Bushcraft tools that could be classed as weapons?

[philipb]

Firstly it is not the coppers interpretation that decides what is a weapon, it merely decides what they suspect to be a weapon and it has to be in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. As I am sure the black belt barrister will remind you on you tube, in order to secure a conviction it has to beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. It would be highly unreasonable to dismiss the grounds for carrying a knife or axe if there plentiful evidence of its intended lawful use. I think the odds on most housing estates are that you are more likely to be threatened with an unlawful knife in the absence of any visible police than you are to be stopped and searched when you have a clear reason for posessing tools lawfully. I have before retirement been in positions which require an enhanced criminal DBS disclosure and have never worried about it.

police do have powers to deal with incidents that fall short of a full prosecution and involvement of the CPS. They may confiscate items or issue a police caution. But I get your point

 

[Minotaur]

police do have powers to deal with incidents that fall short of a full prosecution and involvement of the CPS. They may confiscate items or issue a police caution. But I get your point

Never take a caution because you cannot get it removed from your record and people have taken them for legal SAKs.

Now this apparently is partly a question of semantics; "weapon" in legalize means a purpose built thingy and something that is used as. Or so I have been told. Also apparently "offensive" weapons exist but not "defensive" ones, a major lack of logic.

A weapon is what they say it is in law however an offensive weapon can be anything as people have found to their cost. Under UK law you cannot carry anything for protection because that makes it an offensive weapon so defensive weapons are a bit of a non-starter.

I heard of somebody having all the cords off their hammock in their carry on confiscated “because they could use them to tie up stewardesses.” I have always wondered what would happen if one replied that while you like tying knots…what they are suggesting isn’t really your thing

I was thinking more only if they ask nicely....

 

[TLM]

Under UK law you cannot carry anything for protection because that makes it an offensive weapon so defensive weapons are a bit of a non-starter.

If one takes the wording that means that if one has gloves on when defending oneself or uses an umbrella to push the assailant they are "offensive weapons". How about your hands? Or if you kick the bugger, your shoes are weapons. Kind of leads to that one cannot defend oneself.

 

[Chris]

If one takes the wording that means that if one has gloves on when defending oneself or uses an umbrella to push the assailant they are "offensive weapons". How about your hands? Or if you kick the bugger, your shoes are weapons. Kind of leads to that one cannot defend oneself.

The whole point in law is that you must not have something you intend to use as a weapon, for any reason.

If you are attacked you may use reasonable force to defend yourself and you may use items that happen to be close to hand if the situation deems it appropriate and you have a genuine and reasonable fear for your wellbeing. The court would decide whether it was appropriate.

The problem is you can’t just go “Oh I just happened to have an EDC pen that is marketed as a self defence pen” because the court would likely find that due to the nature of the object, you were carrying it at least in part due to its claimed benefits as a self defence weapon. People would not be wearing gloves or shoes for this purpose.

Similarly if you have a baseball bat by the front door ‘just in case’, if you ever used it to stop someone entering your house you better have a whole lot of evidence that you actually play baseball, and be able to convince the court that you were not keeping it by the front door for the purpose of using it as a weapon which, let’s face it, you’re unlikely to be able to do because that isn’t where most people keep their sporting equipment.

 

[TLM]

People would not be wearing gloves or shoes for this purpose.

I see you are not familiar with the so called knife gloves or Savate shoes ...

The court would decide whether it was appropriate.

I don't trust any court to be able to do that properly.

(This concerns Finland only: some years ago I think a researcher gathered some statistics about attacks and fights, what came out was really strange and to say the truth disconcerting, if in a fight you are better off killing your assailant (no cctv and no eye vitnesses). After that there is only one story what happened. As far as I remember no official commented on that and I can see why.)

 

[Chris]

I see you are not familiar with the so called knife gloves or Savate shoes ...


I don't trust any court to be able to do that properly.

(This concerns Finland only: some years ago I think a researcher gathered some statistics about attacks and fights, what came out was really strange and to say the truth disconcerting, if in a fight you are better off killing your assailant (no cctv and no eye vitnesses). After that there is only one story what happened. As far as I remember no official commented on that and I can see why.)

I am not commenting on what is right or wrong, simply how the law works in the UK.

 

[TLM]

I am not commenting on what is right or wrong, simply how the law works in the UK.

There seems to be a main difference, here the law is supposed to be written in way that one can decide beforehand what is legal or not, not decide later on by ignorant court.

And no it does not work like that all the time, there are laws that nobody reading it knows what it means , not even the courts.

 

[Laurentius]

I have any number of sticks in my hallway, because you have to keep them somewhere, however the reality is there is no room to swing a cat in there, let alone a baseball bat. I did once need to forcibly expel an intruder who tried to push his way through the gap in the open door, all it took was a shove and he went scuttling off with his tail between his legs.

 

[TLM]

no room to swing a cat in there, let alone a baseball bat.

Look what a Jo or Hanbo can do when just pushed.

 

[Herman30]

If one takes the wording that means that if one has gloves on when defending oneself or uses an umbrella to push the assailant they are "offensive weapons". How about your hands? Or if you kick the bugger, your shoes are weapons. Kind of leads to that one cannot defend oneself.

It is the same in Finland. You can defend yourself but you can´t equip yourself beforehand with something with the inetent of selfdefence. An umbrella is for rainprotection (or a walking cane) so perfectly allright to carry one with you. On the otherhand if you walk around with a baseball bat; that is not seen as normal and will certainly give you a fine fro the police.

 

[TLM]

On the otherhand if you walk around with a baseball bat

That is a lousy weapon actually, a self defense umbrella is way better.

 

[TLM]

but you can´t equip yourself beforehand with something with the inetent of selfdefence.

Oh yes you can, it comes down to what the cops recognize. And an awful lot of things a really very dual use. At the end of the day it comes down to your training and attitude.

 

[Wildgoose]

Oh yes you can, it comes down to what the cops recognize. And an awful lot of things a really very dual use. At the end of the day it comes down to your training and attitude.

In the UK that’s part of the issue being discussed.
As soon as you consider an item for use as a weapon the intent part of the law is complete.
Admittedly it would be quite hard to prove your intent, unless they found a forum post or similar.

 

[neoaliphant]

i was stopped for carrying blunt reenactment spear, was told to put plastic bag of the head so as not to alarm people. never been stopepd for fixed blade surge on belt in molle pouch, its there with other molle pouches as utility belt, usually when out doing jobs, but often pop in to shops between jobs, but if im walking im not leaving my tools outside lidl!

 

[TLM]

As soon as you consider an item for use as a weapon the intent part of the law is complete.

Like when you intend to hit somebody with your fist?
The moment when you decide to kick somebody your shoe?

That is a practical impossibility besides being idiotic. A forum post on what can be done with something is in a real world no proof of intending to use it. Last time I was in a court on a preliminary hearing I got some satisfaction proving that the opposing lawyer was wrong and probably intentionally misrepresenting some facts. He actually screamed at me, very satisfying. The judge wasn't happy about that either. It was an engineering fact we were discussing.

 

[Chris]

Like when you intend to hit somebody with your fist?
The moment when you decide to kick somebody your shoe?

That is a practical impossibility besides being idiotic. A forum post on what can be done with something is in a real world no proof of intending to use it. Last time I was in a court on a preliminary hearing I got some satisfaction proving that the opposing lawyer was wrong and probably intentionally misrepresenting some facts. He actually screamed at me, very satisfying. The judge wasn't happy about that either. It was an engineering fact we were discussing.

I can’t help but feel you’re being disingenuous now. The law is the law, whether you want it to be the case or not. Thinking that there are special gotchas such as “well what about my shoes!” that the CPS or judge would even entertain as an argument is rather naive to be honest.

 

[Wildgoose]

But that’s the law in the UK, like it or not.

If you wore steel toe cap boots with the intent on kicking someone then potentially yes, or those sand gloves that were doing the rounds a few years back.

 

[TLM]

Thinking that there are special gotchas such as “well what about my shoes!” that the CPS or judge would even entertain as an argument is rather naive to be honest.

I am arguing that that definition is indefensible and idiotic, it is your bad that you have it. Again in civilized places you can tell from the written law what it means.

If you wore steel toe cap boots with the intent on kicking someone then potentially

I am wearing them because they are required on my workplace.

 

[TLM]

Just for comparison we have an equally bad sentence in our laws: "one can't carry anything that can be used to hurt an other human ...", that has caused legal trouble but still stays.

I still can't understand why people defend bad laws. They are there but when they are bad enough that everyday life could be impossible they just kind of are not fully enforced. Logically an idiotic situation.

 

[Wildgoose]

Perhaps not everyone thinks they are bad laws?