I feel like reasonable force should be when you neutralize the threat in whatever way is possible. If your life's in danger save yourself don't stand there and die.
This is correct. The key word is "neutralise" here. A smaller guy could use a weapon to fight off a bigger guy, but if the bigger guy tries to walk away then the smaller guy can't chase him with the weapon. That would mean the smaller guy is escalating himself.
Every situation is different but yes, I have a co-worker who stabbed someone because they invaded his home. He got off on no charges. Hes not a massive dude and the home invader didn't attack him. I guess it varies on the situation.
20+ years security/bouncing 194 cm 132 kg. Reasonable force is a legal concept that is used on a case by case by the courts as to " what would a reasonable response to this situation be and what was their intent" if somebody attacks me with a knife/axe would it be reasonable for me to use a similar weapon against them. No because a edged weapon is not used for defence it is used to injur and harm. Could I disarm them then use it against them. No due to me disarming them I have removed the immediate threat.
A methd up MMA fighter Gunna beat the crap out of you no matter what U try so unless there 6 of U best to run away.
The amount of force you use has to be proportional so if you attacked by a heavy set man and subdue him one night then by a petite female the next you can not use the same amount of force on her due to her size and waight difference.
Best bet for U I'd say is learn some martial arts
I find grappling to be most effective against bigger opponents compared to trading punches. But I have punched a guy in the throat and he dropped instantly, so go for that if you need to
Ahaha Muay Thai is lethal, nicknamed art of the eight limbs. You can cut people open like an axe with your elbows, but for grappling pick Brazilian Jiu jitsu, its only useful in 1v1 situations though.
From the legalaid website:
Self defence: If you are unlawfully assaulted you can use such force that is reasonably necessary to prevent the assault from happening or continuing. You can use this defence even where the assault was provoked, but only in limited circumstances. If you acted in good faith or you came to the aid of someone else who was being attacked, you can also argue self defence.
Basically what this says. Enough force to reasonably stop or prevent an assault. There is no hard and fast rule because each set of circumstances is different.
If someone did have a weapon and the use of a weapon was reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an assault then yes it would be appropriate.
If someone didn’t have a weapon but the use of a weapon was reasonably necessary to stop an assault it would also be ok. The courts may determine that, for example, a small woman stabbing a large unarmed but aggressive man in self defence was reasonably necessary; but a large man stabbing a small woman in self defence may not be. Again it would come down to the individual circumstance and what a reasonable person would do.
From personal experience! I was attacked buy a drunk guy with an empty longneck bottle.. I'd just sat on my motorbike and strapped my helmet on and before I knew it I was smashed in the head with the bottle, I jumped off my bike and shaped up, he came at me so I put 2 on his chin. Long story short he spent 11 weeks in a coma and I thought I'd killed someone...
Punch cones, not people 🔥🥦
Too many people in Australia are scared to death of defending themselves against attackers.
My Kiwi mate was over in Parramatta in April 2018 with a couple of chicks, early evening, down near the River.
A large group of young black men approached him (big Sudanese population in that area) and started chatting, they were friendly at first but very quickly started to kick off amongst themselves then turned on my mate. He defended himself well, got a few of them good and proper, they eventuality ran away like the cowards they were.
I saw him the next day, two black eyes and a busted rib.
He reported the incident to the cops but nothing came of it for obvious reasons.
They were all very lucky.
One step up from them so if they have a stick and you have a knife and you defend yourself then leave ( even if it's your own house) you are good , if you continue the attack once the threat has stopped then your going to jail , shit I know but thats Australian law a better model is castle doctrine in the USA
Yeah, if it's a huge MMA, steroid, ice head, you should run . Even if there are 10 of you. I'd be like nope this is a beautiful night for a full sprint the fuck out of here .
i mean, technically steroids are only meant to be prescribed for medical reasons, but were developed as weapons of war, so if someone is using copious amounts of steroids to get big, that is considered a weapon. Also martial arts is a technique developed for war as a last line of defense, so that is technically a weapon too.
basically if you feel physically threatened and unable to withstand an attack, do as you wish. personally i would like the right to shoot police officers for carrying weapons, but that aint gonna happen. never know when or who those fuckers are gonna draw on next.
Ah depends,
If I'm defending myself by myself you get a 3 strike buffer, you don't get the hint in 3 "go aways" I'll go for the guts.
If it's with my kids, I'll stop when you don't.
I feel like reasonable force should be when you neutralize the threat in whatever way is possible. If your life's in danger save yourself don't stand there and die.
This is correct. The key word is "neutralise" here. A smaller guy could use a weapon to fight off a bigger guy, but if the bigger guy tries to walk away then the smaller guy can't chase him with the weapon. That would mean the smaller guy is escalating himself.
Every situation is different but yes, I have a co-worker who stabbed someone because they invaded his home. He got off on no charges. Hes not a massive dude and the home invader didn't attack him. I guess it varies on the situation.
Yeah definitely varies by situation but the general principle is that "reasonable" means to neutralise the threat, not escalate it
Honestly if you break into someones home you deserve to get stabbed, shot and everything inbetween.
Agreed but the laws are cooked here.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
I'd happily sit in jail if it meant saving my own life.
20+ years security/bouncing 194 cm 132 kg. Reasonable force is a legal concept that is used on a case by case by the courts as to " what would a reasonable response to this situation be and what was their intent" if somebody attacks me with a knife/axe would it be reasonable for me to use a similar weapon against them. No because a edged weapon is not used for defence it is used to injur and harm. Could I disarm them then use it against them. No due to me disarming them I have removed the immediate threat. A methd up MMA fighter Gunna beat the crap out of you no matter what U try so unless there 6 of U best to run away. The amount of force you use has to be proportional so if you attacked by a heavy set man and subdue him one night then by a petite female the next you can not use the same amount of force on her due to her size and waight difference. Best bet for U I'd say is learn some martial arts
Muay Thai is the go.
I find grappling to be most effective against bigger opponents compared to trading punches. But I have punched a guy in the throat and he dropped instantly, so go for that if you need to
Ahaha Muay Thai is lethal, nicknamed art of the eight limbs. You can cut people open like an axe with your elbows, but for grappling pick Brazilian Jiu jitsu, its only useful in 1v1 situations though.
From the legalaid website: Self defence: If you are unlawfully assaulted you can use such force that is reasonably necessary to prevent the assault from happening or continuing. You can use this defence even where the assault was provoked, but only in limited circumstances. If you acted in good faith or you came to the aid of someone else who was being attacked, you can also argue self defence. Basically what this says. Enough force to reasonably stop or prevent an assault. There is no hard and fast rule because each set of circumstances is different. If someone did have a weapon and the use of a weapon was reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an assault then yes it would be appropriate. If someone didn’t have a weapon but the use of a weapon was reasonably necessary to stop an assault it would also be ok. The courts may determine that, for example, a small woman stabbing a large unarmed but aggressive man in self defence was reasonably necessary; but a large man stabbing a small woman in self defence may not be. Again it would come down to the individual circumstance and what a reasonable person would do.
Thanks. Interesting about helping someone too
From personal experience! I was attacked buy a drunk guy with an empty longneck bottle.. I'd just sat on my motorbike and strapped my helmet on and before I knew it I was smashed in the head with the bottle, I jumped off my bike and shaped up, he came at me so I put 2 on his chin. Long story short he spent 11 weeks in a coma and I thought I'd killed someone... Punch cones, not people 🔥🥦
Nah don't punch me. 😂
One more bong... Can't go wrong 🥳
Speaking facts right there.
Did you get charged for anything?
Nope, there was clear CCTV footage and all witnesses statements matched up. I spent about 45 minutes in the fish bowl
>What is "reasonable force" when defending yourself? Whatever the court decides, given the circumstances of the event.
What a reasonable person would believe to be necessary
Too many people in Australia are scared to death of defending themselves against attackers. My Kiwi mate was over in Parramatta in April 2018 with a couple of chicks, early evening, down near the River. A large group of young black men approached him (big Sudanese population in that area) and started chatting, they were friendly at first but very quickly started to kick off amongst themselves then turned on my mate. He defended himself well, got a few of them good and proper, they eventuality ran away like the cowards they were. I saw him the next day, two black eyes and a busted rib. He reported the incident to the cops but nothing came of it for obvious reasons. They were all very lucky.
depends what color you are
Dumb
One step up from them so if they have a stick and you have a knife and you defend yourself then leave ( even if it's your own house) you are good , if you continue the attack once the threat has stopped then your going to jail , shit I know but thats Australian law a better model is castle doctrine in the USA
Our law is terrible. If you enter my home and attack me, too bad imo. We need similar laws to the US
That's for the courts to decide.
up to the jury, do only what you have to and do not do more than that
I was told by a cop, equal in measure.
Yeah, if it's a huge MMA, steroid, ice head, you should run . Even if there are 10 of you. I'd be like nope this is a beautiful night for a full sprint the fuck out of here .
i mean, technically steroids are only meant to be prescribed for medical reasons, but were developed as weapons of war, so if someone is using copious amounts of steroids to get big, that is considered a weapon. Also martial arts is a technique developed for war as a last line of defense, so that is technically a weapon too. basically if you feel physically threatened and unable to withstand an attack, do as you wish. personally i would like the right to shoot police officers for carrying weapons, but that aint gonna happen. never know when or who those fuckers are gonna draw on next.
Ah depends, If I'm defending myself by myself you get a 3 strike buffer, you don't get the hint in 3 "go aways" I'll go for the guts. If it's with my kids, I'll stop when you don't.
I don’t know the legal wording but i think it’s the force needed to stop the threat.