Yes. The assailant has already decided to be unreasonable. It's unreasonable to assume that a 'reasonable' response is going to be an adequate defence. Add adrenaline and 'flight or fight response' into the mix. Our biological response sometimes overrides our social programming.
Or kidnapped by a PC known to his colleagues as "the rapist". Or raped. Or murdered, your body chopped up and stuffed in a refrigerator, by a PC who then lies about it and is later discovered to have a colleague at the same police station, responsible for guarding the queen, who was raping 13 women and sexually assaulting 45 over the same period 2003 - 2018 (a 15 year raping career). But it's just one bad apple, apparently.
It's rather easy to determine what is and what isn't reasonable force. If the intruder is stabbed 12times or shot half a dozen times, that would be unreasonable, as the first shot would have likely incapacitated the intruder "You have a right to protect yourself in your own home, and this means you are legally allowed to attack an intruder to prevent them from causing harm to you or your family. This includes physical attacks, such as punches and kicks, and also includes using an object as a weapon."
@@jackwalker5266 What if he's so methed or coked up that 12 stabs don't stop him, and he's a 20 stone brick sh1thouse who has a mate in the van outside?
Just one thing as an 81 year old I will use whatever was around the eject anyone that has broken in and is threatening me and not moving away to exit . I cannot afford to wait for the intruder to actually attack me .
Are you the 81 year old that Lincoln police came round and beat the crap out of? They got the wrong address, he came to the door with his walking stick, so police called for 8 more officers to back them up (for an 81 year old with a walking stick). Then they lied about it. They said he approached them with a wooden implement, and was agitated.
A licensed 2nd Dan in the mid 70s, intervened , " leave him alone" when 3 young men were kicking another on the floor, in queue for Pollyanna nightclub in Birmingham. I was on way to gym and dojo above it. They stopped attacking lad and went for me , one pulled a knife, his arm was broken when it bounced off the lamp post, I used to ensure only two could come at me. They never charged the lads but stated I used undue force, despite 20 witnesses, stating at the time to the police what happened, was arrested, no way of getting witness names, they let his accomplices go and he was loaded in an ambulance. Really depends on what police do when they turn up.
Exactly - in these situations they should arrest both sides, but they never do - they take one side and stick to it all the way to court. The people making allegations of assault will be treated like victims and offered help. They can now apply to the Criminal Injuries compensation authority for money because they are the victim. They will also get money from a "victim surcharge" if you are found guilty (as you will be if you don't elect to the Crown Court, and you will have to appeal to the Crown Court anyway). Police will withhold any exonerating CCTV, as will the owner of the CCTV who will do whatever the police say and use the legal proceedings exemption in the DPA to deny your SAR. In the disclosure process, the CPS will also withhold any CCTV that shows they started the fight. If they disclose it at all without an (expensive) specific disclosure application from you and ordered by the judge, it will be redacted to show only the bits that support their case i.e. it will start just as you are throwing your punch and not what came before. Of course, you won't hear any of this on BBB's videos, because his livelihood depends on his viewers' ignorance of our "institutionally corrupt" police services.
but you survived ...that's all that matters . lets see the police try and restrain someone without force when that person doesn't want to be held ....you can't do it as the old saying goes...Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
@@saraheverardsrapers3910 This was pre CCTV 1974/5, stood ground that I used reasonable force and that probably saved the young man from serious injury, luckily it was a Friday and free by Monday otherwise could have lost my job. In the end they gave me an official warning.
Training 5 martial arts during a period of 20 odd years I think the most common advice I got from my instructors was "if you got to lay someone out, run away afterwards before the cops show up." Swedish police were notorious for going after martial artists because they courts basically held the idea that if you're "an expert" in self defense then you should be able to magically protect yourself without hurting the opponents. When I started in '93 we even had to sign forms explicitly stating that we wouldn't use the techniques we learnt outside the dojo. Which was kind of weird as all martial arts studios, even ours, advertised "self-defense."
@@peartree8338 Agreed, "marginally protect" lol, survive unscathed was my priority. I was 20 and the Judo centric board of control (UK) had all sorts of establishment links, they forced a change from full contact and tried to align grades with their belt system. We had to sign stuff and were issued with "license" cards for 2nd Dan plus, required if taking any teaching/guide roles. That was my first experience with the Cops in a self-defence/ defend others, this was mid 1970's and they definitely approached me in a very antagonistic and confrontational way, in context fit and skilled young man tackling 3+ street yobs, carrying a bag with martial art badges. I knew enough not to self incriminate and they were pushing for me to do so. A young woman came up, while they were there thanked me for helping her boy friend, who was put in same ambulance as the thug! They ignored her, clearly they had investigated before they reached the scene and facts were not going to change there minds. It became a teaching point for the club.
This very thing happened to a friend of mine. A burglar broke into his house and he put the guy in hospital. His defence was that he "feared for his life and acted instinctively." He was cleared of all charges.
4 men tried to steal my motorbike and when I challenged them 1 of them pulled out a hammer then threatened to hit me with it, I did not back down and he proceeded to hit my motorbike with it causing damage. Would I have been justified to hit him with either a hammer or baseball bat in? And why did the police that turned up try and tell me off for having a baseball bat? When the scumbag threatened me with the hammer I was unarmed so when they left I armed myself with the bat incase they returned for another go. In the end I supplied the police with cctv of the incident but as usual did nothing about it and have told me that they will not continue to investigate it. All this has done is convince me that the police are not fit for purpose anymore because this is now approximately the 6th or 7th time they've decided that if they can be bothered to turn up that they won't do anything about it. On 1 occasion an ocado driver reversed into my motorbike and drove off, I informed the police and told them it was on my cctv and was willing to give them the footage but again told me they would not proceed with the case even though they had not seen the footage, I had to threatened the police with legal action for failing to do their duty before they asked for the footage, I then had to pay for the memory stick and registered letter to get it to them because they would not let me deliver it to them by hand, in the end the driver was convicted. This is a very common occurance now days as they seem to find it difficult to tear themselves away from monitoring social media for wrong think.
@@blindjusticeandcommonsense2786 I am not struggling with justifying taking action myself, I was pointing out that the police are not fit for purpose. My point is they don't even pretend to investigate anymore. Since the events that I described have happened I have made sure I know exactly where my bat is and I will beat the scumbags with it without hesitation. I am 60 years old and the older I get the less a life sentence scares me. I do however appreciate what you are saying and thank you for taking the time to leave a sensible comment. Many thanks
Totally agree with what you said BA ... tell them someone is videoing and 6 cars turn up, but if your attacked etc you can't even get them to answer the call.
No, that didn't resolve the question of what you should do if you are 81 years old, and 10 of the Lincolnshire Police come round to the wrong house, and beat the crap out of you, claiming your walking stick was an offensive weapon. What then o great and wise counsel?
The law in the U.K. should be changed if somebody breaks into your property, that person will be sorted by any means available to the person being attacked I.e. make sure the attacker will not be able to get back up after being put down on the ground.
@@humfreee your allowed to use an improvised weapon in your home. That could be even a kitchen knife. Say your up against two invaders it certainly be reasonable to arm yourself to balance the odds in your favour
I heard someone say "in the UK, you are better off letting your self get murdered because your murderer can't press charges for assault when you defend your self"
Easy in a nice warm comfortable court room to interpret the legal meanings of the various sections regarding self defence . Surely the fact that someone has broken into a person's home with intent to rob and probably willing to do harm to enable this intent should be the first concern .
If it was deemed that the intruder was escaping and killed, this would have a negative impact on your case. Evidence alone would indicate that if someone is shot in the back, with trails of blood leading out into an exit and was further blungoend to death, you would be doing time.
@@jackwalker5266 And if that same intruder left one or more of your family members dead or seriously injured before turning to leave? You might be charged, but I doubt a jury or judge would convict you. Of course, justice is not always done, so yeah you might be in hot water, but I doubt you'd ever be sorry.
@@burf90 That's completely different dynamics on result of a death. An attorney would easily argue on the grounds of great emotional stress etc. The same way they view crimes of passion. But eitherway, yes, I'm not going to be thinking of the law or consequence to myself at that time or anytime if that person took the life of someone I care about. If the intruder is still in the house, careless if he is going to harm anyone or not, the owner is in his rights to use whatever force he should be deemed necessary. But people need to avoid doing unreasonable harm if it's clear by the evidence that the intruder is running out the door and you are chasing him down with a knife or gun etc, intending to kill or do bodily harm, if that person has done no harm to you or your family
@@jackwalker5266 Your attorney would be an idiot then - provocation is mitigation i.e. you admit the crime, but say you were provoked in mitigation of the crime.
The criminals of course take absolutely no notice of all this prosecutorial gibberish, have any of these law makers I wonder had to defend themselves against someone that is determined to use whatever unreasonable force is necessary in order to get their way? Waiting for the police to arrive after making a citizen's arrest would I expect cause the "Statute of Limitations" defence to come into play! Regards
The Police has no duty to protect members of the public. The Police are not the law; the law allows you to defend yourself if the situation geniuely causes for this. How can this be a bad thing? There is no "statute of limitations" defence for self defence.
A friend of mine who is a Gurkha and formally a Major in the Red Cap (Military Police) section was leaving a building site to go home for lunch but his car was blocked in by a huge American car so he enlisted the help of 4 or 5 site operatives to bounce the car to one side. On hearing the noise, the owner a 6' 7" 18st Irishman rush down from the top of the building and after a short verbal confrontation took a swing at my friend (he was 5' 7" and 62 years old and a blackbelt in full contact karate). The Irishman's swing missed and my friend hit him with two straight fingers to the eyes and a full force kick to the side of the knee that collapsed the guy in a heap on the ground. An ambulance was called to take him to hospital and my friend went home to lunch. Was this reasonable force? Either of the straight fingers or the kick were enough to disable the man, but you have to consider my friend's background and his experience in dealing with situations like the one that arose, I'm not so sure that a jury would.
@@notmenotme614 As I said, the Irishman took a swing at my friend that he dodged and therefore the physical altercation had already started and my friend's reaction stopped the fight going any further and before he could be injured. Also, I doubt whether you would see any Gurkha back down from a fight much less anyone with my friend's background of dealing with unruly and violent soldiers.
Thanku for your help with this subject . While never wanting to be in this situation, for warned is so important . Thankyou and to your beautiful wife and for her wonderful cooking help . I really like the Chinese corn soup , I made it for my brother and he said it is the best he ever tasted , also the breakfast, and stir fry etc. I have the Chinese spices in one bottle and it is so good 🙋🤗🌟🥗🥣
As a security officer we are trained that you should avoid using force unless there is no other option, the same with citizen arrests. The law is pretty much the same for civilians & people who work to keep the peace at any location.
@@Spacey7 I was under the impression from other professionals in your field, that you were able to preempt a person's hostility via body language as a perceived threat thus preventing a violent act before it was in progress . that being reasonable grounds within the eyes of law
I am a member of Viking Combatives, a self defence club based in Norwich. An important part of the training is covering the legal aspects and consequences of using extreme violence in self defence scenarios.
One should never use extreme violence, only reasonable force. If you happen to end up instinctively using a technique that you've been taught not to use in sparring, then you've probably got a better chance of arguing it was justified in self-defence.
@@brolohalflemming7042 The level of violence required in self defence is dependent upon the level of aggression of the attacker and circumstance. If you're fighting for your life I don't think that reasonable force is really applicable. We do self defence, not sporting martial arts. Real life scenarios are very different from ring fighting with breaks, rules, and referees. Also, the only techniques we are taught not to use in training, are ones that don't work. Anything that works is in. Anything! Depending on the prevailing circumstances of the threat.
@@kenwright5144 My comment refered to the video. The law says we can use 'reasonable force', and may have to convince a jury that lethal strikes were in fact reasonable at the time. Because there are a number of lethal, or permanently disabling techniques in most martial arts or unarmed combat, they're not normally used in training because the *do* work.
Fascinating information, thank you for explaining this. I also wonder would the law of self defence apply in the case of "Road rage" when as happened to my wife and I we stayed in our car and the occupant of a following car tried to get in, we were stopped at a set of temporary road traffic lights, and when they changed to green we drove off?
There was a time that I may have helped a cop, but that was before the 84/5 miners strike, now I I wouldn't trust one of them as far as I could throw one with my right arm, and that's still 2,500ft below ground.
I use to work in the NHS. My staff were getting more & more abuse ( verbal & violence) I brought in a specialist in de-escalation, so they were able to be firm & had skills to handle a questionable situation. Recently, there was a shoplifter in our corner store. He was getting violent with the security officer. I was able to talk them down & calm the situation. They were arrested. (It was only 8mins when police turned up - but seemed more like an hour!)
i have been in 2 siutations where i helped the coppers arrest someone, 1 involved restraint, 1 involved erm lets say being pursuaive , both times got a thank you , and the 2nd a waiver for a parking violation. i.e i had to park my car illegally. The 1st time the copper said the thief got what he deserved. Of course this was 20 years ago, so now they would probaly nick me for offence.This was in London
Further to your recent segment on self-defence & citizens arrest, I recently came across an article on UA-cam which I thought might be of interest to you. It's on Investigation Discovery (ID) and headed "Good Samaritan stops child abduction with Jiu-Jitsu" & it took place at Madison Square, New York. The 'Samaritan', a Martial Arts Instructor, intervenes & puts the suspect down & holds him there until police arrive. Despite numerous 911 phone calls from the crowd the police were slow to respond & the 'Samaritan' did not release his hold on the suspect until they did. The mother, child & stroller had fled the scene the moment the 'Samaritan' had stepped in & their identity was unknown. (Eventually the mother contacted the police & he received a sms from the 'victim' thanking him for his efforts). PS. I didn't know how to link this ... sorry!
Thanks for this! Because of decades of boxing and weight training I've become terrified of being in a fight to the point I've become quite passive because to a average person I would be lethal, I know it sounds big headed but it's a actual worry of mine.
Fellow BB'er here, actually is pretty difficult to kill with a single punch to the face (obviously not going into details how to do it), if you are large and cut, and not wearing baggy clothing this will actually deter 99% of people screwing with you. As for the other 1%, passive is not a bad thing, but don't show fear either. Bullies/agressors can sense a doormat from someone who is capable of messing them up but would rather enjoy his drink. Think of Switzerland; they never start shit, but nobody is dumb enough to fuck with them :)
I have a question I'm disabled ride around on mobility scooter and wheel chair I can't run away or defend my self what can I do to defend myself since I can't carry anything to defend my self
i'd argue that as a Martial Arts expert, you might find such a position harder. Like with a Boxer, logically you have more ability to judge the right amount of force, so by defintion any action is more intentional and held up to higher scrutiny.
Should be that if you break into someone's home, you forfeit all rights. You are knowingly putting your own life at risk and if you are killed it should be logged as a suicide. Just like you don't accuse the train driver of murder when someone steps onto the tracks in front of the train.
The most important thing for a person who has just survived an attack to remember is do not talk to the police. Maintain complete silence, feign shock, anything, in order to avoid talking to the police. Unfortunately most people are under the illusion that the police are fair and objective and that when they are interviewing someone after the event they are impartially and objectively trying to establish the truth of the matter. The police are not doing this, they will try to give the impression they are, but they are most definitely not. In any interaction with the police they are fishing, they are looking for something they can make into a crime. They will feign friendliness and try to appear sympathetic and helpful as they ask questions that seem innocuous enough, but they know what they are doing, they are very skilled at it and can get a naive and unsuspecting victim to say something the police can use to turn those words into evidence of a crime. The only thing a helpless member of the public can do to avoid serious legal trouble and maybe even conviction for some crime the police have created out of their victims own seemingly innocent words is to remain silent when questioned by these malicious psychopaths.
Almost but not quite. In England and Wales, if you are arrested and taken to a police station you have the right to free legal advice regardless of your earnings or savings. Use it. Tell the police you want your own solicitor if you have one, or that you want to choose one from their big book of legal advisers if you don't. Do not use the "duty solicitor": many are totally honest but there are too many rumours of badduns that co-operate with the police. Tell the police you have no comment to make until you have received that advice, and stick to your word. Once you explain things to your solicitor, follow his advice as to whether to say anything to the police or not. Unlike in the past, and unlike to this day in the US, for some defences the failure to mention them at police interview can be used against you in court in England and Wales (and I think in Scotland too). Don't try to learn all the things to consider: follow your solicitor's advice having explained things to them. The solicitor will advise one of four things: 1. Answer "no comment" to all questions (this is the preferred equivalent to remaining silent) 2. Give a brief prepared statement immediately the interviewing officers have done the identity stuff and given you the caution, and then "no comment" the rest of their questions 3. Brief prepared statement followed by helpful answers to their questions 4. No initial statement but answer their questions frankly. In any of the above cases, you are free to ask for the interview to stop if you suddenly feel you need further legal advice. The interview will be put on hold and you will be allowed to talk privately to your solicitor again. The reason this is notably different to the situation in the US is that in certain circumstances an English or Welsh jury may draw "adverse inferences" from silence; which of course is unconstituitional in the US. Our standard police caution is as follows "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be used in evidence. It may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, anything you later rely on in court". It is that last bit that makes a big difference from the US, and that makes legal advice absolutely essential before either talking or keeping quiet.
on the subject of house invasions, which unfortunately seem to be on the increase, if you live in a very rural area, are you permitted to plan for such an event. There are a number of non lethal weapons, including paint ball type guns. A quick search online shows the availability of such weapons that appear to be legal in UK including T4E HDR 50 manufactured by Umarex.. where does a householder stand legally?
A succinct overview of a difficult matter. If involved in martial arts sparring, choose a far more highly trained opponent if you don't want to be hurt! They are competent and know how much force is needed and how to apply it. They also know how to avoid being hurt by less trained people.
To me any highly trained martial artist will be able to apply enough to stop the attack like my self many will know methods or strikes that can kill , but I would never admit guilt but wait untill I am Infront of a jury
I would like to know how to deal with this simple problem. I am pestered by food delivery companies delivering to a house which is around the corner to me, bring there orders to me. The post codes are different, and I am not on a corner but 2 houses in my street. I have ask the owner of the house when ordering to say something but nothing has happened what can I do. can I just accept the meals for being pestered by them, and then they will get the message and deliver to the correct house
NEVER assist the police to make an arrest as YOU have no insurance or protection against being sued by the "criminal" of assault. The police will NOT offer to defend YOU. The criminal may very well be guilty and legally arrested but YOU can still be sued y the family, using legal aid, hence a bottomless pit of public cash against YOUR personal and limited finances. If the arrest is later deemed false, say the police arrest the wrong guy... YOU are in deep trouble. The police will just walk away and leave you to deal in court It's just not worth it.
BBB, as @Tan Fosbery below states, though your video is both educational and welcome, when reduced to the moment in question, and presuming no inebriation, it must be obvious to both the Law and thus the Courts that the average man on the 'Clapham Omnibus' has no clue whatever about any of these niceties when deciding what action to take in a self defence situation. 'Fight or Flight' is involved, based on chemicals generated in perhaps the most ancient part of the brain. 'Reasonable' does not come into it at that level, one is on autopilot. Do Courts Care ?
It's disgusting that criminals get away with so much on technicalities and based on precedent, while their victims and good people who try top stop crime are prosecuted based on the very same technicalities. Suddenly the victim is a suspect, the original offender (who often has experience of the system) probably gets away with it, All it takes for evil to prosper, is for good people to be too afraid to do something. Causality should replace precedent, if you didn't instigate it, the law should be on your side.
Outstandingly quick win for any Govt. Resurrect and pass the superb 2005 “Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill”. The Guardian would shriek, but I reckon across the country it’d be a 75/25 issue at the very least. Will never happen unfortunately, but absolutely should.
As the video makes clear, so much of the law rests on a subjective assessment of what is reasonable. Thus you should ALWAYS bear in mind that others (witnesses, police, those viewing CCTV evidence) may decide you are in the wrong and you'll end up with an assault charge. Nevertheless, force or violence is sometimes necessary to defend yourself or protect others. Just don't expect everyone to pat you on the back and tell you you're the good guy.
I think the best explanation regarding somebody who has broken into your home, if your defending your property or family within then the force you use will normally be covered by Common law, however if that person gets out of the house, the threat is no longer there, so if you go chasing after them and give them a hiding when you catch them the Common law disappears and you could find yourself up for assault. The moral as BBB has said if you restrain someone until help arrives that would be classed as reasonable force assuming that restraint did not put the persons life at risk. It is a fact that being pinned to the floor for an excessive period of time could cause someone to asphyxiate. Always get them sat up, do not sit on them, do not use choke holds etc etc. A shoplifter running out of a shop is not worth stopping unless you are trained and are not putting yourself in harms way. On the other hand seeing someone being assaulted and ignoring it has its own moral compass, some people for good reason will not step in for fear of getting hurt, there is also a risk that in protecting another you fall foul of reasonable force. It is a minefield. Call the police give the best description you can and direction of travel. Film it, stay a safe distance away and await police arrival. Video evidence is the best evidence it can’t be disputed and regardless of whether the victim wishes to press charges with video evidence the police can Pursue a prosecution anyway. Once police are on scene make it known that you recorded the whole thing and hand them the evidence. For those of us that can’t stand by and watch it. Only use force to defend if you hit someone do not follow that punch up, unless the threat remains. The moment the threat is neutralised stop, protect the victim and where necessary restrain the perpetrator but only enough to stop them from fleeing the scene, as stated before holding them in a headlock until Police arrive is excessive. When calling the Police ensure they know the assault is in progress, you will have officers respond on immediate as an immediate threat to life is the highest grading. Most importantly be safe, no matter how trained you are like BBB, I am trained in multiple marshal arts, however if someone has a knife and are determined to use it, you will very likely get hurt. Only do what you are able to and if that is call the police and record from a safe distance then that is the right thing to do. The wrong thing is to just ignore it. Stay safe
"however if that person gets out of the house, the threat is no longer there" Why would that necessarily be the case? English law is full of arbitrary assumptions that are completely irrelevant to how anyone's mind normally works.
@@Treblaine Anyone that hurtles out of the door, is exiting and running off. Should they decide to immediately re-enter, or attempt too, force can be reapplied to make sure they don't.
@@jackwalker5266 Oh now it's "hurtles"? What happened to them simply no longer being inside the house? "or attempt too" That is not them inside the building, is it?
@@Treblaine Oh you don't understand do you 😂 If they are no longer in the house, hurtling, running, walking, strolling, leaping to get out etc. The attempt to re-entry comes after the fact they leave to try to re-enter. Are you this oblivious in life?
Another thing that I thought you would cover is what item you used to defend yourself in your own home. I am not a trained legal expert, but if I understand it correctly, it is illegal to have a 'home self defence item/weapon', that's sole purpose is to defend your home. I think an Englishmans home is his castle, but if for instance, you had a baseball bat with nails through it, or even a loaded firearm, and you use it on an intruder, it's prison time for you. This is VERY different to the US, where people can legally possess a shotgun for instance, with tactical flashlights an lasers, with the sole pupose of defending themselves and family in their home
Most people do not know that the legal system is a world private system of law dealing with corporations and persons, not living men and women or sui juris. I do not believe people should necessarily go to court so long as the judge gets paid, as this is what the system relies on
For example, shooting someone dead in their car was unreasonable force and unnecessary. When the car driver wasn’t putting anyone’s life in imminent risk and they was alternative ways of dealing with him.
I have now regard for what the law says what i can and can't do. I was born with the god given right to defend myself. It is built into my survival instincts as it is with all sentient beings. I will never let another man or woman dictate how i react when I'm called upon to defend myself. The people making such laws make me sick. It is the same people that have privileged lives in the lowest crime areas. VIPs such as prime ministers have armed close protection units. They are allowed to shoot to kill when we are even in situations that could be resolved with less force. Their excuse would be that they can't take any risks. Well, neither can I or anyone else. All life is supposed to be treated equally under the law but not in the eyes of the law makers and high profile people.
Have you noticed hidden in your mobile system apps the Emergency Alert and Metaverse, both put on my phone secretly without permission which you can't delete. Only saw Metaverse due to antivirus asking to scan it.
The law is completely incorrect with house hold break ins. People should get one change to leave and then unlimited force should be permitted. I'd go as far as to allow the consumption of burglars as food to be perfectly acceptable.
RE the house defence bits, what happens for example if someone breaks in, and leaves, whether or not you fight them. But in leaving you see they have some of your property in their hand (maybe they stole a wallet or car keys). Can you chase them? what level of force can you use? Given they stole something, can you assume their intent is to keep it thus some level of force will be needed to wrest that property from them?
Time is an essential element. A counter-attack contiguous to the theft is permissible. Any lapse of time between the events is not allowed and viewed as a separate event. Yes, during the original theft you may defend yourself and property. No, after the theft you may not hunt down the thief and use violence to retrieve your property. Maybe, the critical element is whether or not the intervening time lapse could have been used to call police.
For those wondering: no, the same rules do not apply to agents of the Government, whom are all above the Law, and enjoy high-violence with utter impunity, as empirically demonstrated countless times.
You always do really informative and good video's, nice work. Have you heard about the brand new rules regarding driving and mobile phones being introduced imminantly? I'd like some more clarification on it as the jist is that mobile phones are going to be completely banned from being used while driving! That could potentially mean not even using one as a satnav! There's not much info on these new rules, could this be an area for you to do some research maybe? Take care!
NHS staff are always getting jumped by patients. Our bosses act as if it's part of the job. Do we have any legal recourse against patients who cause us any harm or injury?
Danger… this is UK or British law. They have property and financial crimes in England that are much different from America. You can go to jail for debt in England. You can also protect your property in England. This is not true in America.
Self defence is total bollocks self defence in England 🏴 A neighbour who I am unfortunate enough to live next door to and have never got on with started mouthing off about our budlier. I told him that someone was coming to cut all our bushes down the following week, he carried mouthing off so I told him to F off and he had a swing at me, I ducked and followed up with a right cross that knocked him out and broke his jaw (I used to box and do karate but not for many years) His wife rang the pigs 🐷 who arrested me , 12 hours in a cell and court with a fine probation for 18 months and a charge with assault by beating , even though he is around 6 6 and I am 5 11. Only witness was his wife.
Remember… if you arrest someone you must prove guilt. And if you fail, you can be sued into the poorhouse. You do not have personal liability protection, like cops.
Does anyone recall the case of three men, masked and with knives, entering a house to commit a burglary. The householder was retired, woke up and bravely confronted the intruders. He was threatened with a knife , possibly stabbed but killed one of the burglars. He was arrested in his home! I think I am correct in stating the case never went to court, but it is an interesting adjunct to today’s BBB legal examples..
PS. The pensioner was 78. There were 2 would be thief’s that broke into his house. One was armed with a screwdriver. Richard Osborn - Brooks was the brave, in my view , householder. The case is an interesting one BBB. Deserves a follow- up by you?
I love reading the comments posted on such videos. So many armchair experts asserting their opinions as fact, getting mixed up with television shows and real life, thinking this is America, or taking the opportunity to bash police as they had once been arrested for wrong doing.
It is unlawful to start bashing the police due to their previous convictions - they paid for their past mistakes and therefore we trust that they are reformed characters
@@markdunkling1604 that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution. An unwritten constitution is like an unwritten book, it doesn't exist. There is no legal basis that any law in the UK can be unconstitutional.
Had it back in May where somebody falsely accuse me of being a paedophile on the street and threaten to put me on the ground to which he said after I asked him was that a threat? He said “no citizens arrest” Police came and found that I had done nothing wrong. I was wondering what would happen if someone did a citizens arrest that was completely wrong? Would that be grounds for assault and battery?
I do hope so. Someone accused me of abducting a child (actually my own that I was with the whole time at the playground). Would hope if they tried to arrest/attack me that they'd be able to be charged.
yes as it would be classed as an unlawful arrest if there was no reasonable grounds that you had or were about to commit a crime UKPP2 | Predator Hunter use citizens arrest but they present firm evidence to justify its use -
I think calling PH evidence as firm evidence is questionable as how do we know it not subjectively altered etc Least The police held to strict protocols they are not
@@danmitchell1955 If you arrange to turn up to meet a under age kid do you think they are going to take your excuses seriously Dan ? strange that you are trying to defend these scum
Issue with deformation is the person has to know what they saying is false . And this would be difficult to prove regardless that this was not the case
I had a coworker that caught someone breaking into his car..he tackled the guy, put him in the trunk, and drove him to the police station. The thief was released but the car owner was charged with kidnap and assault. The charges were later dropped in court. I was quite shocked
Obviously retaliation - you have a police force who come to arrest people so you don't need to put them in the "Trunk" and take them to the station. From the police's point of view - they only have your word that he broke into the car, whereas they have proof of unlawful detention and assault right in front of them, admitting it. Don't forget - police are nothing if not lazy, and they will go for the easier target every time - that means white, middle class taxpayers who have jobs they can destroy with their allegations and criminal records.
It would be helpful to have examples of what is reasonable. Such as if they break in and you ask them to leave brandishing a weapon as protection and they don't leave or approch but say nothing ,what then ? Is reasonable force whatever force is required to prevent an attack ? And given that someone has broken into a house they took a risk that might end in injury. With such wording how can people in their homes feels safe defending themselves when fear and uncertantiy would play a huge roll in any responce. People are humans not machines and emotions would run high.
The law states, allowing you to defend yourself in your own home, should your life be threatened or at risk "You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or others if a crime is taking place inside your home. This means you can: protect yourself ‘in the heat of the moment’ - this includes using an object as a weapon stop an intruder running off - for example by tackling them to the ground There’s no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ - it depends on the circumstances. If you only did what you honestly thought was necessary at the time, this would provide strong evidence that you acted within the law. You do not have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home. However, you could be prosecuted if, for example, you: carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger pre-plan a trap for someone - rather than involve the police"
So what happens if you are at home, and having a drink or two. Let's say you've had a dozen cans of Stella, which surely you are quite entitled to do. Then not long after you have gone to bed a burglar breaks in (or even, someone forces their way in even before you go to bed). A fight ensues and the homeowner properly kicks seven shades or even kills the other person. It's not the person's fault who has been drinking that someone breaks in and how then can he be held accountable for his actions if his judgement is impaired by alcohol. (The same way in which a diabetic could claim a defence where low sugar levels can impair judgement in the same way).
so you would rather get a beating, than defend yourself and at worse spend a couple of months in jail. if that. Once you accept that beating you don't know when it end, what the damage will be,they get you on the floor, start stomping on your head. You take the legal risk and do what you need to do to end that threat
Unfortunately you cannot use exactly amount of force necessary in the stressful situation, when your opponent may be under influence. Sorry but saying this is highly unreasonable. You can train martial arts whole life and you may have hundreds of black belts but that’s not enough. Training in control environment is absolutely different to uncontrolled on the street where you don’t know nothing about your opponent or opponents. They may have any hidden weapons or “friends “ in the crowd.They may have better skills than you and attacker almost always has an advantage of surprise. Even how you react to your own body under this kind of stress, adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
Mostly common sense applies. You can't shoot someone because they are using fists. If you are at a safe distance and in control, there's no reason to fire a shot. If your attacker has a knife, you can now use the exact amount of force necessary, since your life is being threatened with an object that can and will likely cause death
There is only one person who can say what is reasonable force and that person is the victim defending themselves. Nobody else has who was not there has any say no matter what the law says. Anyone breaking into my house that I accost will be met with reasonable force which may result in injury or death. Especially if I am in the kitchen at that time. That last comment may be a bit tongue in cheek but if you violate my home then you forfeit your rights. That is reasonable. I doubt any "reasonable" person who has experienced this will disagree with me. 🤔
Just don't tell anyone in advance as that is premeditated, defending self and property(that's the bit police understand), it all happened so fast, I instinctively defended myself until they were subdued/restrained and I/we were safe.
Reasonable force is the level of the threat you are facing. If your attacker isn't retreating or exiting the premises at any time, the law states you may use any reasonable force to defend yourself and your family. This includes fists, feet and objects to be used as weapons. Once the threat is neturalised, that's when you could be deemed to be using unreasonable force, depending on your actions after that fact.
"ignorance of the Law is no Defence" ..... 52,741 laws have been passed since 1990 alone . Before you defend yourself against an attacker , look alk these laws up as you are expected to know them all . 😂🤣😅
I would be interested of your views on the arrest of Caroline Farrow. Were the police acting legally in forcing their way into her house arresting her and removing her devices without a warrant?
You have no idea what a jury will find reasonable, you may get pacifists like my Grandmother who genuinely believe violence is never the answer and if attacked you should just die like a martyr.
Thanks for the info BBB. Maybe I can throw something back your way. I find your delivery quite draining. Try and pause when you speak. Hope you take this as a positive criticism. Keep up the good work.
it's all a load off bollocks.... if someone breaks into your house ..you should be able to use whatever force to stop that person or persons......if you break into someones home then you deserve everything coming to you . i heard it's against the law to have a bat under your bed and to use that bat on an intruder........how and why? the unprepared are the victims ...and nobody wants or has to be a victim
Idk, sounds wishy washy to me. Bat under the bed: "If all they're doing is stealing, then beating them to a pulp with a baseball bat is not proportional (people, even burglars, are worth more than things)"
On the householder part I really do disagree with the law on grossly disproportionate. By virtue of keeping the house and the people inside safe, all bets are off. I do not know your intentions and if you enter the property, all bets are off. I will be forced to defend it with malice. If the person breaking in dies thats on them, they knew the risk and the law really should just not punish people defending the home. Ideally, you would incapacitate the intruder and let the police deal with it, and when I mean incapacitate, I mean do enough damage that the threat is eliminated. They are either dead, maimed or unconscious. In that moment, you have to react. There is no time to weigh up what is grossly disproportionate. Its me or them, my safety and my life is in imminent danger, so any response is reasonable in that moment, even if it results in the death of the intruder.
That's what the law says. If you incapacitate someone, they are no longer of threat to you or your household. If they aren't dead but unconscious and you stab them while in that state, that's deemed as unlawful and you will be prosecuted
@@jackwalker5266 yeah but you would need columbo(just rewatch the entire series) to work that 1 out, tell them you stabbed them, then they went unconscious :)
@@jackwalker5266 for a friend i doubt they could tell the difference between unconscious/dead or dead/unconscious from a forsensic POV.See Columbo always get the murderer , unless they ignored the 97% failure rate for other times :)
@@davidrenton They would be able to tell due to the muscles being relaxed or tense during an altercation. That's how they know when some people were murdered in their sleep, laying in wait or subdued
Easy to decide what is reasonable force weeks late, much harder when you are trying to stop yourself being killed
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six…
Yes. The assailant has already decided to be unreasonable. It's unreasonable to assume that a 'reasonable' response is going to be an adequate defence. Add adrenaline and 'flight or fight response' into the mix. Our biological response sometimes overrides our social programming.
Or kidnapped by a PC known to his colleagues as "the rapist". Or raped. Or murdered, your body chopped up and stuffed in a refrigerator, by a PC who then lies about it and is later discovered to have a colleague at the same police station, responsible for guarding the queen, who was raping 13 women and sexually assaulting 45 over the same period 2003 - 2018 (a 15 year raping career).
But it's just one bad apple, apparently.
It's rather easy to determine what is and what isn't reasonable force. If the intruder is stabbed 12times or shot half a dozen times, that would be unreasonable, as the first shot would have likely incapacitated the intruder
"You have a right to protect yourself in your own home, and this means you are legally allowed to attack an intruder to prevent them from causing harm to you or your family. This includes physical attacks, such as punches and kicks, and also includes using an object as a weapon."
@@jackwalker5266 What if he's so methed or coked up that 12 stabs don't stop him, and he's a 20 stone brick sh1thouse who has a mate in the van outside?
Just one thing as an 81 year old I will use whatever was around the eject anyone that has broken in and is threatening me and not moving away to exit . I cannot afford to wait for the intruder to actually attack me .
👍👍👍👍👍
@@blindjusticeandcommonsense2786 Thank you . 👍👍👍👍👍
Are you the 81 year old that Lincoln police came round and beat the crap out of?
They got the wrong address, he came to the door with his walking stick, so police called for 8 more officers to back them up (for an 81 year old with a walking stick).
Then they lied about it. They said he approached them with a wooden implement, and was agitated.
You have the right to defend yourself in your own home by any means necessary if you are in danger or other members of the household.
@@blindjusticeandcommonsense2786 the American system being one of the most corrupt and inept in he world!
A licensed 2nd Dan in the mid 70s, intervened , " leave him alone" when 3 young men were kicking another on the floor, in queue for Pollyanna nightclub in Birmingham. I was on way to gym and dojo above it. They stopped attacking lad and went for me , one pulled a knife, his arm was broken when it bounced off the lamp post, I used to ensure only two could come at me. They never charged the lads but stated I used undue force, despite 20 witnesses, stating at the time to the police what happened, was arrested, no way of getting witness names, they let his accomplices go and he was loaded in an ambulance. Really depends on what police do when they turn up.
Exactly - in these situations they should arrest both sides, but they never do - they take one side and stick to it all the way to court.
The people making allegations of assault will be treated like victims and offered help. They can now apply to the Criminal Injuries compensation authority for money because they are the victim. They will also get money from a "victim surcharge" if you are found guilty (as you will be if you don't elect to the Crown Court, and you will have to appeal to the Crown Court anyway).
Police will withhold any exonerating CCTV, as will the owner of the CCTV who will do whatever the police say and use the legal proceedings exemption in the DPA to deny your SAR.
In the disclosure process, the CPS will also withhold any CCTV that shows they started the fight. If they disclose it at all without an (expensive) specific disclosure application from you and ordered by the judge, it will be redacted to show only the bits that support their case i.e. it will start just as you are throwing your punch and not what came before.
Of course, you won't hear any of this on BBB's videos, because his livelihood depends on his viewers' ignorance of our "institutionally corrupt" police services.
but you survived ...that's all that matters .
lets see the police try and restrain someone without force when that person doesn't want to be held ....you can't do it
as the old saying goes...Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
@@saraheverardsrapers3910 This was pre CCTV 1974/5, stood ground that I used reasonable force and that probably saved the young man from serious injury, luckily it was a Friday and free by Monday otherwise could have lost my job. In the end they gave me an official warning.
Training 5 martial arts during a period of 20 odd years I think the most common advice I got from my instructors was "if you got to lay someone out, run away afterwards before the cops show up." Swedish police were notorious for going after martial artists because they courts basically held the idea that if you're "an expert" in self defense then you should be able to magically protect yourself without hurting the opponents.
When I started in '93 we even had to sign forms explicitly stating that we wouldn't use the techniques we learnt outside the dojo. Which was kind of weird as all martial arts studios, even ours, advertised "self-defense."
@@peartree8338 Agreed, "marginally protect" lol, survive unscathed was my priority. I was 20 and the Judo centric board of control (UK) had all sorts of establishment links, they forced a change from full contact and tried to align grades with their belt system. We had to sign stuff and were issued with "license" cards for 2nd Dan plus, required if taking any teaching/guide roles. That was my first experience with the Cops in a self-defence/ defend others, this was mid 1970's and they definitely approached me in a very antagonistic and confrontational way, in context fit and skilled young man tackling 3+ street yobs, carrying a bag with martial art badges. I knew enough not to self incriminate and they were pushing for me to do so. A young woman came up, while they were there thanked me for helping her boy friend, who was put in same ambulance as the thug! They ignored her, clearly they had investigated before they reached the scene and facts were not going to change there minds.
It became a teaching point for the club.
This very thing happened to a friend of mine. A burglar broke into his house and he put the guy in hospital.
His defence was that he "feared for his life and acted instinctively."
He was cleared of all charges.
I am curious: was it a jury that acquitted him, or did it never get that far?? Either way it was the right result
@@trueriver1950 Yes I believe there was a jury.
Whatever you do, don't offend your attacker with harsh words.
They'll have you up in court for hurting their feelings.
4 men tried to steal my motorbike and when I challenged them 1 of them pulled out a hammer then threatened to hit me with it, I did not back down and he proceeded to hit my motorbike with it causing damage. Would I have been justified to hit him with either a hammer or baseball bat in? And why did the police that turned up try and tell me off for having a baseball bat? When the scumbag threatened me with the hammer I was unarmed so when they left I armed myself with the bat incase they returned for another go. In the end I supplied the police with cctv of the incident but as usual did nothing about it and have told me that they will not continue to investigate it. All this has done is convince me that the police are not fit for purpose anymore because this is now approximately the 6th or 7th time they've decided that if they can be bothered to turn up that they won't do anything about it. On 1 occasion an ocado driver reversed into my motorbike and drove off, I informed the police and told them it was on my cctv and was willing to give them the footage but again told me they would not proceed with the case even though they had not seen the footage, I had to threatened the police with legal action for failing to do their duty before they asked for the footage, I then had to pay for the memory stick and registered letter to get it to them because they would not let me deliver it to them by hand, in the end the driver was convicted. This is a very common occurance now days as they seem to find it difficult to tear themselves away from monitoring social media for wrong think.
@@blindjusticeandcommonsense2786 I am not struggling with justifying taking action myself, I was pointing out that the police are not fit for purpose. My point is they don't even pretend to investigate anymore. Since the events that I described have happened I have made sure I know exactly where my bat is and I will beat the scumbags with it without hesitation. I am 60 years old and the older I get the less a life sentence scares me. I do however appreciate what you are saying and thank you for taking the time to leave a sensible comment. Many thanks
Totally agree with what you said BA ... tell them someone is videoing and 6 cars turn up, but if your attacked etc you can't even get them to answer the call.
Mike Tyson: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
Alternative: No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
You’ve been reading too much Jack Reacher!
No, that didn't resolve the question of what you should do if you are 81 years old, and 10 of the Lincolnshire Police come round to the wrong house, and beat the crap out of you, claiming your walking stick was an offensive weapon.
What then o great and wise counsel?
The law in the U.K. should be changed if somebody breaks into your property, that person will be sorted by any means available to the person being attacked I.e. make sure the attacker will not be able to get back up after being put down on the ground.
Agreed.
A law like that would okay killing someone if they break into your house. Per this video, the force used needs to be both reasonable and necessary.
My German Shepherd dog would make any attacker run unless they were really stupid.
@@humfreee Someone breaks into my home I'm killing them, simple as.
@@humfreee your allowed to use an improvised weapon in your home. That could be even a kitchen knife. Say your up against two invaders it certainly be reasonable to arm yourself to balance the odds in your favour
I heard someone say "in the UK, you are better off letting your self get murdered because your murderer can't press charges for assault when you defend your self"
Easy in a nice warm comfortable court room to interpret the legal meanings of the various sections regarding self defence . Surely the fact that someone has broken into a person's home with intent to rob and probably willing to do harm to enable this intent should be the first concern .
You do what was necessary and explain later if required , better that than big regrets
If it was deemed that the intruder was escaping and killed, this would have a negative impact on your case.
Evidence alone would indicate that if someone is shot in the back, with trails of blood leading out into an exit and was further blungoend to death, you would be doing time.
@@jackwalker5266 And if that same intruder left one or more of your family members dead or seriously injured before turning to leave? You might be charged, but I doubt a jury or judge would convict you. Of course, justice is not always done, so yeah you might be in hot water, but I doubt you'd ever be sorry.
@@burf90 That's completely different dynamics on result of a death. An attorney would easily argue on the grounds of great emotional stress etc.
The same way they view crimes of passion.
But eitherway, yes, I'm not going to be thinking of the law or consequence to myself at that time or anytime if that person took the life of someone I care about.
If the intruder is still in the house, careless if he is going to harm anyone or not, the owner is in his rights to use whatever force he should be deemed necessary. But people need to avoid doing unreasonable harm if it's clear by the evidence that the intruder is running out the door and you are chasing him down with a knife or gun etc, intending to kill or do bodily harm, if that person has done no harm to you or your family
@@jackwalker5266 Your attorney would be an idiot then - provocation is mitigation i.e. you admit the crime, but say you were provoked in mitigation of the crime.
Great topic to discuss! Thanks for the points and issues we should be concerned and careful about!
The whole system is crap- needs a total overhaul!
The criminals of course take absolutely no notice of all this prosecutorial gibberish, have any of these law makers I wonder had to defend themselves against someone that is determined to use whatever unreasonable force is necessary in order to get their way? Waiting for the police to arrive after making a citizen's arrest would I expect cause the "Statute of Limitations" defence to come into play! Regards
The Police has no duty to protect members of the public. The Police are not the law; the law allows you to defend yourself if the situation geniuely causes for this. How can this be a bad thing?
There is no "statute of limitations" defence for self defence.
A friend of mine who is a Gurkha and formally a Major in the Red Cap (Military Police) section was leaving a building site to go home for lunch but his car was blocked in by a huge American car so he enlisted the help of 4 or 5 site operatives to bounce the car to one side. On hearing the noise, the owner a 6' 7" 18st Irishman rush down from the top of the building and after a short verbal confrontation took a swing at my friend (he was 5' 7" and 62 years old and a blackbelt in full contact karate). The Irishman's swing missed and my friend hit him with two straight fingers to the eyes and a full force kick to the side of the knee that collapsed the guy in a heap on the ground. An ambulance was called to take him to hospital and my friend went home to lunch. Was this reasonable force? Either of the straight fingers or the kick were enough to disable the man, but you have to consider my friend's background and his experience in dealing with situations like the one that arose, I'm not so sure that a jury would.
Advice for us all:
Never go into dangerous areas (such as ANY part of London) without a Gurkha.
Was there an alternative way of dealing with the situation? Such as walking away. If so, this was unreasonable force.
@@notmenotme614 As I said, the Irishman took a swing at my friend that he dodged and therefore the physical altercation had already started and my friend's reaction stopped the fight going any further and before he could be injured. Also, I doubt whether you would see any Gurkha back down from a fight much less anyone with my friend's background of dealing with unruly and violent soldiers.
You should be able to take whatever action you deem necessary to protect your family, home and property.
OK then, I deem it necessary to protect my family, homeland and property by invading Poland.
Thanku for your help with this subject . While never wanting to be in this situation, for warned is so important . Thankyou and to your beautiful wife and for her wonderful cooking help . I really like the Chinese corn soup , I made it for my brother and he said it is the best he ever tasted , also the breakfast, and stir fry etc. I have the Chinese spices in one bottle and it is so good 🙋🤗🌟🥗🥣
As a security officer we are trained that you should avoid using force unless there is no other option, the same with citizen arrests. The law is pretty much the same for civilians & people who work to keep the peace at any location.
You are allowed to use force if either staff or a member of the public is in danger of being attacked so you can preempt to an extent -yes ?
@@markdunkling1604 of course but it's hard to judge reasonable force so advised not to use unless it's a last resort.
@@Spacey7 so when physical aggression is or is about to take place otherwise you do not go hands on -
@@markdunkling1604 you don't go hands on unless the violence is in progress & then only as a last resort! What don't you get!!!
@@Spacey7 I was under the impression from other professionals in your field, that you were able to preempt a person's hostility via body language as a perceived threat thus preventing a violent act before it was in progress . that being reasonable grounds within the eyes of law
I am a member of Viking Combatives, a self defence club based in Norwich. An important part of the training is covering the legal aspects and consequences of using extreme violence in self defence scenarios.
Say hello to Brett for me. 👍
@@NickSmith-qx7qg 😂 I will, it's a small world.
One should never use extreme violence, only reasonable force. If you happen to end up instinctively using a technique that you've been taught not to use in sparring, then you've probably got a better chance of arguing it was justified in self-defence.
@@brolohalflemming7042 The level of violence required in self defence is dependent upon the level of aggression of the attacker and circumstance. If you're fighting for your life I don't think that reasonable force is really applicable. We do self defence, not sporting martial arts. Real life scenarios are very different from ring fighting with breaks, rules, and referees. Also, the only techniques we are taught not to use in training, are ones that don't work. Anything that works is in. Anything! Depending on the prevailing circumstances of the threat.
@@kenwright5144 My comment refered to the video. The law says we can use 'reasonable force', and may have to convince a jury that lethal strikes were in fact reasonable at the time. Because there are a number of lethal, or permanently disabling techniques in most martial arts or unarmed combat, they're not normally used in training because the *do* work.
I had never even thought of this, thanks so much!
Fascinating information, thank you for explaining this. I also wonder would the law of self defence apply in the case of "Road rage" when as happened to my wife and I we stayed in our car and the occupant of a following car tried to get in, we were stopped at a set of temporary road traffic lights, and when they changed to green we drove off?
If they can still move they're still a threat to you and your family.
Experience has shown that the Police and judiciary are not fit for purpose.
I'll bet the householder "grossly disproportionate" doesn't apply if you invited them in. You can pulverise burglars, not dinner guests.
There was a time that I may have helped a cop, but that was before the 84/5 miners strike, now I I wouldn't trust one of them as far as I could throw one with my right arm, and that's still 2,500ft below ground.
You don't have to trust them. It matters not to what the evidence says
I use to work in the NHS. My staff were getting more & more abuse ( verbal & violence) I brought in a specialist in de-escalation, so they were able to be firm & had skills to handle a questionable situation. Recently, there was a shoplifter in our corner store. He was getting violent with the security officer. I was able to talk them down & calm the situation. They were arrested. (It was only 8mins when police turned up - but seemed more like an hour!)
Yet another law that goes against human survival instinct...when in fear for your safety by aggressors you also have to be in fear of the law🤦
Hi. This is really helpful. Could you cover reasonable force and its use when ejecting someone from licensed premises please.
i have been in 2 siutations where i helped the coppers arrest someone, 1 involved restraint, 1 involved erm lets say being pursuaive , both times got a thank you , and the 2nd a waiver for a parking violation. i.e i had to park my car illegally. The 1st time the copper said the thief got what he deserved. Of course this was 20 years ago, so now they would probaly nick me for offence.This was in London
@Joe mamma 1 was white, 1 was black, i was an equal opportunity enforcer :).
Much thanks, sir, for your detailed and most helpful information and explanations.
Further to your recent segment on self-defence & citizens arrest, I recently came across an article on UA-cam which I thought might be of interest to you. It's on Investigation Discovery (ID) and headed "Good Samaritan stops child abduction with Jiu-Jitsu" & it took place at Madison Square, New York. The 'Samaritan', a Martial Arts Instructor, intervenes & puts the suspect down & holds him there until police arrive. Despite numerous 911 phone calls from the crowd the police were slow to respond & the 'Samaritan' did not release his hold on the suspect until they did. The mother, child & stroller had fled the scene the moment the 'Samaritan' had stepped in & their identity was unknown. (Eventually the mother contacted the police & he received a sms from the 'victim' thanking him for his efforts). PS. I didn't know how to link this ... sorry!
Thanks for this! Because of decades of boxing and weight training I've become terrified of being in a fight to the point I've become quite passive because to a average person I would be lethal, I know it sounds big headed but it's a actual worry of mine.
Fellow BB'er here, actually is pretty difficult to kill with a single punch to the face (obviously not going into details how to do it), if you are large and cut, and not wearing baggy clothing this will actually deter 99% of people screwing with you. As for the other 1%, passive is not a bad thing, but don't show fear either. Bullies/agressors can sense a doormat from someone who is capable of messing them up but would rather enjoy his drink. Think of Switzerland; they never start shit, but nobody is dumb enough to fuck with them :)
I have a question I'm disabled ride around on mobility scooter and wheel chair I can't run away or defend my self what can I do to defend myself since I can't carry anything to defend my self
Lock your door and do online shopping
i'd argue that as a Martial Arts expert, you might find such a position harder. Like with a Boxer, logically you have more ability to judge the right amount of force, so by defintion any action is more intentional and held up to higher scrutiny.
Should be that if you break into someone's home, you forfeit all rights. You are knowingly putting your own life at risk and if you are killed it should be logged as a suicide. Just like you don't accuse the train driver of murder when someone steps onto the tracks in front of the train.
I'm only a bum but I like to learn stuff, Lord Denning was a great Barrister who used to teach people the law similarly to black belt barrister.
How about a citizen's arreset on politicians?
Another great vídeo blackbelt, you are amazing.
The most important thing for a person who has just survived an attack to remember is do not talk to the police. Maintain complete silence, feign shock, anything, in order to avoid talking to the police. Unfortunately most people are under the illusion that the police are fair and objective and that when they are interviewing someone after the event they are impartially and objectively trying to establish the truth of the matter. The police are not doing this, they will try to give the impression they are, but they are most definitely not. In any interaction with the police they are fishing, they are looking for something they can make into a crime. They will feign friendliness and try to appear sympathetic and helpful as they ask questions that seem innocuous enough, but they know what they are doing, they are very skilled at it and can get a naive and unsuspecting victim to say something the police can use to turn those words into evidence of a crime. The only thing a helpless member of the public can do to avoid serious legal trouble and maybe even conviction for some crime the police have created out of their victims own seemingly innocent words is to remain silent when questioned by these malicious psychopaths.
Almost but not quite. In England and Wales, if you are arrested and taken to a police station you have the right to free legal advice regardless of your earnings or savings. Use it.
Tell the police you want your own solicitor if you have one, or that you want to choose one from their big book of legal advisers if you don't. Do not use the "duty solicitor": many are totally honest but there are too many rumours of badduns that co-operate with the police. Tell the police you have no comment to make until you have received that advice, and stick to your word. Once you explain things to your solicitor, follow his advice as to whether to say anything to the police or not.
Unlike in the past, and unlike to this day in the US, for some defences the failure to mention them at police interview can be used against you in court in England and Wales (and I think in Scotland too). Don't try to learn all the things to consider: follow your solicitor's advice having explained things to them.
The solicitor will advise one of four things:
1. Answer "no comment" to all questions (this is the preferred equivalent to remaining silent)
2. Give a brief prepared statement immediately the interviewing officers have done the identity stuff and given you the caution, and then "no comment" the rest of their questions
3. Brief prepared statement followed by helpful answers to their questions
4. No initial statement but answer their questions frankly.
In any of the above cases, you are free to ask for the interview to stop if you suddenly feel you need further legal advice. The interview will be put on hold and you will be allowed to talk privately to your solicitor again.
The reason this is notably different to the situation in the US is that in certain circumstances an English or Welsh jury may draw "adverse inferences" from silence; which of course is unconstituitional in the US.
Our standard police caution is as follows "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be used in evidence. It may harm your defence if you fail to mention, when questioned, anything you later rely on in court". It is that last bit that makes a big difference from the US, and that makes legal advice absolutely essential before either talking or keeping quiet.
So to sum up, the victim has no rights. Should you ever have to defend yourself just make sure you do not get caught.
on the subject of house invasions, which unfortunately seem to be on the increase, if you live in a very rural area, are you permitted to plan for such an event. There are a number of non lethal weapons, including paint ball type guns. A quick search online shows the availability of such weapons that appear to be legal in UK including T4E HDR 50 manufactured by Umarex.. where does a householder stand legally?
A succinct overview of a difficult matter.
If involved in martial arts sparring, choose a far more highly trained opponent if you don't want to be hurt! They are competent and know how much force is needed and how to apply it. They also know how to avoid being hurt by less trained people.
To me any highly trained martial artist will be able to apply enough to stop the attack like my self many will know methods or strikes that can kill , but I would never admit guilt but wait untill I am Infront of a jury
I would like to know how to deal with this simple problem. I am pestered by food delivery companies delivering to a house which is around the corner to me, bring there orders to me. The post codes are different, and I am not on a corner but 2 houses in my street.
I have ask the owner of the house when ordering to say something but nothing has happened
what can I do. can I just accept the meals for being pestered by them, and then they will get the message and deliver to the correct house
NEVER assist the police to make an arrest as YOU have no insurance or protection against being sued by the "criminal" of assault. The police will NOT offer to defend YOU.
The criminal may very well be guilty and legally arrested but YOU can still be sued y the family, using legal aid, hence a bottomless pit of public cash against YOUR personal and limited finances.
If the arrest is later deemed false, say the police arrest the wrong guy... YOU are in deep trouble. The police will just walk away and leave you to deal in court
It's just not worth it.
Which land mass are you. Covering?
BBB, as @Tan Fosbery below states, though your video is both educational and welcome, when reduced to the moment in question, and presuming no inebriation, it must be obvious to both the Law and thus the Courts that the average man on the 'Clapham Omnibus' has no clue whatever about any of these niceties when deciding what action to take in a self defence situation.
'Fight or Flight' is involved, based on chemicals generated in perhaps the most ancient part of the brain. 'Reasonable' does not come into it at that level, one is on autopilot. Do Courts Care ?
It's disgusting that criminals get away with so much on technicalities and based on precedent, while their victims and good people who try top stop crime are prosecuted based on the very same technicalities. Suddenly the victim is a suspect, the original offender (who often has experience of the system) probably gets away with it,
All it takes for evil to prosper, is for good people to be too afraid to do something.
Causality should replace precedent, if you didn't instigate it, the law should be on your side.
Always good info 👍👍
Outstandingly quick win for any Govt. Resurrect and pass the superb 2005 “Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill”.
The Guardian would shriek, but I reckon across the country it’d be a 75/25 issue at the very least. Will never happen unfortunately, but absolutely should.
As the video makes clear, so much of the law rests on a subjective assessment of what is reasonable. Thus you should ALWAYS bear in mind that others (witnesses, police, those viewing CCTV evidence) may decide you are in the wrong and you'll end up with an assault charge. Nevertheless, force or violence is sometimes necessary to defend yourself or protect others. Just don't expect everyone to pat you on the back and tell you you're the good guy.
I think the best explanation regarding somebody who has broken into your home, if your defending your property or family within then the force you use will normally be covered by Common law, however if that person gets out of the house, the threat is no longer there, so if you go chasing after them and give them a hiding when you catch them the Common law disappears and you could find yourself up for assault. The moral as BBB has said if you restrain someone until help arrives that would be classed as reasonable force assuming that restraint did not put the persons life at risk. It is a fact that being pinned to the floor for an excessive period of time could cause someone to asphyxiate. Always get them sat up, do not sit on them, do not use choke holds etc etc. A shoplifter running out of a shop is not worth stopping unless you are trained and are not putting yourself in harms way. On the other hand seeing someone being assaulted and ignoring it has its own moral compass, some people for good reason will not step in for fear of getting hurt, there is also a risk that in protecting another you fall foul of reasonable force. It is a minefield. Call the police give the best description you can and direction of travel. Film it, stay a safe distance away and await police arrival. Video evidence is the best evidence it can’t be disputed and regardless of whether the victim wishes to press charges with video evidence the police can Pursue a prosecution anyway. Once police are on scene make it known that you recorded the whole thing and hand them the evidence. For those of us that can’t stand by and watch it. Only use force to defend if you hit someone do not follow that punch up, unless the threat remains. The moment the threat is neutralised stop, protect the victim and where necessary restrain the perpetrator but only enough to stop them from fleeing the scene, as stated before holding them in a headlock until Police arrive is excessive. When calling the Police ensure they know the assault is in progress, you will have officers respond on immediate as an immediate threat to life is the highest grading. Most importantly be safe, no matter how trained you are like BBB, I am trained in multiple marshal arts, however if someone has a knife and are determined to use it, you will very likely get hurt. Only do what you are able to and if that is call the police and record from a safe distance then that is the right thing to do. The wrong thing is to just ignore it. Stay safe
Very well stated!
"however if that person gets out of the house, the threat is no longer there" Why would that necessarily be the case? English law is full of arbitrary assumptions that are completely irrelevant to how anyone's mind normally works.
@@Treblaine Anyone that hurtles out of the door, is exiting and running off. Should they decide to immediately re-enter, or attempt too, force can be reapplied to make sure they don't.
@@jackwalker5266 Oh now it's "hurtles"? What happened to them simply no longer being inside the house?
"or attempt too"
That is not them inside the building, is it?
@@Treblaine Oh you don't understand do you 😂
If they are no longer in the house, hurtling, running, walking, strolling, leaping to get out etc.
The attempt to re-entry comes after the fact they leave to try to re-enter. Are you this oblivious in life?
I think I would avoid all such situations since I wouldn't be able to control my emotions well enough.
Great info- brilliant!
Another thing that I thought you would cover is what item you used to defend yourself in your own home. I am not a trained legal expert, but if I understand it correctly, it is illegal to have a 'home self defence item/weapon', that's sole purpose is to defend your home. I think an Englishmans home is his castle, but if for instance, you had a baseball bat with nails through it, or even a loaded firearm, and you use it on an intruder, it's prison time for you. This is VERY different to the US, where people can legally possess a shotgun for instance, with tactical flashlights an lasers, with the sole pupose of defending themselves and family in their home
Most people do not know that the legal system is a world private system of law dealing with corporations and persons, not living men and women or sui juris. I do not believe people should necessarily go to court so long as the judge gets paid, as this is what the system relies on
For example, shooting someone dead in their car was unreasonable force and unnecessary. When the car driver wasn’t putting anyone’s life in imminent risk and they was alternative ways of dealing with him.
I think all video are great I like watching them because u know watt year tarking about
I have now regard for what the law says what i can and can't do. I was born with the god given right to defend myself. It is built into my survival instincts as it is with all sentient beings. I will never let another man or woman dictate how i react when I'm called upon to defend myself. The people making such laws make me sick. It is the same people that have privileged lives in the lowest crime areas. VIPs such as prime ministers have armed close protection units. They are allowed to shoot to kill when we are even in situations that could be resolved with less force. Their excuse would be that they can't take any risks. Well, neither can I or anyone else. All life is supposed to be treated equally under the law but not in the eyes of the law makers and high profile people.
Have you noticed hidden in your mobile system apps the Emergency Alert and Metaverse, both put on my phone secretly without permission which you can't delete. Only saw Metaverse due to antivirus asking to scan it.
The law is completely incorrect with house hold break ins. People should get one change to leave and then unlimited force should be permitted. I'd go as far as to allow the consumption of burglars as food to be perfectly acceptable.
RE the house defence bits, what happens for example if someone breaks in, and leaves, whether or not you fight them. But in leaving you see they have some of your property in their hand (maybe they stole a wallet or car keys). Can you chase them? what level of force can you use? Given they stole something, can you assume their intent is to keep it thus some level of force will be needed to wrest that property from them?
Time is an essential element.
A counter-attack contiguous to the theft is permissible. Any lapse of time between the events is not allowed and viewed as a separate event.
Yes, during the original theft you may defend yourself and property.
No, after the theft you may not hunt down the thief and use violence to retrieve your property.
Maybe, the critical element is whether or not the intervening time lapse could have been used to call police.
i would say you can't, once they leave. I think we should all have the Belgrano defense :)
What about citizens arrest on a minor, so say for instance if a kid was damaging your car then tries to escape? Can they be indicted?
I would imagine you can’t arrest a minor I don’t believe even the police can arrest anybody under 10.
Don't even bother lmao
For those wondering: no, the same rules do not apply to agents of the Government, whom are all above the Law, and enjoy high-violence with utter impunity, as empirically demonstrated countless times.
You always do really informative and good video's, nice work. Have you heard about the brand new rules regarding driving and mobile phones being introduced imminantly? I'd like some more clarification on it as the jist is that mobile phones are going to be completely banned from being used while driving! That could potentially mean not even using one as a satnav! There's not much info on these new rules, could this be an area for you to do some research maybe? Take care!
NHS staff are always getting jumped by patients. Our bosses act as if it's part of the job. Do we have any legal recourse against patients who cause us any harm or injury?
How would I apply trespass and tort to this?
Danger… this is UK or British law. They have property and financial crimes in England that are much different from America.
You can go to jail for debt in England. You can also protect your property in England. This is not true in America.
Have a couple of shovels and reliable friend you can call at 3am.
if my accident happens in 2018 and should declare on civil court why they keep asking about my 2016 activity then use it as excuses for civil court?
Self defence is total bollocks self defence in England 🏴
A neighbour who I am unfortunate enough to live next door to and have never got on with started mouthing off about our budlier.
I told him that someone was coming to cut all our bushes down the following week, he carried mouthing off so I told him to F off and he had a swing at me, I ducked and followed up with a right cross that knocked him out and broke his jaw (I used to box and do karate but not for many years) His wife rang the pigs 🐷 who arrested me , 12 hours in a cell and court with a fine probation for 18 months and a charge with assault by beating , even though he is around 6 6 and I am 5 11.
Only witness was his wife.
Remember… if you arrest someone you must prove guilt. And if you fail, you can be sued into the poorhouse.
You do not have personal liability protection, like cops.
So does the victim have to determine what is reasonable self defence
In canada we are screwed you can't defend your home property or self or your properly charged with criminal assault
LIBERALISM- You have to love Trudeau! It is all WEF and Corporate Deep-State. It is all about your final equity before the Pods and zee Bugs!
@@apekillssnake agreed however there are still some of us canadians that can and will fight to the bitter end
Does anyone recall the case of three men, masked and with knives, entering a house to commit a burglary. The householder was retired, woke up and bravely confronted the intruders. He was threatened with a knife , possibly stabbed but killed one of the burglars. He was arrested in his home!
I think I am correct in stating the case never went to court, but it is an interesting adjunct to today’s BBB legal examples..
PS. The pensioner was 78. There were 2 would be thief’s that broke into his house. One was armed with a screwdriver. Richard Osborn - Brooks was the brave, in my view , householder.
The case is an interesting one BBB. Deserves a follow- up by you?
I love reading the comments posted on such videos.
So many armchair experts asserting their opinions as fact, getting mixed up with television shows and real life, thinking this is America, or taking the opportunity to bash police as they had once been arrested for wrong doing.
It is unlawful to start bashing the police due to their previous convictions - they paid for their past mistakes and therefore we trust that they are reformed characters
Or wrongfully arrested by corrupt police. The majority of arrests are unlawful.
Who possibly mistakes the UK for America?
@@Treblaine UK and US law and protocol are very similar in part regarding the people's rights - but our uk constitution is not so revered as in the US
@@markdunkling1604 that's because the UK doesn't have a constitution.
An unwritten constitution is like an unwritten book, it doesn't exist. There is no legal basis that any law in the UK can be unconstitutional.
Save all your talking for court. An interview under caution is NOT the time or place to start your defence.
Had it back in May where somebody falsely accuse me of being a paedophile on the street and threaten to put me on the ground to which he said after I asked him was that a threat? He said “no citizens arrest”
Police came and found that I had done nothing wrong. I was wondering what would happen if someone did a citizens arrest that was completely wrong? Would that be grounds for assault and battery?
I do hope so.
Someone accused me of abducting a child (actually my own that I was with the whole time at the playground). Would hope if they tried to arrest/attack me that they'd be able to be charged.
yes as it would be classed as an unlawful arrest if there was no reasonable grounds that you had or were about to commit a crime
UKPP2 | Predator Hunter use citizens arrest but they present firm evidence to justify its use -
I think calling PH evidence as firm evidence is questionable as how do we know it not subjectively altered etc Least The police held to strict protocols they are not
@@danmitchell1955
If you arrange to turn up to meet a under age kid do you think they are going to take your excuses seriously Dan ? strange that you are trying to defend these scum
Issue with deformation is the person has to know what they saying is false . And this would be difficult to prove regardless that this was not the case
I had a coworker that caught someone breaking into his car..he tackled the guy, put him in the trunk, and drove him to the police station. The thief was released but the car owner was charged with kidnap and assault. The charges were later dropped in court. I was quite shocked
Lmao.... Bad idea
Obviously retaliation - you have a police force who come to arrest people so you don't need to put them in the "Trunk" and take them to the station.
From the police's point of view - they only have your word that he broke into the car, whereas they have proof of unlawful detention and assault right in front of them, admitting it. Don't forget - police are nothing if not lazy, and they will go for the easier target every time - that means white, middle class taxpayers who have jobs they can destroy with their allegations and criminal records.
quite shocked the charges where dropped,but maybe the thief learnt a lesson
Not reasonable force by any stretch.
It would be helpful to have examples of what is reasonable. Such as if they break in and you ask them to leave brandishing a weapon as protection and they don't leave or approch but say nothing ,what then ?
Is reasonable force whatever force is required to prevent an attack ? And given that someone has broken into a house they took a risk that might end in injury. With such wording how can people in their homes feels safe defending themselves when fear and uncertantiy would play a huge roll in any responce. People are humans not machines and emotions would run high.
The law states, allowing you to defend yourself in your own home, should your life be threatened or at risk
"You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or others if a crime is taking place inside your home.
This means you can:
protect yourself ‘in the heat of the moment’ - this includes using an object as a weapon
stop an intruder running off - for example by tackling them to the ground
There’s no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ - it depends on the circumstances. If you only did what you honestly thought was necessary at the time, this would provide strong evidence that you acted within the law.
You do not have to wait to be attacked before defending yourself in your home.
However, you could be prosecuted if, for example, you: carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger
pre-plan a trap for someone - rather than involve the police"
If someone knows you’re home and breaks in, it’s a home invasion. They always mean harm.
Great video teaching us our rights , well done so helpful, 👍retired lifeboatman
So what happens if you are at home, and having a drink or two. Let's say you've had a dozen cans of Stella, which surely you are quite entitled to do. Then not long after you have gone to bed a burglar breaks in (or even, someone forces their way in even before you go to bed). A fight ensues and the homeowner properly kicks seven shades or even kills the other person. It's not the person's fault who has been drinking that someone breaks in and how then can he be held accountable for his actions if his judgement is impaired by alcohol. (The same way in which a diabetic could claim a defence where low sugar levels can impair judgement in the same way).
There's no such thing as reachable Force if someone attacked you you must let them
That is absolutely rubbish
Lol learn the law mate
so you would rather get a beating, than defend yourself and at worse spend a couple of months in jail. if that. Once you accept that beating you don't know when it end, what the damage will be,they get you on the floor, start stomping on your head. You take the legal risk and do what you need to do to end that threat
Surely the technical term for defending yourself when living on a houseboat is "repelling boarders"? AAraaaaghh!
This is an aside. Why can’t you Sue a council or a government body?
Unfortunately you cannot use exactly amount of force necessary in the stressful situation, when your opponent may be under influence.
Sorry but saying this is highly unreasonable. You can train martial arts whole life and you may have hundreds of black belts but that’s not enough. Training in control environment is absolutely different to uncontrolled on the street where you don’t know nothing about your opponent or opponents. They may have any hidden weapons or “friends “ in the crowd.They may have better skills than you and attacker almost always has an advantage of surprise.
Even how you react to your own body under this kind of stress, adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
Mostly common sense applies. You can't shoot someone because they are using fists. If you are at a safe distance and in control, there's no reason to fire a shot.
If your attacker has a knife, you can now use the exact amount of force necessary, since your life is being threatened with an object that can and will likely cause death
That flexing at 14:55 tho'.... 🙂
101 on how to get away with murder
Ah, so what happens if you suspect a police officer of committing a crime and try and effect a citizens arrest?
There is only one person who can say what is reasonable force and that person is the victim defending themselves. Nobody else has who was not there has any say no matter what the law says. Anyone breaking into my house that I accost will be met with reasonable force which may result in injury or death. Especially if I am in the kitchen at that time. That last comment may be a bit tongue in cheek but if you violate my home then you forfeit your rights. That is reasonable. I doubt any "reasonable" person who has experienced this will disagree with me. 🤔
Just don't tell anyone in advance as that is premeditated, defending self and property(that's the bit police understand), it all happened so fast, I instinctively defended myself until they were subdued/restrained and I/we were safe.
Reasonable force is the level of the threat you are facing. If your attacker isn't retreating or exiting the premises at any time, the law states you may use any reasonable force to defend yourself and your family. This includes fists, feet and objects to be used as weapons. Once the threat is neturalised, that's when you could be deemed to be using unreasonable force, depending on your actions after that fact.
"ignorance of the Law is no Defence" ..... 52,741 laws have been passed since 1990 alone . Before you defend yourself against an attacker , look alk these laws up as you are expected to know them all . 😂🤣😅
I would be interested of your views on the arrest of Caroline Farrow. Were the police acting legally in forcing their way into her house arresting her and removing her devices without a warrant?
Reasonable amount of force = minimum amount of force to stop the other person
You have no idea what a jury will find reasonable, you may get pacifists like my Grandmother who genuinely believe violence is never the answer and if attacked you should just die like a martyr.
Do what you have to do to survive worry about the rules later .
Hi Mr BBB 😀
Thanks for the info BBB. Maybe I can throw something back your way. I find your delivery quite draining. Try and pause when you speak. Hope you take this as a positive criticism. Keep up the good work.
So no heightened protection in your garden then?
it's all a load off bollocks.... if someone breaks into your house ..you should be able to use whatever force to stop that person or persons......if you break into someones home then you deserve everything coming to you .
i heard it's against the law to have a bat under your bed and to use that bat on an intruder........how and why?
the unprepared are the victims ...and nobody wants or has to be a victim
Idk, sounds wishy washy to me. Bat under the bed: "If all they're doing is stealing, then beating them to a pulp with a baseball bat is not proportional (people, even burglars, are worth more than things)"
How do you know they're just there to steal? They could be there to ra pe and murder your kids.
I dunno.. If someone breaks in and refuses to leave when shouted at, they're getting a crossbow bolt through them.. 🙄
On the householder part I really do disagree with the law on grossly disproportionate. By virtue of keeping the house and the people inside safe, all bets are off. I do not know your intentions and if you enter the property, all bets are off. I will be forced to defend it with malice. If the person breaking in dies thats on them, they knew the risk and the law really should just not punish people defending the home.
Ideally, you would incapacitate the intruder and let the police deal with it, and when I mean incapacitate, I mean do enough damage that the threat is eliminated. They are either dead, maimed or unconscious. In that moment, you have to react. There is no time to weigh up what is grossly disproportionate. Its me or them, my safety and my life is in imminent danger, so any response is reasonable in that moment, even if it results in the death of the intruder.
That's what the law says.
If you incapacitate someone, they are no longer of threat to you or your household. If they aren't dead but unconscious and you stab them while in that state, that's deemed as unlawful and you will be prosecuted
@@jackwalker5266 yeah but you would need columbo(just rewatch the entire series) to work that 1 out, tell them you stabbed them, then they went unconscious :)
@@davidrenton I wouldn't put my money against forensic evidence though .. I'd rather go up against columbo lol
@@jackwalker5266 for a friend i doubt they could tell the difference between unconscious/dead or dead/unconscious from a forsensic POV.See Columbo always get the murderer , unless they ignored the 97% failure rate for other times :)
@@davidrenton They would be able to tell due to the muscles being relaxed or tense during an altercation. That's how they know when some people were murdered in their sleep, laying in wait or subdued