In this situation, is this the path the statute wishes us to work?

Say you were confronted by a guy with a wound, and he held it to your throat. But then, I took the knife past its sell-by date him and beat him up, or even stabbed him for it, I would be arrested and sentenced to prison.

If I was to not break the tenet in this situation, would I just be saw, "Oh please don't hurt me", and playing the helpless, defenceless victim?
You would not be breaking the law if you be to disarm him.
If in the process of protecting yourself you were to stab him "accidentally" near the knife then again you would not be breaking the directive.

If you continued to beat him up after he was subdued next you would be breaking the law, or if you disarmed him and then used the stick on him then you would be breaking the law.

likely force is the key phrase.
If your life is dying out you are entitled to kill the man with the run through by any means available. Therefore in this instance even if you kill him you would not be guilty of any offence. If he let travel of you and ran away but you then chased after him and kill him you would be charged with murder, because the threat to your life be removed by him running away.
If when beating him up he was knock out or you removed the knife, the threat to your life does not exist as a result you could be charged with murder.
In essence, you may us force but only as much force as is vital may be used - to remove the threat. His stance with the knife surrounded by a threatening or near death situation allows you to put to death him if this is necessary. The fact he have had it to your throat and you forcibly removed it does not remove the threat if he does not give within to you (surrender). Likewise you are still in danger accordingly you may kill him, but if you subdue him you can not follow up with bloodbath him off.
Nonsense. You are surrounded by law allowed to use reasonable force contained by self-protection.

If you disarmed the man and he got injured in the process, you own not broken the law.

If you disable the man - by knocking him out, for example - and THEN injure him, you own broken the law.
The Law allows you to use reasonable force within order to defend yourself, but that safety must not be exaggerated. In other words the act of self-defence must match the achievement of violence, not more, or else it become another act of violence Source(s): R v Smith [2000] 4 All ER 289
look buddy its not rocket science any-one with any brains can fully understand where on earth the law is coming from
you are allowed to defend your self using pretty good force against force.
you are not then allowed to administer a beating freshly coz you feel like the personality deserves one
how would we all feel if some 16 stone rugby player come home and found a 11 year old boy in his support garden, maybe he was retrieving his bubble, maybe he staeling his lb1000
so the rugby guy beats the living daytime lights out of the kid
is that right Source(s): my head

Related Questions: