DH has been sprayed with red dye!

[Mojit0]

This morning DH was running along the Thames towpath as he often does. He was running quite fast as he's training. There is an area where the path narrows a bit and he had caught up and was running behind a woman. He thought she moved to one side to let him pass, so he ran up behind her, at which point she screamed and suddenly sprayed him with a spray! Most of it got on his t-shirt but some of it also also got on his neck and lower face, though he didn't realise at the time. She screamed at him to get away from her and then ran back the other way. He was saying to her, "It's ok" etc, but he said she was so freaked out and looked so terrified he didn't try and follow her.
Now he has a zig-zag pattern of red up his neck and on the left side if his face and it really won't come off. He went into work and someone told him its probably a dye that the police use to mark criminals! I looked on google and it looks as if you can buy a red spray dye that won't wash off for 7 days! If it's this, it's a nightmare as he has to go to China on business tomorrow.
DH feels bad that she was so scared and her reaction actually scared him. He thinks maybe he should have held back, but he thought she was letting him overtake her. I think her reaction was a bit extreme though -AIBU? I run down that path frequently (although not at 6.30am) and I have never heard of anything like this.

I haven't RTFT but surely she assaulted him?

Isn't it entirely possible to accept that the woman's fear and subsequent reaction was reasonable whilst agreeing that the husband didn't deserve what happened?
The fear might be reasonable, but the reaction isn't. If it was reasonable for someone to spray every passing jogger with dye, London would permanently look like a scene from the Holi Festival of Colour.

I posted a link about a rape last night of a woman out jogging on a footpath at 9.00pm for a reason. Sadly it's not a one off. It happens. The big difference in the OP's case is that her husband isn't a rapist. The woman didn't know that.

You can't know anything about a random stranger, but you don't get to assault them for it!

I was raped in a park in the early hours of the morning when I was at university. It was traumatic and awful and not something I would ever wish on anyone ever.

But that does not give me the right to spray any guy with a chemical because he happens to run by me in a park!

Am I cautious when I am out by myself in deserted areas? Of course. Do I assault people who dare run past me? Of course not.

I'm fairly certain in English law that you don't need to wait to be attacked before you defend yourself but that you do need to argue that your belief of the threat was real and that your response was proportionate.I'm not convinced that she doesn't have a stateable case for both those issues.

I am not convinced she has any kind of case.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

In order for the attacker to argue her case she would have to show that she believed she was threatened by the sound of a man approaching at speed in a deserted towpath and her spraying him was because she felt imminent threat and it was the only reasonable response.

However

OP's DH was using a towpath that is well known as a running route, wearing running grear at an hour that might be early but is not beyond reasonable as a regular pre-work run.

He was running at speed but his attacker made no checks to verify his identity before she attacked him and therefore there is no way she could have possibly inferred he was intending to commit a crime in order for her attack to be proportionate.

If she had been concerned at the sound, it takes a second to look over your shoulder and see someone is clearly running towards you. If they then get towards you and make a sign that they intend to stop/touch you then that is the moment a threat becomes a reality and therefore attacking is proportionate. If the person running moves to run past and shows no sign of doing anything but overtaking, then attacking them with chemicals is a hugely disproportionate reaction.

Isn't it entirely possible to accept that the woman's fear and subsequent reaction was reasonable whilst agreeing that the husband didn't deserve what happened?
No fear yes, reaction no!
If i stabbed someone instead of spraying them because i was so scared, would that be acceptable?

This thread is bonkers.

Op, hope your dh gets the dye off (take photos or go to police before A and e!) and all goes ok getting in and out of China.

Not rtft but really feel for your DH. Appreciate that this woman may have felt nervous or had a bad experience previously, but she massively overreacted. If you're that nervous and likely to behave in a manner that results in an assault on someone else, don't jog on a v quiet path at 6.30am. Your DH didn't deserve this.

It's not about whether you or I think it reasonable. Guidance from the CPS below.

The law on self defence arises both under the common law defence of self-defence and the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (use of force in the prevention of crime or making arrest). It has recently been clarified by section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences. Section 76, section 76(9) in particular, neither abolishes the common law and statutory defences nor does it change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force.

Section 76(3) confirms the question whether the degree of force used by the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

Section 76(4) provides that where the defendant claims to have a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances, the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether the defendant genuinely held it. However, if it is established that the defendant did genuinely hold the belief he may rely on that belief to establish the force used was reasonable whether or not it was a mistaken belief and if it was mistaken, whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one to have made, i.e. the crucial test at this stage is whether the belief was an honest one, not whether it was a reasonable one. However, the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept it was honestly held.

I've been sexually assaulted.

I get a bit jittery in some situations.

I run 3 or 4 times a week.

I wouldn't run somewhere that made me so nervy I had to carry some kind of spray with me, I just wouldn't. I wouldn't be enjoying my run if I was that uptight.

Narrow towpath at 6:30AM, I just wouldn't do it.

I blame men...... this must be their fault because man equals rapist

Get him a collar with a bell

Surely, it would be much cheaper, just to castrate all males after their first stiffy & wank ;)

How do you get next to someone without running towards them? confused

Running backwards?

If this woman was so nervous running there that she needed to run with spray pain in her hand she bloody shouldn't have been running there.
I have been raped. I funnily don't go around spraying paint on men's faces. I hope she is found and charged with assault.

Poor husband OP! Hope he's alright!

I blame men...... this must be their fault because man equals rapist

How has a thread with such a calm OP (and calm OPs DH) reached this level of hysteria?

Because it's pretty obvious OP Dh is the victim, the woman was in the wrong and there was no reason to spray the DH but some are intent on making it the mans fault and wiggling the woman away from blame which is ridiculous.

Also it's MN and these things just blow up

This thread is fucking bonkers

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this ended up on the DM at some point.

She should jog somewhere else, more public, if she's that paranoid. I hope your H reported her to the police for assault.

Running backwards?

He would still be going towards her.

I think the woman made a very odd choice. For whatever reason, from experience or anxiety or whatever, she is frightened of being attacked when alone in relatively isolated places. She had several choices about how she dealt with her fear. Perhaps she could have found a less isolated route or found a friend to run with. Instead she chose to equip herself with a spray so she could assault any potential attacker. It didn't make her any safer or less vulnerable, she was lucky that the OP's DH reacted non-aggressively to being attacked as I'm sure other people might have struck out at her to protect themselves. What if she had decided to carry a knife instead of the spray? Finally, the incident with the OPs DH may well have convinced her that she really was at risk from him - I doubt she went home feeling reassured and is probably more frightened than ever.
I just can't see how carrying the spray was a good choice.

Try acetone-based nail polish remover.

How about jogging in the direction of the woman but not directly towards her so an adequate distance away for most people, for example walking towards someone but being the opposite side of the room is no threat to safety.

Hi OP

I've spoke with my BIL who is a police officer and his advise would be to absolutely report this to the non-urgent number.

It is absolutely not OK, no matter what some posters on Mumsnet post, to assault someone with spray paint, or the equivalent, which is what your husband had happen to him.

Naturally, we as readers can only take your post at face value which is what I am doing. And your husband running behind a jogger and assuming she was moving across to let him by is absolutely no reason to behave as she did.

The ridiculous assumptions of what did happen to those who weren't actually there is worrying though - no wonder victims (of whatever crime) fear reporting, or scared to come forward as tarred with a brush.

There's a couple of prolific posters on this thread who I really wouldn't like on a jury

How about jogging in the direction of the woman but not directly towards her so an adequate distance away for most people, for example walking towards someone but being the opposite side of the room is no threat to safety.

Except this wasn't an adequate distance, it was a narrow tow path and he wa a passing her so very close indeed.

Except narrow is a subjective measure, was it generally narrow or just narrow in the sense that it got narrower but still relatively wide

What if she had decided to carry a knife instead of the spray?

She didn't. Why do so many people on here act as though spraying someone with paint is oh-so-horrible assault? Seriously, calm down. It's annoying, but that's all it is.

Don't act as though she decided that morning to carry red dye instead of a knife and it was a 50/50 chance. That's bonkers. It's not remotely the same thing. Police doesn't recommend that you carry knives, since they're a risk to you.

There is zero reason to assume that this woman would a) have carried a knife at all or b) acted with so little provocation when carrying a knife.

If men must now live in fear of being sprayed with red dye when running on a lonely path at 6 in the morning, then ... that's still worlds better than what women have do deal with, namely, the danger of being raped.

If you're that scared of strangers, learn Muay Thai or carry a knife

Seriously bad idea. The reality is that people who carry a knife for protection are rarely able to use it effectively, and once they get it out they're vulnerable to their attacker forcing it out of their hands and using it on them.