Pre-Emptive and the LAW

Hey guys.

Little intro - I'm 24, currently a security officer for a shopping complex. Worked as a bouncer in a few clubs (Leicester) for about 6 months and i'm going to be going into close protection in the near future (September).

I need to fully understand the laws behind pre-emptive striking in the workplace and as a normal citizen. I understand they can be somewhat different.

I understand reasonable force (minimal or equal to the opposing threat) but i want to fully understand 'nessesary force' or use of force in regards to a forseen threat.

Basically, when is it ok to smash some guys head off if he gets too close? How can you justify it?

Cheers.

Lee.

Hi Lee

can I recommend you post this question here http://www.selfprotection.lightbb.com

there are people there qualified to give you legal advice: police officers, solictors, law lecturers etc

otherwise you'll just be getting opinions all the best mate

Thanks Rich.

Keep up the excellent work to mate. Love the vids and much respect for all you hard work in self protection etc.

Lee

Not opinion - Case Law!

Imminent threat of attack:
In Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: Lord Griffith said "A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."

Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, lord Morris made the following points:

* A person who is being attacked should not be expected to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action".
* If the jury thought that in the heat of the moment the defendant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary then that would be strong evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.
* A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence.

For excessive use of force not being a defence at all, see R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334 (the well known case involving a soldier at a road block).

R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 - The defendant had been hit and pushed by a man. She then hit the man forgetting she was holding a glass. The trial judge directed the jury that self-defence was only available as a defence if the defendant had first shown an unwillingness to fight. The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant's conviction saying that it was unnecessary to show an unwillingness to fight and there were circumstances where a defendant might reasonably react immediately and without first retreating. It was up to a jury to decide on the facts of the case.


"Self Defence Law and Conflict Resolution " + google is your friend, as is http://www.bailii.org/databases.html