Lol, the rubbish people talk on here. Being proficient in fighting/martial arts is not a "weapon". you cannot be penalised for having a skill. What is important, is the level of appropriate force you use when defending yourself.Anthony_Gemini wrote: only difference with him ( if he is a black belt, because not all instructors are) he can be given a harsher charge ( assault with a weapon etc )
A 27y yo boxer recently went to jail for 8+ years for repeatedly punching and killing a 46 yo guy in a pub. The sentence was given NOT because he was a boxer, but because he delivered about 25 punches that were unnecessary, then head stomped him when he was down. His actions were grossly excessive.
Also, if someone punches you, and you retaliate with a single punch, and it knocks them out, and they fall, split their skull and die, that is reasonable force. Yup. But if you floor someone, then kick them when they are down, and they survive with serious injuries, then you will be trouble . See the difference? Intent is 9/10th of the law.
The law allows self defence. In a fight situation you cannot be Robocop and place hits carefully to inflict minimum damage, you have to punch wherever is available. Just do the minimum that is required to disable your attacker, that is the key. If you continue to attack beyond that point, you have malicious intent. If that is proven, you can be jailed.