true
but I wouldn't kill. I doubt I have the physical strength to kill someone, and the dodgiest bit of the law has always been the amount of time between provocation and action. I doubt I could justify going and finding a weapon to kill someone with
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:14, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

You don't need the strength or the weapon
It's the intent that counts. I assume that, if you were attacked and you pushed them off and ran, it would be fair to say that murder was not your intent. If you stopped to put the boot in, that becomes less clear.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:18, Reply)

It's a tricky one though.
If I'm in a fight and genuinely doubt it's going to end with the standard mild to moderate beating, and if by some fluke I knock the other guy down, I'm going to make damn sure he doesn't get up again to come after me once I've legged it. Admittedly I'd probably stamp on his knee rather than his head, but I suspect that would probably still get me ABH/GBH.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:23, Reply)

only if you thought kicking them was liable to kill. Though as far as I remember a pre-existing condition like in R v Ruby is no defense if they do happen to be susceptible.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:27, Reply)

Right
No intent to kill or cause BGH, no murder conviction, however, it raises a new issue of excessive force in self-defence as a defence to Unlawful Act MS.
( WormuIus, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:30, Reply)

hard to define excessive force
particularly since self defence can kick in before any actual hurt is caused. Just have to feel threatened really
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 12:32, Reply)