Met Police Don't Seem to Know What a Two Tone Is.

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

If an armed police officer is attacked and kills the attacker, are they prosecuted for murder regardless of the threat to their (or other people's lives)?  The specific intent of a firearm is to take lives.

Police have no particular powers or protections for taking a life, any more than any other citizen does under the same circumstances.  They just happen to be allowed to go well equipped to do so.  In a case of self defence (or defence of another), the legality of the tool being carried may be an aggravating factor, but it doesn't show pre-meditated intent to kill that person.

For anyone not lucky enough to be sanctioned by the home office to carry a section 5 firearm, "the legality of the tool being carried may be an aggravating factor, but it doesn't show pre-meditated intent to kill that person." is not exactly correct. Guns and knives are considered offensive, never defensive. Right to carry for self defense is not accepted by the courts. People that do defend themselves with a weapon, and escape charges, are usually able to prove that they grabbed the first thing they could during an attack - like that pensioner who stabbed a traveller with his kitchen knife a few years ago when the bloke burst through his front door. Farmer Tony Martin on the other hand was absolutely rightly prosecuted for murder for killing a burglar, because he was prepped to use the weapon rather than running to the safe, unlocking it, loading the gun etc (And he shot the chap running away, I think).

Considering the hypothetical - Tackle's carrying a knife, Tackle gets approached and attacked, Tackle draws the knife and stabs someone. Immediately, this situation is a homicide and the police need to figure out what actually happened. The police turn up, begin questioning him and what happens next is entirely down to what Tackle says, and what the police are able to get out of him on the street and in an interview. The police are going to ask him why he has a knife, he will not be able to give an acceptable answer - that he's going to or from work where he uses the knife regularly, that he's on a scouting trip and needs to urgently whittle, etc. - the only answer left to him is either "I forgot I had it" or "I'm scared of people from London", and I don't think either answer would be acceptable and would get him into very hot water indeed. Perhaps not a murder charge, but certainly one for carrying an offensive weapon. And even then, we all know how mad CPS can be sometimes - he might even catch the murder charge depending on what's said and so on.

 

[Tommikka]

Farmer Tony Martin on the other hand was absolutely rightly prosecuted for murder for killing a burglar, because he was prepped to use the weapon rather than running to the safe, unlocking it, loading the gun etc (And he shot the chap running away, I think).

With an illegal pump action shotgun, also having previously had his shotgun licence revoked for shooting someone for scrumping.

It didn’t help that he had been mouthing off in the pub that he would shoot burglars.

The burglars were not innocent victims, but that doesn’t make shooting them ok

 

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

With an illegal pump action shotgun, also having previously had his shotgun licence revoked for shooting someone for scrumping.

It didn’t help that he had been mouthing off in the pub that he would shoot burglars.

The burglars were not innocent victims, but that doesn’t make shooting them ok

Yeah totally. My point in mentioning that is that I reckon Tackle would be in big trouble for similar reasons. Self defense with an offensive weapon is all about "I absolutely had to use the thing I had next to me to defend myself or others" and not "I thought I might get attacked, so I brought this knife in with me".

This could be all bollocks considering Tackle didn't actually say he carried a knife, just that he was "tooled up" - but the same applies.

 

[Rogerborg]

Right to carry for self defense is not accepted by the courts.

I didn't say or mean to imply that it would be.  Possession of an offensive weapon is a separate charge. The question is whether you would inevitably be charged with murder if you defended yourself with a knife that you were carrying.

Hypotheticals aside, which cases informed your belief that would be the case?  I'm always keen to learn.

 

[Shizbazki]

For those arguing about self defence etc.

Please see the legislation regarding your (public) use of Force Powers:

Use of Force under Common Law:

You have the right, to use reasonable force as necessary to protect yourself, others or property from an attack, and in doing so may use a preemptive strike. Also to prevent a breach of peace

The force used must be reasonable, a person must prove that the force used was reasonable.

So an example would be, you're minding your own business along the streets, some person accosts and squares up to you looking for a punch up (the usual, raised fists, gritted teeth, eyes like a wild animal), says hes gonna knock your lights out. Now understandably you dont really want to be hit, so you punch him first, he goes down for the count and you walk away. FINE, the force was reasonable, you believed that you were about to be assaulted and so used a premptive strike to knock him down and only once punch (or as many to stop you from being assaulted).

Now same story, but this time after your would be assailant falls to the floor and yields or no longer is a threat, you then proceed in anger to stamp on his head, that may be a bit too far. 

Use of Force under S3 Criminal Law Act

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

For the above, think security guards and shoplifters. Shoplifter shoplifts, security guard believes a crime is in effect being committed, he goes to detain the shoplifter, they get violent and security guard grapples with them. As far as i see it, reasonable use of force to lawfully detain someone.

Bare in mind, even if you think you had every right to use the above legislation during an incident, you may still be arrested. Arrested does not equal charged and accused, its part of the investigative procedure, consider that one of the often reasons for arrest is a "Prompt and Effective Investigation" by way of a Recorded Interview. That last part is important as interviews are often done in accordance to PACE Act 1984. Also See "IDCOPPLAN" and Section 24 PACE 1984.

Case in point was Richard Osborn-Brooks, an elderly man who stabbed a Burglar in his home and killed him. It was quite high profile. Essentially a male called Henry Vincent burgled Osborn-Brooks' home, threatening him and his elderly wife with a screw driver, one of the burglars ran when he inadvertently picked up a knife to defend himself with. The other (Vincent) decided to run at him and ended up stabbed, dying a few hundred metres from the burglary.

Now a man is dead and Mr Osborn-Brooks has the bloodied knife, he was arrested, yes, but never accused by officers (in fact i wouldn't be surprised if he got the star treatment at the station). He was interviewed by officers in order to get his, unabridged, untainted and exact circumstances, in fact if anything the arrest and interview was to protect him too.

Oh and just for the hive mind there is one more Use of Force power that no public can use, only those that hold the "office of constable" or have powers granted to them by PACE such as immigration officers, water bailiffs etc.

That is Section 117 PACE Act 1984.

It allows the above mentioned people to use force when exercising anyone of their legal powers granted to them (often under PACE). So when an officer arrests someone and use force (such as applying cuffs) its under S117 PACE. And officer can turn up, cuff someone under Common Law, then arrest them and it auto converts to S117. 

Officers also follow the Human Right act and the National Decision Model (all boring legislative stuff).

 

[DrAlexanderTobacco]

I didn't say or mean to imply that it would be.  Possession of an offensive weapon is a separate charge. The question is whether you would inevitable be charged with murder if you defended yourself with a knife that you were carrying.

Hypotheticals aside, which cases informed your belief that would be the case?  I'm always keen to learn.

Yeah, I think it's accurate to say that murder was an overstep by me. Thankfully this isn't litigation and I don't put too much thought into wording What I meant to say though - and still stands - is that carrying an offensive weapon will lead to absolutely no good, and I strongly believe Tackle would catch a lot of shit if he had to defend himself.

For those arguing about self defence etc.

I'm not talking about self defense, I'm talking about carrying an offensive weapon for self defense, which is not allowed. I even mentioned the same chap (Richard Osborn-Brooks).

My point wasn't that Tackle can't defend himself. My point is that Tackle cannot carry a knife on his person for self defense. Tackle can use that knife, but the act of carrying it, imo, is enough for a significant legal headache. Plus it's really bloody stupid.

E: Anyway I can hear all the lurkers rolling their eyes at this very tired discussion haha (and fair play) so I'll say no more, the thread's probably run it's course.

 

[EDcase]

This thread has kinda taken a bit of a side alley into a dodgy part of town ? ?

 

[Tackle]

FFS, stop using my "name" & the word knife in the same sentence, you chuck enough shit, some of it sticks, even hypothetical shit.

heres a hypothetical scenario:

young lad of 15, looks lot older, lives on an estate on one side of a London borough, the estate has a resident gang but he's not a gang member, nor a criminal & has never even given the police a reason to even glance at him, essentially he's a good kid, he even does some paid work when he can.

he starts dating a girl a few years older than himself, & on a Saturday evening decides to take her for a nice meal, but to get to the restaurant he has no option but to pass through another part of the borough, & this has its own particularly nasty resident gang, but he thinks it shouldn't be an issue, after all he's just a regular kid.

but sure enough, while walking with his girl he gets confronted & challenged by at least 8 members of gang from the other estate, who abuse him & his gf.

he tells them to piss off & that he's not looking for trouble, & the couple continue on their way, as they're now less than 10 minutes walk from the restaurant.

but a few minutes later the lad looks over his shoulder only to see the gang running after them, having armed themselves with whatever they could find, various bottles, sticks, & worryingly one of them has a short section of scaffolding pole, sure to cause some damage.

the couple are now literally on top of the main underground station in the borough, & its Saturday evening so the place is heaving with people on their way to the areas nightlife, while his gf is panicking he reassures her that nothing will happen with so many witnesses around ?, but to be prepared to run if it comes to it.

anyway, the gang aren't giving up, so when the lad can literally hear their footsteps he tells her to run, & turns to face the gang, pulling an extending baton from his pocket which he flicks open & with a bloodcurdling yell runs at the gang, lashing out wildly.

in just a few seconds 3 of the gang members are on the floor, & the remaining number have turned & fled, having not expected this aggressive counter attack.

the lad taps his baton on the floor, turns & quickly walks away, past dozens of shocked eyewitnesses & soon joins his crying gf in the restaurant.

so, undoubtedly he was breaking the law by carrying a weapon, but had he not been armed in some way the outcome would probably have been very different, the sheer numbers, plus weapons & the feral pack attitude could have likely ended in the lads death ?.

My question is, had this been reported to the police, should the lad have been arrested for the carrying of an offensive weapon, a further charge for using it in the "assault" of the 3 gang members that were struck, but didn't suffer any lasting injuries, & also as they actually hadn't been able to strike him, were they technically not guilty of anything ?, as they hadn't actually touched him ?, their only crime being threatening talk & a bit of posturing lol.

or was, in this case, the offense of carrying a weapon mitigated by the fact it was used in a very clear case of pre-emptive self defense ?

obviously it's all hypothetical ?

 

[Asomodai]

I think we can all agree that there are numerous parts of the UK where crime is an increasing issue which has been fuelled, in no small part, by police cuts.

Risk of sounding too political here. The police cuts whilst a major factor, Is not as big a factor to the increase in crime as the massive cuts made to the social safety net and crime prevention programs over the past decade. Public money has been directed away from crime prevention schemes and put into the lucrative punishment system (For private profit).

Prevention has always been more effective at cutting crime then increasing punishments. Prevention and support can help stop people turning to crime in the first place. If people are desperate enough to turn to crime to survive then an increase in the severity and length of punishment will not deter them ncommitting crime.

The cuts described in the first paragraph have affected the bottom rung of society first and worst, and there are still many poor and predominantly minority inhabited areas in London. Kids are turning to what is possibly the only way they see "out" of their situation through crime. (Again due to lack of services that could have encouraged otherwise; which have been cut to the bone or just plain no longer exist). 

 And like any job, people who commit crimes need tools to do that job; transport, weapons and exploitation of others on the same or lower rung of society. Hence mopeds, toy guns and lots of knives.

The crime we see reported in London starts and ends with those worse off, fighting over the few measly crumbs that are thrown to them.

Raise the security net, invest in prevention and crime will drop (eventually, it's not an instant transformation). 

 

[Rogerborg]

Bare in mind, even if you think you had every right to use the above legislation during an incident, you may still be arrested. Arrested does not equal charged and accused, its part of the investigative procedure, consider that one of the often reasons for arrest is a "Prompt and Effective Investigation" by way of a Recorded Interview. That last part is important as interviews are often done in accordance to PACE Act 1984. Also See "IDCOPPLAN" and Section 24 PACE 1984.

You may arrest, but you can also choose to interview under caution (PACE Code E and CJPO Section 34 apply to interviews under caution), and arrest only if the suspect is uncooperative.

One difference (which you may or may not think is significant) is that US travel visas ask about arrests, not just convictions.  I'd also have to disclose it in security vetting to UK and Septic agencies.

Which is why I'm glad to see that Kai in this case was explicitly de-arrested, something that I don't believe happened to...

Case in point was Richard Osborn-Brooks, an elderly man who stabbed a Burglar in his home and killed him.

I vehemently disagree with the decision to arrest in that case as well.  It seems that the chap was fully cooperating and volunteering information: there was no actual need to arrest him.

And I don't buy the argument that arrest protects the suspect. Caution, and emphasise their rights, which are by and large the same as if they're arrested, including access to a solicitor.

I mean no disrespect here, police have a tough enough job as it is.  However, I personally would be more inclined to cooperate if a lighter hand were used, and that cooperation would cease the instant an arrest were made - I'll take my chances with adverse inferences.

[Stuff that I generally agree with]

E: Anyway I can hear all the lurkers rolling their eyes at this very tired discussion haha (and fair play) so I'll say no more, the thread's probably run it's course.

Are you new to the internet?

 

[FreeFrag.UK]

@Asomodai - I completely agree with you. It wasn't my intention to ignore other factors which have had a significant contribution.

Just to go back to the original topic, while there's little more to be said or done about this particular incident, I think it's safe to say that this is a prime example of why it is so important to try make people aware of all the ins and outs of the hobby. It is unfortunate that we will no doubt see similar incidents to this one as it is most definitely nothing new.

 

[Asomodai]

@Asomodai - I completely agree with you. It wasn't my intention to ignore other factors which have had a significant contribution.

Just wanted to expand on it a little! Ultimately being poor is the most obvious route to crime. Unfortunately its obvious that having so many people in poverty is a political choice. Sadly we have had nearly 40 years of "business friendly" governments.

 

[Rogerborg]

Ultimately being poor is the most obvious route to crime.

In conjunction with a culture that assures you that you deserve to be rich, irrespective of your ability or application.

Productivity is the tide that raises all boats. Fully-automated-luxury-communism, we'll get it right next time, comrades.

 

[Stratton Oakmont]

we'll get it right next time, comrades.

Repeat ad infinitum

 

[Asomodai]

In conjunction with a culture that assures you that you deserve to be rich, irrespective of your ability or application.

I am not going to be baited down that rabbit path! I have plenty to say, but this is not the place to say it.

 

[E21A]

The question is whether you would inevitably be charged with murder if you defended yourself with a knife that you were carrying.

It becomes much less of an inevitability if the knife was being carried by the criminal who attacked you and you so happened to be able to get it off them and use it against them ? I mean, it’s unlikely the police would question that attacker had a knife ??‍

 

[Guest]

I love threads that take unexpected turns.

I almost always carry two EDC’s, a SAK and a custom Morris friction folder, both as legal as carrying a bag of oranges lol

 

[Tackle]

I love threads that take unexpected turns.

I almost always carry two EDC’s, a SAK and a custom Morris friction folder, both as legal as carrying a bag of oranges lol

& Yet you've not managed to go on a frenzied stabbing spree ?.

To refer to the old adage, "guns (or knives) don't kill people, people kill people"

In much the same way, "poverty" doesn't turn you in to a hardened criminal, most people who plead poverty in this country haven't actually experienced real poverty, with a benefit system in place for unemployment, which also includes tax credit top-ups for working low incomes etc, no one is starving, sure many don't have the income they desire, but that's life, the issue for many is they have a feeling of "entitlement", in a "want it now" society, not wanting to accept that once the families fed & the absolute essentials are paid for, only then should you consider whether you have any disposable income for non essential so called "luxuries".

Sorry, thugs will be thugs, especially if they've been brought up with no discernible influence, to ensure they have a moral compass, many people grow up on low incomes without becoming feral rabid scum.

 

[Asomodai]

& Yet you've not managed to go on a frenzied stabbing spree ?.

To refer to the old adage, "guns (or knives) don't kill people, people kill people"

In much the same way, "poverty" doesn't turn you in to a hardened criminal, most people who plead poverty in this country haven't actually experienced real poverty, with a benefit system in place for unemployment, which also includes tax credit top-ups for working low incomes etc, no one is starving, sure many don't have the income they desire, but that's life, the issue for many is they have a feeling of "entitlement", in a "want it now" society, not wanting to accept that once the families fed & the absolute essentials are paid for, only then should you consider whether you have any disposable income for non essential so called "luxuries".

Sorry, thugs will be thugs, especially if they've been brought up with no discernible influence, to ensure they have a moral compass, many people grow up on low incomes without becoming feral rabid scum.

?

View attachment 60396

 

[Tackle]

?

View attachment 60396

I know, lol as we do it with most posts, bit like putting the world to rights in the pub.?