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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

No, he's right, it's a risk. That's why we need to avoid arming police where possible.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

This is starting to sound like an episode of Vampire Diaries...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

No, he's right, it's a risk. That's why we need to avoid arming police where possible.

We need to distibute Wolfsbane spray. Its their only weakness.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

No, he's right, it's a risk. That's why we need to avoid arming police where possible.

Yes, any cops who can be shown to have intended to use as weapons anything carried on their persons or in their patrol cars should be subject to criminal charges as well. Otherwise, it will just encourage the criminals. Like with Batman.

 r_squared wrote:

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

His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car had hostile intent.

The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.

Link

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

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

His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car were armed.

The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.

Link

I don't understand the line of argument where the car got past the checkpoint therefore it is of no danger. If a vehicle forces itself through your security point are you just supposed to throw up your hands and say "Well, they made a pretty sincere effort and got past us, so they should be able to do whatever they want now."

If you have a checkpoint looking for car bombs, and someone decides to run that checkpoint it is not too crazypants to assume that they have a car bomb they don't want you to discover. So you shoot them. Hopefully a lot.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

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

His conviction was overturned due to a lack of evidence against Clegg himself although the car itself undoubtedly received fire after it had cleared the checkpoint. There was also all kinds of dubiousness surrounding the shooting, not least deliberately wounding one their colleagues in an attempt to make it look as though the occupants of the car had hostile intent.

The judgment attacked the "highly discreditable behaviour" of the paratroopers who were "undoubtedly guilty" of the shootings.

Link

Undoubtedly guilty of the shootings is highly prejudicial and has lead you to believe it means they were guilty of wrongdoing.
However, in context it means that they were the ones pulling the trigger, and they were, that can't be disputed, however, new ballistics evidence resulted in the conviction being overturned based on the fact that they couldn't prove that Lee had in fact fired on the vehicle once it passed his position.

Simply, and callously put, and as someone who's entire family comes from and still lives in N Ireland even though I no longer do myself, you don't steal a car and drive at an armed military checkpoint, refusing to stop and not expect to get shot to ribbons, especially at the time when tensions were still high. Those kids were really, really stupid, they didn't deserve to die, but their own foolish actions were what caused the incident, not Lee Clegg and his colleagues.

 Bromsy wrote:

I don't understand the line of argument where the car got past the checkpoint therefore it is of no danger. If a vehicle forces itself through your security point are you just supposed to throw up your hands and say "Well, they made a pretty sincere effort and got past us, so they should be able to do whatever they want now."

If you have a checkpoint looking for car bombs, and someone decides to run that checkpoint it is not too crazypants to assume that they have a car bomb they don't want you to discover. So you shoot them. Hopefully a lot.

The British Army's rules of engagement are very clear on this; at least they are now, its possible that they were markedly different in 90's NI although the underlying law hasn't changed. You can only use lethal force to prevent actions that would lead to the imminent death of yourself or others. Suicide bombers didn't exist in NI.

 r_squared wrote:

Undoubtedly guilty of the shootings is highly prejudicial and has lead you to believe it means they were guilty of wrongdoing.

That wasn't my quote, that was from the judge who overturned his conviction. I believe that they were guilty of wrong doing because they fabricated evidence and because their version of events didn't tally with eye witness accounts. Also their actions far exceeded what is permissible on card Alpha, at least the modern version of it.

Hey guys, we've kind of got a bit off the topic, which is a serious and worthwhile one.

Removed as off topic by poster, but point remains.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hey guys, we've kind of got a bit off the topic, which is a serious and worthwhile one.

The only answer worth listening to from a wargaming forum populated by people from all over the world is to ask the local police.

I agree that this has been dragged off topic, and I apologise for bringing up Lee Clegg in the first place, but I want to say one final thing about Clegg. I joined up shortly after the Lee Clegg incident, and the RoE did undergo a change shortly after I joined as I remeber, they have changed again since then, as the right to use lethal force to defend property has been removed as well as other rules that have been modified.
Notwithstanding the RoE for NI was also different from the rest of the UK anyway, and I'm not sure what it actually was at the time, but I think it is wrong to apply modern RoE standards to an event 20 years ago, in a very different legal and social environment that probably lead to the changes we work under today.
We work under the assumption that the RoE is not a get out of jail free card, merely a guide to what's probably defensively legal.
I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.

 r_squared wrote:
I think it is wrong to apply modern RoE standards to an event 20 years ago, in a very different legal and social environment that probably lead to the changes we work under today.

The law hasn't changed though so I would find it astonishing if the RoE was significantly different 20 years ago.

 r_squared wrote:
I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.

The law of self defense is still, as it was then, disapproving of attacking someone who is leaving the scene of an incident and is no longer a risk. That is something that should always be borne in mind when considering your options for self defense - that engaging a leaving opponent will get you in legal difficulties.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I consider myself fortunate that so far I have not had to face the same decisions that these soldiers did, in those circumstances, because it is unclear how any of us would react, particularly if we felt under significant threat.

The law of self defense is still, as it was then, disapproving of attacking someone who is leaving the scene of an incident and is no longer a risk. That is something that should always be borne in mind when considering your options for self defense - that engaging a leaving opponent will get you in legal difficulties.

I don't disagree and I know this is a bit of a tangent, but what about situations when an item has been stolen from you? Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?

Up to a point you are entitled to pursue a robber or burglar and recover your property, but you must not use excessive violence in doing so.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?

Only if you will literally die without the stolen item. Self defense in the UK doesn't extent towards property.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?

Only if you will literally die without the stolen item. Self defense in the UK doesn't extent towards property.

You say that but I'm pretty sure my Xbox One is more important than someone's life.

 Ahtman wrote:

You say that but I'm pretty sure my Xbox One is more important than someone's life.

If you can convince a judge and jury of that then crack on

Self defence is easy, you can use anything to hand. You just need a reason to have it to hand.

I knew a chap that always kept a picture frame and hook on the sideboard purely for the reason of keeping a claw hammer to hand. Quite handy when he did get broken into.....no charges brought. On the flip side he also set a bed of fish hooks and nails on the seat of his often targeted car. There was an attempt at theft it but there was also a trail of blood to the nearby A&E until where a suspect was apprehended.

Me, throughout my late teens and early twenties I always had a folding hook knife when I was younger. Of course I used to working a warehouse and needed it but it was still in my pocket all the time when needed.

An apple and a small paring knife might also be legitimately carried for snack purposes by a lady about town for example.

Keyrings are good. You can get keyrings in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Knife shape for example. They don't have to he razor sharp, just handy.

@ Ben. All in all mate I would suggest that if she is worried your better half is best armed with whatever she feels comfortable with and damn the consequences. I'd rather have to explain to the beak why I had a random pointy object that I used to defend myself than be the victim of a much more serious assault.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?

Only if you will literally die without the stolen item. Self defense in the UK doesn't extent towards property.

Actually it does.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

Check the paragraph titled "What if I chase them as they run off?"

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Does the law permit you to use force to retrieve it as the thief/mugger/whatever is fleeing?

Only if you will literally die without the stolen item. Self defense in the UK doesn't extent towards property.

Citation? Self defense in the UK is to protect yourself, another, or your property from imminent harm.


To the OP and all others interested in what the law is.

I have tried to leave it but as a useful summary of the current law I've gathered up my notes.

1. You must use reasonable force. The exact meaning is debatable. Classic take on it is from Privy Council in Palmer. This requirement is objectively assessed as per R v Owino and R v Martin. Basically you can only use the absolute minimum necessary to be sure of not being prosecuted, but if prosecuted there will be a fair objective assessment of whether your behaviour was reasonable in the eyes of the average person. This is complicated somewhat by the involvment of an subjective belief assessment under S.76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
2. There is no duty to retreat or to de-escalate under R v Julien (1969) 1 WLR 839, R v Cannes (1971) 1 WLR 1600, and R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816. You can stand your ground and do not have to run away.
4. You cannot be the aggressor but you may act pre-emptively. Basically you do not have to be stabbed before you can fight back.
5 Protection of property and the prevention of a crime are dealt with in the same way but prevention of crime under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and protection of propery under s.5. Criminal Damage Act 1971

Here are some things that you might want to look at.
Statute
S 3, Criminal Law Act 1967
S 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Case law
Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
Martin (Tony) [2003] Q.B. 1
R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514; [2011] Crim LR 393
Hichens [2011] EWCA Crim 1626

Personally I would not ask the police as they do not know the law. But then you are asking a wargaming forum so they will probably have greater knowledge than most here. Check out the law and then make judgments accordingly. There is no point carrying a weapon if you are not going to use it and if you do you, as the aggressor, will void any opportunity to claim self-defence. Personally I do not think it is necessary and self defence classes may be best.

Cheers

Ig

 IGtR= wrote:

Citation? Self defense in the UK is to protect yourself, another, or your property from imminent harm.

Every ROE brief and judgement training session that I have ever had in the Army.

If you refer to the government webite I psoted earlier that gives the state of the law on self-defence, a person is allowed to use reasonable force to defend themself and their property, and to chase a miscreant to recover stolen property and make a citizen's arrest.

Practically speaking the amount of force you can use to chase someone and arrest them is going to be less than you can use when you are in fear of your life, but the principle is still there.

In fact we have seen a number of cases of legitimate property defence and citizen's arrest by members of the public attacking robbers of jewelry shops, etc. Have a go heroes, in other words.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hey guys, we've kind of got a bit off the topic, which is a serious and worthwhile one.

The only answer worth listening to from a wargaming forum populated by people from all over the world is to ask the local police.

Seems to be the only universal answer on war gaming forums (ask your TO/playgroup/government/etc)

While i disagree with owing a "weapon" as being a criminal act, il chalk it up to being a cultural thing.

But the basics of being in a group (walking buddy(s), having acquitted lighting (flash lights if necessary) and having good situational awareness (noticing anything strange or unusual early on), will keep you safe for the most part.

It's carrying a potential weapon with the intent to use it that is a criminal act.

For example, various workmen have good reasons for carrying around tools like screwdrivers or Stanley knives. Chefs usually own their own roll of knives and carry them to their jobs. There's nothing wrong with that.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:

Citation? Self defense in the UK is to protect yourself, another, or your property from imminent harm.

Every ROE brief and judgement training session that I have ever had in the Army.

Not a legal source. This may come as a shock but the army navy and airforce, as well as every other government organisation are overcautious. But you probably know that. My experience of the government and law is that people who have a vague idea of what the law is are called in to cover the department/branch/organisation's arse and are very overcautious. You can intervene as a bystander for self defense but obviously the ROE are cautiously formulated so as to minimise getting sued. It is an interesting issue and mainly stems from tort law liability and not hugely confident people making the decisions at the top of the food chain

I don't think there is much that you can give her that would help. Even if you are some 200lbs special forces dude, against "a gang of men", you're probably going to get beaten up, and any weapon you have on you is what you're probably going to get beaten with. Self defence training is largely BS too, and can give people a false sense of security, especially girls, who have no concept of what it might be like having a bigger man lay into you with a volley of bone-breaking punches. "Why didn't he stand still, and let me kick him in the groin, like in my classes?"

Those situations are best avoided at all costs. I think the best thing she can do is exercise caution. Tell people where she is going, stay in well lit areas, wear sensible shoes, and know what to do if she is accosted e.g. make noise, attract attention, don't stop, be assertive, fight back etc... The rape alarm honestly isn't a bad idea, those things are painfully loud, and an attacker probably isn't going to want the attention.

An alarm is also less likely to escalate things like a weapon might (people aren't always very forgiving about being maced with wasp spray). Remember she might have to do the same walk over and over, she doesn't want to be looking over her shoulder all the time for some angry gang with a score to settle.

In all likely hood if you get attached in a certain place you are unlikely to go there again for scores to be settled.

While I don't disagree with your points if someone wants to attack someone and that ends up being you, then they will attack you so its already escalated. At that point you want to be an all kicking, all scratching, all hitting, all screaming ball of furious elbows, fists and whatever your can lay your hands on.

Some perps will be put off by alarm noises, some by just showing that it will not be easy to attack you, most will be put off by pain/identifying wounds.

That being the case have something to hand that can cause actual harm to your attacker or poke the prick in the eye/gooliess/both.

If working as a doorman taught me one thing its that when it comes to violence then there are two sensible approaches; Avoid/flee at the merest sign of something vicious or be the worst most horrible bastiche you can be: don't push people away - hit first, shouting like a mad person, cheap shots, kicking, biting and if needs be improvise with anything you have to hand are all valid in this approaches in preventing your self from being hurt.

Protect yourself first, worry about the legal implications later.

 notprop wrote:
In all likely hood if you get attacked in a certain place you are unlikely to go there again for scores to be settled.

According to the first post, she lives there, so it might hard to just stay away.

While I don't disagree with your points if someone wants to attack someone and that ends up being you, then they will attack you so its already escalated. At that point you want to be an all kicking, all scratching, all hitting, all screaming ball of furious elbows, fists and whatever your can lay your hands on.

I agree, but I have never had someone just attack me out of the blue. Usually there is some kind of prelude, like asking you the time, or something to get you to stop, and then you find yourself boxed in.

Some perps will be put off by alarm noises, some by just showing that it will not be easy to attack you, most will be put off by pain/identifying wounds.

Again, most times I've had someone try to take money from me, there has been a gang of them, and they are usually armed with a knife or a broken glass or something to threaten you with. What are you supposed to do, start jabbing them with your keys? ... Maybe if you want to die.

The best thing is to act like you're not scared, and try to walk away (or even better don't stop in the first place). I don't know how well this works with a sexual assaulter, but I imagine if you keep moving, and don't engage them except to scream feth off, it would be infinitely better than stopping and allowing them to start threatening you, and closing off your escape routes.

be the worst most horrible bastiche you can be: don't push people away - hit first, shouting like a mad person, cheap shots, kicking, biting and if needs be improvise with anything you have to hand

That might be okay if you're a guy, and you know you can do some damage, but if you're a small woman, on her own, then going Rambo probably isn't going to be as impressive. I agree that if attacked, she should fight as hard as she can, and make as much noise as she can, but the objective should be to get away, not curbstomping a muthafetha!

But yeah, maybe something sharp like a ring, would help you in that situation, and might put an identifying cut on the attacker, and it's not the kind of thing that's likely to be used against you.

In a (sort of) related story, a girl from Sønderborg will get fined for possessing pepper spray which she used to defend against an attack. So it seems like government being unwilling to let citizens defend themselves is not strictly a UK problem.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/why-teen-who-fended-off-attacker-now-faces-charges-205439785.html

Yahoo! Parenting wrote:Why Teen Who Fended Off Attacker Now Faces Charges Herself



A 17-year-old girl who was attacked by a man in a city center at night told police that he knocked her to the ground and unbuttoned her pants, trying to undress her, but she turned on him with pepper spray and was able to escape. Her assailant fled and hasn’t been caught, but the victim is facing legal consequences.

“It is illegal to possess and use pepper spray, so she will likely be charged for that,” local police spokesman Knud Kirsten of Sønderborg, Denmark, told TV Syd about the incident, which occurred at 10 p.m. on Jan. 20. Her fine will be around 500 kroner ($73), and many commenters on TV Syd’s story have offered to pay it for her.

According to the Local, the backlash against the fine also has to do with the fact that the assault took place near a migrant asylum center. Although it’s not known whether the perpetrator was an asylum seeker or refugee, there has been a spike this month in the number of local women reporting harassment by male residents of the center.

In the U.S., pepper spray, or “self-defense spray,” is legal in all states, but there are restrictions on sizes and strengths in some areas. Most states with limited use specify that people must be non-felons over the age of 18 to purchase the sprays.

Commenters on Reddit are discussing and debating the fairness of the fact that the victim could be charged. “I don’t agree with the fine,” wrote one. “My personal view is that in this situation it should be overlooked.” Another posted: “This girl will never face any permanent repercussions. She will if she doesn’t pay her fine, but that goes away as soon as the debt is cleared.” And a third wondered “What options are available for someone to defend themselves there?”

On Twitter, one person wrote simply: “Avoid Sønderborg. Victims of attempted rape get charged for fighting off their assailants.”