* Someone who participates in a team sport is considered to have consented to a certain amount of force being used against him.
* A doctor operating on a patient would be guilty of assault more serious if the patient did not consent.
* Hitting someone in an overcrowded train is free to be part of everyday life.
In addition, courts have always upheld the right of an individual to protect themselves or others, and have repeatedly said they are allowed to use force or violence to do so. While the amount of force used is excessive self-defense – or defense of another person – has the legal effect of making what might otherwise have been a criminal act.
Public Perception of Self-Defense
There has been confusion about what is allowed by law when a person is acting in self defense. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their families and their homes. There is a belief that U.S. citizens are in a much stronger position in terms of self-defense law is concerned.
However, although not embodied in the statute, the law in this country is very clear:
* A person has a right to protect themselves or others;
* What can cause violence and / or use of weapons to do so;
* The level of violence can include killing the aggressor, and
* A person may even act preventively and is still having acted in self defense.
The protection afforded to honest citizens by the principle of self-defense comes in two stages.
The Crown Prosecution Service
Before a case goes to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether to go that far. In reaching this decision are several factors that the CPS will take into account, including:
* If there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction, and
* If a process is in the public interest.
The CPS said that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families and property should not be prosecuted for their actions.
There will be cases where the circumstances of the case, a lawsuit goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self defense or in severe injury or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that death will automatically result in the prosecution.
Defense and the courts
If an individual is prosecuted after having performed, or have claimed to act in self-defense before the courts will apply the following test:
* Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances he or she thinks they are?
The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the person he saw when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, family members or even a complete stranger if you really think they’re in danger or a victim of an unlawful act, such as assault. A person may even have what is known as a preemptive strike if you honestly believe that the circumstances require. This means that a person may use force if they believe there is an imminent threat of violence if not the first act.
What if someone makes a mistake?
The law of self-defense even can excuse an assault, or death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the manner it did – when there was never any real danger. If the person who really believed they were acting in self defense, which may be sufficient. However, if the only reason the person that went wrong was because they were drunk is unlikely to succeed in using this as a defense.
Conclusion
The law in its current form provides very broad protection to people who use violence to protect themselves or others. Such protection is an act that could have been a very serious infringement becomes legal. It is also the stated intent of the CPS that individuals who act this way should not even be found in the courts.