2006-08-23 09:32:04 · 10 answers · asked by vicjon2537 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Depends on who frames the law i guess.
2006-08-23 09:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Maverick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is very vague. However you use the word REASONABLE. Which I think answers your own question.
If you are attacked by a 4'6" unarmed person and you are 6' something and built like the proverbial brick sh*t house, you probably would not get away with using a gun or other weapon.
However, the other way round and I guess the courts would be more inclined to agree that the person defended themselves in the only way possible to them at the time and under the circumstances.
It's not black and white sadly. You cannot shoot people in the back when they are running away - despite what they may have done to you previously/
2006-08-23 17:34:28 · answer #2 · answered by Sally J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reasonable force to protect yourself or make a citizens arrest. Using a gun or knife isn't reasonable force. Using a baton - such as a police baton, baseball bat, etc would be acceptable as it's been proved in the courts to be acceptable. If you chase a burglar with a golf club leaving your property - and hit him over the head with the improvised baton - that would be an attempted citizens arrest. If you are being attacked in your kitchen and a baton isn't to hand and a knife is - use of a knife then becomes reasonable force - assuming you are weaker than your attacker.
2006-08-23 16:54:17 · answer #3 · answered by Mike10613 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
The concept of the defence exists both at common law and by statute. At common law the defence has existed for centuries and permits a person to use reasonable force to:
defend himself from attack
prevent an attack on another person
defend his property
Check out the link below for more
2006-08-23 16:47:02 · answer #4 · answered by the truth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question has even fooled the government, it is usually considered to be the minimum force to prevent the assailant from doing what he/she is determined to do.
Problem, if you are a man and it is a female you are trying to restrain "You lose"
2006-08-26 06:10:15 · answer #5 · answered by Daddy Dave 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As much force as necessary to defend yourself, that does not mean you can go looking for trouble tho, If trouble comes looking for you that's a different matter.
2006-08-23 16:42:44 · answer #6 · answered by Osh Aka Oisinmagic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean how can you defend yourself if attacked? Something like if you are attacked with a broom, you can't shoot the person.
2006-08-23 16:38:33 · answer #7 · answered by Mirabo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I once heard a definition of reasonable that ran "That which a resonable person would consider to be reasonable"
I kid you not!!
2006-08-23 17:37:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is too vague to be answered.
2006-08-23 16:39:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
to preserve life if you think life is at risk ..be that yours or another person.
2006-08-23 16:40:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋