Back to Top

Self-defense laws – Minimal force to protect criminals?

Talking about self-defense laws in many countries which require you to apply only the bare minimum force to fend off an attack. Such laws protect mainly the …

Comments

Venser Vs Tezzeret says:

If someone attacks you and you can’t self-defense. Run. Run and call the
police. Cause having weapons only IMPROVES the amount of criminality. Do a
survey in the several prisons of any USA state you want. Ask people how
they got there. Then ask yourself: Would they have been able to
kill/agress/rape those persons WITHOUT the legal weapons( saying those two
words one after another is really painfull for me ) they had. You’ll
probably find out that a big maybe even the majority of them would have
done no crimes/less severe crimes. (I still like you and your videos.)

tim jones says:

No mercy for the aggressor. The criminal is protected because criminals
run the justice system.

Feffnirsbane says:

Sweden is one Example.
and if the attacker is not Ethnical swedish you Get Assult and Hatecrime
and its apparently Racism if you protect yourself…

Loot The Room Gaming says:

Spoken from experience I have defended myself countless times with a dildo
picked off the sidewalk to combat common troublesome nightlife

BeefSoda says:

This is stupid, skallagrim, Just fucking call the police, So what if police
cannot materialize on the spot, all you need to do is call the local police
and write a blog to end violence. 

arminius schild says:

And that is why liberal gun laws are the way to go. The vast majority of
the time a gun is used to stop a crime it is not fired. The mere display
will stop an attacker who otherwise would have no problem taking you out. A
big guy like in the video attacking a 5′ 7″ guy with his wife will not be
stopped by a stick, knife, crowbar or an angry glare. But pull out a pistol
and his whole attitude changes. Everyone walks away. This is not to say
that you should expect this. If you do pull a gun you had better be ready
to use it.

Everyone talks about “gun violence” like that is worse than being beaten or
stabbed. The areas in the US with the most legal carry have the least
violent crime.

God created men, Col. Colt made them equal

Кирилл Рагузин says:

In that countries in cases like this you are expected to be pretty much
considering a self defence only for a life or death situation. If the bad
guy just wants your car, your money or even you ass it is generally the
best option just to give what he wants. In a self defence scenario one
thing tends to lead to another and you can get in a really big trouble with
every silly thing you do making it harder to deal with the whole situation
and it being really hard to stay fully aware of what you are doing.

On the other hand if the question is whether you prefer to die or to go to
jail then the answer is obvious. It is better your life than his. In that
case the best option for you would be to retreat to some place nearby where
any witnesses are less likely to appear and just kill the bastard there. It
is very important to rally make sure the bad guy is dead for good because
otherwise the chances of you getting away with the thing are way too slim.
If you are lucky and you will undertake some regular measures like changing
your lifestyle, your appearence, the way and the time you get to your job
etc. you will not get caught by the police or the dead guy’s relatives or
something like that and after a while you will be able to live your life
the way you like to live. But you should always remember that the risks are
very high for the price and you should consider self defence only as a
backup plan when nothing else can help you.

Buddy Faris says:

How does one judge, on the spot, what is “minimal necessary force?” How
does one know whether their attacker is stopped, or is soon to recover and
continue the assault? How is one expected to even make legitimate, legal
decisions in an emergency, life-threatening situation? If someone is
charging me with a knife, I wouldn’t stop and think “well, this guy is this
heavy moving this fast with this sort of weapon, and I have this available,
which means absolute minimum force would be…” No. I’d pick up the nearest
weapon and quickly try to neutralize the threat. Not that all the laws in
American are perfect, I’m still glad I live somewhere it is at least legal
to defend myself with a lethal weapon if I even *feel* or *think* that my
life is in danger.

Parker8752 says:

The unfortunate thing is, the way self defence laws seem to work in Britain
is that self defence is considered a legal defence when charged with
murder, manslaughter, gbh, assault and so on. If you are found to have
used more force than was reasonable, then you are guilty of the crime with
which you were charged. The charge cannot be reduced. As such, if you
deliberately kill somebody in self defence (that is, stab them or some such
as opposed to knocking them over and they hit their head), but if the jury
decides you used excessive force, you’re going to prison for murder, not
manslaughter. The problem is, I’m quite a large guy, and most of that is
not muscle. There is, as far as I’m concerned, no such thing as a fair
fight. If a fitter and healthier person than I am chooses to attack me,
then I am almost certainly going to lose that fight. It really is that
simple. If the person in question wants to kill me, then short of using a
weapon, there is nothing I can do to prevent this.

Run away? I’d be lucky to make it ten feet, and even if those ten feet got
me to somewhere with witnesses, that probably wouldn’t help much. Fight
back with my bare hands? I’d lose. Pick something up that happens to be
lying around and defend myself with that? Assuming I won, I’d be
prosecuted for either murder or gbh, but I’d at least have my life. But
this isn’t a choice I should have to make. If a person threatens me with a
knife, I should be able to pull a weapon of my own (probably an extendible
baton, just to give me a small reach advantage) and at least have a
fighting chance. Fact of the matter is, in Britain, the only legal way for
me to actually be prepared to defend myself from attack is to lose some
weight (which I probably should do anyway, to be fair) and take up a
martial art from a reputable trainer (good luck finding one if you don’t
know what to look for). And then, you have to answer in court why you beat
the knife wielding maniac to death instead of “just” disarming him; a
question on a par with “why didn’t you just shoot him in the leg?”…

SayNoTo Democide says:

I’ve thought about the rules at some schools, and one pops out that I have
a pet peeve with: you can get in trouble if you fight back against the
attacker. For some reason, part of my mind is yelling a conspiracy theory
where the rule was made to set kids up to be used to be dependent on the
government for protection. Rather if it is true or not, if, say, little
Timmy was smacking my legs but not doing much I might hold back. But, if
angry Swede (as in Swede from the movie “Heartbreak ridge”) tries to cave
my skull in or something then I’ll fight. Basically, by school rules, well,
I’ll tell you the situation: after the fight, me and Swede are sitting in
the principal office. The principal says that I’m in trouble because the
school cameras show that when I flinched I accidently bumped Swede and I’ll
get expelled from school because I acted in self defense while Swede gets
away “Scott free”. And the irony is, Swede doesn’t have a single scratch or
bruise on him while I am sitting in a wheel chair wrapped up in a cast like
a mummy with multiple IV tubes are going into me.

And, let’s say that if I fought back and injured or even killed Swede,
about the only thing I can say (this situation is in court) is “The only
thing I can say is sorry. He started the fight. He is responsible for it.
If he gets harmed, too bad: I’d rather be behind bars than on a autopsy
table. Heck, I think a soldier from the American revolution once said ‘I’d
rather die on my feet like a man rather than on my knees like a slave’. And
(turning toward to a law enforcement officer guarding us), officer, if
someone was to pull a weapon out and fire at us and/or others, would you
take your own and fight back or will you let them harm us and/or others”?
The officer says “Of coarse, yes. But how is that relevant to the
discussion”? I say “Well, if you can practice your right to self
preservation why can’t I or anyone else”?

IJustLostweight says:

Here in the states you can kill black people with impunity yet face charges
for legitimate self defense.

Liam Burgess says:

I swear at 2:35 there is a dildo at the bottom of the screen
hmm yes grab things that are around you, yes lets grab this dildo out of
me, that wont make him want to rape me at all

Michael Currier says:

You can’t use excessive force anywhere, and for good reason. If you’re
doing more than you have to, you’re just hurting a disabled man or shooting
somebody for a robbery. I’ve been robbed. You don’t have to shoot anybody
to survive–it actually makes things worse for all involved. 

dylan Lewis says:

a 2×4, a pipe, a bike chain, a glass bottle, a rock, or a dildo, why a
dildo

DreadlockDrummer says:

2:54 is that purple thing a dildo?

TheBaumfaeller says:

human worth = 1
Dead Human =0
Human Who is a danger to another person = 1-1=0
In my opinion a human who attacks another human loses al his human rights.
For the moment his worth is 0 becouse his life is the same worth as the
berson he brings in danger
But with the addition that everyone has the duty to protectevery human
being.

Krzysztof Poniatowski says:

I live in Poland, in this country is conception of “minimal force to stop
attacker” BUT firstly in this country you CAN carry for expample massive
two handed sword, when yoy’re going to… buy a wegetables for a dinner and
police or city guard ( we have something like this ( and it is more useless
than police and thay just giving a mandate for everything everyone well
only if you don’t know law ) i don’t know how it looks in other countries )
cannot stop you because of you just carry it. I think this is nice because
even if you have only 170 cm haigh, weight 75 kilo and not so big chest and
arms i think this is enough, becasue i often go trough “dark alleys” and i
never been attacked, this sword do everything for me my dog can do sh*t in
in the middle of the road and eeweryone who see this, do nothing ( of
course i clean up this BUT even police and city guard for some reason look
in other side ) . And now the best you can use this sword if your attacker
have for example knife to butter BECAUSE both weapons are melee weapons (
there is no law regulations about malee weapons THAT IS FCKING AWESOME )
SOOOOO. Go to Poland if you want to feel free when defending yourself or
someone else. But you earn 4-5 times less money for work, than in Germany
or UK but well i can defend myself.

TheRhinehart86 says:

I’m a bouncer in Australia, I don’t have weapons and I have to use force
all the time, including massive roid munchers and crack heads. I don’t know
about other countries but I’ve never been in trouble for excessive force,
generally in my experience police are pretty reasonable about these sort of
things and they take into account things like history of violence,
intoxication and size difference. Excessive force depends on what you do,
if you hit a guy twice your size in the head with a rock or bottle and he
goes down, it’s over, danger averted. If you continue pummeling him, that’s
excessive. Mainly, if the other guy dies it becomes your word against his
and you have to prove that you were reasonably afraid for your safety.
What’s the alternative? Stand you ground laws like they have in America
where you’re automatically innocent of shooting someone so long as you’re
the only one alive?

Jonatan Lindgren says:

I’m not familiar with these kind of laws in other countries, but here in
Sweden you are NOT required to use minimum force. You are, however,
required not to continue the use force after the threat has been averted.
For example, if you’re attacked in your home and you hit the attacker in
the head with whatever’s next to you, like frying pan, with full force and
you kill him, then you’re acting withing the bounds of the law. If you were
to just hit him unconscious or in another way stop the attack, but then
proceed to “double-tap”, then you probably would be charged with assault or
worse.

KILLER21402 says:

You sir… Have my ear.

(Big show,Jack Nicholson, great examples)

Cale Luminson says:

2:28 is that didlo i see adorning the bottom of the screen?

ToyHaunter says:

A friend of mine was attacked by a drunkard with a screwdriver just a
couple months ago. My friend laid him out on the ground and called the
cops. The drunk was still alive, if a little worse for wear, and the cops
understood that it was self defense. The idiot got 8 years in jail for
assault with a deadly weapon. 

ImmortaL0Shadow says:

while i agree with your opinion, there is one issue with it, what if you
provoke your attacker, he’s a bit drunk, you’re a bit drunk, he looks at
you wrong, you insult him, he wants to walk away, you insult him some more,
he attacks, you’re both in fault at that point. it’s not because the other
guy attacks that you can suddenly, legally, bring up a minigun and claim
‘it was self-defense’. that’s what i believe the law is for. under the
circumstances you described with the hulk storming at you, i think a court
would not convict you for using a picked up led pipe, unless you bash him
to death after he already went down.

Jordan Jaudon says:

i love how in america the law is basically only keep them alive if you want
to.

T.A.D G.R says:

I turned my around for a second and looked at the screen after 6:08 and got
spooked ‘:(

drh kleinert says:

And in germany is a passus in the Self defense law what allows overimpacted
self defense if the attacked person is in fear or “on adrenaline”. In life
its not like in a movie, its much more stress and fear. So if you are an
experienced martial artist its bad for you because the judge will think
that you can handle a fight situation.

DrBernon says:

All these laws are based in the believe that bad people doesn’t exist, that
they do bad things because they don’t know what is good and if they had
known that was wrong, then they wouldn’t do it. So you don’t have to punish
them or harm them because they are ignorants that can be educated. And that
is why in prison they have activities to do(like go to olympic climatized
swimming pools), the university for free and can work to have a salary even
though they have no expenses.
IT’S JUST A SHAME!!!

Justin Gilliand says:

Hay guy. I’m around 7ft tall and close to 400lbs. My comment isn’t an
attack, but a question. There are more laws and prejudices against dudes
like myself. What would we do in situations like this? Not up for other
youtubers to comment on. I’m not interested in pompous asses that think
they know more than they really do or retards trying to start flame wars.
Thanks for the read, sorry for the insults. Peace be upon you bro.

Rem Twilight says:

Mortal kombat rule, FINNISH HIM!, Dispose of body, move on with life.

Chris Cowell says:

You should talk to the Government so they change that law it’s stupid,
people are legally allowed to defend themselves against an attacker as long
as they stop when the person is no longer a threat.

Nii Kojo says:

“If you’re attacked unlawfully” what!? Can you get attacked lawfully? I’m
guessing that is police brutality then. Somebody please hit me back with an
answer.

JoeRingo118 says:

people use all force they have when encountering a hostile, but usually
saying “minimum force” means that you should atleast TRY not to use your
full force. plenty of countries have “stand your ground” and other laws
that directly go from “light harassment” to “death penatly by civil force”.

and most civillians are very paranoid.
look at all police shootings in the US, and then try to tell me that
civillians would handle it even better.

steve l says:

I despair at British law and it’s insane over protection of criminals.
There was a classic case back in the 70’s during the Irish troubles where a
suspected IRA car drove through an Army checkpoint, one of the Para’s
manning it opened fire and fired 4 rounds at the fleeing vehicle killing
one occupant with the 4th round, but because there was a hesitation between
the 3rd and 4th shot it was deemed to be an AIMED shot and our wonderful
Crown prosecution Service brought a case of MURDER against him. Freaking
insane …

drh kleinert says:

In germany the defender (if german) is allways fuxxed by the law…you have
to pay lots of money if you injure the attacker. So the only can only lose.
In the most cases the attacker will say that YOU start the fight and brings
some friends who say the same.

Mister Media says:

Canadian self-defense is very very questionable, though Harper once
promised to get a rewrite and some clarification of rights, it hasn’t
happened yet, and i suspect his attention has shifted.

To fully protect yourself:
You have to warn your attacker that you will defend yourself.
The more warnings you give, and the more people that hear you, the better.

You mustn’t block or counter an attack: if you hit them and they haven’t
hit you, you can still go down for it.

You must only strike back if you have been struck. Even then, a hold/joint
lock/running away will guarantee your legal safety far more. counter to
what could guarantee your physical safety.

It helps tremendously if the attacker is significantly larger than the
defender, and if the person was uttering death threats, or produces a
weapon. You must be able to say “i felt like my life was in immediate
danger”.

it’s RIDICULOUS. especially considering tazers and pepper spray are both
illegal here. how the hell is a smaller or elderly person supposed to
defend themselves? let alone a young, able bodied, strong and capable
person under these retarding guidelines.

The way it should work:
do whatever you have to to protect yourself, or someone nearby in immanent
danger.
the goal should not be permanent injury, but a quick and effective end to
the encounter.

-to the point of killing ONLY if the situation calls for it: a) a much
larger attacker is attacking a much smaller defender viciously, to where
death or permanent injury seems likely, and or b) the attacker is armed
with a deadly weapon, or is capable of using an implement as a deadly
weapon, and or c) the number of attackers and level of severity of the
threat (multiple large opponents, multitude of smaller but aggressive
opponents, some opponents armed, some not) exceeds otherwise reasonable
means of defense.

“he’s just drunk, he’s not normally violent” is not an excuse, upon
instigation or threatening of violence, intoxication (however defined)
should not be considered part of the attackers defense.

ngc4594 says:

An expression I was given in combat training was “better to be judge by 12
than carried by 6″

Lawrence Helliadis says:

There is no such thing as minimal force in the UK, do not know about other
countries.

Rainbow Tank says:

Hell, are you reading my mind or something? Every single time someone
mentions any of self-defense law nonsense, these very arguments which
immediately crop up to me. Also as in one knife combat book was said
(roughly on the lines of): “If you are forced to fight, do not allow any
room for your opponent to retaliate. Use all and every force until he or
she no longer resists, because that is the only instance when he or she is
no longer potentially able to harm you.”. If I am to be attacked, I really
am not going to measure anything, I would only stop, until I can be certain
the attacker will not get up any time soon. If law has a problem with it,
then fuck them, I ain’t gonna let myself get killed just because some idiot
pushed such nonsense as a law.

Spearra says:

In other words, sit there and die. Either way, someone dies (or severely
injured) except one side (criminals) gets away scott free.

In other words, EVERYTHING is excessive force is up to that point.
Then there are corrupt police so even if we were to rely on government
protection, ya no, relying on other people when you are physically able to
fight back isn’t idle.

Say what you must, but I think S.D. Laws (and bans on “weapons”) bullshit.
Remember, criminals DON’T listen to laws, there already unrestrained by
them. Why restrain someone to fight for their life. Again, basically either
be a criminal and the actual idiot gets away, or die and the idiot gets
away (they CAN be caught but to be honest, waiting on police isn’t idle in
a split second important fight).

kittehdrawrs says:

its funny b/c paul wight (aka the first guy you showed) is one of the
nicest people

BuHTu4eK says:

I know that current laws are full of flaws, but think about other
situation. Some bad guy just attacks you and shoots in the face and, for
example, puts a knife in your hand. Then, while in court, he states that it
was legitimate self-defense and with no other witness, he would go free.
Also, you may be invited into bad guy’s house and then be shot.

How such situations should be handled?
Personally, I don`t see the perfect law, that can prevent all misuses.

Such cases mostly happen without other witnesses, so if one of them is
killed, we can hear only one story, which definitely would favor the
survivor.
Yes, there are some clear cases, especially if there is video or other
independent witnesses. But in general, how can you tell who was really an
attacker?

Bill Jacobs says:

I…actually think these laws have SOME use. SOME. If a 90 pound woman gets
smashed, and I somehow make her mad, so she takes a drunken, stumbling
swing at me, I shouldn’t be legally allowed to respond by slamming my knee
into her rib cage with enough force to shatter bones. I could be wrong, but
I believe this kind of thing was the original intent. Or take a fight; how
often do young men get in fights with even their friends? A few punches are
thrown, a few threats shouted, their other friends pry them apart; it’s not
unusual. I think the law was to prevent one side from responding to a
moderate punch by doing a MLB-style swing with a pool cue into their
opponent’s jugular. So there was a reason for these to exist. Then they
were “interpreted” to the point of being a farce. One district might
consider a large, powerful man attacking you bare-handed to be worthy of
lethal force, while another might only permit a lethal force retaliation
with a gun if the attacker also has a gun, even if the law is written
exactly the same. Fucking lawyers; how do they work?

mexamexo8 says:

What about using as much force you see fit, as long as it doesn’t kill him
or leaves him unable to communicate? That’s easy to measure. Besides, those
laws are intended to stop cases of people misjudging situations, and
killing the person in return, like trayvon martin, so it’s not about
protecting the criminal, is about protecting him just enough, so the case
can be fairly judged and making sure the supposed victim is not just lying
to get away with murder.
Can it be done better? Absolutely, I’m just calling to look a t the bigger
picture so we don’t lean too much in one side of the issue.

César Chaussinand says:

I may be wrong, but i think this law isn’t about “using the minimal force
to actually protect yourself”, but more “don’t using “extra” force that is
obviously don’t mean to protect yourself”. Because of the unclear side of
this law, i think it can only be used in case of obvious free brutality.
Law isn’t to be feared when someone threaten your life.

blackrave404 says:

1:00- one well timed punch in the throat
1:15- one well timed punch in the throat
1:30- nuke (and lots of praying)

P.S. Get a belt with big beltbuckle- nice flail

Simon Baumgart says:

Dont come at me! i will beat you into submission with this non-suspicious
dildo im carrying for a legitimate reason! XD

Jesse York says:

Indiana’s self defense laws are awesome!

AnthroShark says:

There are lists full of people out there who died because they were more
concerned about the law and getting punished for harming the criminal over
defending themselves.

The people out there who brought in these laws are frankly, guilty of
manslaughter hundreds of times over. There is a special place in hell for
them lined with good intentions.

Ethan Manley says:

In murica we can carry weapons around legally

Damon Smith says:

When I was at school, someone was throwing assault rocks at this boy.
Another time, someone was about to attack me with his assault poll also ;D

Write a comment

*