Shalako
Member
"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
Edict of the High Counsel, Ministry of Protection
Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
Master Blaster
Member
Don't tell the police
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Bombastic
Member
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?
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?
jimpeel
Member
Agricola
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 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:
There is a famous quote by Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, which states:
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.
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 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:
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:
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.
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.
Tamara
Senior Member
Aw, c'mon, Ag...
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
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
Moderator In Memoriam
I was hoping we could get him to debate what the meaning of 'is' is. But apparently he cannot define 'just.'
John G
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
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
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
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.
Bottom line
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.
And this makes sense to anybody at all?
(Best Yakov Smirnof voice)
WHAAAT a COUNTRY!
:banghead:
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.
And this makes sense to anybody at all?
(Best Yakov Smirnof voice)
WHAAAT a COUNTRY!
:banghead:
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
- Status
