Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense

[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.

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]

And here in the land of Oz...

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]

ag,

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. 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]

And also-

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.

 

[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

 

[Esky]

It's all about control

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?

: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.