drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
They are also required to adhere to a code of conduct and are scrutinised more closely than we are.
Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK
- Thread starter moonhill99
- Start date
They are also required to adhere to a code of conduct and are scrutinised more closely than we are.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
And tez. Oh man. And drop bear, too. Can it get any worse?
Most cop-civilian interactions aren't with "criminals" (usually reserved for felons and significant misdemeanors), but traffic stops and the like. That's where legal ownership and legal ability to carry or have at hand comes into play.
Plus the awful for all concerned visits to inform relatives and loved ones of deaths either by accidents or crime. The visits police make to advise on home safety. The visits they make when you have been the victim of a crime. Police-civilian interaction is not always about arresting people and being in what many people's eyes the 'bad guys'.
Too many people don't understand what a week in the life of a police officer is like, too many take their information from films and television, goes for a lot of professions and martial arts of course but real information doesn't seem to penetrate far in some's brain.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
And tez. Oh man. And drop bear, too. Can it get any worse?
To give one example police officers can drive on the shoulder of the road to bypass traffic.
In the UK, police, fire and ambulance don't have any rights that ordinary drivers don't have, they have no right to speed, drive on the hard shoulder or go through red lights. They may do it however because when there is an operational necessity there is an exemption, the only time they can do these things without been charged and/or disciplined. However if they cause an accident they will be charged and they will be disciplined the same as any other driver. they cannot just speed because they want to be back at base for teatime.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
What the hell??? That was kind of awesome.
In the UK we have some of the best self defence laws in the world. The problem is that most people have not taken the time to understand therm. Instead they rely on hearsay, sensationalist newspaper headlines, and common misconceptions (of which there are many).
If you take the time to actually look at our laws you realise that the law is most definitely on your side. The reasons that most people who are legitimately defending themselves get into trouble with the courts is not because of what they have done, but because of the mistakes they make when they give their statement to the police. Six months down the line, if you are unlucky enough to end up in court, it is not your actions that will convict you, but most likely your statement.
As for weapons out laws are pretty straight forward, they are illegal. Weapons are classified in three ways:-
Firstly Weapons, i.e an object which is made to be a weapon; a sword, a gun, a kubotan, an extendable police baton, pepper spray. If you are caught with these you will be prosecuted, there are no if’s and’s or but’s.
Secondly, everyday objects which have been modified to become weapons. E.GF “Tatcial” pens, sharpening the tip of an umbrella, carrying a sock with a pool ball in it. If you have modified an everyday object thereby turning it into a weapon then you will be prosecuted, end of. Having said that of course, they are going to bear in mind the fact that they have to decide if prosecuting people is within the public interest, so if they find a 65 year old women who has been mugged three times carrying a tactical pen, they probably aren’t going to take her to court, as it’s not in the public interest, they will probably use discretion and just confiscate it and give her a police caution.
Thirdly, and this is where it gets interesting. Unmodified everyday object used as weapon. It is ILLEGAL to carry an everyday object if it is your intention to use it as a weapon. However, and this is the interesting part; in these cases the burden of proof lies with the police. So whereas with weapons or modified everyday object, the police do not have to prove you intended to use them as weapons (the fact you were carrying them is enough to convict you) they do have to prove that you were carrying your unmodified everyday object purely with the intention of using it as a weapon, which as you can imagine presents its own challenges.
n.b.
I am not a lawyer, this is purely my interpretation of how the laws on weapons stand, feel free to interpret them different, many of my own martial arts friends do. Also, there is little to be achieved by arguing, so if you do disagree with me, as you are welcome to do, you will forgive me if I do not reply
If you take the time to actually look at our laws you realise that the law is most definitely on your side. The reasons that most people who are legitimately defending themselves get into trouble with the courts is not because of what they have done, but because of the mistakes they make when they give their statement to the police. Six months down the line, if you are unlucky enough to end up in court, it is not your actions that will convict you, but most likely your statement.
As for weapons out laws are pretty straight forward, they are illegal. Weapons are classified in three ways:-
Firstly Weapons, i.e an object which is made to be a weapon; a sword, a gun, a kubotan, an extendable police baton, pepper spray. If you are caught with these you will be prosecuted, there are no if’s and’s or but’s.
Secondly, everyday objects which have been modified to become weapons. E.GF “Tatcial” pens, sharpening the tip of an umbrella, carrying a sock with a pool ball in it. If you have modified an everyday object thereby turning it into a weapon then you will be prosecuted, end of. Having said that of course, they are going to bear in mind the fact that they have to decide if prosecuting people is within the public interest, so if they find a 65 year old women who has been mugged three times carrying a tactical pen, they probably aren’t going to take her to court, as it’s not in the public interest, they will probably use discretion and just confiscate it and give her a police caution.
Thirdly, and this is where it gets interesting. Unmodified everyday object used as weapon. It is ILLEGAL to carry an everyday object if it is your intention to use it as a weapon. However, and this is the interesting part; in these cases the burden of proof lies with the police. So whereas with weapons or modified everyday object, the police do not have to prove you intended to use them as weapons (the fact you were carrying them is enough to convict you) they do have to prove that you were carrying your unmodified everyday object purely with the intention of using it as a weapon, which as you can imagine presents its own challenges.
n.b.
I am not a lawyer, this is purely my interpretation of how the laws on weapons stand, feel free to interpret them different, many of my own martial arts friends do. Also, there is little to be achieved by arguing, so if you do disagree with me, as you are welcome to do, you will forgive me if I do not reply
To be honest though I've never know someone who defended themselves legitimately actually go to court. The police can only document what people say they did, people have their statements taken as they are speaking, then they read and sign, if they say they did things they didn't then they really should be careful. What is likely to trip them up is other people's statements, witnesses who say they saw something other than what the alleged victim says happened, that's what will really trip you up, that and cctv.
I would say it’s more a problem with police procedure than the law.
You are under no obligation to give a statement right away, however in order to avoid spending a night in a holding cell, people chose to give a statement without waiting for a solicitor, and while they are still experiencing the shock and stress of the incident on which they are being questioned. These people invariably are also ignorant of UK self defence law.
As an analogy, you would never ever buy a house without consulting a solicitor as you can find out (as I did) that the property you were going to buy have a public right of way through the ground floor. You hire a professional to guide you through the minefield of paperwork and legalities. And yet giving a statement to the police without an experienced professional solicitor to guide you, is just like buying a house without a solicitor carrying out the necessary searches.
It is better, if you are unsure of what you are doing, to wait until the morning when a solicitor will be available and when you will a clearer and calmer head, but like I say, people prefer to give their statement right away so they can avoid a night in the cells.
If however, you are aware of the law, and your rights, you can give a statement that will not lead to your cases even getting as far as the courts. Here is a perfect example from Mr Morrison:-
*warning, naughty words
I am going off Dead or Alive. Chapter 22 describes The Law as “The Second Enemy” and Geoff tells us “Many of my friends have been sent to jail because they did not understand the law”. So whilst I, like your good self, are not directly aware of such cases, others are.
There is also a very good article in Ian Abernethy’s now sadly defunct Jissen magazine, written by a police officer, which tell you not only your rights if you are interviewed by the police, but also the pitfalls to look out for when giving a statement, and certain key phrases which you should work into your statement.
As for CCTV footage, if there were footage of a mugger mugging me, and CCTV footage of me attacking a would be mugger, they are pretty much going to look the same, as violence looks like violence. The difference is not going to be what it looks like, it’s the intent of the person carrying out the violence. And if you don’t know what the key phrases are that you need to work into your statement, then you are not going to put enogh doubt into the mind of the CPS that a prosecution is unlikely, which essentially all you really need to do.
But again, these are only my thoughts, which does not necesarily mean they are correct
That's why I wouldn't say anything without a lawyer.
What Im saying is this. Police officers carry weapons not with the intent to use them on people but as a deterrent. If it comes to a situation where officers have to defend themselves than they will use any and whatever means up to and including deadly force if it comes to that. However, at least with most of the police officers I know they hope it never comes to that. If anything police officers carry weapons with the intent to cause a deterrent so that nobody will cause any trouble in the first place and so they won't have to use them.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Police officers use those weapons to make arrests as well. Which is not self defence.
Be that as it may their intent is not to use their weapons to make arrests. There intent is for those being arrested to come quietly so they won't have to use weapons to make their arrests.
Tired_Yeti
Green Belt
They can pull over wanker drivers who cut you off or merge in front of you without a turn signal. I'm not allowed to do that. Oh...and parking tickets. I can't give out parking tickets. [emoji12]
"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
Similar threads
