|
andy_s
8,464 posts
128 months
|
daz3210 said: Nope, but I have to add he was rather jovial about it, and told me something along the line of how he would carry it the same, probably for the same reason I was carrying it in such a way, but just to be careful.
There had been a number of muggings locally in the prior couple of months, and a six cell maglite does make rather a good impromptu defensive weapon I guess. And a good offensive one when it's snatched out of your hands while you're protecting your cancellable credit card and £3.56 in loose change. Just a thought - not being arsey.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
andy_s said: daz3210 said: Nope, but I have to add he was rather jovial about it, and told me something along the line of how he would carry it the same, probably for the same reason I was carrying it in such a way, but just to be careful.
There had been a number of muggings locally in the prior couple of months, and a six cell maglite does make rather a good impromptu defensive weapon I guess. And a good offensive one when it's snatched out of your hands while you're protecting your cancellable credit card and £3.56 in loose change. Just a thought - not being arsey. Hence the reason for carrying it in a ready position. What was the term, judged by twelve..........
|
|
|
Gaspode
2,683 posts
65 months
|
Hooli said: Honestly?
I'd like to live in a world where the law is on the side of the decent people. So in your world, "decent" people would be allowed to murder other people, but "chavscum" wouldn't. How would the categorisation be carried out? Presumably you'd like to institute small local committees in charge of social cleansing, with a remit to clean their neighbourhoods up? They could go around identifying the Chavscum so they could be cleansed. You could send the men off to some quiet woodlands somewhere, and you could keep the women handy for r&r purposes. Sounds like a great plan. OK, so there's a guy on trial in The Hague for doing this at the moment, but I'm sure you could learn from his errors and make sure you didn't get caught...
|
|
|
tenohfive
3,660 posts
51 months
|
jazzyjeff said: instead of issuing a b  king of the downright obvious about carrying offensive weapons? If it were that obvious then a) they would have ditched the baseball bats etc and b) I wouldn't spend as much time giving people similar 'words of advice' when they've come too close to that line of 'reasonable force.' People don't know when to stop. A bit of a slap, a few bruises detaining a burglar? Shouldn't be too difficult for someone to justify that. Putting them in a coma with a baseball bat? Now it's getting trickier. If a van full of thieving scum got put in hospital by their intended victims more than one officer would have a smile at whatever natural justice had taken place. But they'd still have to arrest the ones who put them there if the force didn't seem reasonable - and that's something most would rather avoid.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
tenohfive said: jazzyjeff said: instead of issuing a b king of the downright obvious about carrying offensive weapons? If it were that obvious then a) they would have ditched the baseball bats etc and b) I wouldn't spend as much time giving people similar 'words of advice' when they've come too close to that line of 'reasonable force.' People don't know when to stop. A bit of a slap, a few bruises detaining a burglar? Shouldn't be too difficult for someone to justify that. Putting them in a coma with a baseball bat? Now it's getting trickier. If a van full of thieving scum got put in hospital by their intended victims more than one officer would have a smile at whatever natural justice had taken place. But they'd still have to arrest the ones who put them there if the force didn't seem reasonable - and that's something most would rather avoid. But until you have actually been in that position you don't know how you may react. Lets face it, if you were confronted with a nutter with say a knife. Then you manage to disarm said nutter, and give him a slap in the process. Said nutter is going to be an aggravated nutter, who may be more determined to do you harm if he gets an upper hand. In those circumstances I would feel justified decking the t t and making sure he could do me no harm.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
andy_s
8,464 posts
128 months
|
daz3210 said: But until you have actually been in that position you don't know how you may react. Lets face it, if you were confronted with a nutter with say a knife. Then you manage to disarm said nutter, and give him a slap in the process. Said nutter is going to be an aggravated nutter, who may be more determined to do you harm if he gets an upper hand. In those circumstances I would feel justified decking the t t and making sure he could do me no harm. That's quite a convoluted situation though, and bears no resemblance to the original one. For a start these guys weren't being threatened, with knives or anything else, in fact they were going off in the miscreants direction if I understand correctly. You could read that as 'vigilantism' - if that's a word - or perhsps even 'intent' if you stretched a point, which is what they do in courts. Your situation above has no beginning, so we are to assume the confontation with a knife to be unavoidable and inescapable, in which case I'm sure you would have an imediate fear for your life or the lifes of others, in which case, facing a knife which is a lethal weapon, I'd say you were perfectly entitled to stop the threat in no uncertain terms, so decking the t t is entirely appropriate.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
andy_s said: Your situation above has no beginning, so we are to assume the confontation with a knife to be unavoidable and inescapable, in which case I'm sure you would have an imediate fear for your life or the lifes of others, in which case, facing a knife which is a lethal weapon, I'd say you were perfectly entitled to stop the threat in no uncertain terms, so decking the t t is entirely appropriate. But is it reasonable force? If in decking him you caused permanent, irreversible harm, would you be judged to have gone too far? One person may think yes, one no.
|
|
|
hman
4,806 posts
63 months
|
if the agressor was likely to cause injury or worse then a pre-emptive t tting regardless of the results would be fine. You'd just need someone to corroborate your story.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,464 posts
128 months
|
daz3210 said: But is it reasonable force?
If in decking him you caused permanent, irreversible harm, would you be judged to have gone too far? One person may think yes, one no. I'd say it's reasonable to go so far as to kill someone if that is what stops you getting killed. Obviously you should act in defense, so stabbing him while he's unconscious isn't the same thing, nor is chasing him down and stabbing him if he's escaping; reasonable force is force that's proportionate to the threat. If you cause irreperable harm but were justified in doing that to prevent yourself dying then it's reasonable I'd say. As to one person thinking yes, one person thinking no; everyone seems to think that it's better to be judged by twelve... Personnaly, in those circumstances, I wouldn't really be thinking that far down the line.
|
|
|
djt100
942 posts
54 months
|
jazzyjeff said: So sad that sometimes they only seem interested in making an easy collar rather than dealing with the actual crime they've been called to investigate  Next time better at least have a ball as well and then at least you can make out you were having an impromptu game of rounders  Or they are turnign a blind eye, Many years ago friend had a car radio stolen, people had seen who done it and told him who it was, went to his house and confronted him, He was known to the police, we explained the situation and the parting line from the old bill, was along the lines of if there are no witnesses there is nothing we can do. turning a blind eye for the cause 
|
|
|
tenohfive
3,660 posts
51 months
|
daz3210 said: But until you have actually been in that position you don't know how you may react. Lets face it, if you were confronted with a nutter with say a knife. Then you manage to disarm said nutter, and give him a slap in the process. Said nutter is going to be an aggravated nutter, who may be more determined to do you harm if he gets an upper hand. In those circumstances I would feel justified decking the t t and making sure he could do me no harm. I don't particularly want to get drawn into a discussion of what is and isn't reasonable force - it's been talked about a great many times on these forums. It's a fact that reasonable force does become unreasonable force sometimes. So my point really is that the consequences of using unreasonable force with weapons generally means more serious injuries and less likelihood of officers 'turning a blind eye for the cause,' as one of the other posters described it.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
tenohfive said: daz3210 said: But until you have actually been in that position you don't know how you may react. Lets face it, if you were confronted with a nutter with say a knife. Then you manage to disarm said nutter, and give him a slap in the process. Said nutter is going to be an aggravated nutter, who may be more determined to do you harm if he gets an upper hand. In those circumstances I would feel justified decking the t t and making sure he could do me no harm. I don't particularly want to get drawn into a discussion of what is and isn't reasonable force - it's been talked about a great many times on these forums. It's a fact that reasonable force does become unreasonable force sometimes. So my point really is that the consequences of using unreasonable force with weapons generally means more serious injuries and less likelihood of officers 'turning a blind eye for the cause,' as one of the other posters described it. But when does it become unreasonable? If (hypothetically) I woke in the night to find a guy with a gun, I had a scuffle, and somehow ended up with the gun, would I be reasonable in shooting him? If I didn't he may regain control and do the same to me. The problem is it is down to me in the heat of a moment to take action I immediately deem necessary. It is somewhat different to have the time to contemplate and argue like a judge and jury can.
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,178 posts
20 months
|
I believe it’s a bit like this.
On a remote farm a bunch of farm workers taking bats and weapons to confront intruders isn’t anything the police will worry about too much unless serious injury occurs.
It’s one of those wonderful grey areas in life.
The police will tell you that you shouldn’t do it, you just thank them for their advice.
Both parties smile and nod knowing full well that the farmer will continue using the bat and other extreme methods of property defence, and that the policeman is quite happy with this, but from a legal point of view everyone has said the correct words.
If some idiot starts arguing with the police about their right to defend the properly then it’ll just result in a horrible argument.
In these situation the police are just there to keep the peace, let them do their job.
If you want to argue case law then call a judge (or argue on here).
As for all the rest of the questions about carrying weapons around, it comes down to the ‘Common sense’ and ‘bloody stupid’ acts of 1803.
You’re carrying a sword in a bag on the way to Karate class – no problem.
In fact, if you and a mate were doing the ghey Kata with a sword in full karate kit in a local friendly park in the middle of a sunny Sunday afternoon it’s unlikely you’d get into trouble.
There’s no threat or intent of threat.
You take the sword out of the house to request some yobs to move away from your street and you’re going to get into trouble.
You have it in the boot of the car without any additional karate gear at 2AM in a remote backstreet you’re going to get into trouble.
|
|
|
davemac250
4,203 posts
74 months
|
How many people have read the legislation?
The last bit of the section.
Without lawful authority or excuse.
Just bear that in mind.
Pretty difficult to argue playing baseball in the dark, or without a ball.
|
|
|
Gaspode
2,683 posts
65 months
|
There's a big danger with otherwise law-abiding members of the public deciding to take the fight to the bad men. No matter how much you might like to think you are as tough and as hard as the other guy, the fact remains that you are a civilised human being, with moral scruples which will ultimately count against you - and they probably aren't, and don't have such limits on their behaviour.
There's a story they tell in the local in my village. A few years ago, a group of "honest hard working travelling folk" moved into the area, and inevitably stuff started disappearing from local farms. A few of the local lads decided to go and visit them, and took along the usual assortment of baseball bats etc to hep them make their point clear.
The response of the travellers to a bunch of guys wielding baseball bats was to get small kids, 8 or 10 years old, to run up behind the guys with carving knives and hamstring them, thus rendering them easy meat for a very serious kicking resulting in lengthy hospital stays. They then disappeared and the cops were unable to find them.
I have no idea as to the truth of the story, it's probably grown in the telling over the years as these things are won't to do, but the message is clear.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,464 posts
128 months
|
Snowboy said: You’re carrying a sword in a bag on the way to Karate class – no problem.
In fact, if you and a mate were doing the ghey Kata with a sword in full karate kit in a local friendly park in the middle of a sunny Sunday afternoon it’s unlikely you’d get into trouble.
There’s no threat or intent of threat.
You take the sword out of the house to request some yobs to move away from your street and you’re going to get into trouble.
You have it in the boot of the car without any additional karate gear at 2AM in a remote backstreet you’re going to get into trouble. Sort of; "The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".So a sword in public will always be an offensive weapon irrespective of intent, unless you have "lawful authority or excuse" (an organised sword ghey kata demonstration may fall under 'excuse', playing with it in the park with a mate may be more difficult to excuse...). You don't need to have intent to qualify a sword as an offensive weapon. A baseball bat in public will not be an offensive weapon unless the person has intent to use it to cause injury, no 'lawful authority or excuse' required (think playing rounders in the park).
|
|
|
T0nup
450 posts
69 months
|
RedWhiteMonkey said: Honestly, you want to live in a world where you lower yourself to the very level you claim to despise? Meanwhile in the real world you could easily make rash decision that ruins your life and the life of your family forever. Its just not worth it. Written like a true believer of there being good in all people... So what you gonna do when the scum have broken into your home and are standing over your bed, your wife is asleep and the kids are in the next room?... Yeah, though so.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
andy_s said: Sort of; "The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".
So a sword in public will always be an offensive weapon irrespective of intent, unless you have "lawful authority or excuse" (an organised sword ghey kata demonstration may fall under 'excuse', playing with it in the park with a mate may be more difficult to excuse...). You don't need to have intent to qualify a sword as an offensive weapon.
A baseball bat in public will not be an offensive weapon unless the person has intent to use it to cause injury, no 'lawful authority or excuse' required (think playing rounders in the park). But some things that are termed offensive weapons could also be considered defensive weapons. The Police issue asp if I carried it in public as an MoP would no doubt be considered offensive. Yet the Police carry them for defensive purposes. The definition of offensive must also contain some indication of use/circumstance surely.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,464 posts
128 months
|
daz3210 said: But some things that are termed offensive weapons could also be considered defensive weapons.
The Police issue asp if I carried it in public as an MoP would no doubt be considered offensive. Yet the Police carry them for defensive purposes.
The definition of offensive must also contain some indication of use/circumstance surely. The police have 'lawful authority'. CS is also an offensive weapon (made or adapted). Offensive implies simply 'able to cause injury', not the reasons why it is used. If it's a make-shift weapon you've just picked up and used in self-defence, then, all things being equal, you have an 'excuse', the details of the individual circumstances would dictate whether it was seen as 1. self-defence 2. whether you were in fear of immediate injury/death 3) used reasonable force. Case law provides interpretation, but the over-riding one should be the CPS test which is that a prosecution should be in the public interest.
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,178 posts
20 months
|
andy_s said: So a sword in public will always be an offensive weapon irrespective of intent, unless you have "lawful authority or excuse" (an organised sword ghey kata demonstration may fall under 'excuse', playing with it in the park with a mate may be more difficult to excuse...). You don't need to have intent to qualify a sword as an offensive weapon. Yes. I was just using it as an example at the other end of the spectrum – even though it may not be 100% accurate. Perhaps not a sharpened katana. But if he was practicing with a bo stick, or some practice sword then it’s no more dangerous than a broom handle. The comment about the full karate kit was to show the difference between a sportsman doing some training vs a couple of kids with replica LoTR swords playing with them. The other comments about not getting into fights you don’t have to are very sensible. I know some very well trained kung fu people who have been badly beaten up because they were trained to fight other kung fu people, not trained to fight someone who’s happy to bite, spit, eye-gouge and the like. One horrible story is some thug who claimed to have aids, then bite his own inner cheek and spat blood into someone face before laying in with the fists. When I was a kid pub fights had rules (well, guidelines really) There might be black eyes and bruised ribs, but generally when a man was down the attacker would back off or be pulled off by bystanders. The last time I saw a pub fight (many years back now) it involves a lot of glassings and some horrible hospitalising kicks-when-down. Seeing someone sacrifice their own hand by smashing the glass they are holding into someone else’s face isn’t nice and I’d rather walk away and be called some bad names then have it done to me.
|
|
