In the eyes of criminal law in the UK, if not why not?
2007-03-18 15:28:35 · 9 answers · asked by CosmicRush 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
hey properweird!!!
if you studied law you would know that that is not a thick question, there are loads of different variables!
2007-03-18 15:47:20 · update #1
No, for self defense to be claimed, the person has to have been threatened or endangered by someone else. You can look at the details at wilkepedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law
2007-03-18 15:38:27 · answer #1 · answered by brwnbarbie24 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course.
Say person A. hurls insult(s) at person B., person B responds with either returned insults or not, but person A. is determined to engage in a physical brawl, even common assault ( where the passive party, in this case B. does not initially respond physically ). If this situation is then escalated by B., by the production of a weapon, it changes the terms, and the level, of the encounter. Now should person A. end up causing serious injury to B. with his own weapon then his legal representative would most certainly claim self defence in the court.
This is exactly why in countries like the United States, where weapons ownership is at such a high level, it has become a nightmare for the home-owner, for example, who acquires a weapon to defend his property and family. Should he or she actually use the weapon for this purpose it is just as likely that they will end up facing a charge, as the intruder.
It is not quite the same in the UK, but close enough for the purposes of this question.
2007-03-18 16:25:47 · answer #2 · answered by cosmicvoyager 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes if they believed they were in immediate danger of physical harm they could strike first but it would be debatable if they started the actual fight as opposed to the battery or physical assault and the other person could technically be blamed by their conduct.An assault is words and the blows are battery.For instance if you knew someone had declared an intention of causing you injury and they came towards you in an aggressive manner then you could use reasonable force to stop them and later claim self defence.
2007-03-18 19:32:26 · answer #3 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not a lawyer nor I know anything about UK law, but I believe that "self-defense" mean "defending" and not "attacking".
If you start a fight, then you cannot claim that you acted on self-defense because you haven't been threatened.
2007-03-18 15:35:53 · answer #4 · answered by denisgomes 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes in certain circumstances IE threatened with a weapon or believed there was an overwhelming physical danger that necessitated striking the first blow. Unless you have been threatened with a weapon though this is going to be an uphill struggle I think!!
2007-03-18 21:14:04 · answer #5 · answered by vdv_desantnik 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only if the other person goes beyond the allowed method of force. If you punch him he can't use deadly force to repeal you. But when you use self defense to kill him, you will have imperfect self defense which will lower murder to manslaughter.
2007-03-18 15:34:27 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not unless you thought the person you started the fight with had a knife or gun he was gonna use on you so you started it to stop him from using the dangerous weapon! good luck with that!
2007-03-18 15:33:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
they don;t see who started unless video evidence says so..
they see who do most damages.
2007-03-18 15:33:21 · answer #8 · answered by Vu 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why did you pick on a migget and get bittenup?
2007-03-18 16:16:31 · answer #9 · answered by dan T 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋