Is assault lawful when protecting someone?

[Scheherazade]

This is one of the 'hot' discussion topics in the UK at the moment and wondered what our international community's thoughts are.

Please don't forget to take the poll (anonymous) :)
Assault is against the law but what if it is committed to protect someone else?

Protecting the vulnerable is considered a key tenet of a civilised society, but recent events have shown that intervention in an effort to uphold community values can come at a very high price.

As well as the recent high-profile cases of men being killed after stepping in to stop troublemakers, there is also the memory of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was fatally stabbed in 1995 when trying to save a pupil from a gang.

The dilemma of intervention is one many of us - including broadcaster Jeremy Vine - have grappled with in our minds, if not in reality. But what protection does the law afford the person who commits violence when protecting someone else? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6956394.stm

[Lote-Tree]

This is one of the 'hot' discussion topics in the UK at the moment and wondered what our international community's thoughts are.

Please don't forget to take the poll (anonymous) :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6956394.stm

There is only one obvious answer or should be!

If you are living in a community then you have some responsibility towards it.

Yes. You may lose your life in it. But those are sacrifices has to be made in order for the community to survive and prosper.

Community should be endowed with responsibility.

You don't have to always get into a fight to intervene.

[kilted exile]

Yes, if it is a matter of protection physical intervention is ok. However I think the important thing is to use a level of force applicable to the situation and not going "overboard". The level of force used should be just enough to subdue the assailant, not used with the intent of inflicting actual harm - we do not need vigilantism (sp?)

[SleepyWitch]

yep, assault should be lawful when protecting someone. but you should assess the situation first before intervening.
if I were to see two adult male drunks beating eacht other up, I'd probably leave them to themselves.
but if it was a man attacking a woman or child or a NeoNazi beating up a foreigner, I'd probably intervene.

it's legal to shoot at a burglar in England but there can be complications when you assault someone to protect another person? :confused:

[antagonist22]

If you are protecting someone, its no longer called "assault" its doing the right thing by defending the other person.Assault is to physically hurt someone for an ill reason. That what I think anyway.

[Poppy]

It's absolutely the right thing to do. And it's right to use what force is necessary to protect and defend yourself and the person you are defending.
Not only is it legally responsible, its a moral obligation.
~Poppy

[applepie]

I don't know how the legalities work out, but I think that if you see someone being harmed there is a moral responsibility to give aid. You only have a responsibility to offer aid if you are physically capable of giving the aid though. I'm little at 5'2'' and only 140 pounds. I have no obligation to stop a 300 pound man from anything. I was foolish enough to try to once, but it could have ended really bad. Lucky for me the guy had issues about hitting a girl and I was between him and his target;) Children should always be defended, drunken brawls left alone unless someone is being really injured. I generally stick with the idea that if someone weaker is being assaulted then they should be protected, but only if you are capable of offering protection and not just sacrificing yourself.