Copyright © Geoff Thompson 2004
The right of Geoff Thompson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with section 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, nor transmitted, nor translated into a machine language, without the written permission of the publisher.

– THE SECOND ENEMY –

Before I delve into the histrionics of the law and how you the victim stand within it, I must say this. As important as the law may be, you would be foolish to contemplate legal implications when an assault on your person is imminent. To think of such things will cause indecision, which begets defeat. One second of indecision can mean the difference between defending yourself successfully and getting battered, raped, robbed or murdered.

I call the law the second enemy: this is not meant to be derogatory to the police. I am very pro-police, and believe that on the whole they do a very good job, though often thankless. Having been on the wrong side of the law a few times in my capacity as a nightclub doorman, I feel it my duty to warn you of the inherent dangers of dealing with what can be a sticky judicial system, post assault.

Many people are convicted not for what they have done but for what they have said. You are judged on your statement as opposed to the incident itself. So, what does this mean in English? Basically you could defend yourself within the law and yet still be convicted and sent to jail because you did not quote the law correctly when giving a statement. Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law. So if self-defence is your aim and you are serious about it then you had better get to grips with the law that governs your land. I’d rather be punched in the eye by a mugger than shafted by an antiquated and often unsympathetic judicial system. Know the law, know your rights and get a good understanding of how you are going to stand after the fact.

What is not commonly known is that, post-assault, you probably will be suffering from adrenal-induced tachypsychia. This causes time distortion, memory loss and memory distortion, and many other side effects of the adrenal syndrome that can affect your ability to make an accurate statement if the police become involved. When you make a statement to the police it is hardly likely to be accurate taking these things into account. Six months down the line when you turn up in court to defend your actions, everything will hang upon that statement, even though your head might have been out there with Pluto when you wrote it. Next thing you know you are being convicted for what you have said and not for what you have done.

So when you make the statement make sure that you are clear about how you stand in the law and what you can and cannot say. If you cannot think clearly, insist on waiting until the next day before making a statement. If you are not sure of how you stand within the law then insist on a duty solicitor to give you advice. Don’t put pen to paper until you feel right. A police cell can be a very lonely and intimidating place when you do not understand the law, and the police can often be guilty of rushing, even pressuring you for a quick statement. This pressure can be very subtle and effective: being left alone for long periods of time, being told that you might be looking at prison if you do not cooperate, ‘good cop-bad cop’ (yes, they really do try that old trick). Many a tough guy has come out of the police cells with tears in his eyes and a written testimony saying that he did things he did not do because he ‘just wanted to go home’.

Part of learning self-defence entails gaining an understanding of the law, because if you defend yourself successfully and eclipse the attacker you will have to answer to a higher authority. ‘Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six’.

The law is even negligent of its own officers:

‘Police watchdogs are demanding a hard-line court crackdown on drunken street yobs behind the rising tide of attacks on beat bobbies.

‘They want an end to so-called plea bargaining between lawyers, which leads to thugs facing ‘watered down’ charges.

‘The plea for action from Warwickshire police authority is a direct reaction to the 50 percent surge in the number of attacks on officers last year.

‘A total of 377 days were lost through sickness as 169 male, 26 female and 16 special police officers reported too badly hurt to work.

‘Chief Constable Peter Joslin admitted officers were left frustrated and annoyed when cases of assault against them were dropped in exchange for guilty pleas to other more or less serious charges.

‘He said: “Most of the attacks are alcohol related. Only last weekend an officer was assaulted twice in one night, once with a billiard ball in a sock.

‘“We are seen more and more as fair game, but it is as much a problem with society as anything else.”’ – Coventry Evening Telegraph, January 13, 1995

For your information here a few things it might help to know about the law and how you stand within.

When asked what advice he would give to women who were worried about being arrested for hurting a man who was attacking them, George Boyle, Superintendent with the Metropolitan Police for thirty five years before his retirement, said, ‘Don’t even consider it [the law]. Defend yourself if you are being attacked. Women should always fight back and defend themselves. If they scream they should scream the word ‘Rape!’ It is more likely to attract attention and make people react. A woman under attack should not swear abusively as people in hearing range might think that they are just another pair of roughnecks who have been drinking too much.’

Talk to any policeman or read any text on law, and from the myriad paragraphs and sub-paragraphs swims, again and again, one word: ‘reasonable’. An assault upon a person who is attacking or even about to attack you must show ‘reasonable’ force if it is to be deemed lawful. The dictionary definition of reasonable is, ‘In accordance with reason. Not extreme or excessive’. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (1967) states: ‘A person may use such force as is ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances, in the prevention of crime.’

‘A man who bit a chunk off another man’s nose walked free from the crown court after a jury decided he had acted in self-defence.’ – March 1993, Wakefield, West Yorkshire

In actuality, reasonable force is dictated by you, the victim. You determine what is reasonable force. If you think that only a very severe blow will stop your assailant then that is reasonable force. If you think that the attacker needs to be unconscious before you are safe then that is also reasonable force. However, if it is to be deemed as reasonable in the eyes of the law then you need to know which are the right words to say in a statement to make the judicial magic work. These words are only two in number: ‘honest belief ’. If you make your pre-emptive attack on your potential attacker, then you need to say that you had the honest belief that you were about to be attacked so attacked first in self-defence. If you stuck your attacker with a hatpin that force can be justified by saying that you honestly believed that any less force would have been too little and got you badly injured or maybe even killed by your assailant.

If the policeman taking the statement says of your pre-emptive attack, ‘surely you can’t be 100 percent sure that he was going to attack you’, you might be wise to say that you were ‘as sure as I can be’ that he was about to attack, that’s why you attacked first. If at any time you feel lost or unsure wait for official representation and demand you rights.

Even a serious wounding upon an adversary may be excusable if it is occasioned reasonable in the circumstances, and all the more justifiable in court (though not essential) if the person claiming self-defence demonstrates that at the time of the assault/attempted assault he did not want to fight. As coincidence would have it, this ties in nicely with my theories on fence work and verbal, mental disarmament, i.e. telling your antagonist that you do not want to fight in order to mentally disarm him before you strike. Even the pre-emptive strike is tolerated in law, if the person claiming self-defence can again show that he was in imminent danger of assault and so made a pre-emptive attack to stop the said assault.

This may be demonstrated in law by the person claiming self-defence telling the police or courts (if they become involved), for example, that the antagonist shouted profanities at him and then moved aggressively toward him, forcing him to attack first. Again it helps if you can demonstrate that at the time you did not want to fight. Of course, the pre-emptive strike must be justified. If your antagonist/ potential antagonist has his hands in his pockets at the time of your pre-emptive strike, your actions would, no doubt, be seen as unlawful. If you stepped forward to deliver your pre-emptive strike, it may also be construed as unlawful because you moved toward him rather than he toward you. If you knock the person to the ground using reasonable force, to all intents and purposes, a further strike to the said person would be classed as unreasonable force, and therefore as being unlawful. This also ties in nicely with my recommendation to hit and run. If you do strike when he is down then it was because he was trying to get back up and was therefore still a danger to you.

The use of incidental weapons (as detailed in chapter 4 – ‘Attacking Tools’) may also be excusable in the law if the former criteria of reasonable force is maintained. For example, a nine stone woman being dragged against her will into bushes by a fifteen stone man whom she stabs in the jugular with a pair of scissors, killing him, would very likely be dealt with leniently by any court in the land. It is likely, however, that she would have to demonstrate that the implied weapon was incidental, and therefore not unlawful. Attacks with such weapons as knuckledusters, flick knives and the like, even in defence, would in most cases be seen as unreasonable, and therefore unlawful.

In brief and to sum up, the defence of property or person are rights in common law (Butterworth – Police Law). Additionally, a person who acts in defence of himself, of another, or of property, is invariably acting in the prevention of crime, in which case he also has the support of the Criminal Law Act 1967, Section 3. For practical purposes, the terms of both the common law and the statutory defences are identical in their requirements.

The issue of self-defence as an excuse for a non-fatal offence against a person has been summarised extremely well by the court of appeal. The court said that it was both good law and good sense that a person who is attacked may defend himself, but that in doing so, he may only do what is reasonably necessary.

The test of whether or not the force is reasonable is an objective one, but it is assessed on the facts as the person concerned believed them to be. It is also important, but not essential, that a person claiming self-defence demonstrates that he did not want to fight.

The law on defence of property or of another, is essentially the same as in self-defence, the essential question being ‘was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?’ Defence of property does not entitle the owner of property to use force against persons who trespass upon his land without offering force. In such a case the trespasser must be requested to leave before there is any hostile touching. If the trespasser is ‘handled’ it must amount to no more that is necessary to remove him from the property. If a trespasser offers force, then it may be met by whatever force is necessary to overcome it and remove him. If the owner of the land (house) is severely attacked, even a serious wounding may be excusable if it was occasioned reasonable in the circumstances, but it is always open to the other party to allege that the degree of force was excessive.

For the avoidance of doubt, it must be stated that the mere fact that a person has used force against another was provoked to lose self-control (as opposed to acting in self-defence, etc.), is no excuse in law. Of course, if a person who has used provocative words or conduct then makes some immediately threatening move toward the person to whom his words or conduct are directed, he has carried out an assault, and reasonable resistance to it would amount to self-defence. If no more than provocation is involved, this is relevant in relation to the penalty that the court may award.

Again, I must re-emphasise that too much regard to how you stand within the law could prove detrimental. The time to think about such things is afterwards if the police become involved.

Basically, if you make a pre-emptive attack on an attacker and then make good your escape, which is what I recommend, you should be safe in the eyes of the law.

As a final note: the law differs from country to country, though most recognise the right to ‘self-defence’. The foregoing chapter should be used as a rule of thumb and not as actual fact.

For more details contact your local police station.

Epilogue

In the previous chapters we have explored self-protection in its entirety. If the preventative methods herein are conscientiously adhered to, you will undoubtedly reduce not only the chances of victimisation, but also the chances of failing to defend yourself should a situation arise.

Mastery of the techniques prescribed is not necessary, though competence surely is. It is not enough to look at the pictures, read the text and expect competence to automatically come. You must practise, rehearse and act out scenarios. Do not just practise them as dance-like steps, visualise and make them real, put your mind into practice and make-believe you are there. If your chosen partners for practice are giggly and silly, lose them, get yourself partners who want to practise seriously. Make self-protection an everyday part of your life, like eating and drinking. Involve your family, children, spouse: and remember, you don’t have to be a victim. Keep coded up and make attack prevention a part of your everyday life.