Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm guessing the self defence laws in the UK is that you are allowed to use any force necessary to protect yourself/others?

Not any force necessary, it must be reasonable and proportionate.
I can't cave someone's head in with a brick for jostling me in the supermarket, but I can tut disapprovingly, or ignore it and carry on.

 Matthew wrote:
I'm guessing the self defence laws in the UK is that you are allowed to use any force necessary to protect yourself/others?

You are allowed to use up to an equivalent level of force, including lethal force, as you deem the aggressor is going to use to prevent harm to yourself or others. If you go over that level (especially if you kill someone) then there will almost certainly be a criminal investigation.

There are some quite fuzzy areas here obviously but it basically boils down to how the individual reads the situation; if you truly believe that you will need to kill someone immediately before he kills you and the situation that you are in backs this up then you will be legally fine.

Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg.
Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)

I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....

With those statistics on rape in particular, note the US one excludes non-violent rape and the UK one doesn't.

Keep in mind the vast majority of rape is committed not by strangers jumping out of bushes but by someone the victim knows (in the UK, 90% of cases), which suggests a lot could be left out of that US statistic. Also good to keep in mind that if you are a woman and are murdered it was probably by your partner, according to UK police statistics. It just helps to keep it in perspective.

Hmmm, imagine if the article in addition to pointing such out also showed how the addressed it. OH WAIT

"Therefore, it becomes practically impossible to draw any objective comparison between the two, unless one trawls through the various definitions of crimes that can be said to be the same in definition and execution in the UK and the US. I’ve actually done this, and by going through the PRC and FBI – CUS it is possible, I believe, to find a number of crimes which I think are fairly indicative of the prevalence of “violence” in either country."

So with those statistics in particular what you said has nothing to do with anything.

At least he made an effort to try, and laid it all out for inspection, with referable sources and evidence, instead of just shouting the odds.

Just jumping in here, but with the limited options, what do the cops over there tell you what you can do? I'm sure others here have suggested talking to them, also, and that seems like the best advice so you don't find yourself in legal grey areas.

Is it really that good to carry something like a knife? There are studies that show that you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else. Something like a spray and then running away should be good.

 r_squared wrote:
Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg.
Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)

I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....

You mean the soldier who shot at a vehicle after it was past the checkpoint, and was no longer a threat?

 Matthew wrote:
Is it really that good to carry something like a knife? There are studies that show that you're more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else. Something like a spray and then running away should be good.

That's exactly my thinking. Even over here (where, contrary to what's being portrayed in this thread, no one I know walks around armed!) it's the most acceptable deterrent to carry, as it's clearly intended for defense.

I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.

 Matthew wrote:
I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.

The reality, baring cowboy vigilante fantasies, is that if you have a gun already on you the best thing you can do is give the guy/gal what he/she wants (women are just as capable of robbing you as anyone else, lets be PC about this ). Most people who go out to mug people in the night aren't looking to be murderers. Giving them what they want is your best chance for escaping without bodily harm.

In response to Ketara, besides changing her behaviour and routine to avoid dangerous situations (use transport, avoid certain areas, don't go out alone), her only real option is probably self defence classes.

That's what I opted for after being threatened with violence at work, so I joined my local karate club. I think the guy running it is a firefighter, and another guy I think is a police officer, so I doubt they're teaching "flashy non contact" karate as one contributor puts it. The incident I experienced at work opened my eyes to the fact that the only person you can really rely on to protect you is yourself.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
I have to walk around edgy neighbourhoods in my daily life, and I feel like the best way to escape would be to just scream, throw my schoolbag at the attacker and run away. I've never understood why one would need a knife or a gun for that. If someone's holding you at gunpoint there's no point in trying defend yourself, because you have a gun aimed at you.

The reality, baring cowboy vigilante fantasies, is that if you have a gun already on you the best thing you can do is give the guy/gal what he/she wants (women are just as capable of robbing you as anyone else, lets be PC about this ). Most people who go out to mug people in the night aren't looking to be murderers. Giving them what they want is your best chance for escaping without bodily harm.

By that logic, you should always run. After all, they're not looking to be murderers.

Anyone who brings a real loaded firearm when they go looking for someone to mug has already decided that they're prepared to use violence. If they don't want to use violence and they're just bluffing, why not take a fake gun instead?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If they're not looking to be murderers...would they shoot you for running?

No idea XD

To be fair, I think it's impossible to make some rule book that will apply in every mugging/assault. There's too many unknowns. You could run, but you very well might get shot. That's why I suggested the best solution if a gun is already on you is to cooperate, especially if you don't happen to have one yourself (even then, trying to pull your gun when one is already on you is... Not what I would consider advisable if you foremost concern is the health of your bodily person XD). Cash is just cash. IDs can be reissued, and credit/debit cards can be cancelled. It sucks but is losing those things worth risking your well being?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Anyone who brings a real loaded firearm when they go looking for someone to mug has already decided that they're prepared to use violence. If they don't want to use violence and they're just bluffing, why not take a fake gun instead?

And it isn't unknown for muggers to use unloaded/fake guns, but I don't think most people can tell a loaded gun from an unloaded gun by sight and in the dark, a plastic gun probably looks the same as a real one unless it has an orange cap at the end.

I'm not denying that having a gun on your is an inherently dangerous and potentially deadly situation to be in. My suggestion however is that someone mugging people wants the rewards of a mugging, and so long as that is given they have less incentive, or reason, to actually use violence. Being prepared to threaten violence, and even use violence to a achieve a goal does not entail a desire to use violence. None of us are mind readers though so we can never tell what someone pointing a gun at us might do. But the general options probably fall into a nice little box;

1 You don't give them what they want, they shoot you
2 You give them what they want and they shoot you anyway
3 You give them what they want and they don't shoot you
4 You don't give them what they want and they don't shoot you

We could hypothesize about it all day, but every scenario will ultimately fit into this box somehow. I would personally never suggest someone count on possibility #4 for the exact reason you bring up.

Depends on how proud you are I guess.

Anyway, see my edit. Changed my comment to better reflect my argument. Typingon a kindle in the dark is very slow. We more or less agree with each other.

Choosing to run is a calculated risk. You're gambling that they're just bluffing and aren't willing to press the issue by shooting you as you flee. If the attacker is obviously nervous and slips up or diverts his attention, then it be worth it.

Oh yes. Especially depending on distance. I've fired guns once in my life and I missed the target almost everytime at 20 feet (paper target ). If they're a good distance from you (10+ feet would be my advice) you could always take a chance, run, and hope they're no good with a gun. It's a calculated risk but one that may very well be worth taking.

I'd say one of the best tactics to use in these situations is to try and maintain distance. The farther you are from your assailant the safer you are (I think it's safe to assume a run of the mill mugger doesn't spend much time on the range). If they try to approach you, back up. If they tell you to stop, try to play it cool as best you can (stopping though may well be what you should do, they have a gun after all).

Jumpy attackers are probably the hardest to gauge though. We all know why you don't put your finger on the trigger till you're ready to shoot. Stress. Muscle tension. Navigating uncertainty is really what this is all about and it doesn't get much more uncertain than a meth head 5 feet in front of you with their finger on a trigger.

Very interesting statements:

 Yodhrin wrote:
We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc.

I would call this "the One Ring" view of weapons. Essentially, you are arguing that anyone who possesses a weapon is a criminal. Intent is not important. The very act of possessing the weapon gradually corrupts the possessor, morphing them into some kind of deranged, viscous chav. A werechav, if you like. Except instead of a full moon, the transformation is triggered by carrying around a can of pepper spray. Fear of this hypothetical pandemic of werechavs (or, if you prefer the Tolkien metaphor, plague of Pepperspraywraiths) seems to be the bigger problem. As you said, the sexual assault victim just has to take one for the team. What's one more sexual assault against a tidal wave of werechavs and Pepperspraywraiths?

I didn't that so much as it saying having a weapon 'gradually corrupts the user' into thinking they need it/need to use it. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I don't believe that carrying a weapon makes one a criminal either.

So if I see someone rubbing their mace and whispering "my precious" am I dealing with a Werechav? What do I do? I obviously can't use weapons to deal with the problem. That's how Chavwraiths are made I hear!

 Ahtman wrote:
but I don't believe that carrying a weapon makes one a criminal either

Neither do I. And unsurprisingly, neither of us has characterized carrying a weapon for self-defense as "emulating criminals."

 LordofHats wrote:
So if I see someone rubbing their mace and whispering "my precious" am I dealing with a Werechav? What do I do? I obviously can't use weapons to deal with the problem. That's how Chavwraiths are made I hear!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Interesting fact, being in the armed forces I was informed that if some scutter tried to blow up our front gate and I shot the bugger before he did it, the first thing that would likely happen would be the I would be arrested, even if I had acted entirely within the rules of engagement. I might get off, but then it didn't help Lee Clegg.
Nice to have that rattling round in the back of your head when the pressures on eh? ;-)

I realise it could likely be horlicks, but then again.....

You mean the soldier who shot at a vehicle after it was past the checkpoint, and was no longer a threat?

No, the Soldier who was doing his duty and was arrested and imprisoned and much later, after over 5 years in prison, had his conviction over turned, and was able to return to his regiment, and serve in Afghanistan. Lee Clegg

In response to the discussion about knives and such on pages 2 and 3...I've carried hobby/craft knives on trains and busses before, having completely forgotten I left them in my bag after going to some prior hobby related event. I should probably consider myself lucky that I've never gone to an airport with one...I use the same bag for everything. (An old, big lap top bag).

 Manchu wrote:
Very interesting statements:

 Yodhrin wrote:
We don't see emulating criminals as the way to reduce crime.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You go from only hardened criminals carrying to all criminals, then just thuggish and antisocial people generally, then normal folk feel the need to get weapons to "protect themselves", then it becomes normal so kids and teens start doing it - then you've got kids stabbing each other over someone nicking their last ciggy or snogging their girlfriend, bouncers getting stabbed by low-level drug dealers they caught who didn't want to get taken in by the police, street brawls that end with brain damage because some genius pulled out the police baton they bought off ebay, etc etc etc.

I would call this "the One Ring" view of weapons. Essentially, you are arguing that anyone who possesses a weapon is a criminal. Intent is not important. The very act of possessing the weapon gradually corrupts the possessor, morphing them into some kind of deranged, viscous chav. A werechav, if you like. Except instead of a full moon, the transformation is triggered by carrying around a can of pepper spray. Fear of this hypothetical pandemic of werechavs (or, if you prefer the Tolkien metaphor, plague of Pepperspraywraiths) seems to be the bigger problem. As you said, the sexual assault victim just has to take one for the team. What's one more sexual assault against a tidal wave of werechavs and Pepperspraywraiths?

From posts on the earlier pages it sounds like the law is similar to what it is here (though here it varies by state). Where I live, unless they've changed it, one of the things that legally determines if something is a weapon is intent to use it as a weapon. The example I recall (correctly or not, I don't know) was a judge ruling that a belt met the definition of a weapon in one case because the accused party had intended to use it as one. This means an important aspect in not becoming a Werechav is purity of heart.

Though, I'm not sure if women can be chavs to begin with? I'm not really up to date on that. We can be bogans, but I don't think they're particularly violent for the most part.

I think we are getting into a bit of a circular argument here, because clearly no one pure of heart would ever intend to carry a horrid thing like a weapon. Doing so is a surefire symptom of a depraved criminal mind. As to bogans, is that a kind of swamp hobgoblin?

 Manchu wrote:
I think we are getting into a bit of a circular argument here, because clearly no one pure of heart would ever intend to carry a horrid thing like a weapon. Doing so is a surefire symptom of a depraved criminal mind. As to bogans, is that a kind of swamp hobgoblin?

I think the closest American translation is "white trash" but yes, the Diablo 3 monster did prompt a lot of comments!

Also weapons are horrid and I'm quite thankful we're not overrun by werechavs and pepperspraywraiths thank-you very much!

So...Armed Police and Soldiers transform into chavs on the full moon?

I would say you must be pure but I know you play miniatures wargames and what else is that, or playing violent videogames for that matter, other than a subverted lust for the weapon. Don't you know that if you stare into the weapon then the weapon will stare back into you! What do these laws profit us if the weapons we carry are in our very hearts? I mean, just look at this thread: it is full of all kinds of ideas for breaking the spirit of law right next to righteous defense of its letter. I tell you, there is no help for the wicked. At some point the worthies of the Commonwealth will realize that the crime is life.

Something to spray and not being there is the best defense they could get.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So...Armed Police and Soldiers transform into chavs on the full moon?

No they are protected by powerful charms of government authority.