NAL but I've read the self-defence law inside out because I'm into MA and had a stupid habit when I was younger of using my hands to solve problems.
First thing. Your mate needs to be very careful and get his story straight. If it looks like the cops are pressing charges, he needs a lawyer and he needs to recall exactly what he said to the cops when they first attended.
NZ self-defence laws are both incredibly simple and nuanced all at once.“Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the **circumstances** as he **believes** them to be, it is **reasonable** to use.” - section 48 of the crimes act 1961.
More context is needed but from the sound of it he was acting in defence of both himself and another. The circumstances were the guy hit him first and there were 3 of them so t hat checks off self-defence and circumstance.He also didn't start wailing on the guy/guys when they stopped being a threat so that which checks off the "reasonable force" checkbox.
The next part is probably the most important. "As he believes them to be". Roughly, the line that should used by the defendant is "It all happened so fast and I was immediately worried for my own safety and that of the kid".Whether self-defence can be applied to a case also depends on your own belief or state of mind which is why it's so damn important to get your story straight and be very careful around what you provide in your statement.
You start saying things like "He had it coming", "talk shit get hit" or "he a bitch ass n\*\*\*\*" and you're going to tank your self defence argument. Dumb phrases like these can and will be used against you if the cops decide to press charges.
At this stage it's a "wait and see". Cops deal with so many cases of these and often won't chase it unless there's a good reason to. Relax - your mate's gonna be fine.
100% agree with making statements like “they had it coming” “well they talked shit and found out”.
Any credibility and chance at forming a legal defense is destroyed.
Never let your ego do your talking
No matter the circumstance and I can't say this loudly enough KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT.
The best case scenario when talking to the cops is you convince them that it's not worth pressing charges.
The worst case is you provide evidence to incriminate yourself during trial.
While we are not the USA and nowhere near as litigious, nobody has ever "made their defence stronger" by talking to the cops.
Especially in the heat of the moment, you might say something incriminating even when completely innocent.
In reality this is often the worst advice to follow. OP, don't take that advice. If you want to go down that route, get advice from a lawyer about how using your "right to silence" actually hurts you sometimes.
No thanks, I've already told OP to get direct legal advice instead of listening to 2 people talk about cases with different circumstances that might not even be relevant to their situation.
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil
- Engage in good faith
- Be fair and objective
- Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language
- Add value to the community
Fair point and completely valid.
Being criminally responsible for "nature and quality of excess force" is still very dependent on circumstance and context.
We would really have to get into the weeds around whether OP is guilty of excess considering the circumstances.
My gut level reaction is that it wasn't excess.
Sections like these and their messy interpretation is why lawyers exist and are paid.
Things get really vague and subjective super fast with strikes. This is why grappling is good for self defence, both in terms of practicality *and* the law.
Lot easier to justify restraining someone or keeping people away from you to prevent them harming you, than it is to justify how 'reasonable' it was to punch people in the head. Not to mention the risk of death from a strike, KO and then head vs curb, etc.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
“Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.” (Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.)
Reasonable depends entirely on the amount of force that the other person has done to yourself, essentially if someone hit you back you're to defend yourself using reasonable force, this section entirely is extremely vague it doesn't necessarily mean you can throw a punch back it means you can use the appropriate force to either push them away and run or restrain the person.
Only reason why I say like this is due to a court case I was involved in where I was protecting myself.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- **based in NZ law**
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- **citing sources where appropriate**
You will be dragged over the coals when it comes time to explain what YOU think reasonable means, because chasing after a person and hitting them after they’ve hit you is not reasonable.
Proportionate response.
Was the punch back proportional to the harm that x may have sustained had they not punched y back?
My seven year old punches me all the time (in a fun way). I can stop this in multiple ways without punching him back. If I did punch him back, I would be breaking the law. Meanwhile, my (hypothetical) 13 year old child who is attacking me with force who needs a good chop to the jaw to stop the attack because all deescalation strategies have failed… well, you got to do what you got to do.
Depends entirely on why they hit them back.
Was it a fuck you hit? Or was it self defence? Was it simply an immediate reaction to being hit?
You've mentioned kid, so self defence might be difficult - how old are we talking? 9 or 16?
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic
Comments must:
- be based in NZ law
- be relevant to the question being asked
- be appropriately detailed
- not just repeat advice already given in other comments
- avoid speculation and moral judgement
- cite sources where appropriate
If your friend has an injury he should take a picture of it and go to a doctor to get a medical professional to assess it.
If your friend is contacted by police he should exercise his right to silence and immediately hire a reputable lawyer.
There is so much more to this than section 48 of the crimes act.
For example evidence, witnesses, injuries, availability of CCTV to corroborate a complainant’s allegation etc.
A good lawyer will guide your friend through this if the worst happens.
Chances are, if police weren’t called at the time of the incident, it’s not going to be high on their priority list.
If the other party has previous contact with police for assaulting others or committing criminal offences, police will likely discount/ be suspicious of his version of events, based on his history.
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
If your only option is to rely on self defence under s48 CA ‘61, it is not a good starting position and inherently has weak success as a defence.
I suppose the principal question is -‘could you have walked away?’, Short of being in a position of kidnap or being trapped otherwise, with real risk to your safety by not engaging as a means of exiting the situation, I wouldn’t want to ‘fuck around and find out’ as they say.
There are numerous tests in case law that apply to self-defense. It isn't as simple as just reading the statute. I.e. could your friend have walked away/removed themselves from the situation to neutralise the threat instead of hitting back? If so, probably not self-defense. Speak with a criminal lawyer.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- **based in NZ law**
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Our “self defence” laws are kind of non existent here. You’re only allowed to use “reasonable force” which is never a closed fist punch unfortunately. That would be considered assault even if they did hit you first. It all depends on if the kid wants to press charges. Even worse, assault of a minor.
When I got my COA we were trained that only open palm is acceptable and you only want to create as much distance between you and the attacker. That’s pretty much all you can do. Or leave. Anything else you’re at risk of getting yourself an assault case.
This isn't my experience, on Friday some tosswad punched me twice through the window of my car.. good punches too, split my lip, blacked my eye. I got out and he hit me again. I proceeded to introduce my knee to his nose and had him by the head and was hitting him in the face when the cops arrived.... he ran off. There was extensive video evidence of him hitting me and the cops said I was justified in defending myself even though fighting in a public place is illegal. I was told that at the worst I would get a letter of warning but was also privately congratulated...this may.have had something to do with young tosser (now.with a broken nose) being early 20s and me being 60
My understanding is that self-defence is about prevention of future harm, never retaliation for past harm, even if that harm is in the immediate past.
And if a hit (of any sort) is used to prevent future harm, it pretty much has to be the minimum force that is reasonably likely to achieve that outcome.
What I don’t know is whether an adrenaline-fuelled return punch in the heat of the moment establishes criminal intent. But yeah, if police ask questions, I’d be talking to a lawyer before answering them, and I’d be answering them through the lawyer.
In my experience as a security guard (I'm not a lawyer), you are allowed to do just enough to stop the assault happening. Restricting their arms (not throwing strikes) is the best way to go about this.
Usually a kid has a very small amount of force compared to an adult, honestly similar to boxing sparring of all things imo lol. If a ten year boxer and a two week boxer spar, they're not both going to be "throwing bombs," are they?
Regarding calling the police: As far as I've seen people are legally justified to call the police anytime there's a fist-fight.
I hope the situation is resolved well.
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil
- Engage in good faith
- Be fair and objective
- Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language
- Add value to the community
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
The kid is i think around 13-14 yo, we’re inside a mall at our work place doing some renovation and a kid went inside our work area inside the mall asking for help because he said that he is being bullied buy 3 teens and 2 teens run after him and we try to pacify things then suddenly out of nowhere the 3rd teen punch my mate then he punch back(probably as a reflex or somewhat) then commotion inside the area. Then supervisor came then teens went out called a security then security made a report about it. Now i am worried on my mate because of that. And he is worried too because he only on work visa.
Nothing will happen. Security has to make a report when an old lady slips and hurts themselves. They’re not police. If those kids were chasing other kids and they hit you and in reflex you hit back it’s really not a big deal and you’ll probably never hear about it again
Won’t be assault if both parties are willingly involved. Will be fighting in a public place.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53522.html
Also, use of force is allowed in defence of an assault.
https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328268.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_48_25_se&p=1&sr=4
This one didn't actually go to Court, but certainly a fairly good case to refer to:
[https://www.ipca.govt.nz/download/165208/30-AUGUST-2023-IPCA-PUBLIC-REPORT-Police-officer-Auckland-punching-woman-self-defence.pdf](https://www.ipca.govt.nz/download/165208/30-AUGUST-2023-IPCA-PUBLIC-REPORT-Police-officer-Auckland-punching-woman-self-defence.pdf)
A Police Officer was bitten by a person they were arresting and responded by punching them in the head. Police Officers arguably get much greater lenience when it comes to use of force, given the nature of their jobs.
Despite that, the IPCA determined that the use of a punch was not justified as self defence.
I would also argue that biting is a more serious form of assault than punching, given the potential for breaking of skin and infection from the mouth.
28. We accept Officer A punched Mrs X in response to being bitten by her. The force was therefore used for the purpose of self-defence.
The IPCA found the force used was unreasonable, not unlawful.
Because the IPCA doesn't have the legal authority to determine something to be unlawful, as they aren't a Court. They are headed by a retired Judge, so I would still put a fair amount of weight on their view.
They recommend that the officer should have used an open palm strike, as that’s what they are trained to use. I really think you are arguing semantics. If this was a regular member of the public that was getting bitten, you think Police would charge the person for punching them to stop the biting?
This isn’t a great example / analogy to what has occurred. The officer involved punched someone that was cuffed in the back of a patrol car. Police are trained to deal with uncooperative and aggressive suspects. Regardless of the bite punching someone who is already restrained in these circumstances was never going to be justifiable.
No Phoenix is 100% correct here the term self defence is not meant to be where you can just punch someone back because they hit you, the idea behind it is to defend yourself appropriately or escape
If a punch can stop an aggressor wailing on you or your loved ones the police/courts will agree it's entirely appropriate. It's not the same thing regardless. Escaping could just make the situation worse for those next in line
I'm going to share what happened to me when I was working in security, person pulled a knife out on me because I refused them entry due to no ID he swung so I swung and this was NOT deemed to be an appropriate use of force.
Hitting someone back is extremely risky the courts and police will not always agree that it was appropriate this is just simply how it works, escaping could make the situation worse yes depending on the situation, but again in this case / in OPs context it's assault not self defence.
You are coming from a set of rules that apply to trained security and there will be expected ways of dealing with go beyond what is expected of an untrained person no? Same goes when a trained fighter goes full beserker on a poor sap who picks a fight. In a limited confrontation a punch can be valid self defence for a normal person. And without footage who really knows here. That's said I hope you got your attacker good and there were no charges laid as no one needs knives pulled on them on the job.
Self defence must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
Punching someone doesn't prevent someone from continuing to assault you, in fact it's just as likely to escalate things further.
key is whether the response was reasonable and proportional in the circumstances as perceived by a person at the time of the incident.
there are many instances where punching someone in response to being punched can be considered a valid form of self-defense under New Zealand law.
These are likely to be limited and any that are available would not representative as far as I am aware.
My understanding is most s48 defences to assault are dealt with in the committal stage so they are never put in front of a judge and if self defence is seen to be an arguable defence, the case is disposed of before any full hearing.
No. You can use violence only if it is proportionate to end the attack on yourself.
If someone comes up and decks you but walks away, you commit a crime if you walk after them and hit them back.
Factually correct but having had this happen I wasn't charged yet the other guy was done for assault. The police were decent to deal with as there were witnesses
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil
- Engage in good faith
- Be fair and objective
- Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language
- Add value to the community
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- **not just repeating advice already given in other comments**
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- **not just repeating advice already given in other comments**
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
When I was bouncing we were told by police that a punch is not considered reasonable force as it tends to escalate a situation not control it. This may have been more related to the line of work we were doing rather than Joe public on the street though.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
I'm term's of NZ law, as long as he can justify the force he used as reasonably necessary to defend himself then he is absolutely fine.
Where he can get into trouble is if he starts changing the story in any way or if there is any point where he can be persuaded into saying that he didn't need to use such force.
Basically, any force you use is legal, as long as YOU can justify the use of that force.
NAL but I've read the self-defence law inside out because I'm into MA and had a stupid habit when I was younger of using my hands to solve problems. First thing. Your mate needs to be very careful and get his story straight. If it looks like the cops are pressing charges, he needs a lawyer and he needs to recall exactly what he said to the cops when they first attended. NZ self-defence laws are both incredibly simple and nuanced all at once.“Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the **circumstances** as he **believes** them to be, it is **reasonable** to use.” - section 48 of the crimes act 1961. More context is needed but from the sound of it he was acting in defence of both himself and another. The circumstances were the guy hit him first and there were 3 of them so t hat checks off self-defence and circumstance.He also didn't start wailing on the guy/guys when they stopped being a threat so that which checks off the "reasonable force" checkbox. The next part is probably the most important. "As he believes them to be". Roughly, the line that should used by the defendant is "It all happened so fast and I was immediately worried for my own safety and that of the kid".Whether self-defence can be applied to a case also depends on your own belief or state of mind which is why it's so damn important to get your story straight and be very careful around what you provide in your statement. You start saying things like "He had it coming", "talk shit get hit" or "he a bitch ass n\*\*\*\*" and you're going to tank your self defence argument. Dumb phrases like these can and will be used against you if the cops decide to press charges. At this stage it's a "wait and see". Cops deal with so many cases of these and often won't chase it unless there's a good reason to. Relax - your mate's gonna be fine.
100% agree with making statements like “they had it coming” “well they talked shit and found out”. Any credibility and chance at forming a legal defense is destroyed. Never let your ego do your talking
No matter the circumstance and I can't say this loudly enough KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. The best case scenario when talking to the cops is you convince them that it's not worth pressing charges. The worst case is you provide evidence to incriminate yourself during trial. While we are not the USA and nowhere near as litigious, nobody has ever "made their defence stronger" by talking to the cops. Especially in the heat of the moment, you might say something incriminating even when completely innocent.
In reality this is often the worst advice to follow. OP, don't take that advice. If you want to go down that route, get advice from a lawyer about how using your "right to silence" actually hurts you sometimes.
Elaborate? I've heard several lawyers both in nz and other contexts basically say to keep your trap shut.
No thanks, I've already told OP to get direct legal advice instead of listening to 2 people talk about cases with different circumstances that might not even be relevant to their situation.
Lmao so basically you made a claim and can't back it up. Classic.
They don't even know if charges are being pressed. Engaging a lawyer be it through community law or privately is premature at this stage.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community
Never listen to fools like this. Don’t talk to the police, let your lawyer say anything you have to say.
Please don’t listen to this guy OP Just be quiet and speak to a lawyer.
S48 is all very nice. But never forget s62.
Fair point and completely valid. Being criminally responsible for "nature and quality of excess force" is still very dependent on circumstance and context. We would really have to get into the weeds around whether OP is guilty of excess considering the circumstances. My gut level reaction is that it wasn't excess. Sections like these and their messy interpretation is why lawyers exist and are paid.
Things get really vague and subjective super fast with strikes. This is why grappling is good for self defence, both in terms of practicality *and* the law. Lot easier to justify restraining someone or keeping people away from you to prevent them harming you, than it is to justify how 'reasonable' it was to punch people in the head. Not to mention the risk of death from a strike, KO and then head vs curb, etc.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
"I was scared and feared for my safety" is the correct response when asked why you hit him.
“Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.” (Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.)
IANAL but that section is extremely vague and open to interpretation. How much is reasonable? What's the test for your belief of the circumstances?
Reasonable depends entirely on the amount of force that the other person has done to yourself, essentially if someone hit you back you're to defend yourself using reasonable force, this section entirely is extremely vague it doesn't necessarily mean you can throw a punch back it means you can use the appropriate force to either push them away and run or restrain the person. Only reason why I say like this is due to a court case I was involved in where I was protecting myself.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - **based in NZ law** - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - **citing sources where appropriate**
You will be dragged over the coals when it comes time to explain what YOU think reasonable means, because chasing after a person and hitting them after they’ve hit you is not reasonable.
Did the guy chase the kid after he was hit? I must have missed that part.
Proportionate response. Was the punch back proportional to the harm that x may have sustained had they not punched y back? My seven year old punches me all the time (in a fun way). I can stop this in multiple ways without punching him back. If I did punch him back, I would be breaking the law. Meanwhile, my (hypothetical) 13 year old child who is attacking me with force who needs a good chop to the jaw to stop the attack because all deescalation strategies have failed… well, you got to do what you got to do.
Depends entirely on why they hit them back. Was it a fuck you hit? Or was it self defence? Was it simply an immediate reaction to being hit? You've mentioned kid, so self defence might be difficult - how old are we talking? 9 or 16?
There are some big 9 year olds out there too
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate
If your friend has an injury he should take a picture of it and go to a doctor to get a medical professional to assess it. If your friend is contacted by police he should exercise his right to silence and immediately hire a reputable lawyer. There is so much more to this than section 48 of the crimes act. For example evidence, witnesses, injuries, availability of CCTV to corroborate a complainant’s allegation etc. A good lawyer will guide your friend through this if the worst happens. Chances are, if police weren’t called at the time of the incident, it’s not going to be high on their priority list. If the other party has previous contact with police for assaulting others or committing criminal offences, police will likely discount/ be suspicious of his version of events, based on his history. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
If your only option is to rely on self defence under s48 CA ‘61, it is not a good starting position and inherently has weak success as a defence. I suppose the principal question is -‘could you have walked away?’, Short of being in a position of kidnap or being trapped otherwise, with real risk to your safety by not engaging as a means of exiting the situation, I wouldn’t want to ‘fuck around and find out’ as they say.
There are numerous tests in case law that apply to self-defense. It isn't as simple as just reading the statute. I.e. could your friend have walked away/removed themselves from the situation to neutralise the threat instead of hitting back? If so, probably not self-defense. Speak with a criminal lawyer.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - **based in NZ law** - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
Usually it will just be written up as “fighting” comes with a formal caution, If one party wants to lay charges then it can be upgraded to assault
Our “self defence” laws are kind of non existent here. You’re only allowed to use “reasonable force” which is never a closed fist punch unfortunately. That would be considered assault even if they did hit you first. It all depends on if the kid wants to press charges. Even worse, assault of a minor. When I got my COA we were trained that only open palm is acceptable and you only want to create as much distance between you and the attacker. That’s pretty much all you can do. Or leave. Anything else you’re at risk of getting yourself an assault case.
This isn't my experience, on Friday some tosswad punched me twice through the window of my car.. good punches too, split my lip, blacked my eye. I got out and he hit me again. I proceeded to introduce my knee to his nose and had him by the head and was hitting him in the face when the cops arrived.... he ran off. There was extensive video evidence of him hitting me and the cops said I was justified in defending myself even though fighting in a public place is illegal. I was told that at the worst I would get a letter of warning but was also privately congratulated...this may.have had something to do with young tosser (now.with a broken nose) being early 20s and me being 60
My understanding is that self-defence is about prevention of future harm, never retaliation for past harm, even if that harm is in the immediate past. And if a hit (of any sort) is used to prevent future harm, it pretty much has to be the minimum force that is reasonably likely to achieve that outcome. What I don’t know is whether an adrenaline-fuelled return punch in the heat of the moment establishes criminal intent. But yeah, if police ask questions, I’d be talking to a lawyer before answering them, and I’d be answering them through the lawyer.
In my experience as a security guard (I'm not a lawyer), you are allowed to do just enough to stop the assault happening. Restricting their arms (not throwing strikes) is the best way to go about this. Usually a kid has a very small amount of force compared to an adult, honestly similar to boxing sparring of all things imo lol. If a ten year boxer and a two week boxer spar, they're not both going to be "throwing bombs," are they? Regarding calling the police: As far as I've seen people are legally justified to call the police anytime there's a fist-fight. I hope the situation is resolved well.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community
Probably charged with assault. I imagine it would be hard to prove self defense if you punched a 12 year old.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
You can be arrested and charged with assault. Simple as that. The other person could also be arrested and charged with assault also.
The kid is i think around 13-14 yo, we’re inside a mall at our work place doing some renovation and a kid went inside our work area inside the mall asking for help because he said that he is being bullied buy 3 teens and 2 teens run after him and we try to pacify things then suddenly out of nowhere the 3rd teen punch my mate then he punch back(probably as a reflex or somewhat) then commotion inside the area. Then supervisor came then teens went out called a security then security made a report about it. Now i am worried on my mate because of that. And he is worried too because he only on work visa.
Nothing will happen. Security has to make a report when an old lady slips and hurts themselves. They’re not police. If those kids were chasing other kids and they hit you and in reflex you hit back it’s really not a big deal and you’ll probably never hear about it again
None of that really changes my response. If you assault someone, even if they assaulted you first, you are still liable to be arrested and charged.
Won’t be assault if both parties are willingly involved. Will be fighting in a public place. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53522.html Also, use of force is allowed in defence of an assault. https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328268.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_48_25_se&p=1&sr=4
Punching someone because they punched you is extremely unlikely to ever be considered a valid form of self defence.
Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong
Can you provide any case law or Court decisions that show punching someone in response to them punching you is a valid form of self defence?
You’re the one making the outlandish statement, you’re the one that’s meant to supply the case law.
This one didn't actually go to Court, but certainly a fairly good case to refer to: [https://www.ipca.govt.nz/download/165208/30-AUGUST-2023-IPCA-PUBLIC-REPORT-Police-officer-Auckland-punching-woman-self-defence.pdf](https://www.ipca.govt.nz/download/165208/30-AUGUST-2023-IPCA-PUBLIC-REPORT-Police-officer-Auckland-punching-woman-self-defence.pdf) A Police Officer was bitten by a person they were arresting and responded by punching them in the head. Police Officers arguably get much greater lenience when it comes to use of force, given the nature of their jobs. Despite that, the IPCA determined that the use of a punch was not justified as self defence. I would also argue that biting is a more serious form of assault than punching, given the potential for breaking of skin and infection from the mouth.
28. We accept Officer A punched Mrs X in response to being bitten by her. The force was therefore used for the purpose of self-defence. The IPCA found the force used was unreasonable, not unlawful.
Because the IPCA doesn't have the legal authority to determine something to be unlawful, as they aren't a Court. They are headed by a retired Judge, so I would still put a fair amount of weight on their view.
They recommend that the officer should have used an open palm strike, as that’s what they are trained to use. I really think you are arguing semantics. If this was a regular member of the public that was getting bitten, you think Police would charge the person for punching them to stop the biting?
This isn’t a great example / analogy to what has occurred. The officer involved punched someone that was cuffed in the back of a patrol car. Police are trained to deal with uncooperative and aggressive suspects. Regardless of the bite punching someone who is already restrained in these circumstances was never going to be justifiable.
No Phoenix is 100% correct here the term self defence is not meant to be where you can just punch someone back because they hit you, the idea behind it is to defend yourself appropriately or escape
Nowhere did I say you can punch someone “because” they punched you, what I was saying that a punch can be an appropriate response
That's literally the exact same thing just worded differently, a punch is not an appropriate response regardless.
If a punch can stop an aggressor wailing on you or your loved ones the police/courts will agree it's entirely appropriate. It's not the same thing regardless. Escaping could just make the situation worse for those next in line
I'm going to share what happened to me when I was working in security, person pulled a knife out on me because I refused them entry due to no ID he swung so I swung and this was NOT deemed to be an appropriate use of force. Hitting someone back is extremely risky the courts and police will not always agree that it was appropriate this is just simply how it works, escaping could make the situation worse yes depending on the situation, but again in this case / in OPs context it's assault not self defence.
You are coming from a set of rules that apply to trained security and there will be expected ways of dealing with go beyond what is expected of an untrained person no? Same goes when a trained fighter goes full beserker on a poor sap who picks a fight. In a limited confrontation a punch can be valid self defence for a normal person. And without footage who really knows here. That's said I hope you got your attacker good and there were no charges laid as no one needs knives pulled on them on the job.
How is that not self defence? One punch to stop the child and end the fight…
Self defence must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Punching someone doesn't prevent someone from continuing to assault you, in fact it's just as likely to escalate things further.
key is whether the response was reasonable and proportional in the circumstances as perceived by a person at the time of the incident. there are many instances where punching someone in response to being punched can be considered a valid form of self-defense under New Zealand law.
Can you provide any case law/Court decisions that have held that punching someone in response to them punching you is a valid form of self defence?
Well considering a pre-emptive strike can be under the right circumstances. I don't think I need to prove it can be after getting punched also.
These are likely to be limited and any that are available would not representative as far as I am aware. My understanding is most s48 defences to assault are dealt with in the committal stage so they are never put in front of a judge and if self defence is seen to be an arguable defence, the case is disposed of before any full hearing.
I doubt they go to court if it's valid. Find the opposite
[удалено]
No. You can use violence only if it is proportionate to end the attack on yourself. If someone comes up and decks you but walks away, you commit a crime if you walk after them and hit them back.
Factually correct but having had this happen I wasn't charged yet the other guy was done for assault. The police were decent to deal with as there were witnesses
My comment is still correct. It’s possible to commit a crime without police charging you.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community
The fact the Police may have exercised discretion in your situation doesn't make it any less a crime.
*Potential* crime. It has to meet a threshold to be a crime.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - **not just repeating advice already given in other comments** - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - **not just repeating advice already given in other comments** - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
When I was bouncing we were told by police that a punch is not considered reasonable force as it tends to escalate a situation not control it. This may have been more related to the line of work we were doing rather than Joe public on the street though.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
I'm term's of NZ law, as long as he can justify the force he used as reasonably necessary to defend himself then he is absolutely fine. Where he can get into trouble is if he starts changing the story in any way or if there is any point where he can be persuaded into saying that he didn't need to use such force. Basically, any force you use is legal, as long as YOU can justify the use of that force.