Sup Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,301...9,00.html?f=rss Police are trying to trace a mysterious samurai sword-wielding vigilante who came to the rescue of two officers when they were being attacked by an armed gang. The officers had been set upon after they tried to disrupt a burglary at a flat in Laygate, South Shields. This is too awesome not to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 One of them lunged at a policeman with his knife - but just as he did so, a mysterious do-gooder appeared from nowhere and attacked him with a samurai sword. Love that, awesome story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 WOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Dilemma ... Its ok to attack in defense (attack in defense .. hmmmm hard one to work out that !?) with a sword if you save the cop and help others, but if the cop was not present and that person was attacked and used that sword ... would the outcome be a little different ... me thinks so. I sniff a double standard. I wonder if they are tracing him to commend him or charge him also ? It proves one thing, we have amnesty's to hand in weapons that by this shows could protect ourselves. So its not the weapons that are the problem, just the people using them or what "side" your on when you use them. Interesting to see what follows when they do identify the lone swordsman ... maybe it was The Ronin ? Mind you it would be him if the report read : "as the swordsman ran after the robber I notices a picture taped to his back of a woman that does the news .. you know, that lovely french one" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Dilemma ... Its ok to attack in defense (attack in defense .. hmmmm hard one to work out that !?) with a sword if you save the cop and help others, but if the cop was not present and that person was attacked and used that sword ... would the outcome be a little different ... me thinks so. I sniff a double standard. I wonder if they are tracing him to commend him or charge him also ? It proves one thing, we have amnesty's to hand in weapons that by this shows could protect ourselves. So its not the weapons that are the problem, just the people using them or what "side" your on when you use them. Interesting to see what follows when they do identify the lone swordsman ... maybe it was The Ronin ? Mind you it would be him if the report read : "as the swordsman ran after the robber I notices a picture taped to his back of a woman that does the news .. you know, that lovely french one" ... No question about the double standard. The concept of having the right to defend one's self and property is quickly disappearing. More and more, we are being required to rely on the law to defend us. No thanks, I would rather defend myself, than have to rely on the presence of law enforcement. Simple logistics, cops cannot be everywhere. Anyway, a great story, and I for one would want to award the guy with medal for his heroic actions. It would be an absolute tragedy to convict this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I wonder if they are tracing him to commend him or charge him also ? I'm not sure how the law works over there, but usually attacking five people with a sword when they're armed and in a fight with two unarmed police officers is qualified as defense of others here. I assume the uk something similar (if not exactly the same,) since it seems pretty basic. Either way, the news story is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I am pretty sure that if this was in the UK, and the guy was located, he'd be charged. That's how mental the law is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I am pretty sure that if this was in the UK, and the guy was located, he'd be charged. That's how mental the law is here. What he said. Basically, it is illegal to wield any sort of weapon in any circumstances. What you have to remember is that it's all fine and dandy that this guy got it right THIS time, but what if he misread the situation and: a) attacked a busy instead? b) attacked some random guy instead? c) got himself killed by either a busy or a criminal? It's ok to assist the police if it's appropriate (say someone gets away from an arrest and tries to do a runner past you), but weapons of any sort are a definate no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 What you have to remember is that it's all fine and dandy that this guy got it right THIS time, but what if he misread the situation and: a) attacked a busy instead? b) attacked some random guy instead? c) got himself killed by either a busy or a criminal? Apply that concept to other situations, though. 'It's great that you obeyed traffic laws and all, man, but next time, you may run a red light. Here's a ticket' seems, really, like the same thing. Obviously the presence of a weapon implies a bit more, but I don't see any reason saving the lives of a few people should be a crime, even if you were a bit violent about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd Ranger Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I think it is more the possibility that this guy could just be a nut roaming around with a samurai sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I think it is more the possibility that this guy could just be a nut roaming around with a samurai sword. Probably, but he's still really awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I think it is more the possibility that this guy could just be a nut roaming around with a samurai sword. Very true .. Probably, but he's still really awesome. .. worrying to say the least. Like I say if that was kicking off the exact same way and no police that man would be going down like the others I would imagine. Moral of the story ... if you feel like getting tooled up and having a pop at someone, just hang around with a ham radio on the police frequency and locate your target. When the moment arises make sure the cops are on the scene & steam in batman style, dont worry though as the police on the scene = "defending" ... #200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowmanUK Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 If he'd hit the one guy in the arm with this sword wouldnt it have fallen off it it was a proper sword? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) It could have been a strike with the hilt of the sword, Crowman. And I agree with Rocky - if they ever find out who this guy was, he'll be nailed under UK law. Not for defending someone, as some people have said, but for being in possession of such a weapon in public. You have to be incredibly careful about using force to defend yourself and your property here. Most Americans simply wouldn't believe how careful you have to be. A couple of years back, a guy was jailed for shooting a burgular in his house with his shotgun - despite the fact the the burgular was tresspassing on his property and the gun was legally owned, and that the police response time in the area was typically in the region of an hour, and that it was something like the tenth time his house had been broken into in a few months. So, when they broke in again, he warned them and then shot at them - and the "justice" system locked him up for it. I know a mate who got mugged coming home from a pub one night, but who is a bit of a karate and aikido (sp?) fan and so fought the guys off who attacked him - the police nailed him for assault because, in defending himself, he broke one of the attacker's noses. Edited January 18, 2007 by Gav80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 It could have been a strike with the hilt of the sword, Crowman. And I agree with Rocky - if they ever find out who this guy was, he'll be nailed under UK law. Not for defending someone, as some people have said, but for being in possession of such a weapon in public. You have to be incredibly careful about using force to defend yourself and your property here. Most Americans simply wouldn't believe how careful you have to be. A couple of years back, a guy was jailed for shooting a burgular in his house with his shotgun - despite the fact the the burgular was tresspassing on his property and the gun was legally owned, and that the police response time in the area was typically in the region of an hour, and that it was something like the tenth time his house had been broken into in a few months. So, when they broke in again, he warned them and then shot at them - and the "justice" system locked him up for it. I know a mate who got mugged coming home from a pub one night, but who is a bit of a karate and aikido (sp?) fan and so fought the guys off who attacked him - the police nailed him for assault because, in defending himself, he broke one of the attacker's noses. Like the woman who left a 12 inch carving knife on her worktop before going to sleep. A burglar gets in through the kitchen window, slips on the worktop and lands on the knife. Who goes to prison? The woman. Well, she didn't leave that knife there on purpose, nor did she know she was going to be broke in to - She didn't even use the knife against the burglar! In the UK the criminal has alot more rights than the victim. Prisons are even exempt from TV licensing laws, yet MOD bases aren't. Most criminals etc in this country are even allowed XBox's etc in their cells. The justice system is so leniant here, so that means, if I "accidently" run some-one over at a pedestrian crossing, I should be able to get let off the offence by saying that the victim was 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 Probably, but he's still really awesome. .. worrying to say the least. I still see 'Crazy guy with a sword intercedes, no one is seriously harmed' as a better outcome than 'two police officers stabbed to death by an armed gang.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 What you have to remember is that it's all fine and dandy that this guy got it right THIS time, but what if he misread the situation and: a) attacked a busy instead? b) attacked some random guy instead? c) got himself killed by either a busy or a criminal? Apply that concept to other situations, though. 'It's great that you obeyed traffic laws and all, man, but next time, you may run a red light. Here's a ticket' seems, really, like the same thing. Obviously the presence of a weapon implies a bit more, but I don't see any reason saving the lives of a few people should be a crime, even if you were a bit violent about it. I'm sorry but that is total nonsense. What you are talking about regards traffic offences is: Someone who ISN'T breaking the law who is being charged them for something they MIGHT do. Whereas what I'm talking about regards the swordsman is: Someone who IS breaking the law and why the law is so. See? There is a clear difference. It is illegal to carry any sort of weapon in public without good reason (i.e taking a pistol to a shooting club, taking a sword to a spaing session etc) and even if you do have good reason it must be kept locked away in a case of some sort. This is taken from the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 and is very clear: (5) Where a person has with him in any public place any article intended by him unlawfully to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate any person either in a particular eventuality or otherwise, he shall be guilty of an offence. (6) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (5), it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to allege or prove that the intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate was intent to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate a particular person; and if, having regard to all the circumstances (including the type of the article alleged to have been intended to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate, the time of the day or night, and the place), the court (or the jury as the case may be) thinks it reasonable to do so, it may regard possession of the article as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the accused. So the fact that he has the sword in a public place at all makes it a crime, the fact that he clearly intended "to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate" makes it moreso. The Act also says that for an offence of this type: ( b ) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) or (5) shall be liable— (i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both, or (ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both. In this case I'd guess he'd be asked to give evidence against the gang members as a witness and would probably have the charges dropped in lieu or recieve a small fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowmanUK Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 He probably knew how the law worked so waded in and scarpered quick rather than getting praise and arrest in one fell swoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I know a mate who got mugged coming home from a pub one night, but who is a bit of a karate and aikido (sp?) fan and so fought the guys off who attacked him - the police nailed him for assault because, in defending himself, he broke one of the attacker's noses. That's the kind of rubbish I'm talking about. Like the guy around here who caught someone stealing off his washing line, and got done for assault for the ensuing ruff and tumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I know a mate who got mugged coming home from a pub one night, but who is a bit of a karate and aikido (sp?) fan and so fought the guys off who attacked him - the police nailed him for assault because, in defending himself, he broke one of the attacker's noses. That's the kind of rubbish I'm talking about. Like the guy around here who caught someone stealing off his washing line, and got done for assault for the ensuing ruff and tumble. I'd be ###### as well! What was the guy supposed to do? Let himself be mugged, THEN go to the cops, say, "I've been mugged," and wait months for the police to sort out all the paperwork and then, PERHAPS, find the culprit? People should be able to defend themselves and their property. Period. In regards to the question about why the arm didn't 'fall off': A katana is a diffcult weapon to master. Most people buying it, and using it, probably do not know how to use it properly and ended up damaging the blade or causing unintentional wounds. Using it in close quarters (in absence of a shorter weapon such as a wakizashi or tanto) requires hard training and discipline. If the man who used the katana to help those officers is proficient in Kenjutsu, then all is good. Most likely, he was just lucky that the sword didn't hurt himself or the officers present. This man could be dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowmanUK Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 In all fairness I think the "type" of bloke who carries a sword around wouldnt be the type to carry a real one, probably some fake thing with a blunt edge, ornamental type, bet it scared the crap out of those guys though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'd be ###### as well! What was the guy supposed to do? Let himself be mugged, THEN go to the cops, say, "I've been mugged," and wait months for the police to sort out all the paperwork and then, PERHAPS, find the culprit? You are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property under UK law. Causing serious injury is not seen as "reasonable force" in the eyes of the law, however, regardless of the situation. Legally speaking, breaking bones (eg as my mate did to that guy's nose when he attacked him) or wielding a sword (as in the OP of this thread) or other dangerous weapon would be viewed as excessive force and would therefore leave you liable to prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) Legally speaking, breaking bones (eg as my mate did to that guy's nose when he attacked him) or wielding a sword (as in the OP of this thread) or other dangerous weapon would be viewed as excessive force and would therefore leave you liable to prosecution. What about driving a car? A car can be used as a dangerous weapon in many ways. Edited January 19, 2007 by WytchDokta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowmanUK Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Always a bit worrying is reasonable force, if I found someone wandering round my house who wasnt invited the first thing I'd try to do is knock him out with whatever implements came to hand, trying to subdue them is only going to get you hurt as you dont know what theyre carrying, render the buggers unconscious then see where you're stood, and if they did happen to die, well nobody knows theyre in your house do they so take them for a friendly drive to a local ditch or canal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 I'd be ###### as well! What was the guy supposed to do? Let himself be mugged, THEN go to the cops, say, "I've been mugged," and wait months for the police to sort out all the paperwork and then, PERHAPS, find the culprit? You are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property under UK law. Causing serious injury is not seen as "reasonable force" in the eyes of the law, however, regardless of the situation. Legally speaking, breaking bones (eg as my mate did to that guy's nose when he attacked him) or wielding a sword (as in the OP of this thread) or other dangerous weapon would be viewed as excessive force and would therefore leave you liable to prosecution. I still don't see why a sword should be excessive force in a three on five fight where all of your opponents have knives and hammers, and the people you're helping are unarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts