[jsalcedo]

I acted in self-defence says disabled robbery victim

A DISABLED man who used CS spray to fight off a robber is now facing the threat of legal action.

Wheelchair-bound Nicholas Ashworth, aged 22, sprayed his alleged attacker in the face with the CS spray.

He then climbed out of his wheelchair and limped across the road as the man screamed in pain. A passing police patrol spotted him in distress and stopped at the scene. Officers then arrested both men.

Today after being released on police bail pending further inquiries -- which could result in police prosecution -- Mr

Ashworth defended his use of the CS spray. He said he bought it to protect himself after being attacked in Bridgeman Street three weeks ago. On that occasion his attacker hit him in the face before pinning him back in his chair. The man then rifled through his pockets and stole £100.

Mr Ashworth, of Fletcher Street, Bolton -- who can walk just a short distance without his wheelchair -- said the incident left him feeling vulnerable.

Only days later he used it when a would-be robber confronted him as Mr Ashworth made his way to a nearby supermarket.

Mr Ashworth said the attacker held a knife at his throat and threatened to stab him. When he refused to hand over his money the man pushed him across the road and into bushes on the other side of the carriageway.

He said when he was threatened again he grabbed the CS canister and sprayed the man in the face.

He said: "I knew it was wrong and against the law but in my view I was acting in self defence. I thought the man was going to kill me.

"It is a sad state of affairs that disabled people like me have to carry such things like CS sprays for protection."

A police spokesman said that they were investigating the illegal use and possession of CS spray. He also revealed that a man was on police bail pending further inquiries into the attempted robbery of Mr Ashworth.

[cool45auto]

:eek: :rolleyes:

[TheOtherOne]

"I knew it was wrong and against the law but in my view I was acting in self defence. I thought the man was going to kill me."
Self defense is illegal in the UK?

[Feanaro]

That's just... pathetic.

[Kharn]

Agricola, how are you gonna explain this one? :rolleyes:
A police spokesman said that they were investigating the illegal use and possession of CS spray. So an item most female college students in the US carry religiously is illegal to carry or use in England? :banghead:

Kharn

[benewton]

Concur: Agi, let's hit it!

This one I've just gotta read the excuse for.

By the way, where were the police prior to the assault???

[clange]

URL for the story?

Thats freakin nuts.

[F4GIB]

Subjects depend on the King for life; citizens rely on themselves for life even against a tyrannical King. The founders of America whould have understood denying a person the means and ability to protrect his own life as the epitomy of tyranny.

We aren't like the British because WE WON the revolution, established liberty, and preserved it (so far) by a written constitution. I much rather be free than "civilized" in the fashion that British sheeple are.

[Mark Tyson]

Utterly unbelieveable. I am speechless.

[natedog]

I have know words. The :barf: emoticom is not powerful enought to describe it.

[hammer4nc]

Here's a link for the story: http://www.thisisbolton.co.uk/lancashire/bolton/news/BENTOPNEWS0.html

1. Right wing newspaper incorrectly reported the story.

2. He could have used HM's handicap shuttle and grocery delivery service, rather than wheeling though bad parts of town = the assaults are a result of his negligence.

3. He resisted the assault, contrary to home office directives.

4. He lost protection of the courts when he opened his front door that morning.
:p

[agricola]

i) self defence is not illegal;

ii) CS Spray is.

[Bruce H]

Well what is a person in a wheelchair supposed to do? Jump up and go assault ninja on the assailant. Why don't they pat the guy on the back and prosecute the assailant.

[Kharn]

Agricola:
If a wheel-chair bound person cannot use CS spray to defend themselves, what can he/she use to defend him/herself? A short list of examples would suffice.

Kharn

[Mr. Bombastic]

Don't you crazies get it?

Self defence with anything other than your bare hands and harsh language is uncivilised and WRONG!

I was being sarcastic...

The whole point is that you are allowed to 'defend yourself' just not 'defend yourself with any effectiveness or fore-thought'.

Agricola, do you like being a pawn?

[TheeBadOne]

And you wonder why things are going to hell over in England...:rolleyes:

[KPersimmon]

I may be a crazy foreigner, but it seems to me that outlawing effective means of self-defense/defence is the same thing as outlawing self-defense itself.

[agricola]

when the wheelchair user gets done for assault, then the thread title is correct. until then, it isnt.

there is an element in this story that does suggest caution, namely that the alleged robber is on police bail and has not been charged. an attempted robbery, part of which has been witnessed by police, where the suspect has a knife and where he is detained in the act, does not result in that person getting police bail (which is only granted for more time to get evidence) - he/she is charged and sent to court (what happens then is up to them).

[CZ-75]

when the wheelchair user gets done for assault, then the thread title is correct.

That'll be justice, then. :rolleyes:






:barf:

[Mr. Bombastic]

'when the wheelchair user gets done for assault, then the thread title is correct. until then, it isnt.'

Actually, it is. He was ARRESTED.

If he didn't defend himself with the CS cannister, he wouldn't have been able to defend himself at all.

[Standing Wolf]

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

What a contemptible people the English have devolved into!

[HankB]

Self defence with anything other than your bare hands and harsh language is uncivilised and WRONG! Bare hands will soon be added to the Forbidden Weapon List, if they aren't there already. As as for harsh language, remember there is no constitutional freedom of speech in Old Blimey.

[agricola]

er... "mr. bombastic" he was not arrested for assault

SW.... :barf:

[hammer4nc]

Likely outcomes:

5. The alleged attacker, who prior had been to the Sweet Green Tavern, relied on the now popular "Paul Evans" defense: he was slightly inebriated and merely stumbled onto Mr. Ashworth whilst helping him cross the street. No intent to assault or rob...Ashworth must have been paranoid from his previous attack.

6. Prosecutors may grant clemency if Ashworth gives up his supplier network for the illegal CS gas (and shows ample remorse before the court).

7. Barristers now studying Ashworth's financial status, for possible compensation to courts and now injured "robber".

:p Sorry agri, this is too much to pass up!

[another okie]

Pepper spray is indeed illegal, as are pocket knives. When I was in England last summer a young man got six months in jail for having pepper spray.

[Mr. Bombastic]

=='er... "mr. bombastic" he was not arrested for assault'==

er..."agricola" the thread title says 'Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense'.

And not ''Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for assault'.

You did read the title, didn't you?

[clange]

ii) CS Spray is.
Unless you're a cop?

[Mr. Bombastic]

Yeah. Cops can carry spray, big sticks, folding knives with locks, sometimes guns, and in future Tasers too.

Us subjects don't need that kind of stuff to protect ourselves with, only cops encounter violent criminals.

[Kharn]

Agricola:
You said: he was not arrested for assault
The article says: Officers then arrested both men.
You mince words, Mr. Ashworth was still arrested, and the police are investigating his "illegal use and possession of CS spray", which is what I would assume they arrested him for.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to list the acceptable items a wheelchair bound person can use in self defense without being dragged downtown.

Kharn

[Safety First]

Perhaps the CS spray is illegal,but the robber is lucky it was'nt a SIG 245...and here we go again...the victim is the bad guy...so unfriggen real:fire:

[StLGlocker]

Come now, Kharn. He shouldn't have defended himself at all. Everyone knows that a crippled man lying in the bushes with his throat slashed is morally superior to one who uses a non-lethal tool in defense of his own life. After all, the dead guy obeyed the law. [/sarcasm]

[jsalcedo]

Old ladies are arrested in the UK for carrying Knitting needles in their sewing bag.

I can provide a cite if one is needed.

[jmbg29]

From George Orwell’s 1984

Definition of Blackwhite: "Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say the black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary."

"You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right…But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane."

"The command of the old despotisms was 'Thou shalt not.' The command of the totalitarians was 'Thou shalt.' Our command is 'Thou art.'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doubleplusgood Ag! :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[mussi]

OK.

If CS and OC are illegal in the UK, if I ever go there, I'll probably get a gun.

Just be sure there are no witnesses.

On the other hand, I have no intention to go the UK soon.

[Don Gwinn]

Agricola, your dedication to your country is admirable, but it is causing you to say things that are doing irreparable damage to your reputation. The man was arrested for owning CS spray. He was arrested for simply owning a non-lethal, non-wounding form of self-defense. He was arrested mere moments after proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had only purchased it out of dire necessity and had used it, quite possibly, to save his life.

And you insist that if it doesn't say "For the Unlawful Act of Defending Oneself" on the chit, he was not arrested for self defense. Silly American anti-British propaganda.

Not long ago you told me that it was to my "discredit" that I continued to insist that government prosecutors are employees of the government and are speaking the government's point of view when they try a case. Although I don't agree, I appreciated the fact that you phrased it that way and I accept that you were probably trying to help me. Now I will return the favor. Your insistence that this man was not arrested for defending himself is a discredit to you and the reputation you built here early on.

Just out of curiosity, what form of self-defense would have been acceptable for this poor bloke? CS and OC are right out. Firearms are out, of course. Knife? Baton?

Is it perhaps that Britons have the right to self-defense, but not to prepare for self-defense? If he'd grabbed a brick or a bottle off the street, he'd have been OK?

[Pilgrim]

I think I have a solution to the problem in the United Kingdom. All potential victims should go around naked. The crooks will know they have nothing worth stealing. The police will know the victims aren't armed. And finally, anyone with clothes on is subject to arrest because they are probably concealing weapons. :D

[Double Naught Spy]

The handicapped dude was NOT arrested for self defense. Just how hard is that to understand? Even worse is that nowhere in the article does it say the guy was arrested for self defense. Such sensationalized and inflammatory thread titles seem really cool, but do a disservice as they are inaccurate. The handicapped dude was arrested for possession and use of contraband, in this case, the CS spray. Had he performed in a legal manner with legal materials, he would not have been arrested.

[jmbg29]

The handicapped dude was arrested for possession and use of contraband, in this case, the CS spray.Yep. He should have used good old-fashioned chairkata, or offered to go mano a mano with the thug. Hey! There is an idea! Why not have all muggings/assaults/murders/etc. settled with a best three out of five thumb-wrestling championship? Nah! Too violent. Wait! How about paper, scissors, rock? Nah! That would offend turd world primitives that don't have paper or scissors! Whew! [Barbie voice]Justice is hard.[/Barbie voice]Had he performed in a legal manner with legal materials, he would not have been arrested.Yep. Even the Brits haven't gone so loony as to arrest dead people. :uhoh: Have they? :rolleyes: :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:

[Monkeyleg]

Don Gwinn: "The man was arrested for owning CS spray. He was arrested for simply owning a non-lethal, non-wounding form of self-defense."

Sorry, but the man was arrested for possession of a Cajun condiment.

What's next, ketchup?

[CZ-75]

The handicapped dude was NOT arrested for self defense. Just how hard is that to understand?

Someone else made that point before you. Thanks for sharing. :rolleyes:

Truth is he WAS arrested for self-defense, it just wasn't phrased that way. Considering that there are no effective LEGAL means of self-defense avaiable to him, the gentleman in the wheelchair employed an effective, yet ILLEGAL means. I'm doubting that a jury will convict on assault since the victim was responding to force. Hence, the prosecution (govt. to the rest of us) will charge him with what they have left, possession of contraband, as sanction for his temerity to resist attack.

[rrader]

Hammer4nc:

Edit: Reread your post, never mind.

[jsalcedo]

There are no legal items that can be used for self defense.

Anything that could ever possibly be used as a weapon is considered an illegal weapon. Butter knife, rolled up magazine
or stale french bread. If the cop thinks you are going to use it for defense then you are subject to arrest.

Its a zero tolerance policy.

Maybe the British government figures if people are empowered to fight street crime they might start believing they can fight government criminals as well..

[CZ-75]

I hope this was made as a sarcastic comment and not meant seriously.

Of course it was.

[Baba Louie]

Note to Baba Louie,

Should I ever travel to merry olde England, be sure to take my walking cane (old football injury doncha know, yeah, that's the ticket) or umbrella at least.

Probably won't ever happen, but I could certainly justify its existance and presence should I need to.

And should I ever need it, I'm sure I'd be in really big trouble explaining to a judge my mis-use of a perfectly fine gentleman's implement in the act of "self-defense"... "I don't know exactly what happened your honor, its a blur. The best I can recollect, the guy said he was going to Kill the Queen and then he attacked my umbrella/cane repeatedly with his head, groin and face. I kept shouting STOP! POLICE! LEAVE ME ALONE PLEASE! and yet he kept on attacking my brelly. Once I finally untangled myself from him, I left the scene and called a Bobby at once. What would you have done Sir? I don't EVEN know how my fountain pen poked a hole in him. And is the Queen OK?" ( a Baba can dream can't he?)

Adios

[Don Gwinn]

As funny as that was (and it was) CS is actually tear gas, not pepper. Pepper spray would be OC, Oleo-Capsicum.

Double Naught Spy. . . you're kidding, right? "had he performed legally?" How precisely could he have "performed legally" without getting killed or at the very least robbed?
"With legal materials?" Agricola has not been willing or able to tell us what those might be, but we know that firearms, tasers, stun guns, OC and CS spray, knives and swords are not on the "approved" list. So to what legal materials are you referring? I am assuming here that you would not have made that statement if you didn't know of some legal weapon he should have used.

[Nightfall]

Note: If gun control pushers win and continue to get their way, this will likely be the end result for the USA. Just a thought.

I'm simply at a loss for words to describe my feelings of pity for England. I hope you all can turn your country around one day.

[Byron Quick]

Ok, agricola, let us accept your terms for the sake of debate. He wasn't arrested for self defense which is legal in Great Britain. He was arrested for the dastardly crime of possessing pepper spray.

Now this man is reportedly crippled to the point of barely being able to walk across a street. He certainly cannot run away successfully.

Please outline a reasonable plan of successful self defense under the laws of Great Britain taking his disabilities into effect.

Sir, I will posit a basic premise: If you cannot legally own the tools necessary for self defense then the fiction that self defense is legal is, in fact, moot. Unless you happen to be a martial arts master.

Or are the martial arts illegal in Great Britain, too? Not yet? You fellows are sure thinking about doing so though, now aren't you?

It's semantics. Playing with words. Trying to hoodwink others. Dishonest. Acting like a lawyer. Or a tyrant trying to hide behind concepts such as "we're too civilized for that" or "it's for the children."

[Don Gwinn]

Martial arts are not illegal in Britain. However, in my experience, British martial artists are easily horrified by any suggestion that their arts would be used in a "street fight" or that weapons more modern than swords could be combined with their arts. They seem to believe that such talk would equate them with the drunken street brawlers and hooligans who are the scourge of British streets (their words, not mine.)

I've been told by many British martial artists (and not a few Americans, to be fair) that an unarmed man actually has a great advantage over an armed man. Guns, in particular, are useless and are signs of cowardice and criminal intent.

[Byron Quick]

Yeah, Don, I've been told such by American martial artists, too.

I've got training about half way to black belt in arts that do use weapons. Several times I've taken a dowel and inserted it into a round piece of foam about four inches long and saturated it with ink. Told the mighty black belts, this is my knife, gents, come and disarm me. After examining the wealth of ink tracks on all parts of their anatomy...some learned better. Then to make sure it stuck...guys, I ain't expert with a knife. Think if you try to face someone who is.

Think those who think that guns are useless need to go hand to hand to a paintball match.

[KPersimmon]

<<<when the wheelchair user gets done for assault, then the thread title is correct. until then, it isnt.>>>


Someone's obviously not paying attention because the thread title is correct, according to the news story.

He then climbed out of his wheelchair and limped across the road as the man screamed in pain. A passing police patrol spotted him in distress and stopped at the scene. Officers then arrested both men.

So, if pepper spray is illegal in the UK, then the residents should be glad that this wheelchair-bound man was arrested and also faces prosecution for his alleged crime.

Since I'm not a UK resident, thank heavens, then I reserve my right to be appalled, shocked, and not a little bit angered by this story.

[agricola]

he'll have been arrested for possession of CS spray - there is no offence of "Illegally using CS spray" which is what the article implies.

why does this forums usually admirable suspicion of journalists "expertize" consistently disappear when faced with articles that support your point of view?

don - there is provision for someone to carry anything, including knives, swords, handguns etc all the time provided one can demonstrate that there is an equivalent and real danger. Carrying weapons "on the off chance" is illegal - though carriage of weapons which are then used in self defence would result in a conviction for possession of that weapon and not a conviction for an assault - which has been defended in the Courts. In any case, aside from firearms all the offensive weapon legislation is for public areas and not private.

[jmbg29]

hammer4nc said (quite prophetically I might add)He lost protection of the courts when he opened his front door that morning.

Ag saidIn any case, aside from firearms all the offensive weapon legislation is for public areas and not private.

No more calls please, we have a winner! Johnny, tell hammer4nc what he's won!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[agricola]

lol

get back to your Clash-based life jmbg

[WonderNine]

Hey agricola, why do you only post in Legal and Political?

British laws are crap btw.

[stevelyn]

There are two types of criminals in Britain.:barf: The criminal thugs on the streets who victimize disarmed and helpless British subjects, then there are the thugs of the criminal British government and it's employees who victimize disarmed and helpless British subjects who've been victimized by street criminals.
Either way if you are a British subject you are going to get victimized.
The street thug will only take your wallet and perhaps tune you up a bit, government thug will take everything you own and lock you away for attempting to protest this treatment.

:cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :fire: :banghead::banghead: :cuss:

[KPersimmon]

Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense


I apologize. I was the one who wasn't paying attention to the title of the thread.
The man in the wheelchair was arrested for the illegal possession of CS spray (which, in addition, is not "pepper spray" like I said earlier) and not self-defense. "Wheelchair bound Brit arrested after defending himself" might have been a more accurate title for the thread, since the "civilized" seem more concerned with semantics rather than with the plight of the handicapped person who was assailed and then arrested.

[Kharn]

Agricola: I'm still waiting for a list of examples of items wheel-chair bound persons can carry to defend themselves (without having to prove the presence of a threat before a judge) while in public in your country.

Kharn
[Editted to clarify]

[rrader]

Agricola:

<<there is provision for someone to carry anything, including knives, swords, handguns etc all the time provided one can demonstrate that there is an equivalent and real danger.>>

Where is that written? How does this work, is there a permitting process or is an ad hoc analysis of the threat level done by the police after an incident? How many British folk have been granted such a permit to carry a handgun?

<<Carrying weapons "on the off chance" is illegal - though carriage of weapons which are then used in self defence would result in a conviction for possession of that weapon and not a conviction for an assault - which has been defended in the Courts.>>

In other words, there are severe legal consequences for the act of self-defense irregardless.

If there must have been a longstanding threat prior to the act of self-defense with a weapon then doesn't British law ignore the possibility of a random encounter. Hard to fathom considering the skyrocketing levels of violent crime in the UK.

[Al in Md]

In this case the victim should carry a phillips head screwdriver with a ten inch blade. One never knows when the wheelchair will require a little adjustment. The perp. got painful but temporary injury. If the perp. got stabbed with a tool or edged item his wounds could have been fatal. I read this as just enough force to repel the attack and little injury to the perp. what better outcome could one envision? In about 34 states in the U.S.(CCW) the perp. could have recieved a sucking chest wound with no charges to the crime victim.

[agricola]

kharn,

that was already answered. the answer is nothing can be carried for self-defence if the item is being carried on the off chance that one gets attacked - ie: there is no definate threat against oneself.

permits issued for that kind have historically mainly been issued after someone finds their name is on one of the lists of PIRA / RIRA / Unionist paramilitaries.

with regard to "your laws suck", well its not your country, if you dont like it you dont have to come here. plenty of US laws seem stupid to me

[Mr. Bombastic]

"nothing can be carried for self-defence if the item is being carried on the off chance that one gets attacked - ie: there is no definate threat against oneself."

Looks like there was no 'definate threat' to the poor soul in the wheelchair then.

Though of course, the police are exempt from these sorts of rules and regulations. On the 'off chance' they get attacked, they have numerous tools at their disposal.

Do you believe Justice is being done agricola (in general concerning the virtually non-existant right to self defence here)?

[Kharn]

Agricola:
permits issued for that kind have historically mainly been issued after someone finds their name is on one of the lists of PIRA / RIRA / Unionist paramilitaries
And what items does such a permit allow one to carry?

Kharn

[agricola]

kharn,

a handgun, usually supplied with ammo by the PSNI or Army


mr bombastic,

The Police carry only as so long as they are on duty. yes, i do believe justice is being done.

[Safety First]

Ok, so I admit I have not read every post...But somehow, someway I am getting the feeling in the Uk it is illegal to defend yourself,or if you do you wind up in the cell block next to the person who violated you...Please,somebody tell me it ain't so :what:

[TallPine]

nothing can be carried for self-defence if the item is being carried on the off chance that one gets attacked - ie: there is no definate threat against oneself.

So ... there is effectively no right of self defense in Britain - which is what we have been saying all along.

Pathetic ...

[Kharn]

So those that have been threatened by terrorists specifically can get a handgun from the government because its useful for defending their lives, but ordinary citizens had to turn their handguns in years ago because handguns were only used for killing children?

What if the IRA was found to be in possession of a London phone book, with "Shoot them all" written on it, could every London resident get a free handgun from the government?

Kharn

[benewton]

Agricola:

Can the public "authorities" be sued, and made to pay, in reality, not theoretical law, for failure to protect/prevent ?

If not, then, beyond the preservation of the powers that be, what is your function in society?

[jmbg29]

get back to your Clash-based life jmbgMy "Clash-based" life, as you call it, is spent in myriad ways. But part of what I can be most proud of, is that part of my life that is spent helping the young, the frail, the handicapped, etc. to gain the skills necessary to defend themselves from predatory criminals. Criminals that not only possess the use of all of their limbs, but in many cases may outweigh the victim by a factor of three.

My "Clash-based" life always finds in favor of the victim. Mercy for the predator is left between him and his God. If he has one.

My "Clash-based" life, with the values and ethics that it affords me; finds leaving the crippled, the weak, the small, and the infirm to the wolves, for the sake of the socialist state, to be anathema.

But you my friend, take care up there on your high horse. You may someday fall, and find that you must answer for having left the defenseless to said wolves.

May God have mercy on you.

[jimpeel]

How about “Arrested for failure to comply� or “Arrested for failing to give his money to a criminal demandee�, or “Arrested for failure to submit to an armed mugging�, or “Arrested for failure to perform the duties of a citizen of the Crown by allowing himself to be killed�?

The facetiousness of trying to parse the thread title is ludicrous. Yes, he wasn’t literally arrested for self defense. He was arrested for possession of an item deemed by the Crown of being contraband while in the act of defending himself from a criminal attack. The fact remains that he was in fear of his life and had been mugged three weeks prior. Does a subject of the Crown have a duty to submit to criminal mischief? Is there a duty to allow oneself to be killed to prove one’s law abiding nature?

You seem the type who believes “My country, right or wrongâ€�. You also seem the type who would have condemned Americans stating the same thing on bumper stickers during the Vietnam era. Your staunch, though stoic, adherence to the defense of these laws that make you and your countrymen simple victims, waiting for a place to be victimized, is atrocious. By doing so, you legitimize the criminal acts perpetrated upon yourself and your countrymen. It is as though you have no concept of the right of a human being to be simply left alone. You instead seem to concur with your government that these laws are good and correct; vis-Ã*-vis “The law is the lawâ€�.

That kind of thinking is why the Cohens and Goldsteins started disappearing in Germany. “I had to turn them in. They were Jews and, after all, the law is the law.� was the lament of the German people; but they went willingly along with everything they were told because the law was the law. Hitler never did anything unlawful. He did it all strictly by the book.

Although you have stated: the answer is nothing can be carried for self-defence if the item is being carried on the off chance that one gets attacked - ie: there is no definate threat against oneself.

permits issued for that kind have historically mainly been issued after someone finds their name is on one of the lists of PIRA / RIRA / Unionist paramilitaries.

you still have failed to tell us what he should have done in this instance. The best you have been able to offer is that he broke the law and, after all, the law is the law. Unflagging compliance to the demands of the perpetrator of the moment is the watchword of the day. From your description, a person would be wise to pay the aforementioned groups to add their names to the list so they could get a firearm for self defense.

There is a famous quote by Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, which states: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

This he spoke to those who were willing to allow the British to continue their atrocities against Americans and were willing to subject themselves to these acts because “The law is the law�.

Look back on the deeds of your country during the period of Imperialism and how they treated the peoples of those nations. Given that record, do you really want to turn your all over to those same people with those same ideals? It is, after all, your life; and the law, after all, is the law.

[Mk VII]

CS and the like would fall into Section 5 of the Firearms Act; the same category as machine guns. 'designed or adapted for the discharge of noxious liquid or any other noxious thing'. These are absolute offences and the mens rea of the defendant is irrelevant, though it might be adduced as additional evidence.
I guess Mr Adams was referring to the one third of Americans who did nothing in the Revolution, or actively fought for the British.

[fallingblock]

"I guess Mr Adams was referring to the one third of Americans who did nothing in the Revolution, or actively fought for the British."
****************************************************
That'd be right....the ones who couldn't escape their "Britishness"
:)

The same problem exists in Australia today:banghead:

[stevelyn]

"I guess Mr. Adams was referring to the one third of Americans who did nothing in the Revolution, or activly fought for the British."

You are correct. However we refer to them today as Canadians.

[243_shooter]

They let the silly colonies have weapons and look what happend.. they aren't going to let that happen again!

Thank god he didn't have a firearm.. How would the country cope with the thought of a dead scumbag laying on the street after attempting to rob a wheelchair bound person?

(CHEERS would be appropriate I would think?)..

This would explain the unusually low crime rate.. :barf:

Leo

[citizen]

I don't like seeing Agricola being backed into a corner.

Mob mentality.

I don't like the laws there; but I am here, and don't like all ours, either. Criticism can be a two-way street.

The situation IS sad, and unjust; but WHERE is it anyone is guaranteed a just life? With certain and swift recourse for otherwise?

This is a big planet hosting many peoples; some different than others. Let "them" play in their own back yards.:scrutiny:

[griz]

I’ll propose a compromise Agricola, and see if you accept it. Instead of arrested for self defense, or arrested for OC spray, how about "he was arrested for having the means to defend himself"? If that is not acceptable, it’s not too late for you to enlighten us as to an approved method by which a wheelchair bound individual could defend himself.

[Byron Quick]

with regard to "your laws suck", well its not your country, if you dont like it you dont have to come here. plenty of US laws seem stupid to me

agricola,

Every now and then you astound me by saying something with which I find myself in total agreement. Granted, this usually leads me to an agonizing reappraisal of my beliefs, premises, and logic desperately searching for my error.:D

it’s not too late for you to enlighten us as to an approved method by which a wheelchair bound individual could defend himself.

I'm still waiting for this bit of enlightenment myself...after all, self defense is legal in Great Britain, right? Show us the way, good fellow.

While you're at it, you made the statement that you believed this situation to be "just." Please give us a barebones outline of your reasoning here for the education of us benighted people. You could begin with your definition of "just," as it is apparently quite different from the one we are laboring under.

[Mk VII]

you might want to pause before you welcome the endorsement of Mr Berlusconi - a crook who buys and sells politicians and TV stations and would be in jail by now if he wasn't having the law changed to retroactivly legitimise his actions.

[Esky]

England's laws are even more draconian than here in Australia.

I have been in the Court of Petty Sessions here in Armadale, Western Australia, and heard the magistrate sentence a man for the "crime" of having a cricket bat in the back seat of his car.

This guy was stopped by the police for a "random breath check" (which was, surprisingly, never administered) when the police officer noticed the cricket bat. When the fellow was asked why he had the bat in the back seat, he (foolishly?- yep!) told the police the truth: he had it "because some 'hoons' down the street where he lived, would beat him up if he didn't have something to defend himself." (That's from memory, it's accurate but not word-for-word.) The magistrate lectured him, saying in effect that if everyone were armed, then uncontrollable battles would rage everywhere; and if the man thought he was threatened, he should call the police to deal with it.

The magistrate then fined him $150 (that's about US$100) for possession of a "controlled weapon" which was prohibited under the Weapons Act. The guy's now got a police record and has taken a hit to the hip pocket too. He was totally non-plussed, and kept repeating, "but they never gave me any breath test, that's what they said they stopped me for." Another refrain went, "How can a cricket bat be illegal?"

Poor sap actually thought that just being stopped by the police, for no reason at all, then trapped into admitting a "crime" that he had no idea about, was somehow underhanded. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here!) I KNOW that he's had the thought, "Why didn't I just say I was going to play some cricket!!!" Sometimes the truth is not our friend, when laws are like this exist.

The Weapons Act is pretty thorough- CS (Tear gas) spray, pepper spray, slingshots, batons, knives, guns, cricket bats, etc.- all illegal to use for purposes of self defence unless you're an "authorized" person, which the average person is not. There are articles in the Act that render just about ANYTHING illegal, if used as a defensive weapon. (That includes walking sticks.) Most of the readers here are probably in possession of at least one knife that would be illegal just to have, let alone use.

If this guy had actually hit one of these "hoons" with the bat, he would be lucky if he got off with just a fine. He probably would've gone to jail. He probably also would have been sued by the hoons, and they would probably have won. Jury? What jury. Not always necessary under law here.

In England this kind of absurdity is even worse, so I think Agricola is in a bit of denial about the conditions there.

I know I'm sure glad I'm coming back to the US of A real soon!

[Tamara]

In amongst the usual nattering about "socialists" and "sheeple" and such, a couple of interesting points have been raised.

One that sticks out to me:
don - there is provision for someone to carry anything, including knives, swords, handguns etc all the time provided one can demonstrate that there is an equivalent and real danger.

Seems to me that actually, you know, getting attacked would constitute rather handy proof of the danger of same. :uhoh: Around these parts, that would be what is known as an affirmative defense to the charge of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. (One may not tote a concealed weapon legally here without a chit from the Powers That Be, unless one is in danger of being attacked. If that illegally concealed weapon should become unconcealed whilst saving one's bacon, then, ipso facto, one was in danger of being attacked.)

[Esky]

I meant to say that here in WA, self defence IS legal, but it has to be "proportional force". So if somebody comes at you with a cricket bat, you can defend yourself with one; but you've gotta stop hitting him when he stops hitting you, and God help you if you don't have one handy (accidentally, of course.) Or you could use a kitchen knife if the BG's got a knife, etc, but NOT a gun.

This really seems silly to me, as it seems to assume that somehow I'm going to know how badly the BG is going to hurt me, and then hurt him back just as much, or just until he stops hurting me. Yeah, right. Sure I will.

There's no right AT ALL to defend your own private property, so bashing burglars who break into your house is highly frowned upon by our Constabulary. They've got a 14% success rate in solving burglaries, though, so why would anyone worry? (Yes, that's FOURTEEN PERCENT success in solving burglaries, they're good ain't they!)

[Battler]

Esky: Sounds like one could make out GREAT in Australia with a BASEBALL bat, as fewer people are likely to have one to "reasonably" respond with.

The greater weight of a CRICKET bat vs. a baseball bat make defending against a baseball bat with a cricket bat an irresponsible use of force.

[Battler]

I find it amusing that the "privelege" of self defense is contingent upon being on an IRA terrorist hit list.

Goes to show the difference between the UK and US. In the US you apply for a permit from the police or department of public safety - in the UK you apply your permission comes from terrorists :)

[Tamara]

The "proportional force" argument brings up another point: look at the great restraint demonstrated by the victim who, despite being threatened with an obviously lethal weapon, responded with only a mild aerosol irritant. :scrutiny:

[Battler]

BTW - can someone find me another link for this story? The old one seems to have gone stale.


BTW - stop arguing with Agricola. He'd defend a fu**ing holocaust if a single victim happened to have a pair of nail clippers in violation of British law so why bother - no point.

"Look it says right here in bylaw 22-75 that undesirables have to be packed up on trains and shipped east."

:banghead:

[riverdog]

Never mind, wrong WA:rolleyes:

[Esky]

I reckon the important similarity between the UK and Australia, and the big difference to America, is the idea here that the people are subjects of the Crown- but in America, each citizen is sovereign. The country is the people; the people rule the country.

But in the UK, a subject is at the mercy of the Crown. The Crown rules... which isn't really the Queen anymore, but Parliament. Parliament has unlimited power. Those in power don't want any threat to their authority. Gradually gun control and other policies have eroded the rights of the English people, who used to be so very self-reliant. Now everything is done from some central authority, who want everything done the bureaucratic way, not any individual way. So no one should have a weapon at all, except the authorities. Wouldn't want things to get out of control. The wishful or magical thinking here is quite surreal at times.

"It's a safer place, because there are no weapons. No one ever hurts anyone else. Aren't the elves nice? Let's go skipping through the flowers."

This is so obviously "what's in that pipe that you're smoking" an idea that I have to conclude that this isn't really it at all. It's smoke and mirrors, with the true object being control.

Here (UK & Oz) we're subjects, not sovereigns. Our lords & masters will do what's right for us, since we're too ignorant and childlike to know how to look after ourselves. We might hurt ourselves with those nasty ugly weapons, so it's better that our masters will look after us.

We're being looked after so well that just six months ago, security cameras captured video of a young man being beat up by nightclub bouncers; he was badly beaten and hospitalized, but looks like he'll recover physically... mentally is another question. Interestingly, the video was being shown on TV, since the authorities taking care of us all didn't know who the bouncers were, and were appealing for help in finding them.

Boy, do I feel safer now.

[jmbg29]

BTW - stop arguing with Agricola. He'd defend a fu**ing holocaust if a single victim happened to have a pair of nail clippers in violation of British law so why bother - no point.Excellent point.

[agricola]

battler,

you should read your history rather than further reinforcing the already considerable amount of proof supporting Godwins' Law.

[Don Gwinn]

So, Agricola, I asked you what a man in a wheelchair can do to defend himself.

Your answer? "Do something to make the PIRA mad enough to threaten to kill him, then acquire the hit list and take it to the police, and they'll set him right up."

Heck, why didn't I think of that?:rolleyes:

:banghead:

As much fun as this has been, I think I'm done now.

[agricola]

don,

its a strawman argument. what can a man born without arms do to defend himself? or someone totally without any limbs? or someone paralysed from the neck down?

[Correia]

Only a strawman argument if you aren't the poor sod in the wheelchair.

[Mr. Bombastic]

So because quadriplegics are virtually defenceless, that is justification for making everyone virtually defenceless?

That's crap.

[keithernTN]

It is sad to see people that cannot defend themselves. What of this scenario in England? You live in the country, you come home from work and find your mother, daughter or wife being raped. Can you defend them in England or do you have to watch and wait for the proper authorities to arrive?

What if the person being raped grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the rapist in the act? Are they not allowed to defend themselves. Will they be arrested?

If this is the way it is in England the U.S. may have to liberate the English subjects from thier tyrannical government like we did for the Iraqies.

[agricola]

mr bombastic,

no - don asked the question and it was answered.

keithernTN,

you repeat the fundamental misconception here - that self-defence is illegal.. it isnt. in the situations you describe the application of force would be justified.

[Battler]

The comparison with a quadruplegic person is a good one.

One restriction to self-defense is a real obstacle - such as a disability.

Another comes about through an act of force through the state promising to lock you up if you do not render yourself sufficiently incapable of defense.

It is artificial, put in place by laws written by people who CLEARLY care more about the submissiveness of their livestock than of protecting rights (as evidenced by the innocent being charged for defending themselves against criminals who go free).


Ack - I'm breaking my own rule - arguing with Agricola about British anti-self-defense laws.

:banghead:

Of course, with British welfare state definition of "rights", a "right" to something means the government will tax the productive to get you one. Free OC spray and guns?


:banghead:

Yes, I know and admit that if someone wants to hurt you in the UK and the assailant fails, you are breaking the law.


:banghead:

Why am I discussing this.

:banghead:

[keithernTN]

Self defense may be legal, but using a weapon in ones defense is illegal. If you are attacked with a knife you can only use your barehands for protection which puts the victim at a disadvantage. If said victim were to take away the attackers knife would the victim recieve a weapons charge if they used it to defend themselves?

[KPersimmon]

Does anyone not see that such laws which effectively hamstring self-defense serve to create a safer working environment for the real criminals who prey on society?

[cordex]

Splitting the proverbial hair, but Ag is right.
Was not arrested for defending himself, was arrested for possession of the self-defense tool.
If I were carrying a baggie of cocaine and handed it to a licensed doctor to use as a topical anaesthetic for an emergency surgery in the middle of the road, I could (and most likely would) still be charged with possession of a controlled substance despite the fact that it was a lawful use of the drug.

That said, I think the affirmative defense applies very well here.

Agricola, do you know if England ever issues permits to auslanders? Like if your well-known, friendly, neighborhood PIRA contact called up and said "We hear that a gent from the 'states is going to be visited. Goes by the handle of Cordex on such-and-such a forum. Here is some other vital information. We plan on killing him if we can get our hands on him." ... would I be issued a permit?

[griz]

you repeat the fundamental misconception here - that self-defence is illegal

You are ignoring reason. If you outlaw the means to self defense you ARE outlawing self defense. I realize you don’t want to admit that because it would make your position "unjust" but I hope you can admit it to yourself.

[Shalako]

A lot of folks keep blaming the English Government for these restrictive laws. I don't really see why. The English people at some point decided that they as a whole could not be trusted with the responsibility of self protection. They then voted to transfer this weighty responsibility to the Government. 'Whew, what a relief!" Now they don't have to think about that anymore and the vulgar brutes at the police department can handle all of that dastardly dirty work. But to make this new service successful and efficient, the government must ban the tools that might make someone believe they could be responsible for their own protection. That would be a no-no because it was 'already decided' that protection duties go to the cops. End-of-story.

Suprisingly enough, the English government seems to encourage this shift away from personal responsibility towards a more efficient government provided service. I wonder why?

ps. Extrapolate this image about 50 years into the future and its not real pretty.

[Shalako]

"You may use your bare hands to protect yourself, but at no time may your elbows leave contact with your midsection."

Edict of the High Counsel, Ministry of Protection

[Master Blaster]

It seems to me as sad as it sounds that the guy in the wheelchair made the big mistake. Carrying pepper spray and using it was not his mistake.

TELLING THE FREAKIN GESTAPO, I MEAN THE POLICE WAS HIS MISTAKE.

He should have left the robber screaming in the bushes.

When it becomes illegal for you to defend yourself, you have no choice so learn how to be a good crimminal, and dont get caught.

That is the lesson the folks in england need to learn if they want to survive.

[jsalcedo]

There are some very similar circumstances here in Texas.

An artist friend of mine (sculptor) was pulled over for speeding early one morning. The officer looked in the back seat and noticed a set of exacto knives (like a pen with a very small razor blade on the end)

The cop asked "what are you planning to do with those"
and stated that he was carrying concealed weapons and was
subject to arrest.

The logic stated was "I don't know what you are planning to use those knives for so I have to assume you mean to cause me harm"

My friend was released with a stern warning.
and his art knives confiscated with a stern warning.

As far as baseball bats wrenches and screwdrivers go... people have been arrested around here for years just for having them in the car.

It seems the only way to have a potential weapon is to get the CCW permit.

[Battler]

Your texas example there with the knives. . . .

The law is against carrying knives with blades > 5 inches. As to whether or not the guy was carrying. . . . Were the knives > 5 inches ? (Pardon ignorance).

I think the cop was not operating within the law with confiscating those knives.

Carry permit in Texas is only for PISTOLS, not knives.

Ironically, at a terry stop where the cops STRONGLY suspected I was a VERY dangerous hombre they were hunting (3 converged on me, and I matched the description in every way), they took my pistol but left my TWO knives on me.

[jsalcedo]

exacto knives are a tiny 1/2 razor blade on the end of a metal
pen. They are used for delicate carving.


BTW what is a terry stop?

[Mr. Bombastic]

Outlawing hammer, nails and wood, and yet still decreeing that building a shed is legal, is the same as outlawing the building of sheds in the first place.

Outlawing all defensive tools and yet still decreeing that self defence is legal, is the same as outlawing self defence in the first place.

The criminals are armed no matter what is outlawed; BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS!

Tell me Agricola, how do you think people should defend themselves from violent criminals?

Do you think everyone can outrun a gang of violent young males?

Do you think rape victims should just 'lie back and think of England'?

Do you think it is 'just' to force people to beg to receive mercy from those who have none to give?

[CZ-75]

Do you think rape victims should just 'lie back and think of England'?

Why that's merely somone else doing to them what England's been doing to them for years. :barf:

[jimpeel]

You seem to have missed my post the first time so I will repost for your edification.

There are questions in this post that you have yet to answer so I will bolden and color them red for your convenience so you may skip right to them to post your answers.

How about “Arrested for failure to comply� or “Arrested for failing to give his money to a criminal demandee�, or “Arrested for failure to submit to an armed mugging�, or “Arrested for failure to perform the duties of a citizen of the Crown by allowing himself to be killed�?

The facetiousness of trying to parse the thread title is ludicrous. Yes, he wasn’t literally arrested for self defense. He was arrested for possession of an item deemed by the Crown of being contraband while in the act of defending himself from a criminal attack. The fact remains that he was in fear of his life and had been mugged three weeks prior. Does a subject of the Crown have a duty to submit to criminal mischief? Is there a duty to allow oneself to be killed to prove one’s law abiding nature?

You seem the type who believes “My country, right or wrongâ€�. You also seem the type who would have condemned Americans stating the same thing on bumper stickers during the Vietnam era. Your staunch, though stoic, adherence to the defense of these laws that make you and your countrymen simple victims, waiting for a place to be victimized, is atrocious. By doing so, you legitimize the criminal acts perpetrated upon yourself and your countrymen. It is as though you have no concept of the right of a human being to be simply left alone. You instead seem to concur with your government that these laws are good and correct; vis-Ã*-vis “The law is the lawâ€�.

That kind of thinking is why the Cohens and Goldsteins started disappearing in Germany. “I had to turn them in. They were Jews and, after all, the law is the law.� was the lament of the German people; but they went willingly along with everything they were told because the law was the law. Hitler never did anything unlawful. He did it all strictly by the book.

Although you have stated: the answer is nothing can be carried for self-defence if the item is being carried on the off chance that one gets attacked - ie: there is no definate threat against oneself.

permits issued for that kind have historically mainly been issued after someone finds their name is on one of the lists of PIRA / RIRA / Unionist paramilitaries. you still have failed to tell us what he should have done in this instance. The best you have been able to offer is that he broke the law and, after all, the law is the law. Unflagging compliance to the demands of the perpetrator of the moment is the watchword of the day. From your description, a person would be wise to pay the aforementioned groups to add their names to the list so they could get a firearm for self defense.

There is a famous quote by Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, which states: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." This he spoke to those who were willing to allow the British to continue their atrocities against Americans and were willing to subject themselves to these acts because “The law is the law�.

Look back on the deeds of your country during the period of Imperialism and how they treated the peoples of those nations. Given that record, do you really want to turn your all over to those same people with those same ideals? It is, after all, your life; and the law, after all, is the law.

[Battler]

BTW - when you see that a law is written such that a person, when faced with a threat to his life, must surrender his life. . . . .

Ask yourself what exactly is the philosophy and intent against which said laws are written?

[cordex]

when you see that a law is written such that a person, when faced with a threat to his life, must surrender his life. . . . .
To be fair, the law does not state that the victim must surrendier their life. Merely that they may not be prepared to defend themselves.

What I find funny is agricola admits that they will - at times - issue permits to carry weapons (and issue weapons as well) if the person can prove that they will need one. But if you carry a weapon and have to use it, they'll hit you with possession charges. It would seem to stand to reason that if you've had to use your weapon in lawful self defense (as the actual act was lawful), you probably did in fact need it.

[Battler]

Question : Would a law put in place that placed a person's life as paramount issue punishment in this situation?

My statement stands.

[Tamara]

I make a pro forma denunciation of thems what speak in catchphrases, raise some interesting topics for discussion, and you completely blow me off.

I'm hurt. :(

[Don Gwinn]

I'm getting far too close to losing my temper. Agricola, your insistence on resisting any attempt at reason borders on deliberate trolling. You know very well that no straw man is involved. YOU were the one who asserted that it is acceptable to refuse the man in the wheelchair any weapon which he could use to defend himself, unless he is threatened by Irish terrorists. You were the one who asserted that his having been attacked and robbed once already does not constitute an "equivalent threat" whatever an equivalent threat is. (Equivalent to what?) Now you refuse to defend those statements and attempt to hide behind goofy rhetorical questions about varying levels of disabilities.

I'm not talking about disabilities. If it helps, assume I asked you "How can the average subject of Her Majesty acquire the privilege of defending himself if attacked, including the right to own and carry a weapon suitable for that purpose?"

Your answer, wheelchair or no, would still be the same: "Do something to make a band of international terrorists angry enough to put your name on an official "hit list" and the police will give you a gun and permit. Anything less, and you can forget it." I'm just going by what you posted here.

If that answer does not represent your views, then tell us where in your earlier statements you misstated them. Don't hide behind yammering about quadriplegics.

[Safety First]

I know I must be seeing things, this thread is still being debated, but for what purpose and what end? If straight answers to straight questions were going to surface, I think we would see them by now...Well anyway, I guess if you are having fun,then by all means have at it...

[Byron Quick]

I was hoping we could get him to debate what the meaning of 'is' is. But apparently he cannot define 'just.'

[John G]

I think we already know the answers to these questions, and we're just waiting to see them admitted by our friend across the pond. Obviously, Agricola refuses to give a straight answer, and he's backed into a very tight corner.

I thank God that I (and my sister, who gains her mobility via wheelchair) am not in England. The British government's stance on personal defense, and its barring of the tools of defense, is nothing short of sickening.

[stevelyn]

What is a Terry Stop?

It's cop-speak for a stop and search. Named after Terry vs Ohio Supreme Court case where the court ruled that if a cop stops a person on the street for a field interview for suspicious activity, matches description, etc. they can do a quick pat down for obvious weapons before continuing with the reason for the stop, but they can't do a detailed search of the person without probable cause for anything else and use it for the basis of an arrest.

[agricola]

jimpeel,

Does a subject of the Crown have a duty to submit to criminal mischief? Is there a duty to allow oneself to be killed to prove one’s law abiding nature?

The answer (to a leading question btw) is of course, no to both questions. The issue here - as has been shown by every incident that sparks off these threads - is twofold: firstly, there is a legal provision over here against possession in public (in private for some of these items) of certain items made, adapted or intended for use as an offensive weapon. Secondly, there is the issue that because a Court has decided that a person has committed an assault (when their defence has been one of self-defence) most of you believe that the right of self defence is non-existant over here.

you still have failed to tell us what he should have done in this instance

What did happen in any case? He got assaulted by another man who was armed with a knife. He knew what he was doing was illegal (I wont say "wrong" to offend some of your sensibilities) and so must accept the consequences of it. Introducing emotive and useless arguments such as "how does a disabled man defend himself?" is utterly pointless, because at the end of the day some people are going to be essentially defenceless, no matter how well armed or how secure one makes them.

Given that record, do you really want to turn your all over to those same people with those same ideals?

when we do it, its imperialism. when the US does it, its self defence / liberation / disposing of illegal weapons of mass destruction / enforcing UN resolutions.

don,

that was the example i cited. the presumption is that, if there is a clear threat against you or your family (from whatever source) then the case is made for your Firearms Licence (usually under s.5). its also nice to see PIRA being referred to as what they actually are rather than "freedom fighters"

the rest

self defence is not illegal. self defence with a weapon is not illegal. possession without good cause of an implement made, adapted or intended for the purpose of causing injury IS

[Battler]

Agricola. I don't get it.

Is your argument here that British law is being upheld in nailing the guy with the wheelchair to a cross?

Because I don't think anyone disputes that. So you can stop using "he is going to go down hard because he broke British laws" as a response to questions. We know that. We all know that.


In DEFENSE of these laws, I'm generally seeing a pattern of:

"It is good to prosecute people for these things because it's the law".

and

"The law is good because it's the law."


If you are going to answer any questions then do it. If not, I think everyone should agree to stop as this thread has gone over 5 pages. If you want an answer to your question to agricola, all you will get is something that I have listed above, so read my post and don't bother.

[Don Gwinn]

But you stated yourself that "good cause" is practically non-existent. "Historically," you said, the only acceptable "good cause" has been a documented death threat from an international group of terrorists.

This poor fool, on the other hand, was only attacked on the street and robbed, so he has no "good cause" to seek a means to defend himself.

In other words, "good cause" does not mean in British law (or to you, since you approve) what it means in English. "Good cause" is a code word for "no way, peasant."

Ag, I know you think that's all for the best, but I find it disgusting.

But, hey, y'all want to hear something really funny? That's actually a better system than Illinois has, with regards to guns. Although you can carry a knife or pepper spray here (and maybe a baton, contrary to my earlier belief) with no permit, you cannot carry a gun even with "good cause." It doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden calls your home number and promises to cut your throat personally, you still can't carry a gun. We tried to get a law allowing CCW permits to be issued on a discretionary basis and only to documented victims of domestic violence and/or violent crime, and it went down in flames. Not even close.

[keithernTN]

If a man holding a knife to your throat and demanding money is'nt a "good cause" to possess CS gas or a gun I don't know what is and I probly never will.

[TheEgg]

So the bottom line is that, in England (unless I have made some terrorist hit-list) I can defend myself, but only with my bare hands, or perhaps a brick or stone I pick up off the street, AFTER the assault has started.:scrutiny:

And this makes sense to anybody at all?

(Best Yakov Smirnof voice)
WHAAAT a COUNTRY!

:banghead:

[jsalcedo]

I wonder if the wheelchair chap will get a longer sentence than
the guy who held a knife to his throat?


It seems each society has some weird idea of what is fair. (zero tolerance)

In the US, someone caught with a certain weight of LSD
is automatically sent to prison for 15 years. When someone attempts murder they can be out in as little as 2 years.

In the UK a armed home invader can be out in 18 months where as someone who trys to stop the invader with a weapon can be jailed for up to 5 years.

There is a clear message here.....control of the populace has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with control.

[agricola]

don,

thats not what i said. what i said was:

permits issued for that kind have historically mainly been issued after someone finds their name is on one of the lists of PIRA / RIRA / Unionist paramilitaries.

no "the only good cause" there.

battler,

most if not all of my posts on this thread havent defended the law at all, but rather correct those of you who have dived onto the usual "what those crazy fascists did next" bandwagon with no regard for the facts. the people who got the permits in NI were for the main not members of the security forces - who already had the means to defend themselves from the terror threat against them- but rather tradesmen who had the temerity to work on Army bases and RUC posts, or people who opposed the paramilitaries.

FWIW I do think that this chap will get a caution or charge for possession of CS spray; he wont get done (on the facts as presented) for the assault for reasons already stated. If US citizens feel that they dont like the law that the people of the UK have decided should hold sway in the UK, then dont come here.

[BenW]

certain items made, adapted or intended for use as an offensive weapon.
I would argue that CS gas, when in handheld (versus projectile) configuration, is a DEFENSIVE weapon.

I'm not up enough on British law to state facts, but it seems from what I've read that there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. In fact it seems that the only definition for any tool used to disuade an attacker is "offensive weapon" (in other words, the definition of "weapon" itself is inherently offensive in the modern British lexicon) If that's the case, there are no legal means for the use of any tool to defend oneself, because there is no such thing as defense, there is only offense. Which is why Agricola can't answer the question of what the victim in this case was supposed to do. Offense is offense and defense is offense, so there's no way to win.

[Esky]

Dave Kopel, writing for NRO, has a good story on this topic- see http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp - the story's called "The British Gun Closet".

It says in part:

"The British government is more abusive than ever to people who use force for lawful protection, and as accommodating as ever to violent criminals."

Then a bit later:

"Non-terrorist criminals also continue to get an easy ride from the government. Some teenagers who perpetrated an unarmed gang homicide on a random stranger were last week sentenced to terms of 2-4 years. The same week, reports the Evening Standard (4/29), "An evil young killer who stabbed a complete stranger through the ear with a hunting knife" was sentenced to seven years in prison. Meanwhile, the government is introducing a five-year mandatory minimum for carrying a gun illegally. So, merely carrying a gun merits a sentence in the same range as murdering someone.

Using force to resist a crime seems to trouble the government a great deal. A businessman who hit a pair of burglars with a brick was prosecuted and called "an unmitigated thug" by the government (Daily Mail, 5/1). Yet the jury acquitted the victim, since British jurors do retain the right to acquit a morally innocent defendant who has technically violated the law.

A masked man with a cape and a mask who was on his way to a costume party intervened to save someone who was being beaten by a gang of thugs. The local police spokesman was very unhappy with the man's altruism, since only the police are supposed to resist criminals (Daily Mail, 5/3)."

As they say, read the whole thing.

TheEgg- looks like from the quote above that picking up a brick makes the gummint unhappy too, so guess that isn't the thing to do. Like you say, "WHAAAT a COUNTRY!"

Thank God the USA isn't like the UK... YET!

Somewhere I have a link to a story about how some American students arrived in England, and were basically told by a police spokesman to rid themselves of any weapons, including pepper spray (all the girls had that) and pocketknives (most of the guys had one of those) and also, that when they were assaulted or robbed, the thing to do was roll into a ball, fall onto the ground, and yell. They were supposed to do this so that any witness could tell who was the attacker, and who was the attackee- but if the students tried to defend themselves, then they would be arrested along with the person who attacked them.

I can't believe this kind of moral equivalence, myself, and I'm still looking for that link, as it was exactly on topic here and a good story. I'll post it as soon as I come up with it.

[Esky]

I still haven't found that link- but here's another one by one of my favourite authors, Mark Steyn:

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=22 which is titled, "In The Absence Of Guns."

Money quote: "It’s just as well Tom [Cruise] failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form. The most they’ll tolerate is “proportionate response� - and, as these thugs had been beating up a defenceless woman and posed no threat to Tom Cruise, the Metropolitan Police would have regarded Tom's actions as highly objectionable. “Proportionate response� from the beleaguered British property owner’s point of view, is a bit like a courtly duel where the rules are set by one side: “Ah,� says the victim of a late-night break-in, “I see you have brought a blunt instrument. Forgive me for unsheathing my bread knife. My mistake, old boy. Would you mind giving me a sporting chance to retrieve my cricket bat from under the bed before clubbing me to a pulp, there's a good chap?�

Required reading!

[Master Blaster]

IN a Word this whole thread is NAUSEATING.



:barf:

[tyme]

Agricola,

You (the British) deny people (who are not explicitly threatened) self defense with reasonable, handheld implements because of some idea that it's for the greater good, that denying these people firearms will decrease crimes committed. You (the British) do these things without evidence that the premise (denying firearms/OC spray/whatever) to citizens will have a positive impact on crime.

There is much evidence that at best firearms (and other less scary weapons) do not affect crime at all, and at worst that bans increase crime. But even if the GunBan assumption were true, most of us still wouldn't agree. It is not just to force free people to go defenseless no matter what the social cost. That's a basic extension of the argument that you cannot force a free person to sacrifice life or health.

You've still ignored Tamara's question. This poor soul was noticed by authorities because he was defending himself. Further, his respose to being attacked was close to the minimum response he could have made having any chance of preventing the attack. Isn't that evidence that this guy was 1) good and 2) shouldn't be hassled for at least this "transgression?" What's the point of having a law that's used to hassle people who defend themselves reasonably when the law is not (and can't because of some vestigial notion of prohibition of search and seizure - I'm sure that'll be gone in Europe any day now) used to install cameras in the homes of suspected undesirables to look for contraband?

So basically your position is that cripples are out of luck? Would you mind if I go to England and start robbing the wheelchair-bound? What's the police response if criminals increase their targetting of cripples? Are you going to put armed police in wheelchairs and send them out onto the street "undercover?" Would police even be willing to risk the tactical disadvantage of being in a wheelchair even if they could be armed?

I don't think you do, but if you think cripples should be tossed into the ocean, just say it. What's the issue with letting them have OC spray? Are wheelchair cowboys a leading demographic of "armed" (though perhaps one-armed or no-legged) robbery suspects? "Give me your money or I'll ram you with this wheelchair and use this OC spray on you!" You must be joking.

[Mute]

What did happen in any case? He got assaulted by another man who was armed with a knife. He knew what he was doing was illegal (I wont say "wrong" to offend some of your sensibilities) and so must accept the consequences of it. Introducing emotive and useless arguments such as "how does a disabled man defend himself?" is utterly pointless, because at the end of the day some people are going to be essentially defenceless, no matter how well armed or how secure one makes them.

Let's make this as simple as possible ag. Do you think what that man did was "wrong." Not illegal, but wrong. If you do, that's all the answer we need and there's no longer any sense in debating because we will never come to any kind of consensus.

[Leatherneck]

BenW said I'm not up enough on British law to state facts, but it seems from what I've read that there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons.
As well there should not be. Weapons of any kind can be used in the offense or the defense. It's ludicrous to differentiate between weapons on the basis of intended use. As several anecdotes have illustrated, the authorities can generally trot out a host of laws to condemn the carrying of such impromptu weapons as bats, screwdrivers or exacto knives, either here or in the UK. Just seems to me that the UK.GOV is currently in a paroxism of anti-self defense. Probably has nothing to do with being far more able to apprehend the good guys than the skels, right?:rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[agricola]

tyme,

You (the British) deny people (who are not explicitly threatened) self defense with reasonable, handheld implements because of some idea that it's for the greater good

This is a misrepresentation. For a start, the "British" are the people that are "denied" self defence. Secondly, self-defence isnt denied - weapons are. Ive said it countless times, but self defence, even with an illegally-held weapon, has been accepted and upheld countless times in the Courts.

There is much evidence that at best firearms (and other less scary weapons) do not affect crime at all, and at worst that bans increase crime. But even if the GunBan assumption were true, most of us still wouldn't agree. It is not just to force free people to go defenseless no matter what the social cost. That's a basic extension of the argument that you cannot force a free person to sacrifice life or health.

I'd argue that the extension is no such thing. You pretty much admit at the start of that paragraph that firearms have no effect, positive or negative on crime (I happen to think that the availability of guns does mean that more criminals are likely to be armed, but thats another point). The last statement is representative of the US standpoint, and one that isnt reflected elsewhere - IMO using that example you could just as rationally oppose the death sentence, imprisonment, indeed any punishment at all.

You've still ignored Tamara's question. This poor soul was noticed by authorities because he was defending himself. Further, his respose to being attacked was close to the minimum response he could have made having any chance of preventing the attack. Isn't that evidence that this guy was 1) good and 2) shouldn't be hassled for at least this "transgression?"

He was stopped after Police came across him out of his chair and another man suffering the effects of CS. Assuming all the facts in that article are true you may have a point - certainly, I couldnt imagine a jury convicting him on those facts. However, what if this is some innocent man walking down the road who the disabled man confused with someone, has CS'ed then made this story up? Accepting at face value defence arguments and stories is as dangerous as accepting the prosecution case. In this case, the facts do suggest further caution. The fact that the alleged robber has been bailed without charge in the face of what should be overwhelming evidence against him should ring alarm bells.

So basically your position is that cripples are out of luck? Would you mind if I go to England and start robbing the wheelchair-bound? What's the police response if criminals increase their targetting of cripples? Are you going to put armed police in wheelchairs and send them out onto the street "undercover?" Would police even be willing to risk the tactical disadvantage of being in a wheelchair even if they could be armed?

At the end of the day some people will be unable to defend themselves. The rest of that paragraph is nonsense parading as humour.

[jsalcedo]

By any chance, are you a professional politician Agricola?

[BenW]

As well there should not be. Weapons of any kind can be used in the offense or the defense.
You are correct Leatherneck. I should have stated there was no distinction between offensive or defensive use of weapons and that there seems to be an inherent thought there that ALL weapons use can only be offensive.

I still believe the Brits are applying the "offensive only" definition to the weapon itself though, as well as to the intent of any potential victim who attempts to stop an attack..

[Mr. Bombastic]

At the end of the day some people will be unable to defend themselves.

Yes, and many simply because of you and people like you agricola, denying them equalisers and perverting the definition of justice.

[Battler]

I like that - at the end of the day some people can't defend themselves, which justifies laws that render other people less capable of defending themselves, through use of government force against easier targets..

There's some socialist equality we could all learn from :)

[OF]

I'm with M. Blaster. This thread has me sick to my stomach.

I used to respect you, Ag. And I have said as much in your defense on this very board. I knew you were a socialist, but at least you seemed like a decent enough guy.

I've had my eyes opened, as it were.

- Gabe

[T.Stahl]

Say, I'd go to Britain, someone would attack me with a knife and I'd defend myself by kicking him.
Could I be punished for wearing my Lowa Combat Boots instead of sandals, IF I admitted (or they found out in another way) that I wore them to be able to kick harder in case of an attack?

In a similar situation, could I be punished for carrying a cane without having a bad knee? Or for carrying a Surefire with the intent to use it to dazzle an attacker?

Would I even be allowed to carry these things, if I had the intention to use them defensively? :confused:

[John G]

Well, "at the end of the day" THIS man was not defenseless. The law made him an ideal victim: disabled and unarmed.

His only recourse was to break the (immoral) law, or risk death. I, for one, am glad he did.

[CZ-75]

At the end of the day some people will be unable to defend themselves.

Particularly when you deprive them of adequate means to do so - LEGALLY.




:barf: :barf: :barf:

[TallPine]

The fact that the alleged robber has been bailed without charge in the face of what should be overwhelming evidence against him should ring alarm bells.

Yeah, it rings bells to me that there is something seriously wrong with your country.

But the water is only a little warmer; we're not cooking yet, are we?

Ribbet .... ribbet .... croak

[benewton]

"Introducing emotive and useless arguments such as "how does a disabled man defend himself?" is utterly pointless, because at the end of the day some people are going to be essentially defenceless, no matter how well armed or how secure one makes them. "


True enough, I guess, but how does that address the state's policy to make ALL defenceless?



In any case, I agree with an earlier poster that this one's gone past the useful discussion point.

And I"ll stay the hell out of GB.

[T.Stahl]

"Not all people in Britain are defenseless. Some are more defenseless than others." ;)

[Don Gwinn]

No, you're right, he wasn't defenseless. He was forced to choose between defenselessness and criminality, but he made the right choice.

You can tell because he didn't get his throat cut and his robber went to jail, at least for a bit.

[Monkeyleg]

Agricola, I really do admire your persistence. You're outnumbered at least 100 to 1, yet come out swinging.

Unfortunately, you're defending the indefensible. So what if the wheelchair-bound man used an illegal CS gas? (Sorry for the confusion over CS versus cayenne pepper, Don Gwinn). Even in the liberal bastions of US cities, the district attorneys know when public opinion is going to turn them to toast.

Example: we had a case not long ago where an armed robber entered a store only to find the store owner equally armed. The robber ran into the parking lot, and was shot by the store owner.

A legal shooting under Wisconsin law? No. Texas law perhaps, but not Wisconsin. Nevertheless, the district attorney declined to press charges against the store owner.

I don't know the judicial system in the UK, but here prosecutors have a great deal of discretion. And, for the most part, they seem to know when the public will turn on them if they go after the citizen rather than the criminal.

Is the wheelchair-bound victim guilty of possessing an illegal "weapon?" Yes. Should the prosecutors go after him?

If you say yes, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[Mute]

Ag, you still haven't answered my question.

[tyme]

Ag, weapon bans force people to use hands, feet, and whatever legal implements they can find -- or risk prison. Yet governments passing such laws cannot assure citizens that criminals will be be using legal weapons, and empirically, criminals seem to arm themselves more every time weapon restrictions are tightened.

You misread my comments; I was writing from the point of view of gun bans - the best case for the gun banners is that gun bans do nothing. The worst case for them is that gun bans increase crime.

Most of your other arguments are specious. What does it matter whether the implement or the act was illegal? If it is a crime to point a weapon at someone no matter what, would you argue similarly - that such a law does not prohibit self defense, since it doesn't ban the philosophical idea of self defense, only a means to achieve it?

I think there are two problems here. First, you don't seem to acknowledge or accept the huge body of evidence indicating that there is no positive correlation between gun bans and violent gun crime decreases. Second, you don't see any philosophical problem with banning implements which can greatly improve an individual's ability to defend herself in some circumstances. So you ignore the pragmatic argument, and you don't accept the philosophical argument. Would you say that accurately represents the disagreement?

Thankfully, the philosophical argument is built into the constitution of this country, but alas it seems to be doing little good, since we have to battle each ban as if it were a legitimate policy issue.

[pax]

What did happen in any case? He got assaulted by another man who was armed with a knife. He knew what he was doing was illegal (I wont say "wrong" to offend some of your sensibilities) and so must accept the consequences of it. Introducing emotive and useless arguments such as "how does a disabled man defend himself?" is utterly pointless, because at the end of the day some people are going to be essentially defenceless, no matter how well armed or how secure one makes them.

Ag,

Never mind about "some people." Tell us what this person should have done.

Don't tell us again what the law is. Tell us what this individual should have done to remain within the law.

Should he have opted to die in the street, bleeding like a stuck pig, rather than offending his countrymen's sensibilties by having the means to chase away the naughty boy with the pig-sticker? Should he have chosen to huddle in his home in fear of encountering a bloody-minded sod with a knife should he venture in public? Should he have requested the local bobbies accompany him in his travels? Or what? What legal choice could and should this particular living, breathing human being have made?

pax

[Cosmoline]

So let me get this straight.

Firarms are all but totally illegal, and can never be carried

Defense sprays are illegal

Tazers, I expect, are illegal

Sharp knives are illegal to carry

But self defense is OK

SO WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO USE? REALLY CLEVER INSULTS? :cuss:

[citizen]

After six pages, I wonder; WWCRSD???;)