John_W

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).

Being a biker myself I can't help but echo this statement.
 
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.
 
One of the follow ups I've seen reported about this particular incident is from an official, flatly stating the situation is being blown out of proportion and made significantly worse by the mother's attempts at claiming that this was all racially motivated. Sadly this is yet another case where the victim card will be played to its fullest in the hope of a hand out. Dread the thought of someone actually accepting responsibility.

I'm sure you don't, I'm not particularly looking for a scrap but if you rattle my chain I will bite, so maybe in future you should consider how you word your posts, yours was neither funny or correct.
I'm all for a bit of banter but we are discussing crime, it's prevalence & the lawful (& sometimes unlawful) response it solicits.

Who mentioned a knife ? , not me, in much the same way I never mentioned a bicycle, let's not make assumptions now chaps 😏
 
 
No, what's fueling knife crime in London, & most other cities, are thieving low life scrotes who aren't prepared to work for something, they'd rather take somebody else's hard earned, & fuck the consequences/victims.

I live a stones throw away from "Hackney" (which whilst it has its areas of deprivation, is a pretty "hipster"/ trendy/ posh area) I'm one inch shorter and a few stone lighter then you (not for me to say if im lighter in a good way or a bad way)  edit: yes i can thats proper obese lmao
 
. I've never had an issue at all, maybe you just look like more of a target then you think you do? 
 
Also carrying a "tool" around is just absolutely mental behaviour and is exactly the sort of thing that may get you in fatal trouble with the police or someone else. I saw someone try to steal my bike and we kinda scared him off. but not for a second did i think about arming myself nor did i want to physically hurt him. I didn't want my bike knicked either but guess what - i just don't care enough about a bicycle to (try to) hurt someone. 
 
This entire thread is totally, utterly nuts. 
 

He was on a scooter, almost certainly stolen, possibly a 300cc+ plated as a 125, or just flat out fake or foreign plated.  The words "his" and "moped" set me off, we know exactly how he got it, and what he was using it for.
 
In this case, well, Kai's mum thinks that's a "toy" gun.  That's what I call mine too, but with the full knowledge that they're not treated as firearms (imitation or otherwise) only by a quirk of legislation.
 
All that said, I'm drawing a clear distinction between a drug dealer riding a stolen scooter without license or insurance, and a kid with a legally held (and hopefully legally obtained) airsoft (R)IF.   I very much hope that young Kai there isn't heading down the same route as Jaden and so many others, and until he does, I'll happily side with his right to own that, uh, toy.
 
 
 
I'm a biker and I say they should run them off the road, then bill their families for the damage to the cop car, then prosecute them for aiding an offender.  "Dunno how he got it, just kids larking about, innit" shouldn't be an excuse.
 

Was a very sad case but my reaction was similar. My very first thought was if he was 14 why was he on a moped? it wasn't his, he couldn't have had it legally so why was he on one.
 
I know loads of kids 'with' mopeds and I always say the same. I work with mostly low income families and when I see their 15/16 year old son on one its always my first question, as usually the answer is drug money. Either bought illegally with drug money, or its nicked/passed around so they can do ride outs or deliver drugs. Therefore they are generally in that 'life' and more often than not involved in suffering in some way. Not that they deserve death, but claiming innocence when you move in those circles is just silly. If you sell drugs, rob people, hang with people who stab others or are involved in a gang then that's the expectation and I have little empathy in these circumstances. Which is shocking considering my job 🤔
 
Same when they have fatal crashes in cop chases, if they were that innocent why didnt they stop? I am not saying cops should run them off the road (thats another debate) but if they would have stopped then they would be alive.

Guilty as charged.  I didn't expect they had got one given the swiftness of the response and the lack of night courts (I'd love to see drunks dragged before Magistrates at 2am while they're still kicking off), it's just an interest in what was on the 5x5x5.
 
 
 
Safely archived up here.

 
 
 
May not be.  But yes, in general the images used are "most angelic", not "most recent".
 
 
 
Depends on the definition of force. it seems that they knocked and the lad opened the door.
 
 
 
That's the only part that I have an issue with, after they'd searched him - it seems that he was left cuffed for the duration of searching the house.  I know why they did it, and why they want to - officer safety.  It's a concerning trend though: see, for example, the Bianca Williams / Ricardo dos Santos case where they were also cuffed despite not being arrested, or charged with the multiple alleged offences that were claimed as the cause for the stop-and-search.
 
 
 
Eh, the sun rose in the East. That's what they said in the Bianca Williams case, before reversing course and issuing an apology for... uh... conducting everything as per their training.
 
I should stress that I do mostly agree with you and think that they had to act.  I'm just not a big fan of routine cuffing though, as it fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the police and the public - I'm not sure Bobby Peel would be mad keen on it.
 
 
 
 
My initial response to that was "That's dreadful, I hope that poor scooter wasn't too badly damaged and that it got back to its real owner", and nothing that emerged afterwards gave me any cause to regret that knee jerk.
 

TOTALLY agree.
 
I wont go into details as identities can be found out but in my role as a youth worker I know if quite a few young people who have been killed. One recently was shot a number of times. Now I see the tributes on social media and the shrines which pop up and parents claiming 'he was a lovely boy' 'it was wrong place wrong time' or 'mistaken identity' and your right they always choose a smiling picture of them with the family, usually in their Sunday best (Kais pic looked like him and mum just came back from church tbf) and I can see right through it most of the time.
 
The family of the latest lad to be killed claims it was a case 'mistaken identity' but they leave out of the media report he was a knife carrying drug dealer who robbed people. Now dont get me wrong, its sad any life is taken and he didnt deserve to be killed but he was no way an innocent civilian in the local gang war. It was a targeted hit. In my professional role I have to bite my tongue so so much when I see and hear these things. 
 
I have seen it with at least 4 kids who have been killed around my way. Its terribly sad but these are the kids who are clearly in the criminal life and get in over their head.
 
Like you say though its not EVERYONE, I know of a kid who WAS killed locally in a robbery not a target or a result of drugs or a silly beef, but in general the families will choose their pictures carefully and not say or know about the darker side to their kids life.
Bloody sad as I write this thinking about all the dead kids and other victims I know  

This is what bothered me about the whole thing. I’m black and when I was this on the news I was instantly cheesed off as to how this was portrayed. I felt the news focussed on the fact that they were black and not really focussed on the gun. I totally agree with the police response, as how are they supposed to know if it is a fire arm or a RIF.  The mother said that they should knock on the door to ask if it was real or not - come on, what madness is this! If I did something like that, brandishing one of my RIF’s in the front window, I would expect some kind of police response at that level.  My neighbours fully know what I do.
 
On this occasion I believe the police did was correct.
 
Rant  over, stay safe everyone. 

Police did the right thing, full stop.
 
Going to go ona  bit of a rant, and some of you will pick out the "what if's" and "what about's" but do note that each case is taken at its own merit.
 
Police received a call from a member of public (MOP) who stated that they saw a boy holding a pistol.
You must remember, MOPs or Joe public don't know the difference between airsoft, air gun, and a real gun, they just see gun and report it as such.
Furthermore the same MOP probably only witnessed said boy with gun for probably a few seconds and lets be real, if you thing real danger is close, you Foxtrot Oscar (ill let you figure that out)
Also they saw the gun through a window, possibly through net curtains and also, as is often the case, in daylight indoors seem dark, in the dark colours lose their saturation so a dark blue (as we saw in the photos) can look like a slightly different shade of black.
 
For those that don't know, in London a typical "999" as such get sent from a call handler, who dispatches it to an Operator, before the Operator dispatches the call. Now especially in one involving firearms, the local Duty Inspector is made aware of it, also keeping a look out for such calls is a Firearms Command Officer (often another Inspector). They will basically ask 101 questions and triage the call to ensure what they do is right, they will also at times personally call the MOP and ask them about what they saw, how long for and sometime even ask what their knowledge on firearms is (you would not believe the number of calls police receive as shots fired when in reality ts a backfiring car)..
 
As part of this "TRIAGE" they ask what the description is and of course his skin colour would come up. Of course they would do intelligence and checks on the address and anyone who lives there fast time too. Meanwhile firearms officers are making their way to the location too. The description is for officers to ensure that they locate the right address, the right person and the right item. And yes they do screw up sometimes, they are only human.
 
Now someone mentioned the "W" word or warrant.
I'm not going to read it out here but please look up Section 17 PACE 1984, it gives officers power of entry without warrant under certain conditions if they have reasonable suspicion, and on this occasion the suspicion was reasonable. This "Do you have a warrant?" thing is pretty much from the US but yes Warrants here do exist. I mean you should see Tipstaff Warrants, if the officer even thinks you're lying, you get nicked.
 
Believe it or not, those that live in the UK, the laws here can be somewhat quite draconian in many ways, i mean look up some of the Royal Parks act, sheesh its an offence to even breath loudly in them.
 
The 12 year old is not the same as you see in the photos, those are the pictures chosen by family to make him appear as angelic as possible, whenever you hear aspiring artist, architect, footballer or rapper killed (often sadly in some kind of gang feud) then look through that, bet if you were to see their previous it might make you think twice. 
 
Also the area in general is pretty high on crime and gang warfare, it is not uncommon for senior gang members to give guns, drugs or weapons to younger gang kids they've recruited to carry their stuff as they think that they will be more unlikely to be stopped.
 
Yes officers forced entry into the home, officers are trained to deem anything and anyone as either Unknown Risk and High Risk, there isn't a Low Risk. They don't know what they are going into, a family home (in this case it was) or a gang den. Everyone was detained and led away from the address with the 12 year old boy cuffed (probably at the rear) and taken to a police vehicle, property was searched and a two tone airsoft gun was found, HE WAS DE-ARRESTED once it was established that it was an airsoft gun.
 
Due to the current political climate the family now thinks "ah we are entitled to some compo here", the body worn video has been viewed by a senior officer who is the lead in policing firearms  and stated that he viewed the body worn footage and saw that the officer behaved properly, professionally and conducted everything as per their training, cant wrong them for doing what the book says.
 
Also forget David Lammy, dont even get me started on that waste of space that is Diane Abbott, i think she is the second most hated MP after Theresa May by police officers

Especially interesting to follow the money as:
1)the gun is legal to possess whether an IF or RIF
2)is illegal for him to have purchased, so  ought to have come via someone else to be legal
3)it’s not VCRA colour compliant, (not bright blue, <50% coverage)
any seller who has sold without a defence (since 2007) is liable to a significant fine
4) it’s either imported (and not compliant unless the importer had a defence) or has been sold by a BBGuns retailer without a full understanding of the VCRA 

The police did the right thing, the boy didn’t do anything majorly wrong (He & his mother weren’t being fully responsible, but it wasn’t waved around in public)

Under the VCRA:
Somebody thought it was a gun, so legally it is a RIF unless it meets the IF criteria. It doesn’t meet the criteria.
But no offence was committed at the time of the police visit 

I have this nightmare that the police turn up when I am out and my wife says.
"My husband only has a couple of airsoft guns"
Then they do a search...

I have this nightmare that the police turn up when I am out and my wife says.
"My husband only has a couple of airsoft guns"
Then they do a search...

Or, 'are these all your husbands automatic guns madam? ' Oh no officer he has loads more in the garage '

I have this nightmare that the police turn up when I am out and my wife says.
"My husband only has a couple of airsoft guns"
Then they do a search...

Considering when she wanted them banned, they were "Easily converted to fire live ammunition" but now they are "harmless toys" they won't get any support from Dianne Abbott...

Er, yes, I'm not sure what I was thinking there.  Still, if the Grauniad want to tell everyone that it's an air-pistol, fine with me.
 
 
 
"“I told them almost straight away that there were no weapons in the house, only a toy gun belonging to my son" - so his mum knew that he had it.  But, yes, whether she bought it for him or whether some rogue trader was happy to flog it to him direct is a good question.
 
 
 
Throw them before they throw us!

As two tone rules don't apply to air guns and they have their own legislation on purchase (ID, face to face sales etc) I think this is probably an IF and possibly a Springer at that.
Would be very curious to "follow the money" and find out how it came in to the young man's possession in the first place.
I would hope the airgun community would join ranks on this, but remembering back to VCRA the legislation going through Parliament, there are some members happy to throw Airsoft under the bus to protect their hobby.
(Like small bore pistol did to full bore pistol, and rifle shooters did to pistol shooters and bolt action rifle shooters did to semi auto shooters..)

@Tiercel - It's slightly off topic but I'll admit I've found Donut's break downs of various police incidents to be very insightful.
 
As far as this incident goes, I'd argue it's subject to a variety of failures but @Rogerborg did an exceptional job of outlining the majority of said failures.
 
From my side of things I can't help but look at the entire situation and think it could have been avoided with proper parental responsibility in place. I've encountered many players since I started who share their passion for airsoft with their children, something I'm certain is common amongst many of us here. Many of the parents I've encountered simply don't allow their kids to access or handle the guns outside of game days or, at minimum, without at least some level of parent supervision.
 
I think there are a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to airsoft but when all is said and done it is the responsibility of the owner or parent/guardian to ensure that the correct legislation is adhered to. While airsoft guns maybe viewed as "toys", and are often referred to as such, I can't help but wonder how much this contributes to parents handing them off to their kids viewing them as such.
 
Sadly (as we've long since established) common sense isn't particularly common and it is unfortunate that there are parents who will blindly buy into airsoft without fully comprehending the risks attached to ownership of IFs and even RIFs.

Considering when she wanted them banned, they were "Easily converted to fire live ammunition" but now they are "harmless toys" they won't get any support from Dianne Abbott...

It looks like Kai there doesn't have parents, plural, he has an over-indulgent mother.  The outcomes for that aren't great, which is why it's even sadder to see him coming to the attention of the police so young.
 
I hope he gets over this experience and becomes a happy, safe and productive member of society.  Who knows, we might even have the next David Lammy on our hands. 🙄

Those are both just re-reports of this article: http://camdennewjournal.com/article/boy-12-arrested-by-armed-police-over-toy-gun
 
It presents "a black male with a gun" as a quote, but doesn't attribute it.  I doubt it's from the police.
 
The thing I'd note is that the kid reckons he was cuffed, and I'd question the necessity for that once they'd searched him, unless he was kicking off (which he might have been, for all we know). It's an unpleasant trend towards the Murcan default of physical escalation and immobilisation, and we've seen where that ends up.  All just speculation though.
 
I'd also speculate that the kid will probably blame the police for this, rather than the armed ferals in his manor that caused a concerned citizen to call it in. It's tough winning hearts and minds with the current narrative of division being peddled by professional grifters like Abbott, and of course David "Haven't seen a police for a while" Lammy, who demands more policing to protect his voting constituents from each other, but then calls foul when they're arrest and convicted.
 
 
 

"Air weapons", see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21A
 
57A exempts airsoft guns as being considered as firearms for the purposes of the act.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57A
 
Now, you could argue that "air weapon" might be different to "firearm", although that would be problematic in Scotland since it would mean we'd have to licence our airsoft guns.
 
Where it gets even more tricky is that that the Scotch 2015 air weapon licensing has exemptions based on Firearms Act section 57, but it hasn't been amended to refer to the new 57A definition added by the 2017 act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2015/10/section/1
 
I suspect there's going to be a test case for this sooner or later up here.
 
 
 
 
Eh.  Sniper build, he'd replaced half the parts.  But yes, while understanding his frustration ("I spent all this money, why it not shoot 100m!") I agree, and told him as much.
 
 
Indeed, and the definition of RIF in the VCRA specifically excludes the need for close examination by an expert.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/38
 
Given the points made about simply painting a real gun day-glo, it's a wonder we're still allowed to have RIFs or IFs.
 
 
 
Sure, that earns you a slotting. Didn't apply in this situation though - no offence was being committed.  It was daft, but if we accept that the law needs changed, then where do we go?  Licensing, locked gun cases?
 
 
 
Again, this was in private.  Given that they didn't try to cover it up by charging under the Public Order Act  ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4 ) I'm inferring that the lad wasn't pointing it towards the window and the witness didn't actually feel threatened.
 
I'm quite conflicted on this one.  It was stupidity by the mother both strategically (buying it) and tactically (allowing him to have it in view of the street), and the police reaction was almost inevitable.  But also I'm glad they de-arrested sharpish, rather than escalating it to a bogus prosecution as with the Grangemouth case.
 
 
 
Absolutely, which is why I keep pointing them at air guns - let them be that community's problem, even if there's an overlap.