You're making up stuff now.
Originally Posted by MMAMickey
Says you, the law is written pretty clearly.
You're not going to see any court confirm that hitting somebody in the legs or arms with a bat to disable them is deadly force.
That's just your opinion and one not supported by fact.
It's irrelevant that both can cause GBH. The difference is that any incapacitatory injury from the knife will amount to wounding/GBH, whereas the bat can cause lesser injuries to fulfil its purpose.
In practice, it could be the difference between going to court or not, and then the difference between acquittal and conviction based on the injuries you caused, and whether the jury accepts that your actions were proportionate based on your defence.
Also, on the earlier subject of broken facial bones, I'll let you in on a secret as to why they're often classed as ABH, because you can try ABH in a magistrate's court, and it's cheaper to do so.
So how much experience or formal training do you have in this area?
It sounds like none.
It also sounds like you don't know the difference between "and" and "or".
Let's not forget this part:
It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result:
deadly force as defined by Geller and Scott (23) pertains to the force reasonably capable of causing death or bodily harm.