What are the limits of "self defence"??

[Kez]

I had no idea we actually had legal people on this forum (apart from Girl).

Could you fine examples of geek's answer me a few questions?

Under Australia law, what would be classified as "self defence"... Scenario for example.

I'm walking out of local pub and a guy jumps me with a gun and attempts to force me to give him money. So I say to him "err there is a cop over behind you" and he quickly turns around, which gives me time to twist the gun out of his hand, thus ripping of his finger off that is in the trigger guard at the time, and shatter his elbow by having enough spinning momentum on my body (This is a really tricky move to explain)...

Basically he ends up with lack of index finger and a shattered elbow joint... now in court how can I justify that it was self defence? or could that guy actually sue me and get away with it?

Your input is much appreciated legal people :)

(I was being serious throughout that entire post aswell :), not trying to be stupid in what I *think* is a serious forum )

[Sagacious]

I had no idea we actually had legal people on this forum (apart from Girl).

Could you fine examples of geek's answer me a few questions?

Under Australia law, what would be classified as "self defence"... Scenario for example.

I'm walking out of local pub and a guy jumps me with a gun and attempts to force me to give him money. So I say to him "err there is a cop over behind you" and he quickly turns around, which gives me time to twist the gun out of his hand, thus ripping of his finger off that is in the trigger guard at the time, and shatter his elbow by having enough spinning momentum on my body (This is a really tricky move to explain)...

Basically he ends up with lack of index finger and a shattered elbow joint... now in court how can I justify that it was self defence? or could that guy actually sue me and get away with it?

Your input is much appreciated legal people :)

(I was being serious throughout that entire post aswell :), not trying to be stupid in what I *think* is a serious forum )

My understanding is that the principles applicable to self defence are slightly different between states so it depends where this pub incident took place.

In Queensland the damage you have described in your post falls under the description of greivous bodily harm in that none of the injuries are life threatening so could not have you charged with attempted murder.

Firstly about being civily sued for inflicting the injuries mentioned there is a principle at law called ex turpi causa which is a latin way of saying that a person cannot benefit from their own illegal act or more particularly that no cause of action can arise from an illegal (or immoral) act. So if you took what reasonable steps that were available to you in preventing or overcoming a threat to you which could reasonably be seen to be to your life or to cause you greivous bodily harm then it is likely that the stick up guy can't succeed in suing you for the damage caused to him by you defending yourself.

The test to make out a defence of self defence against an unprovoked attack is one of reasonableness in the circumstances and proportionality. Is the force used to defend yourself proportionate to the treat made or to your subjective apprehension of harm when viewed objectively. That is to say - could a reasonable person faced with the threat faced by you form the opinion that their life or their permanent future health or wellbeing were so in danger that doing Greivous Bodily Harm to the person issuing that threat was justified. If the answer to bot questions is yes (that is did you in fact fear for your life or health and was it reasonable for you to do so) and the way in which you reacted was proportionate to the treat offered then you are in the clear. if the answer to any of those questions (did you form the opinion, was it reasonable, and was your response proportionate) is no you are screwed.

It is a complex area of the law so you should go get some advice in the jurisdiction in which all this occurred.

[kleph]

Step 4) Move to Mexico.

bad idea (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/13.html).

[Sagacious]

You're a resourceful chap.

Know any countries without extradition treaties with Australia?

Be quick, Kez needs to know. He may or may not have killed someone in the act of self defence.
so far as I have been able to quickly ascertain the following countries do not have formal extradition treaties with Australia.

Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, any of the -stans (Paki, Afghani, Uzbeki, etc...) Mongolia, China, Libya, Chad, Togo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Cote d' Ivoire, Benin, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan (basically if the US has fought them, supplied their enemies or censured them in the UN we don't have an extradition treaty with them) Incidentally we do have a treaty with Iraq but not with Iran.

[pinchy]

I'm walking out of local pub and a guy jumps me with a gun and attempts to force me to give him money. So I say to him "err there is a cop over behind you" and he quickly turns around, which gives me time to twist the gun out of his hand, thus ripping of his finger off that is in the trigger guard at the time, and shatter his elbow by having enough spinning momentum on my body (This is a really tricky move to explain)...

Basically he ends up with lack of index finger and a shattered elbow joint... now in court how can I justify that it was self defence? or could that guy actually sue me and get away with it?


Ok the laymans guide to self defence. (source: Military Boarding Party Course Notes)

There are two words which you need to use when claiming self defence as an affence for assault.

reasonable. Necessary. Was your force reasonable and necessary for you (or a reasonable person in your place) to defend yourself

In your scenario, That dude pulled a gun at you, and you felt your life was threatened. You disarmed him, with what you believed to be reasonable and necessary force. I'd say you've got a good claim for self defence, in fact I think you showed restraint in that example.

reasonable and necessary changes from person to person and scenario to scenario... eg, it may be necessary for an old granny to fataly shot a big muscle man who is only advancing on her with a rolled up newspaper, if she feels that it was reasonable and necessary to do so to defend herself. But I doubt it would be reasonable and necessary for the muscle man to shoot the lady if the scenario were reversed.

The courts will look at if it was reasonable and necessary for you, AND for a reasonable person in your place. A reasonable person in your place is defined as someone with exactly the same training/background as you, and is designed to counter any irrational behaviour you may have exhibited at the time (eg if you were emotionaly stressed and beat the crap out of him cos your mum just died)...

[frednurk]

Step 1. Insure yourself. Premiums are quite reasonable, and are tax deductible if you have a good accountant. Ensure you can use your lawyer of choice under the terms of the policy.

Step 2. Let your insurance backed lawyer do the hard yards for you.

Step 3. Go to the pub.

Step 4. Wait for your lawyer to join you after a successful conclusion, and then buy him/her a drink or 2 at your expense. (maximum 2 standard drinks within a 1 hour period) This person is not your employee- but a friend who will go the hard yards on your behalf if you treat them well. Same as anyone else really.

[Kez]

I would be in trouble. The breaking of the elbow isn't actually neccessary in that move, it's just in there for good measure, and will result in the gun holder having difficulties using that arm for the rest of their life, not to mention the ammount of internal bleeding it can also cause if the shattered bone fragments sever veins and arteries. I think I would have been using excessive force in that case.

I think a broken finger only, compared to a bullet in my skull would be alot more favourable in the courts...

Thanks for clarifying that, and giving me some insight on the issue.

[Sagacious]

no problem the ' secret ' is to avoid violence that is gratuitous or unnecessary

[Iceman]

Well.. lets see.. In QLD, at least, they say:

In Queensland you have the right to physically defend yourself with reasonable force, provided that this force is authorised, justified or excused by law.

But you can't use any of these (http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569020010922A/page/Safety-Crime+Prevention-Information+about+Prohibited+Weapons?OpenDocument&1=0-Safety~&2=0-Crime+Prevention~&3=0-Information+about+Prohibited+Weapons) things to defend yourself. Including extendable batons, tasers, pepper spray etc..

So what weapons can an honest citizen defend himself with?

The QLD state police suggest such wonderful things such as screaming, using hairbrushes or keys as a weapon or faking a seizure or my favorite, 'throwing up or shitting yourself' (http://www.police.qld.gov.au/pr/program/p_safety/booklet/10.shtml) as methods of self defence :P

Wonderful.. a guy pulls a gun on me and I should throw my keys at him and shit myself? Great, how many muggers do you think that would work on? Considering the criminals have no problem getting weapons..

Lets throw a few coppers into a holdup with a hairbrush and tell them to fake a seizure..

[Reprobate]

"Tell the attacker that you have AIDS;"

And have them kick the shit out of you because they're a homophobe. Great.

"Be revolting - throw up, defecate/urinate/pick your nose;"

It won't be long until the perps get wind of this and start taking their victims to court because they shit themselves. "Your Honour, I find it revolting and disgusting that they done that. It made me throw up in my mouth a little bit".

Then they go on to successfully sue you.

[frednurk]

It's been a while but last I was aware: Provided you didn't use a weapon that was premeditated- you could use something that was easily to hand, and would be normal to have in the circumstance. I.E. Mate had his kids bitten by a dog on the street. Filled up the kids bicycle pump with sand and went for a ride. Did the deed and then went home and washed off the bike pump. Coppers turned up to investigate after a complaint was raised. No further action. :)

Now without being wildly off topic- The inference in the information provided by the authorities goes as far as it can. You figure out what you would reasonably be able to lay your hands on in a given situation- and do the ninja math from there.

Example 2. Same mate got held up at gunpoint. Got the opportunity and kicked the offender in the balls just once or twice. Removed the weapon. Rang the police/hit the panic button etc.
The important bit came at the statment interview at the police station. It went like this:
Copper: "Describe in detail and in sequence the events tonight."
Mate says: "Armed robbery, I kicked him in the balls, got the weapon and called you."
Copper: " I'm sorry I didn't quite hear that- Could you repeat it please?"
*Repeats until mate slowly dawns on the fact that something further is required of his story.*
Copper: "Etc etc"
Mate: "Armed robber makes a move that indicated to me that he was going to shoot me- Kicked him in the balls- Etc etc"
Copper: "Thank-you Sir. That will be all for tonight"

What is it reasonable for you to have in your possession, or to lay your hands on at the time, without being premeditated, and what is a reasonable way to use that are the questions to think about.

:)

[Juice Biscuit]

See Darkside knows where its at.


Just punch yourself in the face and smear the blood all over your hands, then attempt to rub it all over them while yelling "You don't know where I've been".

[Iceman]

See Darkside knows where its at.


Just punch yourself in the face and smear the blood all over your hands, then attempt to rub it all over them while yelling "You don't know where I've been".

Ah.. the 'fight club' defence..

Or you could smear it on them and when the cop's get there.. break down sobbing ;)

[tikdoph]

I was stabbing people with my car keys and shitting my pants long before it was considered "cool".

[onetonnesam]

The QLD state police suggest such wonderful things such as screaming, using hairbrushes or keys as a weapon or faking a seizure or my favorite, 'throwing up or shitting yourself' (http://www.police.qld.gov.au/pr/program/p_safety/booklet/10.shtml) as methods of self defence :P


Oh Iceman, that's a wonderful find. I am procrastinating from studying for my exam in two days and the link you found inspired to me put together some historical trivia about self-defense. I hope no one minds if I share these thoughts with you all. Forgive the self-censorship, I actually emailed the text to a few people who have very strict email scanners at their places of work.

The North Asians are a pi$$ed off and vindictive race. After all, after some poor ba$tard Shaolin monk got robbed one too many times by bandits whilst travelling through the forests on pilgramages, he thought "f@ck Buddha and his non-violent ways, I'm gonna smack this biatch". This monk and his mates dedicated the rest of their lives to devising the art of kung fu, the ancient art of systematically beating the $hit out of someone. How vindictive were they? Well, suffice it to say, instead of inventing one way to kick the living $hit out of someone or just one way to punch the carnt senseless, they studied the fighting styles of animals and came up with a million different ways to BEAT THE LIVING $HIT OUT OF PEOPLE. They weren't just satisfied to be able to defend themselves on their road trips throughout the continent (where they carried special packages of special herbs for provincial overlords).

The monks were very creative, their creativity fuelled by their passion to really f*ck someone up (the lack of pu$$y might have had some relationship with this affinity with violence). And since they don't have real 9 to 5 job to go to on Monday to Fridays, they spent the entire days thinking and practicing this mysterious violent art. That's how pi$$ed off and vindictive they were. Their days were spent thinking about different and effective ways to punch and kick other ba$tards.

This art then travelled its way down to the Korean peninsular, where it evolved into Hapkido (old Korean phrase meaning "the flamboyent acrobatic crane kicks the carnt senseless gymnastically"), and the popular Taekwondo (old Korean phrase meaning "mainly using kicks to beat some carnts senseless").

The Koreans then travelled to Okinawa, and a new variation on the art was born: kara-te. Whilst most proponents would explain that this is simply Japanese for "empty fist", it actually means "mainly using punches to beat some carnts senseless". Come the 1970s and 1980s where Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee made martial arts popular through badly written action films (yes, the movies were classic, but they were badly written), the fever reaching its peak in the early 80s where Pat Norita made all Asians cringe with embarrassment for his portrayal of Mr Miyagi in The Karate Kid series of films. The martial arts then evolved to a sad art, taking its present modern day form in Hollywood, where the likes of Jean Claude van Damme and Steven Segal honour those pioneering monks by making bad straight-to-DVD movies that unfortunately fail to capture the true spirit of pi$$ed-offness and vindictiveness.

Decades later, with the advent of the internet and digital video technology, pioneers have been working on a new form of martial art called "bukakke". This will surely be the latest fad to come out of Japan, and no doubt we will see various "Sensei Gary's" and "Sensei Bruce's" opening dojos throughout our suburbs, with many young boys and men keenly lining up to join and learn (or at least watch) this powerful new art.

Being pi$$ed off and vindictive is not specifically a North Asian trait, however, there are variations. The "she'll-be-right" national character of Australians have resulted in the following combat system created by The Queenland Police Force after literally minutes of training and meditation (or medication if you work for the QLD DEA) (http://www.police.qld.gov.au/pr/program/p_safety/booklet/10.shtml, thank you Iceman for the find):

************************************************** ************************************************** ******
Options to physical self defence

In an attack or confrontation there are a number of options available that do not require physical self defence to distract or fend off the attacker. These include:

* Faking a heart attack, asthma attack, epileptic fit or mental illness;
* Pretending to faint;
* Faking a coughing fit and asking for a glass of water;
* Calling out to a fictitious person behind the attacker for example "William, help me" - if you are convincing there is no doubt that the attacker will look around;
* Tell the attacker that you have AIDS/Hepatitis;
* Verbal response - negotiate with the attacker;
* Tell the attacker that "Someone will be coming back in a minute";
* Ask to go to the bathroom to remove tampon/insert diaphragm;
* Be revolting - throw up, defecate/urinate/pick your nose;
* Anything else that you can think of to stop the attack or create an opportunity to escape.
************************************************** ************************************************** ******

"Be revolting - throw up, defecate/urinate/pick your nose" is the most used favourite form of self defence in Queensland, especially by drunken louts to resist arrest. For additional effectiveness, they fortify their attack a release of internal energy through shouting at the top of their lungs various Tourette's inspired words. Afterall, the Qld numberplates do indicate that it is "The Smart State".

[The_Kingpin]

Kez, the technique your talking about sounds like a wrist twist which would probably break the finger in the trigger guard but tearing it off is unlikely. the only way you can justify breaking the elbow is if thee are multiple atackers. in that case i would incapacitate the cunt without thinking twice. if you can pull off the first move then you would probably be skilled enough to restrain him without breaking anything else.
the other thing i thought about was that someone whos going to pull a gun on you will probably do it in a back alley ect. were theres onone else around. in that case you could just kick the shit outa him and then leg it.

[Directed]

Damn things are screwed up in Australia. Criminals can use guns, and citizens who need to protect themselves cant even have a sharpened comb? You can resort to crapping your pants to protect yourself? WTF? What kind of law is that? Over here if someone threatens me with a gun, I can legally kill him.

[Kez]

Kez, the technique your talking about sounds like a wrist twist which would probably break the finger in the trigger guard but tearing it off is unlikely. the only way you can justify breaking the elbow is if thee are multiple atackers. in that case i would incapacitate the cunt without thinking twice. if you can pull off the first move then you would probably be skilled enough to restrain him without breaking anything else.
the other thing i thought about was that someone whos going to pull a gun on you will probably do it in a back alley ect. were theres onone else around. in that case you could just kick the shit outa him and then leg it.
No, it's not a wrist twist, it depends on the type of the gun.

If it's a revolver, you're putting your hand and fingers around the cylinder to stop it loading bullets in front of the hammer, then you apply the twisting motion to the gun to break and possibly sever their finger.

If it's any form of Glock/Berretta (Or any other kind of gun that has a slide on top to re-cock the bullets), then you're placing your hand on top of that, and wrapping it around the mid section of the weapon to stop it from firing the first round.

The main notion of the excersise is that you are aiming to get the gun facing away from you, hence why you would break their finger, as you are moving the gun away from yourself at such a high speed.

[edeity]

Your allowed to protect yourself under common law.
This can include killing someone in self defense.

Generally, if you want to beat the fuck out of someone, say in a very clear loud voice, "I dont want to fight you, I'm backing away" then proceed to beat the fuck out of them.

[brotherkrusty]

I have the unfortunate opportunity in 1995 to sit through a 2 day law for dummies course that constituted "security" training in NSW to be a security guard. Also at that time I was married to a lawyer (who bent me over and screwed my anus hard in the divorce)

I remember it all comming down to two things...reasonable force and fear for the lives of others and/or yourself.

Reasonable force was described to me as minumim force nessessary to remove yourself from mortal danger. Reasonable force can be viewed as less force than that being actioned on you to defend yourself.

If he has a gun and you manage to damage a finger and an elbow while trying to disarm him. I can see that that would be reasonable force. Once disarmed, if you kick the living shit out of him (with out the coppers permission) then that is not reasonable force.

The best way to deal with this is to follow the US Marine training techniques I was taught while doing matial arts.

Dickhead points gun at you.
While putting hands up slap gun away to right while stepping left.
grap gun under barrel and twist gun straight up and over so the barrel is pointing back at the dickheads forehead.
If he is stupid enough to still have his finger on the trigger he will cap himself.

Gun discharged during struggle, trigger was pulled by the deceased.

Reasonable force - you were attempting to remove the dangerous item from perp only...you did not inflict any other damage to him/her. Perp shoots themself in the head and your fingerprints will show that the griping of the gun placed your fingers around the barrel, not near the trigger.

[brotherkrusty]

While I was a security guard I knew of two people who used their guns.

First guy who I never met but knew of used his gun and shot a guy dead. He was cleared and does not have a record. He was backed into the corner of a fence by a guy with a knife. The guy with the knife was explaining how he was going to stab him. The guard warned him to not come any further on numerous occasions. He kept comming and when inside 5 meters pulled gun shot once to the centre of mass.

The second guy was charged with assult with a deadly weapon (or what ever it is called) He pulled his gun out to stop a perp running away. He did not fire his gun but used it as a threat. He got into heaps of trouble.

As I understand it, a security guard can only pull a gun if he is going to use it. They must use it immediately and it must be the last possible action/option.

If you pull your gun but shoot for the leg then it is considered that you had enough time to think of another option that did not need the gun. The gun is truely the last resort.

[tikdoph]

it may well be an "accident" ;)
This post has been here for an hour... did minigirl fall asleep at the keyboard before she could delete it???

[Kez]

Brotherkrusty, the basis of the technique I am describing is much like that, it comes from special forces training.

Well your definition of force is very good. I'm hoping they teach alot of this legal stuff when I go for my security license.

[The_Kingpin]

yeah that technique described by brotherkrusty is one that i train (a variation of it) and is probably the most recognised and used in military/law enforcement circles. just make sure you dont have your finger in the trigger guard when practicing cos it hurts like fuck.