Use of Weapons

Discussion in 'Women's Self Defence' started by Judderman, Mar 5, 2004.

  1. tkdhkddave

    tkdhkddave Valued Member

    Don't kid yourself, it's not a grey area at all really-when it comes to Kubotans at least, If you have one on you then you can be arrested, it is classed as a weapon. The only place they can be used legally is in the home or traing hall, and if you used it you would have to make sure that you could justify your use of it in a court of law, potentially anyway. There is lots of info on them out there, also if you look there is lots of info for downloading, i.e criminal justice act, which was an interesting read and has wisened me up a little with regards to defending yourself and the law, anyone who isn't sure should just look up on the web.

    An afterthought, maybe for another thread but has anyone thought about what comes straight after using a weapon or defending yourself with hands feet etc and coming out on top, what are you then going to do for your attcker lying on the floor? perhaps in agony, do we have a duty then to look after them attend his/her injuries? should we all know first aid ?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Personally I would look at the person carrying the kubotan, check them on the PNC and then decide on action. The chances of me arresting a "nice" person would be quite slim, although I may well confiscate the kubotan.

    What the law says and what actually happens are not always black and white - for instance it is an offence to be drunk in public, but few of us ever bother with it because it would mean arresting the entire city centre on a Saturday night. The same goes with weapons - if you read my earlier anecdote I used what I felt was a good judgement call in the circumstances. Some would arrest you, some wouldn't. It is down to the individual officer.

    Dave is right though - if you carry it WITH INTENT to use it as a weapon, even defensively, you commit an offence. The kubotan does double up as a very large keyring though so there is an actual "grey" aspect to it which may provide a defence - as long as your keys are on it of course!
     
  3. Xerxes

    Xerxes New Member

    Hannibal,

    I can see how police officers would have a particular concern about people carrying weapons. A cop does not really know what to expect when they encounter someone.

    You indicated that if Joe Average can carry a weapon then Joe Criminal can do likewise. Yes, that's true. But, what you are forgetting is that Joe Criminal is a...criminal. By definition, he is willing to break the law. If he is willing to knock over a liquer store then he is willing to illegally carry a pistol. If he is willing to rape a woman then he is willing to illegally carry a knife. Only the person who is dedicated to obeying the law is prevented from carrying a weapon by such a law. Criminals are not prevented from doing so.

    You indicated you could search a person, confiscate a weapon, and thereby prevent a crime. However, you and your colleagues can not confiscate every single weapon from every single person who has criminal intent. It is not possible and to attempt it would be futile. In many(perhaps the majority) of cases all you can do is arrive AFTER the crime has happened and call the paramedics. If some woman is about to be raped and she is able to use a weapon to prevent successful completion of the crime then that is better than if the crime happens and police are there only to clean up the aftermath. If I had a wife I would want her to have the option of having a weapon. Wouldn't you want that for your wife? And, I have the same right to protect my life and well being. There may be some cases where a weapon is the only thing that could even the odds.
     
  4. Matt_Bernius

    Matt_Bernius a student and a teacher

    So the general feeling (at least in the UK) is if you are carrying anything that could be construed as a weapon you could be in trouble (based on the judgement of the policeman/woman who stops you). I would have to think the same it true for the US.

    I've recently been turned on to parachute cord as a self defense weapon. While, it's relatively easy to explain away, the interesting issue is how its carried/deployed. For easy access I keep mine tucked the inside of my pants on my hip. I would imagine, though, that if I was stopped and searched, while the cord itself is not illegal, the way I'm carrying it would raise a lot of questions.

    So it would be fair to say that the method of carrying has as much to do with things as anything else. A kobudon that's attached to keys might be construed as "less" of a weapon than a length of paracute cord carried on someone's hip.

    Thoughts?

    - Matt
     
  5. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    Xerxes, the arguement on whether to carry and/or use a weapon is difficult. I believe that weapons should be used to even the odds. I see a big difference between using a weapon to defend yourself and carrying one just in case. IMO if you carry a weapon then you going out with the intent to kill someone.

    To quote two similar cases I have come across. Both men were attacked, both feared for their lives (one was being struck with a bat, the other was about to be glassed), both used a knife on their attacker, both killed their attacker, both claimed self defence. One was found guilty of murder, the other manslaughter. The former used a knife that he carried as a matter of course, the latter used a knife that he came across.

    The difficulty comes when we speak of morals and law.

    I personally don't agree with flooding the streets with weaponry (even though weaponry is quite prevalent depending where you go). The arguement is that a weapon is usually used to gain your compliance, if a criminal believes you are armed it could be argued that they will use greater force to gain the compliance.
     
  6. Fire-Horse

    Fire-Horse Valued Member

    Juderman, I disagree. If this is your 'fail-safe' assumption that you use I think I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree. IMO motives for carrying a weapon (as per legal definition) will be split into:

    a. intent to carry weapon for criminal activity.
    b. intent to carry weapon for self-defence.

    Both of these will then be split into:

    1. aim to use weapon to inflict harm
    2. aim to use weapon to achieve compliance (whether criminal or defence)

    I appreciate that it is difficult to prove the different motives, but surely this should be down to a good judgement call & not generalised as intent to murder. E.g. say a police officer stops a young lady and discovers that she is carrying a weapon because she feels that she is getting stalked and she is frightened of getting raped.

    It is a fact that if someone is determined to cause another person harm, then the police are often powerless to prevent it, they simply don't have the resourses or powers to do so. Surely people have the right to defend themselves, and this should include the right to carry a concealed weapon to deter an attack or even the odds. I.e. concealed so the other person doesn't know that they have and will therefore be unlikely to pre-empt such.
     
  7. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    I guess I'm amazed at the difference in the laws in the UK and the US (especially since I would think our laws would be pretty close to " Mum's " ;) )

    In most places in the US, it is NOT against the law to carry something openly that could be used as a weapon. Most places have laws against carrying concealed weapons, including knives, guns, etc., and there are rules that define exactly what "concealed" is (tucked away in a box in your car usually is'nt concealing a knife; tucking it inside your belt buckle usually is). Most cities/towns/counties, and some states have laws against carrying firearms without a permit. In the US, a policeman could NOT stop someone on the street and search them for weapons, thereby preventing a possible crime (no search/seizure without probable cause), so they could only search if they had reasonable evidence that the suspect had already committed a crime.

    Xerxes' past post is correct--we have a saying in the States that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". I remember back in the 70's when there was a wave of terrorist attacks against elementary schools in northern Israel. The way the Israelis dealt with it was to provide firearms and training to every school teacher in the region. The attacks virtually stopped. I read recently about a small town out west in the US that tried a similar approach when their crime rate suddenly went up--they passed an ordinance REQUIRING all adults to carry firearms. That one's still in the courts, but in the meantime, as word's gotten around, the crime rate there has dropped significantly.

    Criminals are looking for an easy mark. Weapons help make sure you're not one.
     
  8. Capt Ann

    Capt Ann Valued Member

    Usually, they just look for some easier "mark" who isn't packing a weapon.
     
  9. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    To a degree I would agree and I'm sure that the Police do occassionally exercise "good judgement".

    The reason I said "intent to kill" is because there are very few people who well enough trained with any weapon to ensure that they don't kill someone by mistake. I guess you could argue the same for learning MA, but at least the rigorous training is there.
    Morally speaking I believe it would be wrong for someone to take every possible action other than force in order to avoid an attack. Humans by nature are lazy (or are better adapted to saving energy), this could be taken that a person will reduce their awareness because their first action will be to use a weapon, not try to escape. This could lead us to the next moral point. Laws are supposed to be for the good of society, in order to install a social harmony, which in turn develops and supports the individuals within it. It could be argued that if we choose to carry an item which has a very high probability of killing something, then are we really any different from those we are trying to defend ourselves against. If not then society fails. I guess my lack of trust in humans in general would also play a big part.

    So let us assume that every individual becomes armed. It could be argued that the criminal will do something to tip the odds in their favour. Thus the cycle begins again.

    Realistically this isn't going to happen. There will always be those who feel uncomfortable about using weapons or any sort of force. There will always be "easy marks". There will always be those who use force first and worry about the consequences later. There will always be criminals.
     
  10. Fire-Horse

    Fire-Horse Valued Member

    Good answer Judderman, though I'd like to further explore a few points -

    I noted the 'supposed to be', is this an acceptance that the Laws do not necessarily protect the 'good of society', in fact let me go further, do you agree that the laws in the UK protect the criminal more than they protect the people who try to abide by the law?


    Yes, I agree, 'it could be argued' but it's not necessarily right - personally, if I were forced into a situation where I pulled a weapon (that just happened to be lying around...honest! :D ) to defend myself, then firstly the weapon would be used to deter the attack and secondly the weapon would ideally be one that would increase my ability to defend myself and give me a good degree of control. Let's say just for example that I ..errr... found an escrima stick, then it is unlikely that the attacker would receive anything worse than bruising to muscles on the arms & legs, and possibly a broken hand. Yes, the stick could be used to deliver a fatal blow, however I would argue that this would need to be a deliberate attempt to do so and it therefore doesn't have a high probability of killing something (other than the attackers enthusiasm).

    Yes we are different, we haven't gone out with the intention of victimising an innocent person. Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between having weapons for self-defence or training in unarmed self-defence where your hands, feet, elbows, head etc become your weapons.

    Hasn't it already?
     
  11. K_Coffin

    K_Coffin New Member

    Wow. Some excellent points, Fire-Horse and Judderman both. One of the reasons I started MAs was to ensure that I would be able to take care of myself if I had no other option. Personally, I have no problem using a weapon to disable (Even kill) someone who is presenting a fatal or serious threat to me or any of my loved ones. In my opinion, self-defence fully justifies actions taken, including killing someone. However, in Bujinkan, I know we talk about the preservation of all life, including the "opposition". I would hate to kill someone needlessly, but I'm going to take it as far as I can to stop that person from harming me or my loved ones.

    As far as the law is concerned with weapons, here in Canada we're almost identical to the UK. No weapons are allowed to be carried (Except by peace officers) and if you use a weapon with forethought, it's punished very seriously. Hence the focus on improvised weapons. I would never go into a fight looking to kill someone, so I would never bring in a knife or sword (Actually, I would avoid using one if possible.) I know I would personally be careful as hell if I was fighting someone not to do something potentially lethal unless I had to. I don't want to have to live with killing someone, even if I had to.
     
  12. blue D

    blue D New Member

    The one weapon that my wife carries is a cane, but she is taught the usage of the cane in my school, infact in our women self defense class they are taught to use anything as a weapon.
     
  13. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    No I don't. I think that the way they are interpreted in court is to blame.

    A very good point. Should an MA be treated in the same way as an armed attacker?

    I like your cynical side Fire-Horse. :D
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    An MA would be expected to have a greater degree of control over an aggressor and the degree of "reasonable force" would then become defined within the context of the MA's ability.
     
  15. Judderman

    Judderman 'Ello darlin'

    How is the MA's ability decided? Or does that open up a can of worms of comparing suitability of style/training methods against street encounters?
     
  16. Tribalweapon

    Tribalweapon Valued Member

    As far as the MA being treated as a weapon, I know that in Louisiana you have to be registered with the state district attorney when you become a blackbelt. After that, whenever you get into a fight, if you hit the other person you have to call the police. As for myself, I carry a weapon around with me everywhere I go. I wear it on my waist everyday. My belt. I have found that things like my belt, keys, and even my cell phone can make a decent weapon if the situation arises.
     
  17. Monty

    Monty Valued Member

    I'm all against carrying a weapon.

    First off .... it's against the law here in Denmark.

    Second ... once you carry a weapon, you should also be prepared to see that very same weapon used against yourself .... and you wouldn't like that to happen, if you carry any effective weapon !

    The use of makeshift weapons (hairspray and such), may boost moral. But once you're in that situation, you probably won't have the time to search your purse or even your pocket for a weapon. This means that if you believe in using a weapon for self defense, you should keep it in you hands at all times.
    To me that's borderline paranoia.

    Sure ... IF the situation permits, a makeshift weapon could make all the difference, and by all means .... carry them, and learn how to use them ... just don't rely on them.
     
  18. Fire-Horse

    Fire-Horse Valued Member

    I see what you are saying Judderman...but I think we're probably splitting hairs, but in effect both agree that the way the law is utilised it protects the criminals more than the law-abiding public.

    Glad you like the cynicism, I try to keep it under wraps but on some subjects it just won't be kept down. :D

    This may look like a perfectly sensible assumption in the eyes of the law, however in practice it's b., it's b.. (trying not to swear), it's b..alony.

    In my view if a MA is faced by a competent street-fighter, if he/she tries to consciously figure out how much force is reasonable instead of reacting instantly, then there is a high risk that they'll get hurt. How do we know how good a fighter they are, how resiliant they will be to our techniques, whether they have a concealed weapon, etc? Also even if someone attempted to use the 'reasonable force', isn't it fair to say that there judgement is likely to be affected by the violence of the confrontation, adreneline, fear etc.

    Having a go at the law here Hannibal, I know you're just giving us the facts :) .
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    I'll be honest I don't like it any more than you do!
     
  20. Nevada_MO_Guy

    Nevada_MO_Guy Missouri_Karate_Guy

Share This Page