cause the minimum amount of harm to one another? The paying of lawyers fees is not necessarily the worst idea, however I can see it give rise to more injustice of the rich who disproportionately get away with more crimes. Mostly due to being able to afford more expensive lawyers (who have more time and expertise), literally getting away with murder on a technicality.
@@richardhands904Criminals violate that social contract when they try to harm you.
Your dumbass idea of a social contract only empowers the criminals who know that their victims will be in the difficult situation of either giving up and possibly dying or defending yourself and being prosecuted for felonies. That’s exactly what happens in the UK. You have the right to self-defense on paper, but there’s so many stipulations that almost nobody would notice the difference if it was just flat-out illegal. It’s functionally worthless.
And the US still has reasonable force laws. The difference is that they’re actually logical and applied fairly. You can’t pull a knife on somebody who called you a ninny and you can’t shoot someone for simply knocking on your door.
"disproportionate force is obviously never going to be reasonable" says who? That is not obvious.
The opposite is obvious that if you must match their force in proportion then you have 50% chance of success, the criminal attacker is not entitled to any more than a 0% chance of success. If you cannot responds to attempts to shove you over other than shoving back then they can keep trying to shove you over until they have you on the ground to have their way with you.
By definition unreasonable force is disproportionate, it's essentially the same thing.
@@chendaforest No, by definition unreasonable (force) is "(force that is) not based on good sense"
It is NOT good sense to refuse to use "greater force than the force used against a victim" (that is the definition of "disproportionate force") you just have such a poor consideration of the matter you don't know right from wrong. You mistake meekness for goodness.
Proportionality is for a boxing match! That is where the two fighters must be of equal build and use a very limited set of attacks, only a depraved and entitled elite could allow an attitude for sporting interest inveigled its way into the legal system.
Good people resisting evil sadistic criminals is viewed like a gladiatorial arena by authority figures, they don't want the good to win all the time, they want a nice close fight.
@@Treblaine no, because the law permits pre-emptive striking which by definition would use greater force than that used against the victim, which would obviously be zero.
@@chendaforest think about the words you use, what is preempting what? There is still the absurd requirement to match threatened force with proportionate force.
The pre-emption is really not much, it simply means if someone threatens to bash your brains in with a rock while wielding a rock threateningly you don't have to wait for the criminal to actually cave your head in to act.
@@chendaforest No that is not how the so-called "pre-emptive strike" rule works.
That rule is simply that if someone is trying to punch you, you don't have to be utterly passive until they actually commit battery against you before you can use any force. This "rule" is just a logical consequence of actually being allowed to defend yourself from harm rather than allowing any harm against you to be immediately avenged.
And that doesn't change the fact that if you're against career criminal who is an expert at beating people into submission with kicks and punches then this conflict must be rigged to his benefit by you only matching him on equal terms. Like this is a sport for the amusement of judges. Rather than if you really are justified to defend yourself you should logically be entitled to means that would guarantee your success.
But this justified interpretation is arbitrarily excluded by statute.