Parabellum Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Ick, I'm so glad I don't live in the U.K. As hot and nasty as Florida is, I'll take my personal right to protect myself over nicer weather any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Ick, I'm so glad I don't live in the U.K. As hot and nasty as Florida is, I'll take my personal right to protect myself over nicer weather any day of the week. Hey, the weather here sucks too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 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. Quite simply, because carrying any weapon in public without good reason or with the intent of using it it illegal. The law has to be black and white, else it becomes subjective (i.e different people have different views on 'reasonable force'). Assisting police officers in a situation like that isn't illegal per se, but running in with a samurai sword is. As has been noted in another post, to be effective with a weapon like that you need to be trained and know how to actually use it. If you don't, for a start you are putting yourself at risk, not to mention the people around you if you start swinging it about. The police were plain clothed, therefore how sure was he that the person he was attacking wasn't a policeman? Like it or not, you can't run round pretending to be a superhero in a movie - because it's not a movie, and just because you have a samurai sword doesn't mean you would actually be able to use it, especially under pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 So let me get this straight - reasonable [legal] force = sitting down doing nothing letting the burglar burgle your house? Better not let them take the car 'cause you know how it is - if they crash my car after stealing it from me, they'll take me to court to file a lawsuit to try to sue me because they got mashed up in the crash while they were driving my car (coincidently without my consent though) Like it or not, you can't run round pretending to be a superhero in a movie - because it's not a movie, and just because you have a samurai sword doesn't mean you would actually be able to use it, especially under pressure. What about driving a car in public then? You know, I was serious when I said that cars can be used as lethal weapons. Afterall, I'm told my modded Rover 214 looks like the Batmobile, just like in the Batman movies. Does that mean I can drive my car like Batman drives his (especially when I'm under pressure from them G's in this 'hood tryna run my car off the road)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 So let me get this straight - reasonable [legal] force = sitting down doing nothing letting the burglar burgle your house? Reasonable force does not mean letting them burgle your house whilst you sit there. Reasonable force would be - Inside your home: Confronting the burlgar with non-lethal force and driving him (or her) away or to subdue the burglar till the police arrive. Use of lethal force if you feel your - or someone elses - life is in danger. Reasonable force would not be - Subduing (sp?) a burglar then killing him. Use of lethal force after he has been driven from your home. Use of lethal force where there is no danger to you or anybody else from the burglar. Better not let them take the car 'cause you know how it is - if they crash my car after stealing it from me, they'll take me to court to file a lawsuit to try to sue me because they got mashed up in the crash while they were driving my car (coincidently without my consent though) If someone steals your car and crashes it you are not liable for their injuries/death as it was taken without your consent. What about driving a car in public then? You know, I was serious when I said that cars can be used as lethal weapons. Afterall, I'm told my modded Rover 214 looks like the Batmobile, just like in the Batman movies. Does that mean I can drive my car like Batman drives his (especially when I'm under pressure from them G's in this 'hood tryna run my car off the road)? As for driving a car in public, yes it could be used as a lethal weapon. But there is a clear difference between someone walking down a road carrying a sword/shotgun/mace and someone driving down the road in a car. Altogether it's not so much the object so much as the intention and purpose behind the person wielding it that is in question. A car has more obvious uses than being used as an offensive weapon, and so it is reasonable for someone to have one in a public place. A sword on the other hand, has very little use outside of being used as an offensive weapon, therefore carrying one in a public place isn't reasonable. Besides which, trying to kill someone in a car would most likely be covered by another Act under 'dangerous driving'. About the batmobile thing, you appear to have mis-read my post, to clarify I'll paraphase the part of my post which you quoted: Just because you have a batmobile look-a-like doesn't mean you would actually be able to use it as a bat-mobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) A car has more obvious uses than being used as an offensive weapon, and so it is reasonable for someone to have one in a public place. A sword on the other hand, has very little use outside of being used as an offensive weapon, therefore carrying one in a public place isn't reasonable. Besides which, trying to kill someone in a car would most likely be covered by another Act under 'dangerous driving'. I still see builders and carpenters walking around with hammers etc (on building sites mainly), but it's besides the point, any one of those "tools" in his toolbag can be used as an offensive weapon. You don't have to a be a nutjob to smack some-one out with a hammer (I reference here the normal guy who "accidently" chopped his wife in half by "accidently" dropping a chainsaw off the ladder he was on. The wife, holding the ladder, just so happened to be in it's path) The thing I said about the lawsuit etc - you'd be surprised what stupid ###### people get sued for these days. The woman who sued the council because she fell over a loose bit of paving slab; the woman who sued the cigarette manufacturing company because her husband died of cancer caused by the his chain smoking; the guy who sued Burger King because he became obese from eating to many of their burgers. Yeah it's kinda OT, but it still links in with what we said. Next some-one will be able to sue you for looking at them. Just because you have a batmobile look-a-like doesn't mean you would actually be able to use it as a bat-mobile. Formula one drivers use their Formula one cars as Formula one cars, so why can't I use my Batmobile lookalike as a Batmobile? Fair is fair. Edited January 20, 2007 by WytchDokta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 A car has more obvious uses than being used as an offensive weapon, and so it is reasonable for someone to have one in a public place. A sword on the other hand, has very little use outside of being used as an offensive weapon, therefore carrying one in a public place isn't reasonable. Besides which, trying to kill someone in a car would most likely be covered by another Act under 'dangerous driving'. I still see builders and carpenters walking around with hammers etc (on building sites mainly), but it's besides the point, any one of those "tools" in his toolbag can be used as an offensive weapon. You don't have to a be a nutjob to smack some-one out with a hammer (I reference here the normal guy who "accidently" chopped his wife in half by "accidently" dropping a chainsaw off the ladder he was on. The wife, holding the ladder, just so happened to be in it's path) The thing I said about the lawsuit etc - you'd be surprised what stupid ###### people get sued for these days. The woman who sued the council because she fell over a loose bit of paving slab; the woman who sued the cigarette manufacturing company because her husband died of cancer caused by the his chain smoking; the guy who sued Burger King because he became obese from eating to many of their burgers. Yeah it's kinda OT, but it still links in with what we said. Next some-one will be able to sue you for looking at them. Just because you have a batmobile look-a-like doesn't mean you would actually be able to use it as a bat-mobile. Formula one drivers use their Formula one cars as Formula one cars, so why can't I use my Batmobile lookalike as a Batmobile? Fair is fair. Perhaps because F1 drivers use the real thing (not a 'look-a-like') and drive their F1s in a controled circuit, under an officially sanctioned event. Thus making it legal, the little circumstances. Under the same rationale, if you should drive your Batmobile in a Batman movie set (assuming you're NOT trespassing), then I guess that would be legal. Things is, most anything can be used as an offensive weapon, I agree. Even your fists and feet can be used as offensive weapons. What, pray tell, should one do then? Leave said body parts behind? The law in the UK (though I might not entirely agree with it) is made so that the law, as was said in a previous post, is not interpretative. Your interpretation of 'reasonable force', therefore, may not differ from my interpretation of 'reasonable force'. Thus, the law making it strict. As to the items you mentioned, yes, a hammer/chisel/screw driver can be used as offensive weapons. You did, however, state that you see them in building/construction sites. They are legal because there is a legal reason why they are there. They are needed to, well, construct. Same with the car. Same with, say, a chainsaw. A police patrol sees you on your lawn/yard/private forest, carrying a chainsaw and heading towards the trees will leave you alone because there's a logical reason behind you carrying the chainsaw: to cut some trees. Take the chainsaw and walk around with it in the mall (tempting, I know), and you'd be arrested. There is NO reason for you to have that chainsaw in a mall. A sword, unlike the above mentioned tools, is obviously a weapon. Ever since humanity started using edged weapons, the sword had been designed as a weapon. Pure and simple. It was not designed to cut trees, hammer in nails, cutting bread, etc. It was designed as a weapon. Now, really, you don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there to be able to walk around with swords do you? Him trying to help the officers was obviously a good thing, this time. Next time though, he might try to do it again, with what limited skill he has, and end up not as lucky as he was this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) The primary purpose of a car is as a mode of transport. The primary purpose of a hammer/chisel/saw etc is as a tool. The primary purpose of a sword or a gun is as a weapon. That's why they're treated differently. Yes, hammers, chisels, cars etc can be weapons too, but so can a ballpoint pen if you want it to be. At the end of the day, that is not the idea behind the object, and it has other legitimate, non-threatening uses that are the main purpose of the object. The main purpose of a sword or gun is to be used in combat - ie they're specifically designed to cause injury (fatal injuries, even). That's the difference. Edited January 20, 2007 by Gav80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 So, supposing I bought a brand new baseball bat or cricket bat down the local sports shop, then I walked home through the suburbs with it. I have no reason to use it as a weapon, but say some old granny feels intimidated that I'm walking around with the bat, so she reports me to the police. Then what happens? Do I get arrested for carrying this so called "offensive weapon" in public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Umm... who called a cricket / baseball bat an "offensive weapon"...? Obviously you're allowed to carry sports equipment in public! I think you're taking this just a little to far! The law here is stupid, but it's not quite that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Umm... who called a cricket / baseball bat an "offensive weapon"...? Obviously you're allowed to carry sports equipment in public! I think you're taking this just a little to far! The law here is stupid, but it's not quite that bad. Baseball bats/cricket bats have been used to "put people in intensive care" (for want of a better phrase) on more than one occasion before. If I use it as a form of defense against some-one who tries to attack me, will it then be a defensive weapon? Therefore me re-arranging the attackers face with it can't be charged under the offensive weapons act? Taking it too far? Nah not me, you got the wrong person. You see, I wasn't the one to decide to give the criminals more rights than their victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 If you were walking through the suburbs with a baseball/cricket bat, yes you might get stopped by the police. If you said you were on your way to play baseball/cricket and they had reason to believe you (i.e there was a cricket/baseball club nearby, you had a baseball glove or cricket pads etc), the you would be left to go on your way. On the other hand if you were just roaming the streets with a bat, chances are they'd stop you, confiscate it and if they had any suspicion that it had been used in the manner you implied you might be taken in for questioning. If you used it for defence, it would depend on the situation. If it was in your own home, and the burglar attacked you, then you having a baseball bat to hand hit him with said bat, you would probably be in the clear as it is reasonable to have sports kit in your house and you were pressed into using for another purpose in self defence. In the street however, it would probably be different. Why would you have a baseball bat with you in the street in the first place? If you say it was for defence then it becomes a weapon and your intent is to use it as one and as such it becomes more-or-less illegal (not to mention that the suspicion would be that you were prepared for a meeting with someone i.e fighting, which is illegal in its own right), as opposed to you simply being on your merry way home from a game in which you used the bat legitimately and got jumped, thus you used what you had at hand to defend yourself. Like we've said it's all down to 'intent' and 'percieved intent'. If you can prove you have a good reason to have something with you, then thats fine. The law isn't meant to stop you doing that. However, if you can't provide a good reason to have something like that with you, and the percieved intent is to do somebody harm - even in self defence - then thats where the law comes in and you end up on the wrong side of it. In some ways and some circumstances, yes the law is skewed towards the criminal. However most of the stories you hear are taken out of context, without the full facts and blown out of proportion by the media who love a good story about how the law is skewed against the innocent victim because it sells papers (or gets ratings on a news show) and they can launch some sort of campaign to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) If it was in your own home, and the burglar attacked you, then you having a baseball bat to hand hit him with said bat, you would probably be in the clear as it is reasonable to have sports kit in your house and you were pressed into using for another purpose in self defence. Let's apply that logic to another scenario: So they break into my garage. I run out there to confront them. They lunge for me with a 12" carving knife, but all I have to hand is the sledgehammer I keep in the garage for special occasions like this. I swing the mighty Hammer of Retribution and bop one of them on the head with it. Ooops it smashed his skull, my intent was only to cause concussion. Don't think I'd be in the clear for that somehow - I'd be up for attempted manslaughter. They won't go to prison for breaking into my garage or possessing a 12" carving knife which they lunged at me with. Fact is, I have that sledgehammer in my garage because I need it for my renovation work.... What renovation work? Or if it was the same scenario but all I had to hand was an axe I could say that I have an axe at home to cut the logs for my log fire. But wait a sec, I don't have a log fire. Edited January 20, 2007 by WytchDokta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Now I think you are taking this a bit far. An axe and a sledgehammer are both reasonable things to have in your garage, and they're tools designed for a job other than causing harm (although they are quite capable of it). If you killed someone with a sledgehammer of course he's not going to prison - he's dead. If he was found with a carving knife on his body then it's perfectly reasonable for you to have assumed your life was in danger - thus lethal force becomes reasonable and you are clear, of course you will probably be questioned by police and may even go to court, but once those facts are presented a jury would probably not convict you of manslaughter and so the justice system has done it's job in finding out what happened. The law isn't as stupid as it's made out to be, although it is far from perfect in some areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 But if you don't have a sledgehammer around, and you do happen to have an ornamental sword, it's wrong to grab it and help out the unarmed men who are about to be killed by an armed gang of five? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 But if you don't have a sledgehammer around, and you do happen to have an ornamental sword, it's wrong to grab it and help out the unarmed men who are about to be killed by an armed gang of five? The exact point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 But if you don't have a sledgehammer around, and you do happen to have an ornamental sword, it's wrong to grab it and help out the unarmed men who are about to be killed by an armed gang of five? Yes. For a start, it wasn't in his own home, ergo it was not defence. So from the law's point of view: He was fighting. - Illegal He had a weapon in a public place. - Illegal He intended to use that weapon to cause harm. - Illegal From a moral point of view, yes he was trying to help which is a good thing. However from a common sense point of view: How sure was he that he was attacking the right people? After all, the police were not uniformed. How competent was he with the weapon? Was he putting EVERYBODY in danger by trying to wield the weapon? Did he call the police, make sure the knew what was going on BEFORE jumping in and trying to be a hero? Could he not have been more use by simply restraining one of the attackers? It's an ornamental sword, is it sharp or likely to break on impact thus putting himself at great risk, as well as giving the police someone else to deal with? What if the police mistook him for an attacker and he gets a whacking with a baton or the like and recieves a serious injury? What if he distracts the police in the event? Personally, I think there would have been a lot more effective things he could have done. Thats not to say what he did was a bad thing, he was trying to help after all (or so we conclude anyway), but it probably wasn't the best thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 From a common sense point of view, he probably saw five guys with weapons trying to kill two unarmed men and decided trying to grab one would be both stupid and ineffective. He was also probably some nut with a samurai sword, and as such happened to have one on hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 As such, a 'nut with a samurai sword to hand' probably isn't the best person to come to your rescue. Unless he really knew what he was doing, then what he did was risky and foolish at best, even if it was good natured. There are better ways he could have helped without being so gung-ho and trying to play the hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 There are better ways he could have helped without being so gung-ho and trying to play the hero. He assisted in three arrests and saved two police officers. Whether it was a good idea or not, the results were definitely better than volunteering for community service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 There are better ways he could have helped without being so gung-ho and trying to play the hero. He assisted in three arrests and saved two police officers. Whether it was a good idea or not, the results were definitely better than volunteering for community service. What does that mean? THIS TIME he got it right, what happens next time if he or some other batman-wannabe-nutjob injures or kills an innocent person/policeman, or gets themselves killed or injured or otherwise interferes with an arrest? I have a medieval broadsword on the wall behind me, if the same thing was to happen next door then grabbing it and rushing into the fray wouldn't be the first thing that sprung to mind. I'm not saying what he did was entirely wrong, like I say it's commendable that he tried to help, but the fact is there are better things he could have done. Imagine yourself as the police officer - you're trying to apprehend an armed gang, when you see a man with a sword running towards you. Is he trying to help? Is he one of them? For a start you're distracted which is putting you at risk, next you have to decide what to do. All of this is affecting your ability to gain control of the situation, and possibly causing you to make a poor descision. Now imagine yourself as the swordsman - you're running into a fight, you don't know who you're facing, how many there are, what they're armed with, where/how they will try and escape, or how desperate they will be to try and escape i.e would they kill to stay free? If the police aren't uniformed how are you sure you're attacking the right people? You're hardly in the best position to add constructively to the situation. Most criminals are just trying to escape - causing injury/death is just a means to an end. If they could overcome the officers sufficiently to escape that's what they'll do. As the bystander, first of all you should have called the police to alert them to what is going on incase they haven't been informed yet. Next, I'd say find a position to see how they escape, maybe even get a pic of the vehicle (if thats what they're using, at least to get the reg number) on your phone to aid the police in finding them. If you decide that something needs doing to help the police in the fray, and you want to use a sword (or some other weapon if thats what you're itching to do 'cos it looks awesome') approach and shout - make it obvious that you're armed and trying to help the police, now try to avoid being stabbed. Of course, what will happen next is unpredictable - maybe they'll run, maybe they'll stab you, maybe they'll take a hostage, maybe they'll stick it out and fight, or they might surrender, whatever happens it's likely you won't be prepared for it - so could you react quick enough and safely enough? My point is, even taking a moment to think about it you are still rushing into a fight ill-prepared which is never a good thing to help anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I STILL think its - The Ronin 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. None of this is by accident either, think of the message it sends out .. also add to that "Anitsocial Behaviour" and then think of all the things as they get worse you can do ... thats right ... create more laws to "clamp down" .. you would think just on the criminals, this is actualy for all of us as you/we are now realising and seeing for ourselves. Believe it or not, there is a third party involved playing one against the other here ... keep your eyes wide open. As I said in that "other thread" a while ago, no matter what area of the planet you are situated, dont get too comfortable thats for damn sure. .. still the Ronin I think ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Now this is really getting a bit far fetched here...we've gone from some numpty with a samurai sword trying to be batman, to the ins and outs of the UK laws regarding weapons, back to the idiot with the sword, then batmobiles and sports equipment then back to the idiot with the sword and now we're onto some huge conspiracy. As ever, you are entitled to your opinion Calius, however I don't buy it. I do sometimes wonder if you actually believe some of the things you post or whether they are in [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags and you are 'removing the urine'. Thats MY conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I agree. This time its a bit out of context hmm? The law simply cannot afford to have vigilantes. Vigilantes very rarely know what they are doing (unlike Batman, of course, but then again he got that Police Commissioner Gordon dude openly consorting with him), and are more likely to cause injury or death to innocent parties, even police officers themselves. Helping police officers apprehend dangerous, criminally oriented, malcontentious elements is good. 'Helping' them in a way that could cause harm not only to yourself, but also the officers involved is bad. Helping them with a weapon you can barely control is even worse. Like it or not, most of us are 'civilians'. As such, most of us are NOT trained to deal with the situation. Even if you're an ex-soldier, you really wouldn't know what you're doing (unless you were an MP), since military and police training are decidedly different. Best possible move: Stay out of the way, inform the proper authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZJJ Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 My head is spinning from this thread.... not to mention that it seems to have gotten very far fetched and, it could be argued, off topic. Closing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts