Question for police re: offensive weapon & using phone
Discussion
tvrslag said:
If for example I were to use a maglite as a defence against a knife attack surely this a no brainer.
You might think so, but in fact this area of law is complicated as it relies on intent and state of mind. If the prosecution could show that you were not in immediate danger, or that there were other options available to you, then the charge might stand.
For example - he threatens you with a knife, and hand over your wallet. He turns and walks away, and you kill him with a blow to the skull with your maglite.
Alternatively you are on your motorbike, engine idling and ready to go and he lurches from the pub door waving a knife saything that he's going to "cut you up". You step off your bike and defend yourself with the maglite, again avoiding his drunken attack and delivering a blow to the skull.
This stance is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable. It places all the onus of proof and the possible repercussions of an act likely performed in a panic, in the dark, whilst sleepy, etc., on the wrong person - that is, the person defending themselves. Why on Earth should I have to bother about what the burglar I find in my house in the "wee smalls" is armed with? That is *his* problem. If he'd stayed in the pub with his mates, it wouldn't matter what I defended myself with.
I keep a sawnoff length of pickaxe handle beside my bed, and anyone I find uninvited in my house is going to get vigorously belaboured with it, and the hell with the consequences. Like one of my friends says; better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
I keep a sawnoff length of pickaxe handle beside my bed, and anyone I find uninvited in my house is going to get vigorously belaboured with it, and the hell with the consequences. Like one of my friends says; better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
zumbruk said:
I keep a sawnoff length of pickaxe handle beside my bed, and anyone I find uninvited in my house is going to get vigorously belaboured with it, and the hell with the consequences. Like one of my friends says; better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Excellent stuff, and if you find that there is a Pig Farm nearby you might be able to dispose of any evidence.... 
tvrslag said:
MG6B.
We are taught in our Ju-jitsu self defence that in defending ourselves we can use equal force depending on other circumstances (such as the age and or size of the attacker).
The law states you can use force that is reasonable! That force may be more than the force used by your attacker to defend yourself. It must be proportionate that is all the courts have said!
tvrslag said:
We have been told that if a person physically attacks you with a knife then you can justifiably use an equal and potentially lethal force in defence from that attack.
You can. You just have to be able to justify the methods and extent before a court if you have hurt someone in the process of defending yourself and the CPS decide that the force you received was not reasonable in the circumstances.
tvrslag said:
If for example I were to use a maglite as a defence against a knife attack surely this a no brainer.
Depends on the knife and the maglite
A table fish knife whilst looking very menacing is not likely to do the samesort of damage as a razor sharp Bowie knife! Depends also on the size of your maglite and where you hit the attacker with it. A large maglite across the sweed is likely to do a considerable amount of serious damage!
tvrslag said:
The knife is usefull for only one thing (cutting stuff be it a person a bag a rope whatever) where, as as you state the maglite is torch.
A knife is not necessarliy per se an offensive weapon. Take the fish knife example which is primarily used for easing fish from the bones on your dinner plate. It can be adapted as such by the intended or actual use. Exactly the same as a maglite!
A stilletto or bayonette blade is manufactured for one purpose only. That is to hurt someone. It is therefore automatically considered to be an offensive weapon if you have either in your possession. A fish knife on the other hand is a fish knife until you decide otherwise!
tvrslag said:
Could it not be argued therefore that the level of force you used in defence of yourself by using the torch a non leathal weapon was lower than that with which the law would allow anyway?
A large maglite could be a lethal weapon!
It depends on how you use the torch! Shining it in your attackers eyes to disorientate them would be the lowest form of defence and the torch would remain a torch at that point. An overhead swing with a heavy torch connecting with some elses face is not using the torch for its intended purpose but adapting it into an offensive weapon.
tvrslag said:
In the eye for an eye stakes a maglite does not to me equal a knife?
Nowhere in law does it state you can exercise the principle of an eye for an eye! That is retribution and not a matter of self defence or even punishment as the law sees it in this country!
Force to repel an attacker has to be considered and proportionate. Almost like a stair case. If the attacker uses the level of force equivalent to the first stair, you can go to that stair or the one above within the law to protect yourself. If you jump a stair to the third stair when your attacker is on the first, you run the risk of becoming a defendant!
zumbruk said:
This stance is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable. It places all the onus of proof and the possible repercussions of an act likely performed in a panic, in the dark, whilst sleepy, etc., on the wrong person - that is, the person defending themselves.
No it doesn't. The defendant is still required only to introduce reasonable doubt in the charge against him, for example by establishing what his state of mind and intentions were at the time of the attack.
Rather than keep a weapon for which the only purpose is hitting someone on the head, why don't you take up cricket?
zumbruk said:
This stance is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable. It places all the onus of proof and the possible repercussions of an act likely performed in a panic, in the dark, whilst sleepy, etc., on the wrong person
All that is considered in the law and the case law governing the directions judges give to juries!
zumbruk said:
Why on Earth should I have to bother about what the burglar I find in my house in the "wee smalls" is armed with? That is *his* problem.
What if it isn't a burglar in your sleepy confused state?
zumbruk said:
If he'd stayed in the pub with his mates, it wouldn't matter what I defended myself with.
You are not wrong but do you know the intentions and the identity of someone moving around quietly in your house at night even if you do not know them or why they are there?
zumbruk said:
I keep a sawnoff length of pickaxe handle beside my bed, and anyone I find uninvited in my house is going to get vigorously belaboured with it, and the hell with the consequences. Like one of my friends says; better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
lets hope your intruder does not find it before you realise they are there Lets hope that after your first swing connects it does the intended job and you have the self control not to aim a second
7db said:
This stance is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable. It places all the onus of proof and the possible repercussions of an act likely performed in a panic, in the dark, whilst sleepy, etc., on the wrong person - that is, the person defending themselves.
No it doesn't. The defendant is still required only to introduce reasonable doubt in the charge against him, for example by establishing what his state of mind and intentions were at the time of the attack.
Rather than keep a weapon for which the only purpose is hitting someone on the head, why don't you take up cricket?
Or golf! Golf practice swingers are marvellous to have handy. Any given moment you can practice your swing in a confined area without worrying about damaging anything!
I was under the impression that the law was changing in relation to defending your home and the law was becoming more lenient to the home owner????? Also would very much like to see a chaps excuse for wandering around my house at 3 in the morning. Personally I don't think I would be asking too many questions to start with?
just_william said:
I was under the impression that the law was changing in relation to defending your home and the law was becoming more lenient to the home owner????? Also would very much like to see a chaps excuse for wandering around my house at 3 in the morning. Personally I don't think I would be asking too many questions to start with?
It has not changed yet.
Would a loud shout
"who are you? What do you want?" help before you launch into your attack They may just leave! They may even be a Police officer who has discovered an insecurity and is investigating hoping to apprehend any intruder!
Still, If you brain the local bobby, I expect they will understand why
A 3.5 kg CO2 fire extiguisher is pretty useful. As they approach, scream at the top of your voice "STAND STILL, YOU APPEAR TO BE ON FIRE!" and discharge the extinguisher at their chest and midriff.
A CO2 extinguisher is designed to blast solid CO2 at -190 deg C and contact with skin/clothing can cause severe instantaneous frostbite - a kettle of boiling water would do less damage.
In your opinion, the person appeared to be on fire and you were attempting to save his life - I'm sure the BiB will come up with something in defence of the scrote, but it's worth thinking about, is it not?
The other option is to become a scrote yourself so that you can, quite literally, get away with murder...
A CO2 extinguisher is designed to blast solid CO2 at -190 deg C and contact with skin/clothing can cause severe instantaneous frostbite - a kettle of boiling water would do less damage.
In your opinion, the person appeared to be on fire and you were attempting to save his life - I'm sure the BiB will come up with something in defence of the scrote, but it's worth thinking about, is it not?
The other option is to become a scrote yourself so that you can, quite literally, get away with murder...
mg6b said:
I was under the impression that the law was changing in relation to defending your home and the law was becoming more lenient to the home owner????? Also would very much like to see a chaps excuse for wandering around my house at 3 in the morning. Personally I don't think I would be asking too many questions to start with?
It has not changed yet.
Would a loud shout
They may just leave! They may even be a Police officer who has discovered an insecurity and is investigating hoping to apprehend any intruder!
Still, If you brain the local bobby, I expect they will understand why
Jesus Christ, is this bollox the best you can manage?
zumbruk said:
They may just leave! They may even be a Police officer who has discovered an insecurity and is investigating hoping to apprehend any intruder!
Still, If you brain the local bobby, I expect they will understand why
Jesus Christ, is this bollox the best you can manage?[/quote]
you may think its bollox. I hope it never happens to you! if it does and your intruder suffers a serious injury, I hope for your sake they are intruding as trespassers with criminal intent and not just someone who happens to be pissed on the way home from the pub and accidentally entered your house thinking it was their own!
Still you are entitled to your opinion and at least you now know that things like this do happen.
Happy swinging with your weapon of intent
zumbruk said:
I keep a sawnoff length of pickaxe handle beside my bed, and anyone I find uninvited in my house is going to get vigorously belaboured with it, and the hell with the consequences. Like one of my friends says; better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
if you kept a knife/sharpened screwdriver/something else nasty there too, it might find it's way into the hands of the prone, unconcious intruder after you've rendered him thus, giving you a nice reason for hitting him. of course if he is a copper/harmless neighbour who's lost and drunk it might be hard to explain the appearance of the knife
golf club or other sporting equipment is easier to explain than sawn off pickaxe handle though
I've also had training at work too for self defence and was advised that you can use whatever is at hand to protect yourself, if you felt your life was at risk. Even to the point where you can pre-empt the attacker striking you by attacking them first. I wouldn't look around either to try to match the attackers choice of implement,in case i ended up in court. I would just use ANYTHING at hand.
I particularly favour the clip board plunged into the nose, torch, or my best one is the damp tester i always carry , some very usefull multi purpose tool that, a bit like a tazer.
Even a pen,finger, key etc could be plunged into the attackers eyes, to allow time to get away, for help.
(I've not had to put the theory into practise yet by the way..... )
Why are tazers illegal too, i saw one advertised once built into a phone, obviously one couldn't take it on a plane etc but for personal protection then why not?
That would give a shock to any attacker and be a valuable accessory if your not into martial arts etc....
I particularly favour the clip board plunged into the nose, torch, or my best one is the damp tester i always carry , some very usefull multi purpose tool that, a bit like a tazer.
Even a pen,finger, key etc could be plunged into the attackers eyes, to allow time to get away, for help.
(I've not had to put the theory into practise yet by the way..... )
Why are tazers illegal too, i saw one advertised once built into a phone, obviously one couldn't take it on a plane etc but for personal protection then why not?
That would give a shock to any attacker and be a valuable accessory if your not into martial arts etc....
gilberninvader said:
I've also had training at work too for self defence and was advised that you can use whatever is at hand to protect yourself,
Then your advice was ill conceived!
You cannot pick up anything to defend yourself with!
gilbernivader said:
...if you felt your life was at risk.
That also depends on how you perceive your life is in danger at that particular moment!
gilberninvader said:
Even to the point where you can pre-empt the attacker striking you by attacking them first.
You can deliver a pre emptive strike but you must be able to describe the situation and the actions including the body language and what was said by your attacker before you deliver your blow. You cannot just think "My life is in danger" and strike out without being able to justify your actions in front of a court.
Those who practice fighting arts may well understand about conflict resolution and be in a position to understand the signs given immediately prior to an impending attack. Members of the pulic who have not been taught this will not be able to do so and to give advice that they can hit someone first is not altogether useful information if they are not advised of the full package in how to recognise when this is likley to happen.
gilberinvader said:
I wouldn't look around either to try to match the attackers choice of implement,in case i ended up in court. I would just use ANYTHING at hand.
You may do so if what you use is proportionate to the impending assault on you and you use it in a proportionate way. Anything you pick up may not be acceptable to an examining Judge and jury.
gilberninvader said:
I particularly favour the clip board plunged into the nose, torch, or my best one is the damp tester i always carry , some very usefull multi purpose tool that, a bit like a tazer.
Even a pen,finger, key etc could be plunged into the attackers eyes, to allow time to get away, for help.
Those items would not necessarily be considered as out of proportion to repel an attack. Picking up a hand axe or Machette may well be unless your attacker was similarly armed!
gilberninvader said:
(I've not had to put the theory into practise yet by the way..... )
Why are tazers illegal too, i saw one advertised once built into a phone, obviously one couldn't take it on a plane etc but for personal protection then why not?
That would give a shock to any attacker and be a valuable accessory if your not into martial arts etc....
Tazers are illegal because they have the effect of rendering people helpless for minutes after their use. They are legislated for under the Firearms Act 1968 and the reason it is illegal to have them is that they are designed to inacapacitate and in certain cases could have devastating effects on the subject they are used against.
What an ideal tool for the criminal to have in his/her pocket to render his intended victim helpless before robbing them.
Have you ever been out with a few mates having a laugh? Do you not think that some people would not have the self control not to use their tazer for a laugh on unsuspecting members of your group or even other people in the street or pub they do not know when they have had a sniff of the barmaids apron?
>> Edited by mg6b on Thursday 27th April 11:23
mg6b said:
They may just leave! They may even be a Police officer who has discovered an insecurity and is investigating hoping to apprehend any intruder!
Still, If you brain the local bobby, I expect they will understand why
Jesus Christ, is this bollox the best you can manage?
you may think its bollox.
That's because it is.
mg6b said:
I hope it never happens to you! if it does and your intruder suffers a serious injury, I hope for your sake they are intruding as trespassers with criminal intent and not just someone who happens to be pissed on the way home from the pub and accidentally entered your house thinking it was their own!
Oh, for Ghod's sake. Do you really think I leave doors unlocked at night? The burglar alarm is part set. Anbody in my house without my knowledge/consent at night is an intruder. Personally, I find your evasions ludicrous at best and offensive at worst. Why are you on the side of the criminals?
zumbruk said:
Oh, for Ghod's sake. Do you really think I leave doors unlocked at night? The burglar alarm is part set. Anbody in my house without my knowledge/consent at night is an intruder. Personally, I find your evasions ludicrous at best and offensive at worst. Why are you on the side of the criminals?
I am not on the side of criminals. If you brain someone without just cause you will become a criminal!
You may be one of those people who never make a mistake!
There are people who do and you would be surprised at how many leave doors unlocked and insecure at night. You would also be surprised at how many jobs police attend without the householder realising they have had an intruder and have to wake the householder up.
An intruder gets into the property through an insecure window left open on a hot night whether ground floor or 1st floor. They rummage the place without disturbing the occupants and leave through the front door which they do not close. The milkman discovers the insecurity and then calls the police. The police enter the house in an effort to capture anyone who may be in the process of burgling the place and they are met by zumbruk with his arsenal and his shoot first policy!
I hope it never occurs to you zumbruk. I hope that your family whether it be any of your children, partner or friends ever put you in that sort of position where the obviously perfect world of zumbruk's home security is breached because of a the human factor and the milkman discovers it
Still, if you don't live in the real world, you would not be aware of this sort of situation would you zumbruk?
p.s. I find your niaivity quite incredible!
>> Edited by mg6b on Thursday 27th April 16:59
This whole area is a bit iffy IMHO....
There are so many variables it doesn't appear easy to thrash out various versions of what could or could not happen. For example in a situation when it is your loved ones you are protecting...
Personally I would err on the side of caution with any situation where I needed to defend myself or my family....and by this I mean I would be cautious of spending too much time or effort giving the benefit of the doubt to a total stranger who I felt was a threat.
I also would rather have used a little bit too much force than not quite enough...
If your first and only concern is to neutralise, remove or remove yourself from any threat [not to punish or kick the shit out of a scrote] - then you are going to have a far easier time explaining it in a court of law.
There are so many variables it doesn't appear easy to thrash out various versions of what could or could not happen. For example in a situation when it is your loved ones you are protecting...
Personally I would err on the side of caution with any situation where I needed to defend myself or my family....and by this I mean I would be cautious of spending too much time or effort giving the benefit of the doubt to a total stranger who I felt was a threat.
I also would rather have used a little bit too much force than not quite enough...
If your first and only concern is to neutralise, remove or remove yourself from any threat [not to punish or kick the shit out of a scrote] - then you are going to have a far easier time explaining it in a court of law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff