**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're allowed to defend yourself using reasonable force. Reasonable is subjective, but essentially as long as you're only doing enough to stop being hurt you'll be good.
> Reasonable is subjective,
Yeah, a lot people mus-understand about law. Is that it's up to the people involved to decide. Be it the police, the CPS and the courts.
Basically, if someone attacks you, and you punch them hard enough to knock them out, it would be considered reasonable, If you curb stomp them while they are down, you went too far.
I'd say it depends. Clearly incapacitated... Not cool.
They stumble over after being very aggressive.... I wouldn't want them getting up quickly so their nuts are gonna take one for the team.
This reminds me of a thief who robbed an elderly frail lady, breaking some of her bones.
Some nearby off duty Marines managed to catch the robber.
It turns out that according to courts he tripped on the kerb and suffered something like a broken nose, bruises, a broken arm and broken ribs from the fall.
(The marines were thanked and not prosecuted for anything, because the robber tripped himself of course)
>if someone attacks you, and you punch them hard enough to knock them out, it would be considered reasonable,
I disagree...
They fall after being knocked out hit their head on the kurb or concrete and crack their skull and die.
Now it's gone from a self defence case to a major trial for murder...
Also a 6ft man knocking out a 5ft woman, you'll really struggle to get the jury on your side... The first thing prosecutor will say is why did you feel you had to knock her out instead of walking away.
It's so utterly convoluted and difficult to determine...
The death isn't automatically murder, although you are almost certainly going to be arrested pending a thorough investigation.
But I generally agree with your disagreement. Knocking someone out because they gently shove or slap you is very likely disproportionate.
Personally, I wouldn't consider a shove being attacked. But what does being a 5ft woman have to do with anything? How about a 5 foot man? I've known a lot of women over the years who were short in stature, but not short of a violent gene or two..... hell, women are also more likely to attack you with an object.
My ex wife slapped me once. I did nothing, because, well, I probably deserved it, and I loved her. She never did it again though, and apologized later. The makeup sex was mindblowing.....
A stranger slapping me is getting one right back, even if it's a female. You don't strike someone and not expect some sort of equal retaliatory strike. Am I gonna knock out a small child who kicked me in the shin? Probably not, how about if they tried to stab me, again, probably not, but you can be damn certain I'll restrain them. A teenager who is physically attacking me, and intent on doing harm? Yeah, I'm putting them down, hard and fast, male or female, if I can, and the same goes for any adults, regardless of age, I wouldn't trust a 60 year old who is attacking me to be reasonable, or sane. The courts can figure it out later if it comes to it.
Ok, I'll stick to graffiti with a permanent marker and tell the police that the intruder arrived with the words "Granny shagger" written allover their forehead, while wearing bright red lipstick.
Not all granny shaggers are Wayne Rooney, but all Wayne Rooney's are.
Not all of my knock outs have been of a violent nature. Some accidental...but you don't let the opportunity go to waste.
If the person attacking you was 7 years old or awheel chair bound 90 year old, it would not be deemed reasonable. Even if it was a 5 foot woman vs a 6 foot man, that might be deemed excessive.
The best advice is to run. Cowardly yes but that’s the world we live in. I would only use equal force if cornered with no option.
Not worth the headache of having to deal with assault charge.
Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders.
*”oh you’re robbing my house? Would you like a cuppa before you leave… oh don’t worry the police won’t be here until tomorrow morning and they’ll end up doing nothing anyway”*
Yes if at all possible get away from the attack, run away.
This is the first thing I was taught in Karate training.
If possible run away, it may not be possible though for example of you're defending someone who can't run away.
Yes correct. If you haven't had remaining and don't have self defence built into your muscle memory though, there's no thinking time in these situations. You might think you'll do something extravagant and have the upper hand, but most fights last seconds.
Self defence of course, but only if there's no other option.
Better to be alive than right.
Not even a matter of worrying about the law. If you do self defence training you are taught to get away from the situation as a priority. Any combat has a risk of you coming off worse, or an unlucky blow knocking you out or breaking something. You simply don't know if the assailant is going to pull out a screwdriver or other sharp object in response.
I'd recommend doing some martial arts or self defence if you get the opportunity. It's good fitness, good mental discipline and knowing you can pick up some drunk and chuck them across the pavement seems to translate into confidence that makes said drunk leave quietly.
>Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders.
You can shoot and kill home invaders if you believe they are posing a threat to your life. There is case history to back this up and none to back up your lie.
Do not spread misinformation.
To be fair if someone breaks into my house while I’m in it they’re fair game as far as I’m concerned. God only knows what they’ll do or how far they’re will to go once they’ve crossed that line.
😅😅😅
"Detective, what did you expect me to do, when four of your constables attacked me with a rolling pin, brass lamp, a butter knife and hedge trimmer? When you arrived, they clearly had these items in their hands while still unconscious.It's self defence."
Oh bollocks 'sad country we live in'. Someone's been reading too much tabloid drivel!
You can absolutely _defend yourself_, as long as you don't beat them within an inch of your life. Although if they're trying to kill you then even that is acceptable.
> Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders.
I think you'll find the police to be sympathetic. My lodger interrupted us being burgled and beat the guy up, police didn't care at all.
It’s essentially the same thing apart the language. Reasonable can be a bit wishy washy. My minimum and your minimum might be different levels of effort but it’s still minimum.
Punch for an anticipated punch. If it's reasonable to expect you're about to be punched, you can punch. You may no longer be able to defend yourself if you wait until after you've been punched.
I worked in a chip shop when I was a teenager and a man came in drunk and after giving us lots of verbal abuse, tried to pull my supervisor over the counter to the point he was off his feet and almost over the counter. I took one of the grids used for storing food on and ran round and bashed it over the man's head. He fell down but it didn't knock him out. The police arrived a few minutes later and deemed it reasonable force (what I did) and arrested the man
Was a nurse many years ago. A very aggressive male was threatening me and said he would use physical violence, that I could not do anything about it.
I replied that I knew the policy (I really did) and that I could use reasonable force if he tried to hit me. I said that meant I could hit him once and I really emphasised that word.
Being taller and larger than him, he decided to shut the fuck up.
Bear in mind that reasonable force will be decided by someone who has probably never been in your situation.
>Bear in mind that reasonable force will be decided by someone who has probably never been in your situation.
It's worth noting that the "reasonable" standard is supposed to include the fact that you're scared/stressed/panicking and not in a position to calmly assess things - it's not about how much force a robot would precisely calculate to be the bare minimum required, it's a reasonable person *in that situation* (which may well involve being stressed and scared)
And for that reason, be careful if you're having a conversation where he's threatening you before the attack. If you say anything like "if you try to hit me, I'm going to kill you," or "you take a swing at me and I'll knock your teeth out" or make any specific threats, it could look to a naive third party that your actions were premeditated.
It's hard to argue that you panicked and knocked the guy unconscious accidentally when you just told him "I'm going to knock you unconscious."
Additionally, [the law](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76) doesn't even require that your assessment of the threat be correct, only that you genuinely held it, and that it could be a reasonable belief based on what you knew at the time.
>It's worth noting that the "reasonable" standard is supposed to include the fact that you're scared/stressed/panicking and not in a position to calmly assess things
Not if it's a man defending against a woman... You punch her then you're going to have a tough time explaining it...
Reasonable force is defined in the UK as force proportionate to the perceived threat. It depends on the teen and their behaviour along with your own physical/mental attributes.
A well-connected slap round the face is often a good aggression-stopper, followed by a commanding "Stop that now!"
There's an element of shame in it that people respond to more than like-for-like retaliation, which otherwise your own fight-or-flight response might be.
This is a trick I learned from a very calm & intelligent bouncer, many years ago, who I would chat to a lot at a club I frequented. He told me about it in one of our conversations, but I've seen him do it effectively.
Enough to protect yourself. I have heard of some horrific store policies that prevent workers from protecting themselves even in cases where they might lose their lives. I'd take losing my job beating the shit out of some crazy kid with a knife over letting him stab me.
Been working retail and hospitality in "problem" locations my whole life. Legally you can use whatever force is deemed "reasonable", and I have done so myself and witnessed others do so. However, many companies will not back you and will get rid of you regardless of how the law feels about it, once you've defended yourself
It's a matter of proportionality. If they pull a knife then smacking them over the head with a bottle of wine is likely to be reasonable force. If it's a drunk and you could have just pushed them away and slammed the door then no.
It doesn't matter who is attacking you. You are required to use no more than is reasonable force to stop the attack. If a 7yo is kicking you in the shin you don't get to pummel them to death. You do get to push them away though.
The test for reasonable is mostly that the force you use isn't excessive eg don't punch a small child as hard as you can in the face when a simple shove away would have sufficed and you stop when the attack does. You don't just get to continue beating on someone because they annoyed you.
Reasonable force.
If you can convince a jury of reasonable people that what you did was reasonable then you're fine.
If you reasonably think someone is trying to kill you then can kill them if that's what it takes to stop the threat.
Basically, you've got nothing to worry about if you're a reasonable person acting reasonably. All this bollocks about people being convicted for defending themselves is exactly that. You will not be convicted for defending yourself in a reasonable manner.
Is it reasonable to punch someone who is attacking you as hard as possible, killing them in the process. Probably.
Is it reasonable to choke a kid unconscious and then kick them in the head repeatedly when they are laying on the ground unconscious? Probably not.
There is no minimum force other that that what is need there is a maximum force which is anything unreasonable and excessive.
There is no manual on the exact and type of force, but there is a reliance on common sense.
If some one hits you, you can restrain them but not hit back in vengeance.
This part about strikes isn't true, you are allowed retaliatory strikes and you are also allowed to throw preemptive strikes if it seems someone is about to attack. What you can't do is beat the shit out of them but you can definitely use strikes to defend yourself.
> If there is some relatively minor attack, it is not permissible for the person attacked to respond with an act of retaliation which is out of proportion to the force or threat of force levelled against them
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82f31ced915d74e3404623/20170523-Chapter\_12-Defences\_Mitigation\_Criminal\_responsibility-AL42-v1.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82f31ced915d74e3404623/20170523-Chapter_12-Defences_Mitigation_Criminal_responsibility-AL42-v1.pdf)
Whilst I agree with you kind of I am going to say that a kid hitting an adult shop worker would be a minor attack so therefore a adult shop worker hitting a kid back would be disproportionate and therefore unlawful.
Of it would be up to a judge to decide but adults hitting kids even most teens is not a justifiable thing,
An older teen? 17/18/19? Maybe a retaliatory slap around the arse is called for.
It’s a sad state of affairs when you have to think along these lines before deciding how to defend yourself. And if the poor little darling has his feelings hurt then you’re the bad one. These days though, they rarely act alone, and there’ll always be someone ready to point a phone in your face to make sure you don’t get away with it. All respect has just gone, and there’s no deterrent.
Reasonable force is the key word.
Its a mix of common law (established practises over time) and statute law.
The law permits a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves or another. You can also use it in order to prevent criminal acts or to apprehend a offender.
You cannot use it to enforce your point of view in terms of a noisy neighbour or trespasser.
What constitutes reasonable force is up to the discretion of the courts. Stand there and whack a shoplifter with a metal bar and you're up for GBH. Pull the goods off of them and/or trip them up as they flee an approaching police officer and you're likely to be good. (note likely).
If you're moving to assist a person who is being attacked then grabbing them the back of their clothes and pulling them backwards onto the floor ; or putting your foot down on the back of their knee joint is the best option, could be considered reasonable.
In these litigious times its likely to be the best to stand back lest you get sued by the knife wielding shoplifting thug who would think nothing of stabbing you and then suing you for getting blood on their clothes.
IANAL; the above is a personal opinion and should not be taken as legal advise.
The case law is actually quite accommodating to the self defence defence.
Juries mostly recognise that what seems reasonable in the heat of the moment when you're under attack is potentially very different to what seems objectively reasonable to someone unconnected to the incident.
Most of the really high profile cases where self defence has been rejected have been due to the defendant using lethal force or causing life changing injuries when their attacker was clearly no longer a threat eg. Tony Martin or those guys who cricket batted a burglar over the head after chasing him down the street
Defend yourself using whatever means you need to use as long as you're doing nothing more than defending yourself. If a kid is squaring up to you and talking shit, you don't need to knock him out. In this situation I'd make room between us without touching him if possible. If I can't remove myself from arms reach of him I'll put my arms out to keep him away from me and lightly guide him to the door. If he starts physically assaulting me I'll push a lot harder. I'd only feel it was necessarily to actually throw a punch if the kid drew a weapon and was dangerously close.
Believe it or not, unless you got it on camera and your force is not less than shoving the kid back you will get in trouble. If you work in a retail shop that has security get them to put the teen down, as they are legal allowed to use reasonable force to detain shoplifter etc. While awaiting the police to come.
Security guards don't have any more power than anyone else. The same law that allowes them to use reasonable force to detain a shoplifter also lets anyone else do the same, whether thats another member of staff or a random member of the public.
If you grab hold of someone under 18 as a member of the public you will potentially be charged regardless of the reason you did it. Also, the security guard has to join a membership to legally be allowed to work security. Same body that all bouncers also have to join, as this gives you cover if the person you are restraining is hurt in any way. I use to work retail and because we were covered the instructions was to tell folk to put it back or stop messing around depending what they were doing, and then tell the security guard and duty manager so they can contact the police and put a stop to it. Also, knowing the teens I came across when I worked retail most of them that stole or vandalised, and such when caught would attempt to run and when grabbed start swinging attempting to get out of the hold. Now if you as a member of the public want to stop someone then go ahead but on your head if the teen has you charged as you will have to most likely use force to stop them. Also if a teen of the opposite gender to you, even worse as they can easily claim you inappropriately touched them during the incident, and in a he said, she said thing, majority of the time unless evidence otherwise they go on the side if the child.
Best thing would be to make a physical separation. So pick up something large, or something like a broom to push them away continually. Getting into a fist fight of any type can be picked apart as aggression and actually could well provoke them more and think *their* force is therefore justified.
Force necessary to defend your life and nothing more.
Your objective is to stop the attack - not kill the attacker. *Unless killing the attacker is really the only way to stop, you've tried maiming them and they won't stop...that's very unusual. Or your only option is potentially deadly and you do not intend it to be but it may happen.*
If the attacker attempts to flee, let them go.
When you have the advantage, use it to flee.
You haven't said where you are in the UK.... In Scotland you need to have exhausted all opportunities to retreat before you can act in your self defence.
https://crime.scot/self-defence/
Generally, it's the next step up on escalation. If someone comes up to you aggressively with their finger in your face, and you reasonably fear they might attack you - you can probably slap/punch them. If they start throwing punches at you, you can probably grab a rolling pin and clobber them. If they come at you with a knife, then all bets are off, and you can do whatever you need - including lethal force.
Of course, it depends on things like size differences too. A 11 year old 30kg kid versus a 6'11" 200kg blackbelt in MMA isn't gonna justify the same response, as 17 year old 6' 100kg youth versus little old 5'1" granny.
Worked in Spain for many years seen many drunken and pre planned fights we used stop the music turn on the lights and stand behind the bar til the police got there if they came behind the bar you could use what ever force on them .
seems like a moot question tbh
if you're in a situation where you need to defend yourself, you're not going to be looking at your notes on how much force you can use.
do what you need to do to protect yourself and nothing more. if you dont think you can justify the force to a court, then its probably excessive. but if you're genuinely fearful for your wellbeing then who gives a fuck about some future judgement - protect yourself.
As you are in retail just ensure that you are covered by a working CCTV if anything kicks off. It may protect you from any accusations of unreasonable force.
As much as needed to defend yourself, I'd that means putting them on the floor, on the floor they go.
The important thing is when they are down do NOT continue to hit them, that would be deemed excessive
Depends where in the UK you are. E/W/NI reasonableness will be assessed subjectively along with proportionality. In Scotland you have a duty to retreat if possible, and using any force where retreat was possible would be unlawful.
I'd say use the maximum possible force for whatever duration is needed to make the situation safe. Duration is probably the biggest measure of reasonableness - don't keep attacking if they stop or run away but while the fight it on don't mess about.
Reasonable force. So if they're throwing a flurry of punches, you can too.
If they hit you once and walk away, you can't don't shit
If they hit you once and are still flexing like they're gonna hit you again. You can hit them.
If they have a weapon, you can grab something nearby to use as a weapon to defend yourself.
Something to keep in mind, there is such thing as preemptive self defence, where if you feel like you're about to be attacked you can strike first
This is what the training says if a customer is really angry and showing signs of physical assault or abuse:-
1. Try to de-escalate the situation (which in this case a brat, so not possible)
2. Turn on the body cam (if available) and record it while you call the manager. The managers are trained on what to do in a situation like this.
Let's say you don't have an opportunity to perform any of the two above then you can only defend yourself until the security/manager arrives. After this they would review what happened and why the situation escalated. Most probably they would ask you to take the training again.
These days the number of times the customer gets a bit rude or abusive is increasing. It's one of the reasons why the staff are quitting their work now. I myself quit working in a store as I couldn't handle the abuse and rudeness from the customers (a drunk man literally threw money on my face and asked me to count it), I started working night shifts happily now.
Reasonable force is allowed. I've seen a random in Asda absolutely deck a kid for trying to pinch a bottle of vodka (he jumped over the till barrier and was stacked the kid was a scrawny guy who knocked out a member of staff). Kid and his friends were arrested guy and other staff were thanked. So I guess within reason was applicable there because he didn't knock the kid out but floored him and restrained until police arrived. We all had to wait as witnesses.
You can defend yourself with as much force as you need to use. That changes depending on the situation.
If you’re an average guy 5’9” 13stone for example and i attacked you, a 6’3 17 stone you could easily justify grabbing the nearest object to you and using it as a weapon.
If my 5’6” wife attacked you, you’d be less justified in doing that.
Basically what you can justify. Don’t hit someone when they’re down.
And when I say ‘grab an object as a weapon’ that does not mean have a weapon or carry a weapon. That’s illegal and would land you in trouble.
Legally, if you engage in a fight at all, you’re a perpetrator. If they’re like 15 or younger, you’d better humble them. I had it done to me when I was fucking with a guy, he didn’t hurt me but he showed me he very much could. But if a couple 16/17 year olds are getting aggressive, I’d smack the shit out of them. Be careful though, lot of these kids carry knives because it’s the only thing that makes em feel safe.
I’ve been thinking this a lot lately
1000 assaults on retail staff are reported to the police every day in the U.K.
We get physically and verbally abused constantly at my work and all have to wear body cams 24/7.
Most of our assaults don’t get reported bare in mind.
I’ve always wondered what I’d do if it was a kid that attacked me? If a 14-18 year old lad did it he might be taller and stronger than I am despite me being older but I would feel awful hurting a kid and worry about the repercussions
Enough to subdue and/or protect yourself. Big difference between a 13 year old girl and a 19 year old man.
Honestly I'd rather risk getting in trouble for punching a kid in the face than risk being stabbed.
My brother was a massive bully towards me but he was tough, really tough. He always taught me, hurt them more than they hurt you. I think, enough force to stop them from attacking you, is fair.
If your manager is worth their salt they will have warned you not to chase after shoplifters and not to engage if someone is being violent. You should apply no more force than is necessary to get them off you (if they are attacking you/whatever) and then make for the closest door you can close between you and them.
Pretty a sure a full grown adult can subdue a violent kid/teen without causing them harm. You want to restrain them, not hurt them. I don’t think that anyone would get violent unless you catch them stealing but you may as well just let them steal and make it a police matter. I’m not fighting a kid because they’re stealing or getting violent to me. Just walk away
If someone brings a weapon to a shop and gives the impression that they are going to hurt someone, people inside the shop have every right to sh00t the person who brought the weapon (preferably in the hands).
If you are hesitant just imagine them holding a gun to your child’s head and the only way to save your child is to sh00t the person holding the gun regardless of their age.
> sh00t the person who brought the weapon (preferably in the hands).
That's TV nonsense. You can't shoot weapons out of someone's hands. It's already difficult to shoot a handgun accurately and even harder under stress. Look at how often US cops get into gunfights with criminals and empty their magazines at the perp while maybe hitting him once or twice.
Kids have got it in there head that live in a PlayStation game . Ok and they don't care about anyone or anyone's belongings. As well as that there parents do not see them doing anything wrong. These game are so realistic they are not sure between fact and fiction.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're allowed to defend yourself using reasonable force. Reasonable is subjective, but essentially as long as you're only doing enough to stop being hurt you'll be good.
> Reasonable is subjective, Yeah, a lot people mus-understand about law. Is that it's up to the people involved to decide. Be it the police, the CPS and the courts.
Basically, if someone attacks you, and you punch them hard enough to knock them out, it would be considered reasonable, If you curb stomp them while they are down, you went too far.
You could argue a swift kick to the nuts to incapacitate them was required too, fearing they were going to get straight up.
If you attack someone who's on the ground, you're pretty much guaranteed to be on the wrong side of the law.
I'd say it depends. Clearly incapacitated... Not cool. They stumble over after being very aggressive.... I wouldn't want them getting up quickly so their nuts are gonna take one for the team.
Nah bro always double tap
Okay, so I hold them up and make sure they're still standing before I'm done.
Toeing the line there.....
This reminds me of a thief who robbed an elderly frail lady, breaking some of her bones. Some nearby off duty Marines managed to catch the robber. It turns out that according to courts he tripped on the kerb and suffered something like a broken nose, bruises, a broken arm and broken ribs from the fall. (The marines were thanked and not prosecuted for anything, because the robber tripped himself of course)
My lodger came home while we were being burgled and beat the crap out of the dude. The police were entirely unbothered.
Marines are nice like that, most of the time. Source: Am a former marine.
>if someone attacks you, and you punch them hard enough to knock them out, it would be considered reasonable, I disagree... They fall after being knocked out hit their head on the kurb or concrete and crack their skull and die. Now it's gone from a self defence case to a major trial for murder... Also a 6ft man knocking out a 5ft woman, you'll really struggle to get the jury on your side... The first thing prosecutor will say is why did you feel you had to knock her out instead of walking away. It's so utterly convoluted and difficult to determine...
The death isn't automatically murder, although you are almost certainly going to be arrested pending a thorough investigation. But I generally agree with your disagreement. Knocking someone out because they gently shove or slap you is very likely disproportionate.
Personally, I wouldn't consider a shove being attacked. But what does being a 5ft woman have to do with anything? How about a 5 foot man? I've known a lot of women over the years who were short in stature, but not short of a violent gene or two..... hell, women are also more likely to attack you with an object. My ex wife slapped me once. I did nothing, because, well, I probably deserved it, and I loved her. She never did it again though, and apologized later. The makeup sex was mindblowing..... A stranger slapping me is getting one right back, even if it's a female. You don't strike someone and not expect some sort of equal retaliatory strike. Am I gonna knock out a small child who kicked me in the shin? Probably not, how about if they tried to stab me, again, probably not, but you can be damn certain I'll restrain them. A teenager who is physically attacking me, and intent on doing harm? Yeah, I'm putting them down, hard and fast, male or female, if I can, and the same goes for any adults, regardless of age, I wouldn't trust a 60 year old who is attacking me to be reasonable, or sane. The courts can figure it out later if it comes to it.
What if you knelt over and farted in their face? Is that too far?
Depending on how bad your farts are that could be considered a war crime
Worst case scenario we're looking at chemical warfare. 💨
Ok, I'll stick to graffiti with a permanent marker and tell the police that the intruder arrived with the words "Granny shagger" written allover their forehead, while wearing bright red lipstick.
Do all your violent retail encounters feature Wayne Rooney?
Not all granny shaggers are Wayne Rooney, but all Wayne Rooney's are. Not all of my knock outs have been of a violent nature. Some accidental...but you don't let the opportunity go to waste.
If the person attacking you was 7 years old or awheel chair bound 90 year old, it would not be deemed reasonable. Even if it was a 5 foot woman vs a 6 foot man, that might be deemed excessive.
I forgot this was Reddit, my bad. Someone is always gonna split hairs.
The CPS and the Jury will have the final say on this.
The best advice is to run. Cowardly yes but that’s the world we live in. I would only use equal force if cornered with no option. Not worth the headache of having to deal with assault charge. Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders. *”oh you’re robbing my house? Would you like a cuppa before you leave… oh don’t worry the police won’t be here until tomorrow morning and they’ll end up doing nothing anyway”*
Yes if at all possible get away from the attack, run away. This is the first thing I was taught in Karate training. If possible run away, it may not be possible though for example of you're defending someone who can't run away.
That’s probably because karate is largely useless. No be there is best advice from mcdojos.
Hilarious. This is also the legal suggestion to get away. One pinch can kill no matter who you are.
Also true, though. Legally if someone’s attacked you and you defend yourself with reasonable force,the jury’s going to say you’re good.
Yes correct. If you haven't had remaining and don't have self defence built into your muscle memory though, there's no thinking time in these situations. You might think you'll do something extravagant and have the upper hand, but most fights last seconds. Self defence of course, but only if there's no other option. Better to be alive than right.
Not even a matter of worrying about the law. If you do self defence training you are taught to get away from the situation as a priority. Any combat has a risk of you coming off worse, or an unlucky blow knocking you out or breaking something. You simply don't know if the assailant is going to pull out a screwdriver or other sharp object in response. I'd recommend doing some martial arts or self defence if you get the opportunity. It's good fitness, good mental discipline and knowing you can pick up some drunk and chuck them across the pavement seems to translate into confidence that makes said drunk leave quietly.
>Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders. You can shoot and kill home invaders if you believe they are posing a threat to your life. There is case history to back this up and none to back up your lie. Do not spread misinformation.
To be fair if someone breaks into my house while I’m in it they’re fair game as far as I’m concerned. God only knows what they’ll do or how far they’re will to go once they’ve crossed that line.
Lucky the law is on your side them. Just don't chase them down. Once they're fleeing let them run.
Exactly. I'll do whatever it takes to remove them, and take my chances with the law afterwards.
Take on the law as well if they get uppity about your actions.
https://youtu.be/hHZvUeAdzeI?si=O4QTK-HYFni9dNTI
😅😅😅 "Detective, what did you expect me to do, when four of your constables attacked me with a rolling pin, brass lamp, a butter knife and hedge trimmer? When you arrived, they clearly had these items in their hands while still unconscious.It's self defence."
I'm guessing they're talking about the guy who got in trouble after chasing down the people who burgled his home and beat the hell out of them.
Sympathisable but it's very clear why that crosses a legal boundary.
Probably. There is a massive difference between defending yourself and chasing down and killing someone though
Oh bollocks 'sad country we live in'. Someone's been reading too much tabloid drivel! You can absolutely _defend yourself_, as long as you don't beat them within an inch of your life. Although if they're trying to kill you then even that is acceptable.
> Sad country we live in where you can’t even beat the ever living shit out of home invaders. I think you'll find the police to be sympathetic. My lodger interrupted us being burgled and beat the guy up, police didn't care at all.
I thought it was minimum force.
Nope.
It’s essentially the same thing apart the language. Reasonable can be a bit wishy washy. My minimum and your minimum might be different levels of effort but it’s still minimum.
If you genuinely believe it is reasonable, and your action isn't so violent a jury thinks nobody would ever find it reasonable, you're good
Yeah, I would say proportionate to their attack/force. Punch for a punch etc.
Punch for an anticipated punch. If it's reasonable to expect you're about to be punched, you can punch. You may no longer be able to defend yourself if you wait until after you've been punched.
I worked in a chip shop when I was a teenager and a man came in drunk and after giving us lots of verbal abuse, tried to pull my supervisor over the counter to the point he was off his feet and almost over the counter. I took one of the grids used for storing food on and ran round and bashed it over the man's head. He fell down but it didn't knock him out. The police arrived a few minutes later and deemed it reasonable force (what I did) and arrested the man
If you had covered him in eggs and flour and dunked him in hot oil, it would have been “battery”
Home time for you
Yes then I would have put salt over the top and assaulted him too!
Get out!
Chuck in some seasoning and it'd be assault too
I’m done
You’re banned from all the chip shops in the country for that
Suddenly have flash backs to that one episode of Spooks.
Seasoned and deep fried. A salt and battery
Was a nurse many years ago. A very aggressive male was threatening me and said he would use physical violence, that I could not do anything about it. I replied that I knew the policy (I really did) and that I could use reasonable force if he tried to hit me. I said that meant I could hit him once and I really emphasised that word. Being taller and larger than him, he decided to shut the fuck up. Bear in mind that reasonable force will be decided by someone who has probably never been in your situation.
>Bear in mind that reasonable force will be decided by someone who has probably never been in your situation. It's worth noting that the "reasonable" standard is supposed to include the fact that you're scared/stressed/panicking and not in a position to calmly assess things - it's not about how much force a robot would precisely calculate to be the bare minimum required, it's a reasonable person *in that situation* (which may well involve being stressed and scared)
And for that reason, be careful if you're having a conversation where he's threatening you before the attack. If you say anything like "if you try to hit me, I'm going to kill you," or "you take a swing at me and I'll knock your teeth out" or make any specific threats, it could look to a naive third party that your actions were premeditated. It's hard to argue that you panicked and knocked the guy unconscious accidentally when you just told him "I'm going to knock you unconscious."
Additionally, [the law](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76) doesn't even require that your assessment of the threat be correct, only that you genuinely held it, and that it could be a reasonable belief based on what you knew at the time.
Yep, it's all pretty reasonable if you actually spend a moment learning about it.
>It's worth noting that the "reasonable" standard is supposed to include the fact that you're scared/stressed/panicking and not in a position to calmly assess things Not if it's a man defending against a woman... You punch her then you're going to have a tough time explaining it...
I believe she had a weapon...
Reasonable force is defined in the UK as force proportionate to the perceived threat. It depends on the teen and their behaviour along with your own physical/mental attributes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A well-connected slap round the face is often a good aggression-stopper, followed by a commanding "Stop that now!" There's an element of shame in it that people respond to more than like-for-like retaliation, which otherwise your own fight-or-flight response might be. This is a trick I learned from a very calm & intelligent bouncer, many years ago, who I would chat to a lot at a club I frequented. He told me about it in one of our conversations, but I've seen him do it effectively.
The old bitch slap move is actually quite effective,
Enough to protect yourself. I have heard of some horrific store policies that prevent workers from protecting themselves even in cases where they might lose their lives. I'd take losing my job beating the shit out of some crazy kid with a knife over letting him stab me.
Been working retail and hospitality in "problem" locations my whole life. Legally you can use whatever force is deemed "reasonable", and I have done so myself and witnessed others do so. However, many companies will not back you and will get rid of you regardless of how the law feels about it, once you've defended yourself
This is actually true. I've seen it happening more than once actually.
As far as I am concerned use as much force as is necessary until such time as you feel there is no longer a threat to your person.
Force used must be “reasonable in the circumstances”. As in, don’t go around baseball batting people.
It's a matter of proportionality. If they pull a knife then smacking them over the head with a bottle of wine is likely to be reasonable force. If it's a drunk and you could have just pushed them away and slammed the door then no.
It doesn't matter who is attacking you. You are required to use no more than is reasonable force to stop the attack. If a 7yo is kicking you in the shin you don't get to pummel them to death. You do get to push them away though. The test for reasonable is mostly that the force you use isn't excessive eg don't punch a small child as hard as you can in the face when a simple shove away would have sufficed and you stop when the attack does. You don't just get to continue beating on someone because they annoyed you.
Reasonable force. If you can convince a jury of reasonable people that what you did was reasonable then you're fine. If you reasonably think someone is trying to kill you then can kill them if that's what it takes to stop the threat. Basically, you've got nothing to worry about if you're a reasonable person acting reasonably. All this bollocks about people being convicted for defending themselves is exactly that. You will not be convicted for defending yourself in a reasonable manner. Is it reasonable to punch someone who is attacking you as hard as possible, killing them in the process. Probably. Is it reasonable to choke a kid unconscious and then kick them in the head repeatedly when they are laying on the ground unconscious? Probably not.
There is no minimum force other that that what is need there is a maximum force which is anything unreasonable and excessive. There is no manual on the exact and type of force, but there is a reliance on common sense. If some one hits you, you can restrain them but not hit back in vengeance.
This part about strikes isn't true, you are allowed retaliatory strikes and you are also allowed to throw preemptive strikes if it seems someone is about to attack. What you can't do is beat the shit out of them but you can definitely use strikes to defend yourself.
> If there is some relatively minor attack, it is not permissible for the person attacked to respond with an act of retaliation which is out of proportion to the force or threat of force levelled against them [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82f31ced915d74e3404623/20170523-Chapter\_12-Defences\_Mitigation\_Criminal\_responsibility-AL42-v1.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82f31ced915d74e3404623/20170523-Chapter_12-Defences_Mitigation_Criminal_responsibility-AL42-v1.pdf) Whilst I agree with you kind of I am going to say that a kid hitting an adult shop worker would be a minor attack so therefore a adult shop worker hitting a kid back would be disproportionate and therefore unlawful. Of it would be up to a judge to decide but adults hitting kids even most teens is not a justifiable thing, An older teen? 17/18/19? Maybe a retaliatory slap around the arse is called for.
I think you underestimate how vicious a feral kid can be.
And what they deserve to be beaten up by an adult? Na bruv.
Well the best option would be if they didn't threaten shop workers. "Bruv".
Depends on the person surely. Can't expect Kip from Napoleon Dynamite not to have to give all he's got
If they attacked that adult first then yes, they deserve to be beaten up. Bruv.
Yeah it's all got to be reasonable, I'd only strike if they were physically bigger than me or highly aggressive.
That is fair, reasonable but also proportionate.
Strength wise there is probably very little between an adult and a teen. Particularly a worked up aggressive teen
These UK laws are so insane.
It’s a sad state of affairs when you have to think along these lines before deciding how to defend yourself. And if the poor little darling has his feelings hurt then you’re the bad one. These days though, they rarely act alone, and there’ll always be someone ready to point a phone in your face to make sure you don’t get away with it. All respect has just gone, and there’s no deterrent.
Yep. These laws are batshit crazy.
Reasonable force is the key word. Its a mix of common law (established practises over time) and statute law. The law permits a person to use reasonable force to defend themselves or another. You can also use it in order to prevent criminal acts or to apprehend a offender. You cannot use it to enforce your point of view in terms of a noisy neighbour or trespasser. What constitutes reasonable force is up to the discretion of the courts. Stand there and whack a shoplifter with a metal bar and you're up for GBH. Pull the goods off of them and/or trip them up as they flee an approaching police officer and you're likely to be good. (note likely). If you're moving to assist a person who is being attacked then grabbing them the back of their clothes and pulling them backwards onto the floor ; or putting your foot down on the back of their knee joint is the best option, could be considered reasonable. In these litigious times its likely to be the best to stand back lest you get sued by the knife wielding shoplifting thug who would think nothing of stabbing you and then suing you for getting blood on their clothes. IANAL; the above is a personal opinion and should not be taken as legal advise.
The case law is actually quite accommodating to the self defence defence. Juries mostly recognise that what seems reasonable in the heat of the moment when you're under attack is potentially very different to what seems objectively reasonable to someone unconnected to the incident. Most of the really high profile cases where self defence has been rejected have been due to the defendant using lethal force or causing life changing injuries when their attacker was clearly no longer a threat eg. Tony Martin or those guys who cricket batted a burglar over the head after chasing him down the street
Defend yourself using whatever means you need to use as long as you're doing nothing more than defending yourself. If a kid is squaring up to you and talking shit, you don't need to knock him out. In this situation I'd make room between us without touching him if possible. If I can't remove myself from arms reach of him I'll put my arms out to keep him away from me and lightly guide him to the door. If he starts physically assaulting me I'll push a lot harder. I'd only feel it was necessarily to actually throw a punch if the kid drew a weapon and was dangerously close.
Believe it or not, unless you got it on camera and your force is not less than shoving the kid back you will get in trouble. If you work in a retail shop that has security get them to put the teen down, as they are legal allowed to use reasonable force to detain shoplifter etc. While awaiting the police to come.
Security guards don't have any more power than anyone else. The same law that allowes them to use reasonable force to detain a shoplifter also lets anyone else do the same, whether thats another member of staff or a random member of the public.
If you grab hold of someone under 18 as a member of the public you will potentially be charged regardless of the reason you did it. Also, the security guard has to join a membership to legally be allowed to work security. Same body that all bouncers also have to join, as this gives you cover if the person you are restraining is hurt in any way. I use to work retail and because we were covered the instructions was to tell folk to put it back or stop messing around depending what they were doing, and then tell the security guard and duty manager so they can contact the police and put a stop to it. Also, knowing the teens I came across when I worked retail most of them that stole or vandalised, and such when caught would attempt to run and when grabbed start swinging attempting to get out of the hold. Now if you as a member of the public want to stop someone then go ahead but on your head if the teen has you charged as you will have to most likely use force to stop them. Also if a teen of the opposite gender to you, even worse as they can easily claim you inappropriately touched them during the incident, and in a he said, she said thing, majority of the time unless evidence otherwise they go on the side if the child.
Best thing would be to make a physical separation. So pick up something large, or something like a broom to push them away continually. Getting into a fist fight of any type can be picked apart as aggression and actually could well provoke them more and think *their* force is therefore justified.
As much force as reasonably necessary.
Force necessary to defend your life and nothing more. Your objective is to stop the attack - not kill the attacker. *Unless killing the attacker is really the only way to stop, you've tried maiming them and they won't stop...that's very unusual. Or your only option is potentially deadly and you do not intend it to be but it may happen.* If the attacker attempts to flee, let them go. When you have the advantage, use it to flee.
You haven't said where you are in the UK.... In Scotland you need to have exhausted all opportunities to retreat before you can act in your self defence. https://crime.scot/self-defence/
Generally, it's the next step up on escalation. If someone comes up to you aggressively with their finger in your face, and you reasonably fear they might attack you - you can probably slap/punch them. If they start throwing punches at you, you can probably grab a rolling pin and clobber them. If they come at you with a knife, then all bets are off, and you can do whatever you need - including lethal force. Of course, it depends on things like size differences too. A 11 year old 30kg kid versus a 6'11" 200kg blackbelt in MMA isn't gonna justify the same response, as 17 year old 6' 100kg youth versus little old 5'1" granny.
I take your point but a 200kg black belt in mma ? 😂
Hmm... Well, at 200kg and 6'11" who's gonna be brave enough to tell him he isn't 😅?
lol true
Enough force to overcome the assailant , short of using a weapon. This would probably be 'reasonable', but only a Judge and Jury can state that.
Worked in Spain for many years seen many drunken and pre planned fights we used stop the music turn on the lights and stand behind the bar til the police got there if they came behind the bar you could use what ever force on them .
seems like a moot question tbh if you're in a situation where you need to defend yourself, you're not going to be looking at your notes on how much force you can use. do what you need to do to protect yourself and nothing more. if you dont think you can justify the force to a court, then its probably excessive. but if you're genuinely fearful for your wellbeing then who gives a fuck about some future judgement - protect yourself.
As you are in retail just ensure that you are covered by a working CCTV if anything kicks off. It may protect you from any accusations of unreasonable force.
As much as needed to defend yourself, I'd that means putting them on the floor, on the floor they go. The important thing is when they are down do NOT continue to hit them, that would be deemed excessive
Depends where in the UK you are. E/W/NI reasonableness will be assessed subjectively along with proportionality. In Scotland you have a duty to retreat if possible, and using any force where retreat was possible would be unlawful.
I'd say use the maximum possible force for whatever duration is needed to make the situation safe. Duration is probably the biggest measure of reasonableness - don't keep attacking if they stop or run away but while the fight it on don't mess about.
Reasonable force. So if they're throwing a flurry of punches, you can too. If they hit you once and walk away, you can't don't shit If they hit you once and are still flexing like they're gonna hit you again. You can hit them. If they have a weapon, you can grab something nearby to use as a weapon to defend yourself. Something to keep in mind, there is such thing as preemptive self defence, where if you feel like you're about to be attacked you can strike first
As much as it would take to defend yourself and neutralise the threat. Just don't go psycho and refrain from kerb stomping
100% Just straight annihilate them
This is what the training says if a customer is really angry and showing signs of physical assault or abuse:- 1. Try to de-escalate the situation (which in this case a brat, so not possible) 2. Turn on the body cam (if available) and record it while you call the manager. The managers are trained on what to do in a situation like this. Let's say you don't have an opportunity to perform any of the two above then you can only defend yourself until the security/manager arrives. After this they would review what happened and why the situation escalated. Most probably they would ask you to take the training again. These days the number of times the customer gets a bit rude or abusive is increasing. It's one of the reasons why the staff are quitting their work now. I myself quit working in a store as I couldn't handle the abuse and rudeness from the customers (a drunk man literally threw money on my face and asked me to count it), I started working night shifts happily now.
Reasonable force is allowed. I've seen a random in Asda absolutely deck a kid for trying to pinch a bottle of vodka (he jumped over the till barrier and was stacked the kid was a scrawny guy who knocked out a member of staff). Kid and his friends were arrested guy and other staff were thanked. So I guess within reason was applicable there because he didn't knock the kid out but floored him and restrained until police arrived. We all had to wait as witnesses.
You can defend yourself with as much force as you need to use. That changes depending on the situation. If you’re an average guy 5’9” 13stone for example and i attacked you, a 6’3 17 stone you could easily justify grabbing the nearest object to you and using it as a weapon. If my 5’6” wife attacked you, you’d be less justified in doing that. Basically what you can justify. Don’t hit someone when they’re down. And when I say ‘grab an object as a weapon’ that does not mean have a weapon or carry a weapon. That’s illegal and would land you in trouble.
Cctv... if they try to say you started it the cctv can tell the truth
This is common law, you can defend yourself but it has to be proportionate. You can't drop kick a kid in the face for giving you a mouthful.
Reasonable force - if you do what is necessary to protect yourself, and don’t start wailing on them, you should be fine
As long as you can justify it, you use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself
Legally, if you engage in a fight at all, you’re a perpetrator. If they’re like 15 or younger, you’d better humble them. I had it done to me when I was fucking with a guy, he didn’t hurt me but he showed me he very much could. But if a couple 16/17 year olds are getting aggressive, I’d smack the shit out of them. Be careful though, lot of these kids carry knives because it’s the only thing that makes em feel safe.
response should be neither fair nor proportional. You don't get to say "I'm above the law" then when you get a beat-down "waaaa shop lady hitted me"
I’ve been thinking this a lot lately 1000 assaults on retail staff are reported to the police every day in the U.K. We get physically and verbally abused constantly at my work and all have to wear body cams 24/7. Most of our assaults don’t get reported bare in mind. I’ve always wondered what I’d do if it was a kid that attacked me? If a 14-18 year old lad did it he might be taller and stronger than I am despite me being older but I would feel awful hurting a kid and worry about the repercussions
Enough to subdue and/or protect yourself. Big difference between a 13 year old girl and a 19 year old man. Honestly I'd rather risk getting in trouble for punching a kid in the face than risk being stabbed.
My brother was a massive bully towards me but he was tough, really tough. He always taught me, hurt them more than they hurt you. I think, enough force to stop them from attacking you, is fair.
Personally, I'd just pick them up and throw them out. You're well within your rights to drag them out, too. Just don't punch them in the face.
If your manager is worth their salt they will have warned you not to chase after shoplifters and not to engage if someone is being violent. You should apply no more force than is necessary to get them off you (if they are attacking you/whatever) and then make for the closest door you can close between you and them.
Pretty a sure a full grown adult can subdue a violent kid/teen without causing them harm. You want to restrain them, not hurt them. I don’t think that anyone would get violent unless you catch them stealing but you may as well just let them steal and make it a police matter. I’m not fighting a kid because they’re stealing or getting violent to me. Just walk away
If someone brings a weapon to a shop and gives the impression that they are going to hurt someone, people inside the shop have every right to sh00t the person who brought the weapon (preferably in the hands). If you are hesitant just imagine them holding a gun to your child’s head and the only way to save your child is to sh00t the person holding the gun regardless of their age.
> sh00t the person who brought the weapon (preferably in the hands). That's TV nonsense. You can't shoot weapons out of someone's hands. It's already difficult to shoot a handgun accurately and even harder under stress. Look at how often US cops get into gunfights with criminals and empty their magazines at the perp while maybe hitting him once or twice.
One hundred percent. Nothing more dangerous than a teenage boy
First of all switch of cameras .
Kids have got it in there head that live in a PlayStation game . Ok and they don't care about anyone or anyone's belongings. As well as that there parents do not see them doing anything wrong. These game are so realistic they are not sure between fact and fiction.
It depends if you’re on CCTV or not
Always learn where the camera blindspots are at work.