When it comes to being shown how to inflict all sorts of nasty things upon someone attacking you, the martial arts community is the place to go. Instructors will spend hours teaching students how to punch someone's head clean off or how to break bones, while doing that karate shout in a window shattering way, but they will never bother to take the time to explain to you when, or if, you should do such things regarding the law - do they? The rhetoric is never ending when the subject of the law and defending yourself is highlighted, more so when it comes to the subject of a potential violent situation and you are in real fear of your life, which of course is more than understandable. The best old saying is - “Better to be judged by 12 in a court of law than to be carried to your grave by 6” - they will always say, but there are times when no action is the best way. The law is not always clear to understand at times on this subject but what is clear is that a limited response is one of them. Reasonable force, is one of the most commonly used terms regarding the law and using the right to defend yourself. A perfect example of when reasonable force is not being used correctly is when someone starts pushing you about and you respond by pulling out a knife and cutting their throat. A clear to see unjustified action to take by anyone's standards I would imagine? But what if your opponent is not even doing that? What if they are not even trying to touch you let alone do you any real harm beyond being an aggressive idiot? Let’s take the case of a young idiot shouting and being aggressive in a shop for example. Some old guy drops his can of beer, or soft drink, on the floor and the young idiot kicks the can. At this point, take note, the young idiot is not attacking anyone, only the can of beer or soft drink on the floor of course, but in response the old guy punches him in the face. At this point the old guy is guilty of physical assault. To prove in a court of law that the old guy was in fear of being attacked or in fear of his life would be somewhat hard to prove at this stage, but the young idiot however is more than justified to hit back in self defence after being hit first. That is how the law works. And if the old guy then gets the young fool on the ground and beats him around the head with several punches then for sure my money is on the old guy going to prison for grievous bodily harm. A pre-emptive strike while in fear of harm upon your person, or your very life, is one thing but punching someone, or even pulling a knife out and cutting their throat, when the threat is not that high a risk is another thing altogether. In the event of pulling a knife out against an unarmed person who is attacking you then that of course is viewed by the courts as having a somewhat premeditated intent to do someone physical harm. Why? Because taking a concealed weapon outside without a good reason will always be viewed as intent to do harm, or maybe intent to commit a criminal act, one way or the other. It really is a shame that martial art instructors only teach combat skills and fail to take the vital time needed to educate students about these things. Martial art teachers have a duty of care when teaching the martial arts and not just showing students how best to punch someone's head off without some educational information provided at times, at the very least, in addition to the regular training that students attend. For a related article on the subject of knife fighting click >HERE< This article is based on British UK laws and is provided in general terms only.
Comments are closed.
|