Self -Defence & Law
When the issue of self -defence is raised it is an important consideration that the person defending him self demonstrates by his action that he does not want to fight he must show that he is prepared to temporize and disengage,and perhaps make some physical withdrawal.
- 1.Law
- 2.Weapons in karate.
'Karate ' Ne sente Nashi ' is well-known karate saying often attributed to sensei gichin Funakoshi, the founder of shotokan karate ; indeed it is the inscription on his tombstone Howeever,it is now apparent that the the saying goes back way before his time.Patrick McCarthy's translation of shoshin Nagamine's tales of okinawa's great master attributes the saying to a famous zen prelate called muso soseki ( 1275-1351). Whatever the case may be , and putting its origins to one side , it is a principole that is known to have permeated okinawan karate for centuries.It is a profound statement, though the passage of time has obscured its original meaniing which must now be a matter of personal interpretation.At frist sight, the principal of no first attack presents the martial artist with a dilemma,as it conflicts with the concept of employing a pre -emptive strike in self -defence; so where does one stand ?
The decision of howmuch force to use in self-defenc can only be made at the time, and will depend on a number of differents factors.We know that karate techniques can be very effective in self defence,especially when combined with the targeting of vital points-but what must be considered is that ,at some point in the future the actions may be brought under close scrutiny and justification required. this is especially true in the case of martial artist who in the eyes of the law are all considered experts.Even closer scrutiny may be the outcome of using strikes dangerous areas such as vital points , especially if serious injury occurs. For this reason it is essential that essential before striking these areas , the students has a thorough appreciation of the likely result.It will also be benefical for all martial artists to have clear undderstanding of the law as it relates to self- defence : this is the primary purpose of this chapter.
When under attacks or confronted with physical violence, either to you your family or friends, personal survival will be the prime objective of any use of force.The law does recognize this and has provisons in certain circumstances to protect individuals who find they have to make such difficult decisions. The use of force is covered by both common law and satutory provisions, both of which allow for what is referred to as reasonable force to be applied against an attacker.
The statutory element is contained within section 3 of the criminal Law act 1967 which provides that a person mayuse such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime the section also includes the use of such force in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders, or people unlawfully at large.Therefore by virture of the fact that the forces is invariably being used to prevent the continuance of a crime, this part allows for resonable force to be used in self-defence, defence of another or defence of property. The key word is 'reasonable' what does this mean ? what is such force as is reasonable in the circumstances? this were the common law is basically the interpretation of the law as decided by senior judges where there has been some question raised.When the judges give a judgement is a particular case, that become the common law until it is overruled or amended at a later stage .The common law provides some guidance in how the term ' reasonable force ' wil be interpreted by the courts in a case that was heard before the court of appeal as long ago 1909, it was said,
" when the issue of self defence is raised ,it is an important consideration that the person defending himself demonstrates by his actions that he does not want to fight .He must show that he is prepared to temporize and disengage, and perhaps make some physial withdrawal "
In another case that was heard before the court of appeal , this time in 1971, the presiding judge made the following statement: it is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself , but may only do what is resonably necessary .
In further case heard in 1998, which indicates more current thinking on this subject, the judge said :
" a jury must decide whether a defendant honestly belived that the cricumstances were such as required him to use force to defend himself from an attack or threatened attack, the jiry has to decide whether the force used was reasonable in the circumatances."
Therefore the normal test for a jury or a magistrate will be to decide whether the person using the force was acting in self - defence and whether his/ her actios were excessive. perhaps the following example will help to put the law in to a more martial art perspective .
Your are innocently walking along the street when someone approaches you, produces a knife and demands your cash . This person has a crazed look in the eyes and you fear that unless you comply he will use the knife.You hand over what money you have but it is just small change .The robber is not satisfied and gets more agitated and demands more money at this stage you have tired to defuse the situations by complaying with his request, but you are unable to provide any more money despite his demands.What to do ? you would probably be justified in striking or kicking the rober in order to incapacitate him so he is no longer a threat to your personal safety having dropped him to the floor and disarme him,what you cannot do is become the aggressor, and start to launch a barrage of strikes in order to make sure to do so would be considered beyond what is reasonable.
2. Weapons
If a person is entitled to use reasonabl force in self-defence, it follows that when a perso0n is attacked, he may use anything available to defend himself , within the bounds of what is reasonable . However , aclear distinction has to be made between the lagality of using an article that happens to be available at the time of an attack, and carrying an articale for the purpose of self-defence. The prevention of crime act 1953, sectin 1, states : any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof of which shall lie on him has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence. this is the primary legislation covering the carrying of such wepons , and it clearly prohibits the carrying of such weapon in a public place under normal circumastances.
An offensive weapon is defined as any article made , or adapted for use, to cause injury to another person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use the definition requires further examination. The frist part with offensive weapons perse where there is little doubt as to their intended purpose : items designed specifically to cause injury, such as flick knives , knuckledusters and nunchaku or items that have been deliberately adapted for the purpose, such as a metal comb, sharpened along one edge.
The secound part of the definition deals with articles , which although are not offensive weapons themselves are intended to cause injury by the person carrying them this , therefore, requires a specifi state of mind and extends the offence to cover everyday items being carried for the purpose of self-defence, such as a screwdriver under normal circumstances does not commit an offence . How ever , if it is being carried for defensive purpose in the event of an attack , it can be argued that it is an artical intended to cause injury , and the offence is committed. It is hoprd that the above summary of the law helps to answer some of the questions that arise in this difficult area.
Post a Comment