Dascylus said:
I thought the exact same way, landed me 2.5 years.
If you carry a knife on your person with the intent of using it against a person (regardless of whether that purpose is self-defence) then you are legally in the wrong (in the uk).
Numbers apparently don't count (I was up alone against 5 when I was attacked and beaten to the ground before getting up and pulling the knife).
And although I thought it might create an opening to escape it turns out all I could do was back off with them following at a 3 meter distance shouting "he's got a knife".
That was until one of them said "He's not got the guts to use it" and rushed me.
Whatever you might think, the law is not on your side in the uk. I got 2.5 years and the other guy was a few mm from having a severed femoral artery.
I think what happened to you is an absolute tragedy. No one should have to be forced to wait until
after a group of thugs has de-humanized them to be able to do something, just because some politician wants to feel huggy-huggy-rainbows about weapon laws.
While it may not be
legally true in the UK, I believe it is
fundamentally true that you should be able to use whatever is at your disposal to defend yourself when attacked.
And the law should side with you. It should be the burden of the attackers' lawyers to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
you did something wrong
first. And if not, the law should come down on them.
Self-defense laws like the UK apparently has don't deal in reality, they deal in high concept. Life or death situations need to be dealt with
realistically.
1. Knives (while not the best self-defense method) have a lot of uses. Carrying one does not mean malicious intent.
Most people aren't criminals and murderers, so assuming they are is enacting a "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" legal system.
2. Victims can rarely be protected by the police. The police can only get there
after the damage is done. No one should have to die, or risk death, just to prove they were being attacked.
3. As I mentioned,
most people aren't criminals. But those that are criminals may have multiple victims. Better to let
one person violate the "rights" of this demonstrated criminal, than to let this criminal trample the rights of
several people.
4. There is
one place in America where we have a policy that, often, both people involved in a fight should be punished at least a little (because there's nearly
always someone nearby that could have intervened). And there is also
one place in America where we adopt the idea that "Because
one person can misuse this tool,
no one is allowed to have it -- guilty until proven innocent" approach.
And that's in schools. For children. No one should have to live under a government that treats them like a child after abandoning them to deal with an adult reality (and punishes them like an adult, too).
I'm sorry for what happened to you. I hope some citizens stood up for you, even if it didn't amount to much. I also hope other people understand that
this is exactly why America has the laws it does -- we're not death-happy Gun Nuts, or any of the popular representations. We just believe people have the right not to be victims, and victims have the right not to be punished for refusing to go quietly.