Wheelchair bound Brit arrested for self defense

[Esky]

Good story on this topic-

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]

Not that one, but another

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?â€

Required reading!

 

[Master Blaster]

IN a Word this whole thread is NAUSEATING.

 

[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?

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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[citizen]

After six pages, I wonder; WWCRSD???