1. Are you a current member with account or password issues?

    Please visit following page for more information

    Dismiss Notice

Kubotan on Trial in the UK

Discussion in 'Personal Security Devices & Self-Defense' started by PocketWad, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. 50ft-trad

    50ft-trad Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2
    Generally speaking yes. There are armed response units etc, but your average "bobby on the beat" or traffic cop would not have a firearm
     
  2. Monocrom

    Monocrom Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    8,228
    To: phaserrifle ~

    You actually posted the fact that self-defense is illegal, for all practical purposes, in the UK. Let's take a look at "A)" from your previous post, above. You can use a weapon for self-defense if it is "carried for another, legitimate reason." There it is right there in black & white. You have to have another, legitimate reason for carrying an item that apparently becomes a weapon when used for self-defense. You can't carry something like a cannister of pepperspray or a kubaton. Two items which are clearly meant to be carried as all-around self-defense tools. When was the last time you heard of a hardened convict beating a victim with a kubaton, before stealing his wallet. Clearly under UK law, self-defense itself is not considered to be a legitimate reason for carrying a defensive tool or weapon. Hence, self-defense for all practical purposes is illegal in the UK.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To: 50ft-trad ~

    It's not a theory. Please see above, the comments left for phaserrifle. It's also based on actual cases of self-defense taking place in the UK. The worst example of which took place over a decade ago. Elderly grand-ma on a bus in England, confronted by two punks who threatened to beat her. She carried a tiny Swiss Army penknife (the Classic model) which she used for cutting thread from her needle-point. She takes it out, opens the tiny blade on it, waves it back & forth in front of the punks, they run off. When she gets off the bus, she finds a policeman and tells him what happened.

    The officer then arrests her! Yup, he arrested her. I didn't follow up with that case. Hopefully grand-ma wasn't tossed into a prison cell for the crime of not submitting to a vicious beating from two punks. There's what the law says, and then there's how it is applied. And often times, one has nothing to do with the other.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    To: tso ~

    Even before 9/11, if you flew into the largest airport in England, you'd see police officers on scene carrying H&K MP5 sub-machine guns. There used to be a time when officers needed permission from a commander before being allowed to fire back on violent felons. Their revolvers and sub-machine guns were kept in a special lock-box in the trunk that could only be unlocked remotely once officers were given permission to use their weapons.

    The absurdity of calling in for permission while being shot at was not lost on the officers themselves. This was quite a while ago, but the officers fought to get the policy changed. Clearly there was an issue because the officers won. Now they get to use their own discretion when it comes to using their revolvers. However, their sub-machine guns must still remain locked up; and permission must still be obtained before they can be used.

    Good old UK . . . A place where at one point in time it was illegal for even police officers to immediately respond to a genuine threat on their lives.
     
  3. phaserrifle

    phaserrifle Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    235
    within the UK, generally only certain units are regulaly issued firearms (armed response units, diplomatic protection group ect) but any qualified officer can be armed if the situation warrants it (eg high risk arrests). this was more common untill the 80's when it was decided that specialist teams should be the main group to perform armed arrests. before then it was not uncommon for detectives to be arresting armed robbers with nothing but revolvers, and this led to issues as officers may not have handled a firearm since they qualifed.

    however, there are three forces who's officers are all firearms qualified. these are: the civil nuclear constabulary (CNC), who protect civilian nuclear establishments and related materials, the Ministry of Defence Police (MOD Police, or MOD Plod)who deal with the protection and policing of millitary bases, property and materials ,but unlike the millitary police regiments/units, deal with civilian law not millitary law, and have authority over civilians, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).
    of these, the PSNI and CNC are routinely armed, while MOD police officers are not, although around 3/4 of officers on duty are armed at any one point.
     
  4. Rquagliata

    Rquagliata Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    1
    I guess laws are laws, No matter how dumb they are. The only thing I can think is a "tacticool" pen or a small flashlight that fits in your hand and could be used like a kubaton. Either one is not technically a weapon, but in the hands of a properly trained person can become an execellent self defence tool.

    There are always loop holes...

    My $0.02.
     
  5. phaserrifle

    phaserrifle Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    235
    police officers in the UK currently have very little discresion, mainly due to force policys which are in turn due to badly thought out statistics based targets set by central govornment. ironcially they do still have discresion when they find a knife, due to the "valid reason" clause in that particular law.

    however, while the arrest had to be made, I would be very supprised if the grandma had anything further than a chat with an officer at the station, a verbal warning, and then no further action. the case could still be considered detected (we have an admission, action has been taken, the case has been solved) and so can go as a "solved" crime on the statistics. so even if the two punks where never caught, that's still a 33% detection rate!

    yes, it is a stupid system, but if the case went anywhere near a court room, or even an official caution (which would go on the old lady's record) I would be extremely supprised.
     
  6. 50ft-trad

    50ft-trad Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2
    Monocrom,

    I think that I acknowledged your comments to phaserifle in my post under the "pre-meditated" SD concept - not an official term, just my attempt at differentiating. I agreed that PLANNED self defence and carrying of weapons for such is indeed illegal over here. As regards Granny's Vic Classic, I would suggest that is not reflective of the UK system, but rather an inexperienced / over zealous copper making a bad judgement call. That unfortunately will not be exclusive to the UK, as coppers are people and people are fallable as we all know. I doubt that case went any further, and wouldn't be surprised if the arresting officer was taken to one side for a quiet word by a colleague or superior. One extra point to add though - if you (foolishly) declare to a member of the constabulary that your otherwise legitimately carried object (cane/brolly/pen etc) is actually carried or used for SD reasons, prepare to have your collar felt and a few official questions asked, as the law prohibits items being carried for use as weapons (again reinforcing the premeditated, but NOT spontaneous comments from before). This might not lead to prosecution, but the police cannot (under existing laws) be seen to be condoning carry of ANY items which are carried with the intention of being a defensive tool.

    I understand this is an alien concept to you and goes beyond your beliefs, but that does NOT make self-defence illegal in the UK. It makes intentionally carrying weapons for any form of fighting, harm causing, or intimidating illegal - whether that intention is self preservation or otherwise. In the eyes of the UK if you are carrying a weapon you are INTENDING to have a confrontation for whatever reason, if you don't - you are not. If you just happened to defend yourself with whatever otherwise innocent object was to hand - perfectly legal if it involves reasonable forceagainst an impending threat. There is a real difference when it comes to standing before a jury, even if once in a while a copper gets over zealous.

    Just because our cultures are different, doesn't make it wrong!
     
  7. phill

    phill Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    14
    There is no way that case of the grandma is real. I cant find a single reference and im more than happy to assume it is anti UK propaganda like virtually all stories about UK laws.

    Self defence is extremely protected and there has never been a single case of conviction of someone on self defence that i have EVER seen that wasnt justified. The UK courts are extremely good at what they do.

    As for armed police, please feel free to stop comparing the US to the UK. Id rather have unarmed cops chasing unarmed robbers than armed cops chasing armed robbers like in the US where bystanders regularly catch stray bullets and the number one cause of death amongst young black Americans is by being shot.

    Would i prefer it to be legal to carry a none lethal self defence measure as a middle ground, sure, of course. But ive never once been in a situation where i wished i had a weapon on me and i lived in a rough area of Salford at the height of its gun crime a few years ago and ive met a few gangsters in that time. In fact i once met this guy on one of my first nights out in Manchester (fwiw he seemed like a nice guy and we chatted for a while).

    Look, im not going to say the UK is perfect, but the crime rate here is MUCH lower than in the US, we are a LOT safer even without needing self defence weapons. Where we have problems it is in really small areas of very few major cities and those areas ARE policed by armed cops. Things are pretty good over here, dont let the misreported (largely made up) crime statistics and the rarest of rare exceptions tell you differently.
     
  8. Monocrom

    Monocrom Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    8,228
    It's not about culture. It's about a system of laws that flies counter to one of Man's oldest concepts. . . Self preservation. It's not even something exclusive to man. It's found in other animals. Everything wants to live. Whether it be an Impala being chased by a lion, or a duck trying to fly out of a river as it catches a glimpse of a hungry alligator coming at it.

    Let's put aside the ridiculous notion that if you carry a weapon, it means you want to use it, no matter what. Let's put that aside for now, and look at the quoted portion above right before that ridiculous notion was mentioned.

    Am I missing something? Cause it looks to me that you're pointing out that UK law makes no distinction between fighting, intentionally causing harm to others, intimidating others with a weapon, and self preservation. So in the UK, self preservation is lumped in with such blatantly illegal activities as the ones mentioned above?? I apologize. It seems that even I underestimated how bad it is over there. I've met some pacifists in life. And must admit that even they would not lump self preservation into those other categories. To me, it seems obvious why self preservation or defense does not belong with those other categories.

    I still maintain that (for all practical purposes) self-defense is illegal in the UK. And ironically, you just pointed out the twisted mentality as to why it is that way.

    To clarify, this isn't about culture. I'm not anti-UK or anti-European. (Having been born in eastern Europe, it would be silly of me to be that way.) However I am anti-anything that doesn't recognize a person's most basic right to self preservation.
     
  9. Monocrom

    Monocrom Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,035
    Likes Received:
    8,228
    I don't spread lies or rumors or fake stories. That case is real. I have already admitted to not having kept up with the aftermath of the case. As others pointed out above, it may indeed have stopped without the woman being formally charged. Even a non-locking, tiny, penknife like the Victorinox Classic would be legal to carry in the England. And she did have a good, non-self-defense, reason for carrying it. (Trimming needle-point.) Hopefully this was a case where common sense did prevail.

    Also, I have encountered your posts before. With regularity I see you disagreeing with others, just to disagree with them. Even if everyone in a thread agreed that the sky was blue, you'd say it was pink. If everyone agreed in another thread that the sky was pink, you'd say it was blue.

    I specifically quoted the portion of your post regarding armed police to make a point. While you routinely disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, it is clear from your posts that you are an intelligent man. Do you honestly expect me to believe that an intelligent man would be so unrealistic as to believe that criminals in the UK ply their trade without weapons?? That is not something that an intelligent, realistic, person would post and actually believe in.

    As mentioned previously, officers fought for the right to use their own discretion in England as to when to fire their revolvers. Now do you honestly believe that they would have won that fight if the vast majority of criminals in the UK ran about unarmed while chased by unarmed police officers? Those officers never would have won that fight, if a real and serious problem with armed criminals did not exist.

    Your post was disingenuous. Not the first time you've done that. Likely won't be the last. I don't put individuals on my ignore list. But this will be the last time I respond to one of your posts.
     
  10. Valerian

    Valerian Tea-powered admin

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,266
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Let's not get personal. If you don't like what someone says, attack the post, not the poster.

    We've had many, many threads about UK weapon and self defense laws in the past, and it has always puzzled my why so many Americans make such a big fuss about them. You don't even live there, so why does it matter so much to you?
     
  11. phaserrifle

    phaserrifle Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    235
    re: the old lady story.

    I can't see any reason why this story is untrue. as I've allready stated, it's a symptom of the statistics led culture currently imposed on the police.

    re: armed police

    I am led to believe that the locked box scenario only ever applied to the ARV (Armed Response Vehicles) units, when they where first developed. these where the first routienly armed units based on the "american model".
    that is to say, they where an armed general patrol unit, not a specialist unit who would either be responsible for a particular, contained area (airports, govornment buildings) or person, deal with spesific incidents (hostage situations, riots), or conduct pre-planned raids or arrest opperations.
    as such, police chiefs didn't like the idea of a group of officers driving armed in amongst the general public. it was agaisnt everything that had been done before, and so they put in place some pretty stupid rules.

    it was something new, never been tried before, and I suspect that police cheifs thought that if it went wrong, their jobs where on the line.
     
  12. 50ft-trad

    50ft-trad Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2
    We are going round in circles again here, and need to break the loop in order for us to reach an acceptance/understanding (Note: I’m not trying to get anyone to AGREE with UK law) for the sake of this thread and others that will inevitably ensue over time

    The ACT of self preservation / self defence is perfectly legal in the UK and there are statutes in place to support this, as described above and elsewhere on the forum.


    OK, sure

    The ACT of self defence is NOT lumped in with assault, malicious intent, intimidation etc.
    Did you honestly believe this is what I said?

    Here is where I may be missing something.
    What do you mean by “for all practical purposes”? A reason/excuse to carry a weapon?
    Carrying items for use as weapons is illegal in the UK – end of! No if’s, no buts, no excuses. No weapons!

    Slight Tangent:
    There is a traffic collision where car A runs into car B. It’s actually car A’s fault for whatever reason, but when the police arrive they discover that the driver of car B has been drinking and is over the limit. The police did not witness the incident themselves, but where do you think that they are liable to apportion blame. If the driver of car B had not been driving after having a drink, he wouldn’t have been there to be run into – his fault! If the driver of car B had been there but not been drinking – not his fault!

    Maybe not the best metaphor I admit ... but the best I had to hand.


    Then you will be happy to hear this is very much alive and well in the UK

    To further pursue the line that it is not possible in any circumstances to engage in self defence / self preservation without drawing an illegal weapon is ridiculous. In your wildlife examples above, they did not pull out a Glock, they fled. UK citizens are even allowed the use of improvised weapons with reasonable force to protect ourselves and our property etc. Hopefully this post will curtail once and for all the nonsensical views that self defence is in any way illegal in the UK and that we in effect have a legal obligation to surrender our possessions and take a beating whenever we are threatened. This is a gross misunderstanding of our countries legal system, and also frankly quite offensive when continually thrown at us in this manner.

    Maybe this was a genuine misunderstanding, in which case I hope to have clarified the difference between the provisions in place for self defence and the prohibition of weapons so we can all carry on happily ever after. If not, then its intentional trolling / baiting and I don’t intend to curl up into a ball and accept that either. I hope it isn't, as you have made some very valid and informative contributions elsewhere on the forum. I have been more than happy to discuss this with you, but you need to understand your tone can come across as rather derogatory at times with this topic.

    Best Regards

    50ft-trad
     
  13. liquidsunshine

    liquidsunshine Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    1
    People, no need for much discussion, it's pretty clear:

    Governments do not want their citizens to be prepared - or well educated in general, for that matter - because that often comes with increased independent thinking - the one thing governments universally fear most. They want you to sit in front of you TV, go to work, consume, and be as predictable and remote controllable as possible.

    Of course - so far! - no government officially denies their citizens the right to defend themselves. But they do indeed limit the means that they allow you to do just that quite severely, thereby indirectly clearly limiting the actual ability to defend yourself. In cases like the UK, that pretty much means that you are allowed to shoot someone in self defense - IF you coincidentally find a gun while being attacked. It's like saying "Of course you are allowed to drive a car! You are just not allowed to own one." So this is not about whether SD is legal or not, but about what means you are allowed to use for it.

    If you want to be prepared for self defense as good as possible, you have to look at what you can do and not go to jail.

    Looking at the legislation and how it often is applied in practise, it's clear that preparedness is the keyword here. The law does not differentiate between preparation and preparedness. Preparation would mean to carry a weapon in order to attack someone with it; while preparedness would mean to carry a weapon or multi-use item to be prepared in case you have to defend yourself.

    Whatever you use for self defense - whether you actually carried it for that reason or actually improvised it and had it with you for a totally different reason: Expect to have to justify why you were carrying it, and have an explanation that has absolutely nothing to do with general preparedness aspects without particular specific reason to carry on that day in that situation.

    So while for example carrying a flashlight during daytime would be only logical for us here on EDCF - as we all know that you can be in the dark inside buildings during daytime if the power goes out, and we don't go back home before it gets dark to get a light and then go back to the park - a law twisting opponent would use the combination of "flashlight" and "bright daylight" to mess up your average jury's clear thinking, with no small chance of success in doing so.

    So the only solution is: Prepare for self defense without anyone ever being able to prove that that's just what you did. Use an item that no one can turn against you in court by questioning why you had it with you.

    The challenge for anyone who wants to be prepared under such legislation and get away with what we all would call fair self defense is this: What item can I carry every single day, wherever I go, whatever I do, at any time, that will be very useful for self defense, and no matter where and when it happens, will offer me a plausible explanation why I had to have it on me right there and then?

    Not many items match these requirements. To mind comes: Cell phone, car keys, water bottle, things like that.

    Better ideas? Please let us know here!

    By the way: I do not fully agree with "if you need a weapon, don't go there". If we all did that, the places where we can go reasonably safely would get less and less, and soon we wouldn't be able to leave our living room anymore - where we would also not be very safe anymore soon after.

    Good night everyone!

    Matt
     
  14. lukem

    lukem Empty Pockets

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the obvious solution here is to open a street corner stand selling souvenir half-scale replica Louisville Slugger baseball bats!

    50ft, While the idea of self defense may still be legal over there, it appears from here that they've made equipping yourself for self defense to be illegal.
    Not such a big deal to someone like me, (6'3" 260lbs) but to someone of smaller stature and lesser physical strength, it's quite a handicap.
     
  15. VinnyP
    • In Omnia Paratus

    VinnyP Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    112
  16. phill

    phill Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    14
    Nothing personal. I just cant address a case that i have no knowledge of even existing. Part of good debating is to link your sources so others can examine it and (perhaps) draw different conclusions to you. As it stands that case is a roadblock in the thread because there is no way we can debate further than you heard about it happening and others can tell you it was legal and she probably wasnt charged.

    It is really really rare i debate against my own personal views. I just happen to be a patriotic British, Atheist, fairly educated, never handled a gun and a product of a country where socialism is encouraged (though i hate nanny state laws, i just draw the line at a different point to some). So when you are a small state CCW carrying god fearing American who believes in Glen Beck then we will have HUGE clashes of opinion. Most of the time it is somewhere in the middle. I might be over simplifying it but when i talk about loving my country and its flaws that is a lot easier to accept if i were American than British.

    Fwiw i used to be very anti gun but this forum changed my opinion on that.

    Maybe i should have clarified armed as armed with a gun. Contrary to popular opinion criminals across the country arent going around shooting innocent bystanders for looking at them funny. This is a very real American problem because you have a gun culture mixed with a macho national psyche where appearing to be weak is never to be accepted.

    phaserrifle has covered this. UK policing is VERY different to US policing.

    It was entirely the opposite of disingenuous.
     
  17. phill

    phill Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    14
    There is no expectation that you wont use a weapon in a home invasion scenario. Caving a guy's skull in with a cricket bat from behind with no warning is 100% legal and justified. "I felt i was under mortal danger and had to do what i could to stop him because i thought he was going to kill me". The vast majority of times self defence wasnt accepted is when the robber is trying to get away and even then the public opinion largely falls with the homeowner even when it shouldnt such as in the Tony Martin case.
     
  18. 50ft-trad

    50ft-trad Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2
    Correct, and agreed!

    I'm 5'9" and 11st (70kg), and my primary weapon is my wits. Thankfully that is not illegal, and has only failed to keep me out of bother once. Even then, if I had been carrying something which could have been deployed I would probably been wise not to use it. Two men with a knife when I'm under the affluence of incohol (hic) is a pretty tricky equation to balance. In that instance, my wits didn't prevent the issue but did minimise the loss/damage.

    For those without physical stature and sound mind, yeah it's an issue. But all laws aside, I don't think anyone without a sound mind should have anything sharp or pointy anyway.
     
  19. VinnyP
    • In Omnia Paratus

    VinnyP Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    112
    There are indeed situations when it may be legal and justified and I agree there is no law that says you can't use a weapon, what the law says is that you can use force that is reasonable in the circumstances and no more than is absolutely necessary. I can't agree that it will always be 100% lawful and justified. If you really thought he was going to kill you then that has to be a honestly held and reasonable fear and as a matter fact it would have to be held that you used no more force than reasonable and necessary to prevent you getting hurt. just saying that would not automatically get you off the hook you would need to add in a sentence starting with because at the end, then others more wise than you and I would have to decide whether it was indeed lawful and justified.
     
  20. 50ft-trad

    50ft-trad Loaded Pockets

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    2
    Agreed, a fractured skull from the front or side, would carry more weight in the arguement of imminent mortal danger than one from the rear, especially if no warning was given. Depends also on differences in physical stature of the two individuals and whether the intruder was armed (or appeared to be) when the decision to crown him occured. A kitchen knife attack from the rear would suggest the intruder was leaving and therefore not a threat, one in the chest would suggest a close quarter confrontation (perhaps). If the act of defence is viewed as retaliation, we are back to the Tony Martin (shot in the back with a shotgun whilst running away) scenario