8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Andrzej J
Andrzej J's picture
Sheep, wolves and sheep-dogs

Merry Christmas, or whatever it is you may be celebrating, to all!

We talk a lot in this community about self-protection strategies, avoidance, de-escalation, fences, pre-emption, stun-and-run and so on. But I haven't yet heard anything about intervention to protect third parties from a crime in progress. I'm not talking about vigilantism here, simply intervening to help someone who's in danger of getting at least robbed, possibly hospitalized or killed in a criminal attack that we happen to witness.

I know this is an extremely thorny issue, and I'm sure the advice from a pure self-protection point of view would be to call the police and stay out of it. But the police aren't always close by, and we all hear stories of rapes, muggings, and even murders, where witnesses who might have been able to help walked on, stood by and did nothing or (in the worst cases) filmed the proceedings for their YouTube channel. So, as martial artists with a healthy, ethical view of violence, avoiding it when we can - what do we do? What SHOULD we do, ethically and practically? And where do we stand legally?

[This comes to mind after a recent viewing of the film 'American Sniper', where Chris Kyle's father gives his family the speech about their being three kinds of person - sheep, wolves and sheep-dogs. Essentially prey, predators and protectors. I'd guess that a number of us would like to think that, if called upon, we would be sheep-dogs. Curious about others' feelings on the subject.]

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Andrzej J wrote:
So, as martial artists with a healthy, ethical view of violence, avoiding it when we can - what do we do? What SHOULD we do, ethically and practically? And where do we stand legally?

Legally is probably the simplest one to answer. The Criminal Law Act 1967 states:

“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”

This is where our right to self-defence is established in statute law i.e. we have a right to use reasonable force in the prevention of a crime; including when the crime is being committed against us.

So legally we are fine so long as all the usual requirements are in place i.e. the force can be shown to be both necessary and reasonable (as defined by law).

As regards what we should do ethically and practically, I would say we do what best helps the person being assaulted. Doing nothing is obviously wrong, but we do need to act in the best possible way for both the victim and ourselves. In some cases that could be direct intervention; or it could keeping personally safe, summoning help and alerting the authorities (police and ambulance). Every situation will need judged on its own merits.

As an example, let’s say that there was an armed group of five or more all stabbing one individual. Running in and potentially adding one more victim would help no one. Moving yourself to a safe place and summoning help (legal and medical) would be better. If you were part of a group, there could be advantage in calling the police and ambulance, and alerting the criminals that they were being observed and the police were on their way. That may cause them to flee. However, if you were alone and you alerted them to your presence, that could be motivation to attack you and remove you as a witness.

It all depends upon the circumstances, what best helps the victim, and what ensures we don’t take unnecessary risks.

Andrzej J wrote:
But I haven't yet heard anything about intervention to protect third parties from a crime in progress.

The first of Anko Itosu’s 10 precepts states, “Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master.” So there is traditional precedent for protecting others. I think we need to move beyond “self”-protection to also including the protection of others. As I say at the seminars, hopefully we all have people in our lives that we care about more than ourselves. Our training therefore needs to include protecting them too. We drill that quite a lot at the dojo, and there are some live drills for that described in this podcast:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kata-based-sparring-revisited-structure

These skills are also relevant to protecting third-parties. What is different is that we will feel less “emotional obligation” toward strangers than to those close to us. I’m not making a moral judgement on whether this is right or not, but I can understand people not wishing to risk leaving their children parentless when it comes to protecting a stranger … who may well indeed be a parent to their own children of course. These are complex moral problems and I can see how different people can decide to act differently. I therefore find myself adverse to “Monday morning quarterbacking” when those in news stories, who were there and had to act in the heat of the moment, decide to physically intervene or not; irrespective of how effective their actions where.

There was a very good radio show around this recently as part of the BBC’s Moral Maze show. The directly link to the MP3 of this show is here:

http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p03bqk2c.mp3

I love this show because I always start each episode with firm views on the morality of any given topic, but those views are almost always less firm at the end as the nuance of these issues gets explored.  

On this one, I started with the view that standing back and filming was always deplorable. Get involved or go and get help, but don’t just stand there and film it. I still feel that way, but a psychologist on the show pointed out how “looking through a lens” can be a psychological defence to create “distance” and make a terrifying situation “less real”. I therefore found myself feeling a little less judgemental toward that practise toward the end of the show.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Andrzej J wrote:
This comes to mind after a recent viewing of the film 'American Sniper', where Chris Kyle's father gives his family the speech about their being three kinds of person - sheep, wolves and sheep-dogs. Essentially prey, predators and protectors. I'd guess that a number of us would like to think that, if called upon, we would be sheep-dogs. Curious about others' feelings on the subject.

I’m guessing that scene in the film (2014) was inspired by the much older article by Dave Grossman and Loren W. Christensen that coincidentally appears on this site with the permission of the authors :-)

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/sheep-sheepdogs-wolves

A brilliant article.

This article from Wim Demeere called "Don't hate on the sheep" is also a good read:

http://www.wimsblog.com/2013/10/dont-hate-sheep/

All the best,

Iain

sarflondonboydo...
sarflondonboydonewell's picture

First thing establish  a crime is taking place!  My brother was ‘citizen arrested’ by a London cabbie once because the driver saw him on crimewatch but it was the classic case of mistaken identity; my brother could have sued the cabbie for false imprisonment and assault(  Be wary of citizens arrest for ‘crimewatch moments’).  Try not to get  involved in people arguing especially  around pubs! In nearly all situations observe from a safe distance and ring the police, only physically intervene if safe to do so. You can shout and draw attention to what is going on.

 S3 criminal law act 1967 covers any use of reasonable force  in prevention of a crime which is what you would be doing by witnessing an assault, robbery etc.

However consider  the following:

  1. Before intervening and unless absolutely necessary always  ring the police ( as know one knows were you are and what is going on) first.
  2. Assess the situation can you fight two people? Will they turn on you. If they are street robbers they will more than likely go once you have made a commotion(from a distance, you are also maintaining the reactionary gap)  but if it is a fight then you could get sucked into it.
  3. From a safe distance . (Don’t become a victim yourself) ring 999  and say something along theses lines:  my name is xxxx I am witnessing an assault at the junction of xxxx and xxx there are 3 assailants  C  S A H C A D D ( Colour, Sex,  Age, height, Clothing, any weapons, Distinguishing marks, Direction of travel)  eg 3 white males aged 20 about 5 10, dark trousers light trainers (always describe clothing as light or dark unless you know i.e blue jeans, concentrate  more on trousers and footware  than the  top half of the clothing as that can be discarded), no weapons one has sleeves rolled up and they have headed down xxx road toward the town centre. You then have two choices; comfort and  first aid to the victim or at a safe distance pursue the attackers. Personally I would give aid to the victim unless other people have by know come to their aid.  As with CCTV and DNA their a good chance the attackers/robbers will be caught.

 

In summary: fools rush in where angels fear to tread; Don’t become a victim yourself, ensure a crime is being committed ( not a crimewatch moment)alert the authorities, know your limitations; comfort/give first aid to the victim.

Dave. H
Dave. H's picture

I always find it difficult to watch bystander video's without thinking to myself that the person shooting the video should be doing something, and feeling my own adrenaline and anxiety levels rise. That said, I have spent over a decade working in the criminal justice system where I have had to act, and that duty to act is something I feel is difficult to shrug off.  Yet I do acknowledge that not everyone is willing and/or able to do so, but I do feel they should be doing something usefull like calling the emergency services or seeking assistance.  Some may say that getting involved is the sole job of the police, and it's not their responsibility, but i disagree.  The police do have a duty to act if they arrive in time, but it is not an excuse for poor judgement, and we have a responsibility to ourselves and each other.  What if that person being kicked to death was your family member?  Would you want someone to help or just film it?

However, how you intervene will be highly dependant on the circumstances.  I have witnessed several situations where a ner-do-well is giving a security guard (or guards) abuse, or threatening to do whatever because they are unhappy that they have been prevented from stealing or damaging something, and I have decided to stop and hang conspicuously near by, just in case but without actually needing to do anything other than show presence.  On other occasions I have asked security guards and shop assistants if they wanted help.  More often than not they dont. And, on one occasion I assisted a neighbour who caught two thieves trying to steal his motorcycle, but this time the fight had already started so I told my wife to call the police and helped out till the police arrived.  As an aside, do what the police tell you and be calm and compliant (even if they want to cuff you), the dont know who the good guys are when the arrive.

The decision to act is an emotionaal one, and is made immediately, and is rationalised by the higher brain function afterwards.  The decision needs to be made well in advance.  I think this is a Mo Teague sort of quote from one of his dvd's, but it goes along the lines of this; make your mind up before it happens, decide what you will and will not stand for, and what you are willing to do, and how far you are willing to go.  Because, when it happens it will be too late.

Some interesting issues were raised in the Moral Maze show, people are more detached from reality, and it would appear the more virtual life becomes, the less actual living people do.  You only have to look at the number of selfies and food pictures on social media. I know people who have been to concerts and spent the concert looking at their phone and not the stage only to never look at the footage again, and lose it completely on ther next phone upgrade, yet still talk about how much better it was 'being there' than watching it on tv.  Crazy?!  Some people make the same journey's over and over again, but never learn the rout because they have become reliant on a sat nav, others queue for days for the latest i-whatever but cant sit and enjoy a summer evening. They also mentioned the Lee Rigby murder in the show, and this is a prime example.  For some people the consequences (be they physical or psychological) of not doing something and getting involved was too heavy a price to pay, and that is a very personal choice.  In this case however the terrorists were dependant on societies apathy and compulsion to film everything, because if everybody stood around watching decided to act they would have failed. The technology is not the problem, it is only a tool (an effective one), but instead personal and social attitiudes to technology.  Instead of being used as a tool for self-actualisation (as some would argue), or to improve quality of life, it has become somewhere to hide from yourself while pretending to put yourself out there.  Sadly people dont seem to feel as if they actually live life unless they are virtually living it. Combined with the bystander effect, and we have a very potent cocktail for apathy, and yet another layer to add to the diffusion of responsibility.

JWT
JWT's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrzej J wrote:
So, as martial artists with a healthy, ethical view of violence, avoiding it when we can - what do we do? What SHOULD we do, ethically and practically? And where do we stand legally?

Legally is probably the simplest one to answer. The Criminal Law Act 1967 states:

“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”

This is where our right to self-defence is established in statute law i.e. we have a right to use reasonable force in the prevention of a crime; including when the crime is being committed against us.

So legally we are fine so long as all the usual requirements are in place i.e. the force can be shown to be both necessary and reasonable (as defined by law).

As regards what we should do ethically and practically, I would say we do what best helps the person being assaulted. Doing nothing is obviously wrong, but we do need to act in the best possible way for both the victim and ourselves. In some cases that could be direct intervention; or it could keeping personally safe, summoning help and alerting the authorities (police and ambulance). Every situation will need judged on its own merits.

As an example, let’s say that there was an armed group of five or more all stabbing one individual. Running in and potentially adding one more victim would help no one. Moving yourself to a safe place and summoning help (legal and medical) would be better. If you were part of a group, there could be advantage in calling the police and ambulance, and alerting the criminals that they were being observed and the police were on their way. That may cause them to flee. However, if you were alone and you alerted them to your presence, that could be motivation to attack you and remove you as a witness.

It all depends upon the circumstances, what best helps the victim, and what ensures we don’t take unnecessary risks.

Andrzej J wrote:
But I haven't yet heard anything about intervention to protect third parties from a crime in progress.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 as quoted by Iain above covers this Andrzej. The law specifies that you can use reasonable force to prevent a crime (battery / GBH / manslaughtr / murder for extreme examples), it does not restrict that to a crime against yourself. You are allowed under statute to use reasonable force to prevent a crime from happening to others (and as memory serves I have QC Michael Mansfield and Professor of Law Gary Slapper on audio file explaining this). The force you use must be reasonable however, and that means it must be both necessary and reasonable. How you explain your actions (and how they are viewed) should take into account Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008:  

(1)This section applies where in proceedings for an offence— (a)an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and (b)the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances. (2)The defences are— (a)the common law defence of self-defence; and (b)the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest). (3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question. (4)If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances— (a)the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but (b)if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not— (i)it was mistaken, or (ii)(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made. (5)But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced. (6)The degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances. (7)In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)— (a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose. (8)Subsection (7) is not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3). (9)This section is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2). (10)In this section— (a)“legitimate purpose” means— (i)the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or (ii)the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b); (b)references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and (c)references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.  
Dave. H
Dave. H's picture

I have had a lot of training in use of force legislation, and a lot of hands on experience, and knowledge of the law can save you in a big way. One of the best books i have ever read on the subject is "Understanding Reasonable Force" By Mark Dawes (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Reasonable-Force-Mark-Dawes/dp/1846670128/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1451469406&sr=8-2&keywords=understanding+reasonable+force ), and it is absolutely essential that if, and it is a massive if, you decide you are likely to interevene in a UoF situation you know why and how far BEFORE. Not only will this prevent hesitation, it will let you know when to cut your losses, how far is enough, and what to say afterwards.  On that note, NEVER speak to the Police alone and keep quiet immediately afterwards while the adrenaline is still in your system, as it will do the talking for you. I am not saying the Police will railroad you, but they are are stretched beyond what is remotely reasonable, and want to tie things off quickly and move on.  A friend and former colleague of mine was forced into a situation where he had to defend hmself by a drunked yob, and after a night in the cells, decided to accept a police caution as he was told it would be over and there would be no case to answer in court.  Although partialy true, he just accepted a conviction for a violent offence, and kissed his prison service career goodbye.  Always speak to a solicitor first and have them with you when questioned.  Most trade unions will offer free legal advice these days under any circumstances, and you are always entitled to a solicitor at the crowns expense anyway, so use it.

Andrzej J
Andrzej J's picture

Thanks everyone for your responses - thoughtful, thought-provoking and informative as always.