Carrying something for self defence

[Avenged7Fold]

People who carry stuff on them generally do it for peace of mind and self confidence, whether they care to believe that or not.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.

This is getting to be quite complicated now. Possession of offensive weapons in a public place falls into two sections. Either the weapon needs to be made or adapted for use as a weapon - or anything can be a offensive weapon if the intention is to use it as such.

So when we look at the umbrella, we need to assess if it is made to be a weapon:

Made - this means articles which have been accepted as being specifically made for the purpose of causing injury and have no other practical purpose in the normal world (and are offensive weapons per se). Examples are flick knives, daggers, knuckledusters, butterfly knives, sword sticks, truncheons, daggers and bayonets. Whether an object falls into this category is largely a matter of fact for the court or a jury to determine on a case by case basis.The prosecution need not prove any intent to cause injury using the weapon he has with him. Once possession in a public place is proved the burden of proof shifts to the person accused to prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having the weapon in their possession in a public place. Whereas if the article in question is not one that is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person the prosecution is required to prove intent to injure.

With my emphasis above, the umbrella does have a practical purpose other than being a weapon so it's probably not going to fit within the definition.

Adapted - this means articles which have generally been altered in some way. Household and industrial items are capable of falling into this category such as sharpened screwdrivers, bottle broken for the purpose etc. However, the article must have been altered with the intention of causing injury (e.g. smashing a bottle to make the broken end into a weapon for causing injury, as opposed to breaking the neck of the bottle by accidentally dropping it and being in the process of walking to the bin with it when challenged). In most cases the intent of the adaption will be self evident (e.g. stout dowelling with stanley blades in the end). Once that matter is established there is no need for the prosecution to prove an intent to use it to cause injury, as with 'made' weapons, mere possession is sufficient. Whether an object falls into this category is largely a matter of fact for the court or a jury to determine on a case by case basis.

Looking at this, it's also not going to be defined as adapted and so is unlikely to be illegal to carry in itself.

Which brings us to intent:

Intent - as is stated above, with regards to the first two categories the prosecution do not have to prove intent to cause injury, only possession in a public place. For example , in connection with the intent of a person to use an article for causing injury, going to a pre-arranged fight ('ruck') with a bunch of keys held in the fist with the keys projecting through the fingers (making it an impromptu knuckleduster), will mean the bunch of keys is an offensive weapon for the purposes of a section 1 offence. Once possession in a public place is proved the burden of proof shifts to the person accused to prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having the weapon in their possession in a public place. Whereas if the article in question is not one that is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person the prosecution is required to prove intent to injure.

So it could be an offensive weapon if you intend to use it as such, but pretty much any object falls into this catagory.

 

[Tefal]

but then they have this on the page as part of thier advertising

“The Unbreakable® Umbrella is a premium-quality umbrella that also makes a dynamite impact weapon. Sleek and classically attractive, it flies below radar in even the most non-permissive environments.”

and

Anyone who can use a sturdy stick for defense can use this umbrella.

Whacks just as strong as a steel pipe

Your safety for only $229.95

it becomes clear its primary purpose is as a weapon not as an umbrella.

either way lets face it those little snippets are really going to **** you in front of a jury

 

[Semple]

Going by the OP's post it sounds as thought he only works on this site. In that position you should really just contact the police and let them deal with it. It's not worth risking your life for some lowlife who wants to show off infront of his mates and beats you to a pulp.

If it's happening regularly the your employer need to look at better preventative measures.

Some of the advice on here is shocking, you couldn't whack a burgler over the head just for breaking into your house, that's not self-defence. Obviously if they came at you, or tried to attack you, then yes that would be reasonable self-defence.

There was the classic story of "self-defence" a good few years ago, where someone had broken into a house and when confronted he legged it out as fast as he could, the guy shot him in the back as he was running across his front garden. Can't remember if he died, but the guy was obviously found guilty of the act, and couldn't plead self-defence.

 

[Relentless81]

Put a post in the gpu forum asking for help, there some hard hittin keyboard warriors round those parts

 

[Burnsy2023]

but then they have this on the page as part of thier advertising

and

it becomes clear its primary purpose is as a weapon not as an umbrella.

either way lets face it those little snippets are really going to **** you in front of a jury

Doesn't matter: " have no other practical purpose in the normal world". It does have a practical purpose in the normal world. It's highly unlikely to ever get near a magistrate or jury.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Put a post in the gpu forum asking for help, there some hard hittin keyboard warriors round those parts

All bark and no bite. Those mechanical keyboards hit loudly but softly

 

[tom_e]

Some of the advice on here is shocking, you couldn't whack a burgler over the head just for breaking into your house, that's not self-defence. Obviously if they came at you, or tried to attack you, then yes that would be reasonable self-defence.

There was the classic story of "self-defence" a good few years ago, where someone had broken into a house and when confronted he legged it out as fast as he could, the guy shot him in the back as he was running across his front garden. Can't remember if he died, but the guy was obviously found guilty of the act, and couldn't plead self-defence.

Yes you could, they do not have to physically try and attack you for you to feel threatened for your safety at which point giving them a whack with a nearby heavy object is not going to raise too many eyebrows.

If you then continued to beat them to death with it then you're in trouble, also shooting someone who is running away and is obviously no longer a threat is totally different to whacking someone stood in your house in the middle of the night after breaking in.

 

[drs101]

chances are if you don't feel capable of defending yourself unarmed having a weapon will not help you much, get a guard dog if your worried about your property,

if your worried about personal safety, takes some self defense / martial arts lessons, but really you should stay clear and call the police.

 

[arc@css]

Put a post in the gpu forum asking for help, there some hard hittin keyboard warriors round those parts

 

[Burnsy2023]

Yes you could, they do not have to physically try and attack you for you to feel threatened for your safety at which point giving them a whack with a nearby heavy object is not going to raise too many eyebrows.

If you then continued to beat them to death with it then you're in trouble, also shooting someone who is running away and is obviously no longer a threat is totally different to whacking someone stood in your house in the middle of the night after breaking in.

Indeed, it's also worth mentioning that you can do preemptive strikes as self defence.

 

[~>Dg<~]

you know i chuckle at many of the self defense stuff you know why ?

a guy near me really highly respected martial artist and i mean world status has had more kickins than a fluffy pillow.the very fact people know he is a martial artist is half the problem.people see it as ooh let kick seven bells out of him.it hasnt helped him at all.

martial arts is great in films.for most people its a great way to fleece your wallet or keep fit.thats about it.

its pretty simple what the op should do.

get dogs or somekind of security measures in place.well his boss should.if its your job its just not worth it.

 

[LzR]

Lengthy electric cattle prod; swing, lunge, or defend, your choice. If the poop hits the fan, go and find a random innocent cow to mooch around your property for your cover story. Jobs a good un

 

[ttaskmaster]

People who carry stuff on them generally do it for peace of mind and self confidence, whether they care to believe that or not.

Depends greatly on the person and, to some extent, the implement...

Back in the day, I carried a firearm partly for those reasons, but also because if trouble started I'd then have to choose between drawing on someone or diffusing things and backing off. Given that I *really* wasn't supposed to be carrying and it was highly illegal in this country, it pretty much forced me to give trouble a very wide berth.

Those I know who do still carry something, typically a walking stick, are exceedingly accomplished in its use in both classroom and real-life scenarios... with most of them old enough or injured enough to justify having one with in the first place.

 

[danlightbulb]

Yes you could, they do not have to physically try and attack you for you to feel threatened for your safety at which point giving them a whack with a nearby heavy object is not going to raise too many eyebrows.

If you then continued to beat them to death with it then you're in trouble, also shooting someone who is running away and is obviously no longer a threat is totally different to whacking someone stood in your house in the middle of the night after breaking in.

They do deserve it though. I think the law should be pretty clear on this. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them there should no repercussions.

 

[tom_e]

They do deserve it though. I think the law should be pretty clear on this. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them there should no repercussions.

I agree if you happen to just catch them wrong and it ends in them dying then that's an unfortunate accident but simply down to the action they decided to carry out by breaking in.

I don't believe you should consciously beat someone to death simply for breaking in.

 

[Burnsy2023]

They do deserve it though. I think the law should be pretty clear on this. If someone breaks into your house and you kill them there should no repercussions.

I don't think that's proportionate or reasonable tbh. The current law is actually much more common sense than people realise.

 

[ttaskmaster]

If someone breaks into your house and you kill them there should no repercussions.

And with that, you have just ****ed over a thousand awesome Stag Party ideas and two thousand more hi-LAR-ious college pranks....

Kill-joy!!!

 

[danlightbulb]

Why should someone who has broken in to your house deserve any form of reasonable or proportionate treatment? My family, children, are at risk from their actions. Who knows what they would do. You have to strike first if you can and if that means bashing them over the head multiple times to ensure the risk is dealt with then so be it.

 

[tom_e]

Why should someone who has broken in to your house deserve any form of reasonable or proportionate treatment? My family, children, are at risk from their actions. Who knows what they would do. You have to strike first if you can and if that means bashing them over the head multiple times to ensure the risk is dealt with then so be it.

And that's fine, if you then continue to bash them round the head while they're already disabled leading to their death then it's no longer proportional.