Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense

[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 said

In 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!

 

[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. 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.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead::banghead:

 

[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

 

[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 jmbg

My "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]

Agricola

How about “Arrested for failure to comply†or “Arrested for failing to give his money to a criminal demandeeâ€, or “Arrested for failure to submit to an armed muggingâ€, or “Arrested for failure to perform the duties of a citizen of the Crown by allowing himself to be killedâ€?

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-à-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 lawâ€.

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]

MK VII...

"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..

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.

 

[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.