• Welcome to Life In The Wilderness

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to join then please Register

What Do You Own To Defend Yourself?

Messages
13,068
Points
1,590
There’s two crimes here, purchase of the spray and the other, the attack on the girl. Not equally the same. In my opinion the lass used necessary force, and bravery. However it’s unfortunate how it’s been handled, as long as the police apply there effort to catching these worthless men then the £50 fine doesn’t seem outrageous for having and using a banned weapon of sorts, imo the £50 fine is political on how a crime can’t go unpunished, surly the police can’t justify using a band substance, no matter the cause.



However! They have just set a £50 standard for disabling an attacker, so maby (not saying I agree :sneaky:) but maby more of these scum/worthless men will be stopped from helping themselves! :whistle:
 

Medwayman

Quite Addicted
Messages
529
Points
700
Age
43
I watched a news article where they followed some UK police around doing stop and search in London and one guy got nicked for having a vacuum extension pipe in his coat pocket, OK yes it was probably there for use as a "weopon" but what object is not!, a carrier bag of baked beans clobbered round somebodies head would certain do some damage. It's not the object that the problem is the person who is holding it and why. I think the UK have some of the strictest laws with regard any king of self defense item.
 
Messages
2,058
Points
920
I can't help thinking that non lethal pepper sprays and mace really should be legalised...but then I suppose they'd only be abused just like knives or guns.

The main problem with owning any defensive weapon is that it could potentially be used as an offensive weapon.

I would cheerfully pay her £50 fine for her but that isn't the point. I'm hoping the Danish authorities see sense and go easy on her and that her attacker is caught before he hurts someone. The world is changing and these days it isn't the safe place that so many people expect it to be.
I totally get what you're saying mate and my gut instinct is pity for the young woman. As you say though, it can all escalate to where we are with knife crime in some parts of the country. Everyone else is 'packing' so I will too. If the potential rapist had 'skooshed' her first she would have struggled to fight him off anyway. The elephant in the room is the problem with SOME of the immigrants attitudes although most countries have plenty indigenous badduns too.
 

Joecole

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,428
Points
1,440
Age
74
I totally get what you're saying mate and my gut instinct is pity for the young woman. As you say though, it can all escalate to where we are with knife crime in some parts of the country. Everyone else is 'packing' so I will too. If the potential rapist had 'skooshed' her first she would have struggled to fight him off anyway. The elephant in the room is the problem with SOME of the immigrants attitudes although most countries have plenty indigenous badduns too.
How many of you remember the rat tailed comb? Well one of those can now be classed as offensive weapon so for years I just carried my faithful old stainless steel parker ball point pen. Quite a useful self defense tool in the right hands
 
Messages
4,488
Points
1,210
How many of you remember the rat tailed comb? Well one of those can now be classed as offensive weapon so for years I just carried my faithful old stainless steel parker ball point pen. Quite a useful self defense tool in the right hands
Bit of a while since you had any legitimate reason for carrying a comb Joe.... :sneaky: :whistle:.

the axiom police have also amended the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword" with the addition of "but only if the sword is very small."
 

Joecole

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,428
Points
1,440
Age
74
These days it would be dangerous to intervene on someone attacking another for fear of prosecution on one’s self
No mark you can legally protect/defend a third party just as long as that defense is considered to be no more than proportionate to the force being used by the other party
 

Joecole

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,428
Points
1,440
Age
74
True joe, but the flip side is the attacker charging you with assault.....read it many times in the paper
I agree mate but in most cases they wont win, lets be honest if you saw a girl or a pensioner being attacked in the street would you ignore it
 

saxonaxe

Slightly Addicted
Messages
448
Points
720
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967...

A person (any person) may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances,
In the prevention of crime or affecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of an offender or person unlawfully at large.

Note..
Any person..(not just the Old Bill)

Prevention of crime..( could be assault, theft, damage etc:)
Assisting...Blokes holding down terrorist on London Bridge etc: (Totally Justified within the meaning of the Act)
Unlawfully at large...Someone legging it after arrest etc:

Force must be reasonable...in the circumstances...He's got a knife...you hit him with a chair..or even a Narwhal Tusk ( back to London Bridge...:lol: )

Going over the top and smearing someone into the pavement for breaking your wing mirror is a big no no....But holding his arm to stop him running off before the cops arrive,.... is reasonable...under the circumstances.
 

Joecole

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,428
Points
1,440
Age
74

just goes to show its not the item thats the problem its the person
In my opinion Med a person would only carry a bag of broken brick for one reason. Remember the thing called a sap that American wide boys used to use? Well that was basically a leather bag filled with damp sand
 

Joecole

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,428
Points
1,440
Age
74
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967...

A person (any person) may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances,
In the prevention of crime or affecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of an offender or person unlawfully at large.

Note..
Any person..(not just the Old Bill)

Prevention of crime..( could be assault, theft, damage etc:)
Assisting...Blokes holding down terrorist on London Bridge etc: (Totally Justified within the meaning of the Act)
Unlawfully at large...Someone legging it after arrest etc:

Force must be reasonable...in the circumstances...He's got a knife...you hit him with a chair..or even a Narwhal Tusk ( back to London Bridge...:lol: )

Going over the top and smearing someone into the pavement for breaking your wing mirror is a big no no....But holding his arm to stop him running off before the cops arrive,.... is reasonable...under the circumstances.
Agreed
 

saxonaxe

Slightly Addicted
Messages
448
Points
720
The Law at work.....

In post 54 (above) of this thread I quoted Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act...." A person may use such force...etc: " ( Actually I misquoted it because it should have read ..." An offender OR suspected offender " I missed the suspected bit out....:oopsy: )

Anyway, by coincidence a local Court case has just been resolved.. A Man Slaughter charge, and the defence was...

Quote from court reporter...
“The only reason I punched this male was to stop him assaulting my friend Adam again,” said Mr Curtis in a statement. He said he believed his actions were “reasonable and proportionate in the defence of another” and he did not intend for Mr Long “to receive the injuries he did or to end his life”.

It is definitely not for me to comment either way, but the Jury heard all the evidence and took just 3 hours to decide.
That the force used was "Reasonable in the circumstances"............Not guilty.

Which probably brings our little discussion nicely full circle..:D
 

38thfoot

Very Addicted
Messages
1,114
Points
1,180
The fact that Cressida dick (chief constable of the met) following the narwhals tusk incident said she actively encouraged people to take an element of responsibility for their and other defence adds to the self defence/defence of others.

self defence also slows for pre-emotive action ie hitting someone before they hit you ifthe individual believes it to be justified.

38
 
Messages
4,488
Points
1,210
As long as you have good reason to believe that you or another person is in immediate danger of being attacked you are entitled to use proportionate violence in self defence, the difficulty is knowing in the heat of the moment how much violence is proportionate...
To take this thread back to it's original premise of "what do you own to defend yourself?" As far as UK law is concerned that is an oxymoron. When you are armed with an item kept solely for the purpose of self defence prior to being forced to defend yourself you cannot subsequently claim to have acted in self defence. Carrying a weapon implies premeditation of violence.
 
Messages
13,068
Points
1,590
As long as you have good reason to believe that you or another person is in immediate danger of being attacked you are entitled to use proportionate violence in self defence, the difficulty is knowing in the heat of the moment how much violence is proportionate...
To take this thread back to it's original premise of "what do you own to defend yourself?" As far as UK law is concerned that is an oxymoron. When you are armed with an item kept solely for the purpose of self defence prior to being forced to defend yourself you cannot subsequently claim to have acted in self defence. Carrying a weapon implies premeditation of violence.




completely agree
 
Top