Assaulted at work. No right to self-defence

12467

Comments

  • powerful_Rogue
    powerful_Rogue Posts: 7,516 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Common law states:


    Any person may use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to defend themself or another from an immediate threat.

    Obviously we only have your version of events, but based on what you said:
    A parent of one of my players confronted me after we had lost (what a sin!) and threatened me verbally and non verbally. I had already put distance between us. He continued to rant and then threatened me again before he came towards my face. I instinctively pushed him away - it was actually as soft as it could have been on his chest.


    It sounds like you believed there was an immediate and direct threat of violence, so pushed him away to protect yourself.


    Only you can make the decision on what action to take, as long as its proportionate and necessary.
  • Marcon
    Marcon Posts: 10,645 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    powerful_Rogue wrote: »
    Common law states:


    Any person may use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to defend themself or another from an immediate threat.

    Obviously we only have your version of events, but based on what you said:




    It sounds like you believed there was an immediate and direct threat of violence, so pushed him away to protect yourself.


    Only you can make the decision on what action to take, as long as its proportionate and necessary.

    ....all of which is completely irrelevant in this case, given that it doesn't hinge on whether or not a criminal act was committed.
    Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!  
  • Gavin83
    Gavin83 Posts: 8,748 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Bargainhunter69 wrote: »
    I am in the right, that wasn't the point.

    If you are so convinced of your rights why did you start this thread?

    You are one of those new posters who is convinced they're right, unwilling to listen to those who disagree with them and has a bad attitude to match. I'd suggest listening to some of the very good advice in this thread but I assume you probably won't.

    I wish you the best of luck in resolving this issue, you'll need it.
  • Bargainhunter69
    Bargainhunter69 Posts: 8 Forumite
    I posted a reply much earlier but it isn't there. First the case was a real one.
    It wasn't actually me. I go to college and know the person very well. In college there was a discussion on risk assessment which lead to Duty of Care. I brought this up and although the specifics were not discussed some of my class thought like a lot of posters that self defence is not allowed and how they would calmly step back as someone attacked them. Another said look it up online. A few of us did and found many union websites showing that self-defence is allowed (we googled ATL violence-threatening-behaviour-and-abuse-2014.pdf)
    Some have mentioned the police - the police were not informed by school although they should have done! The person attacked reported it - strange assumptions people make!
    Interesting discussion with the majority wrong. Self-defence is a 100% defence in law. Civil law can't remove the rights to self-defence.
  • Gavin83
    Gavin83 Posts: 8,748 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Bargainhunter69 wrote: »
    Interesting discussion with the majority wrong. Self-defence is a 100% defence in law. Civil law can't remove the rights to self-defence.

    Fine, thread over then. I'm out, I'd suggest others stop posting too, especially given that this isn't even a real thread.
  • LilElvis
    LilElvis Posts: 5,835 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Bargainhunter69 wrote: »
    I posted a reply much earlier but it isn't there. First the case was a real one.
    It wasn't actually me. I go to college and know the person very well. In college there was a discussion on risk assessment which lead to Duty of Care. I brought this up and although the specifics were not discussed some of my class thought like a lot of posters that self defence is not allowed and how they would calmly step back as someone attacked them. Another said look it up online. A few of us did and found many union websites showing that self-defence is allowed (we googled ATL violence-threatening-behaviour-and-abuse-2014.pdf)
    Some have mentioned the police - the police were not informed by school although they should have done! The person attacked reported it - strange assumptions people make!
    Interesting discussion with the majority wrong. Self-defence is a 100% defence in law. Civil law can't remove the rights to self-defence.

    So Nicechap was right. It's another time wasting dilemma with half the detail omitted. Of course a teenager, with only half an education, is in the right and knows it all :T
  • nicechap
    nicechap Posts: 2,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    edited 11 May 2018 at 2:41PM
    Bargainhunter69 wrote: »
    I posted a reply much earlier but it isn't there. First the case was a real one.
    It wasn't actually me. I go to college and know the person very well. In college there was a discussion on risk assessment which lead to Duty of Care. I brought this up and although the specifics were not discussed some of my class thought like a lot of posters that self defence is not allowed and how they would calmly step back as someone attacked them. Another said look it up online. A few of us did and found many union websites showing that self-defence is allowed (we googled ATL violence-threatening-behaviour-and-abuse-2014.pdf)
    Some have mentioned the police - the police were not informed by school although they should have done! The person attacked reported it - strange assumptions people make!
    Interesting discussion with the majority wrong. Self-defence is a 100% defence in law. Civil law can't remove the rights to self-defence.

    Finally the dilemma AI/bot admits they are winding up everyone with a partial third hand story from - college-. They couldn t even keep the story consistent in their posts.

    I m out too :-(
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
  • TonyMMM
    TonyMMM Posts: 3,379 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Pushing someone in the chest is an assault, which could be prosecuted as common assault but not likely to be in most cases.

    There is a statutory defence to any charge of assault of acting in self defence, so long at it is reasonable and proportionate ( which is for a court to decide).

    That defence has no direct effect on any civil or disciplinary action taken by an employer.
  • Bargainhunter69
    Bargainhunter69 Posts: 8 Forumite
    That defence has no direct effect on any civil or disciplinary action taken by an employer.

    Wrong, everyone has the right to self-defence and the workplace can't take that away.
  • ohreally
    ohreally Posts: 7,525 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    You would be best placed on focusing on any upcoming disciplinary hearing and your case statement.
    Don’t be a can’t, be a can.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards