Weapons

This post comes on the back of reading a post by a UK Police Officer where he talks about arresting one of his colleagues. One of the offences the officer was arrested for was possession of offensive weapons; not knives and guns which are almost uniformly illegal but with police issue batons and CS gas.

Now this is an interesting dichotomy. If on duty, a police officer can carry (and use) these items perfectly legally. They have special dispensation from the Home Secretary of the day exempting them from the blanket ban on carrying intended weapons. However off duty, despite the fact they are still expected to carry their warrant cards that convey powers only available to police officers, it becomes illegal to carry items intended for personal protection.

Originally I was going to suggest that the law be changed to allow police officers to carry these items at all times regardless of if they're working or not but I changed my mind on this. It throws up a few issues that I am not entirely comfortable with. Firstly is it would then create and implicit expectation that police officers will respond to any incident they encounter which really isn't fair. We need more police officers, we cannot expect current officers to intervene in their time off. Despite this, I am quite sure there are a vast number of officers who would happily intervene in incidents regardless of whether they are or are not on duty. The second issue this idea raises is a safety one. Yes off duty officers would have a baton and CS spray however they would be unlikely to have their radios; a vital tool to summon backup. No matter how good the officer, many incidents won't be able to be solved by one individual alone and fiddling with a mobile calling 999 is no substitute for a panic button. Finally there is the issue of showing off. Police blogs have long documented a swathe of warranted officers who rarely venture further than the front desk instead preferring to police with a computer. This is all very well and I'm sure that some vital functions are performed but I can't help thinking that by allowing officers to carry policing equipment off duty might lead to some (a small minority) who have gone straight for desk jobs and who don't have the experience in front line policing deciding to play the hero off duty - possibly showing off to the missus and/or mates - and causing the whole situation to degenerate. I don't have evidence to back up the latter theory beyond what I've read in various blogs and books about policing but common sense dictates that this could well be a considerable risk,

So instead of this, here's another idea entirely; instead of allowing officers to carry these items off duty, why not legalise them more generally. Now before you condemn this idea as popularising violence, hear me out.

First off, I'm not advocating that they be put on sale in the local Tescos. Instead have a licencing system whereby people can undergo education and training in self defence in exchange for a licence to purchase and carry batons and/or CS spray. The government is constantly talking about altering the law on self defence to allow innocent citizens to defend themselves and their property. Here's a real opportunity to put it's money where it's mouth is. Substitute the phrase "reasonable force" for "necessary force" and allow people to put a bit of muscle behind their defence and as part of that give them the tools to do it.

Now here's the next bit. Rather than use whatever comes to hand for defending oneself, why not use items designed for the purpose? Batons and CS gas are designed to allow the user to apply significant amounts of non-lethal force by the user. In short, if you're on the receiving end it's going to hurt like hell but it's not going to kill you. Surely that's to the good. Far better than someone grabbing and using a kitchen knife/screwdriver/spade and using those in panic. As I said before, these items would require a licence for purchase so there's the added advantage of requiring people who possess them to have undergone some form of training increasing the likelihood further that they can be deployed with maximal efficiency and minimal long-term damage to the recipient.

An argument against I can foresee is the argument that these items could end up in the hands of  criminals. Yes this is true but do you really think that they don't have access to scarier implements already. A quick trip round B&Q or Homebase will allow any wannabe reprobate to pick up lots of things considerably stabbier and generally more dangerous than the items I have spoken of. These can be bought perfectly legally and without any form of check. Not only that, many hardcore criminals have graduated to guns. What I'm suggesting is not escalating the situation, it's not even playing catch up, it is simply levelling the playing field ever so slightly against events such as mugging or burglary (which coincidentally is - hopefully - covers the more commonly experienced crimes in the UK).

So to recap what I am suggesting is that people in the UK be given the right to defend themselves with the force necessary to do so (rather than the bare minimum possible) and using tools specifically designed for the job subject to training. As a further point, I would strongly advocate widespread self-defence training available to all. Down the line, I would like to see it offered in schools as part of the PHSE or whatever it's called this week but in the short term I would like to see training maid openly and cheaply available. I am not advocating vigilante action but I am advocating people standing up for themselves rather than rolling over and being able to do so confident they know how, they have the equipment to do it safely and they have the backing of the law.

JR

TASER Use

Apparently yesterday police in Britain TASERed a blind man believing his white stick was a samurai sword. This proves that all British police are moronic, trigger-happy thugs who shoot first and ask questions later (if at all). Naturally. British bobbies are incapable of doing anything apart from inflicting violence don't you know? They certainly can't defuse a tense situation using nothing more than words, nor can they resist near endless provocation from members of the public intent on having a scrap before arresting them with minimal force and the certainly can't offer sympathy, comfort and solace to the recently believed often in tragic circumstances (and despite the fact that an alarming number look so young that they need a note from their mum to be out at night). Certainly, in the case of the latter, I have never attended Coroner's inquests where the relatives of the deceased (the unexpected death of a baby and a rather messy suicide) took time during their evidence and despite their obvious distress to thank the police officers who attended the scene for their kindness and compassion while at the scene. That sort of stuff never happens because British police are far too busy driving around recklessly and gratuitously kicking the shit out of people.

Now undoubtedly there will be some who say that mistaking a blind person's white stick for a samurai sword is as ludicrous as mistaking a guide dog for a pit bull but let's take a step back over the next few minutes and have a look. I don't know all the facts of this case nor am I a police officer so there will be a large amount of conjecture but bear with me until the end and see if what I'm saying makes sense. First off let's bear in mind that despite the uniform, police officers are human beings. Bullets don't bounce off them, knives don't bend when they come into contact with a police uniform. The recent tragic events in Manchester show this all to clearly. This means that they have lives, family and friends that they wish to see again. Just because they have signed up to do a job that involves an element of danger doesn't mean that they forfeit the right to go home at the end of the day uninjured. Therefore we cannot expect police officers to simply saunter up to someone who they suspect is armed without a thought for their own safety.

Ok, so we've established the police have a right to have regard for their own safety. What about this situation? I will say again that I don't know all the facts of the case but I doubt the TASER will have been used lightly. Some will argue that the individual in question was an old man using a white stick to get around. Fair enough but and old person isn't necessarily a nice person and pretty much any item under the sun can be weaponised or have a weapon concealed in it. If anybody is going to know this then surely it will be a police officer - they have to deal with the more unpleasant aspects of society on a daily basis. As I have said before, they have the right to go home in one piece so it would not be unreasonable of them to go for a worst-case scenario in their risk-assessment. Certainly I would if I were in their position, then things can only get better.

So assuming they opted for a worst-case scenario what were the options? Again I'm not a police officer so this is essentially conjecture but as I see it the options are as follows: get up close and personal to restrain, detain and disarm the individual using either their bare hands or batons (bearing in mind, at this point they are still assuming he is carrying something nasty); use a device to temporarily incapacitate him from a distance keeping the officers safe, the surrounding public safe and ultimately the suspect safe (yes being TASERed isn't going to be comfortable but it will be short-lived and ultimately the vast majority walk away either unscathed or with minor bumps and bruises); finally, the officers could have called in armed colleagues (even if TASER is carried routinely British police are still essentially unarmed) who, if they perceived a genuine threat could have legitimately shot the individual in question.

Let's look at the first option. Common sense dictates that if you're going into a close-quarters confrontation with someone that you are assuming is armed you go in mob-handed and using serious amounts of force so your potential assailant is quickly overwhelmed, overpowered and rendered incapable of using whatever weapon they may have. However this undoubtedly puts the safety of the officers at risk because they will be up close to someone that is potentially armed and doesn't particularly want to be arrested. It is also extremely violent and could well result in serious injury to the suspect.

Now let's go to the third option; calling in armed officers. If the suspect for whatever reason doesn't follow the commands given, they are at serious risk of being shot if the officers in question believe there is a serious and genuine risk to public safety (and here there is precedent for officers opening fire on a suspect whom they genuinely believed to be armed at the time but who later turned out to be unarmed). Despite what Holywood shows, gunshots are serious injuries; they cause extensive injuries. Now police officers in the UK, as far as I'm aware, are not trained to 'shoot to kill' but 'shooting to wound' is a fallacy. Bullet wounds are serious enough that there is a realistic prospect of death for the recipient. What's more the police are trained to shoot at the central mass of a person, the torso essentially, to maximise the chance of a) hitting the target so nobody else gets injured by stray bullets and b) maximise the chance of disabling the target. If things are serious enough for police to open fire then the last thing they want is the person they have shot either getting back up or still being able to use their weapon from the ground. This is a serious situation but not necessarily an over reaction if you are of the belief that you are about to confront someone who is armed and prepared to use a weapon.

This leaves option number two where non-lethal force is used from a safe distance to temporarily incapacitate the suspect allowing them to be restrained, police to gain control of the situation and the full facts verified before further decisions taken. Suddenly it doesn't seem so bad does it? The suspect is neither faced with overwhelming physical force from the police (a hail of fists and batons) nor do they find themselves with a gunshot wound. Police officers, like everyone else in Britain, have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves and other people. They have also taken an oath to defend the population of this country and as a result they will find themselves in situations where they face danger and force is required (I would argue that the definition of "reasonable" in law should be altered slightly to reflect this but that's a longer and more academic point). Also, it's worth bearing in mind that the officers in question would not have simply strolled up an zapped this man. They would have tried to engage him verbally first then given a number of oral warnings before finally deploying the TASER. In short, they would have given ample opportunity so surrender and sort out any misunderstanding before resorting to force.

This particular story has struck a particular chord with me personally at the moment because I am actively considering joining the police. One of the biggest factors, in my mind, against it beyond the pay, pension and working conditions (although I don't really know any different so that's not as much of an issue) is the fact that police officers are expected to go into dangerous situations unarmed and are seemingly expected to resolve them by doing nothing more than asking nicely (this isn't Midsommer Murders). Personally, I believe police should be armed. It's that simple. Right now, there is no real reason not to attack police if they are telling you something you don't want to hear. You might get a few bruises where they restrain you more roughly but balance that against the fact you might just escape and even if you do get arrested for assaulting a police officer, it's enormously unlikely it will be taken further and if it is, it's even more unlikely you will get a meaningful sentence. If the police were armed and people knew they were at risk of serious injury if they tried to fight their way out I genuinely believe they would think twice about trying it on. Even if police aren't routinely armed, I would still be prepared to do the job knowing there was a risk involved. However although I am aware there is a risk to my personal safety, I would not be prepared to recklessly endanger myself nor do I expect others to do so. Given that precondition, a TASER starts sounding better and better. Apart from the fact it can be used remotely, it's effects are generally short-lived. Without it things could certainly escalate. Speaking strictly for myself I have never really been in a fight (beyond schoolboy handbags) so even with self-defence training there's no guarantee I would be coming out of it in control. Leaving that aside for a moment, hitting someone inevitably means using one's own body to apply force. Basic biophysics dictates therefore that you yourself are open to injury just (punching is especially bad for causing wrist injuries - hence why boxers strap up their hands). Therefore, in this hypothetical conflict where I'm hypothetically a police officer, my first choice would probably be to draw and use my baton. So we have an individual being hit with an object here and one designed to transfer force. Furthermore, let's not mince words, they're going to be hit hard since I want them incapacitated quickly or worried enough about their own safety that they forget to threaten mine. Hitting them hard will probably cause injury ranging from extensive bruising to broken bones. Again, suddenly pain and the cuts/bruises associated with a fall seems a lot less severe now - arguably less violent and forceful than the alternatives.

Apologies for rambling. My point is essentially, while not knowing the full facts of the case, there are two sides to the story and the officers involved in the case have the right to have their innocence presumed until strong evidence shows otherwise. We cannot and should not expect the police officers protecting us to expose themselves needlessly to excessive risks. As such, we should bear in mind that when approaching a situation they are almost certainly thinking, "What's the worst that could happen?" and acting accordingly to protect their safety and the safety of the public in general. This should be commended rather than criticised.

JR

Self-Defence

Yesterday I highlighted what I think are inadequacies in the law of self-defence and questioned the value of vigilante action by people caught up in the current disturbances. Today I would like to examine both concepts further, the former roughly in context of the latter.

This has been prompted by reports today of several local communities taking to the streets to protect what they value. Residents of Northcote Road in Clapham formed a human cordon preventing anyone wearing a hoodie entering their streets. Residents of Dalston did much the same. Sikhs in East London came together to protect their temple. To all of them I would say well done for protecting what you hold dear. I hope there are no negative consequences in the future.

There are inherent risks to this type of behaviour. People are leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution. They may do this without realising this or intending to. An example of these unintended consequences would be chasing off would-be looters. Strictly speaking, the offence of assault does not have to involve physical contact, merely perception that harm will be visited on the individual. Therefore, a group of large men chasing a couple of teenage kids could well fall within that definition. It may or may not be likely that such charges would proceed further than the raised eyebrow of a police officer and there is a decent chance self-defence could be argued if they did. Even so, it is a big risk to take.

How did this situation develop? Robert Peel when first founding a police service made it clear that police officers were to be ordinary citizens upholding the law within the law rather than a special group immune from it's effects. This remains true today. Police officers can still only use reasonable force, it just so happens that their job is defending people and property and therefore they are in a position to use it more. Conversely, everybody has the right to perform an arrest. Obviously things are not that simple. Police rightly have the right to undertake activities that would otherwise be considered criminal. Such examples include exemptions from certain traffic laws under specific circumstances, carrying items which would otherwise be prohibited and a wider scope to arrest and detain people. The first two, obviously, are necessary for them to carry out their role effectively. The latter exists as a function of the role of police in society (private citizens may perform an arrest when a crime is being committed, police can arrest individuals in order to prevent a crime or to allow it's effective investigation. As I doubt most individuals have the time, skills and infrastructure to conduct a criminal investigation this seems fair enough).

The question is, how far can ordinary citizens go in the course of their everyday lives and in exceptional circumstances such as the last few days?

At this point I will stress that although I have studied law this is NOT a definitive legal guide. What I am writing is my opinion and perception of the situation as it stands. If you have the misfortune to find yourself in trouble for defending yourself and your property, get a lawyer and do what they say!

As I said previously, human cordons and chasing off "hoodies" would probably fall quite nicely under the banner of self-defence. Even if a large group of non-hoodies did the chasing I would think that this would still seem reasonable although already we are straying into contentious territory. Likewise wrestling someone to the ground and sitting on them until the police arrived if they were attacking someone else or looting would probably be OK. Although a lot of force is being used, by pinning them, you are ensuring your safety and that of others by putting them in a position where they are unable to lash out. What about doing the same to a hoodie approaching a cordon of you and your neighbours? In the absence of other circumstances this would probably be unacceptable as no specific offence has been committed (arguably public order offences have been but let's gloss over that since they can be quite hard to prove and are probably better left as a tool to allow coppers to nick people who are being obnoxious twats rather than be used as reasons for citizens arrest) even if there was little doubt as to their intention. However if they sauntered through the cordon and started squaring up to a shop window, your case for self-defence get's much stronger. The law allows for pre-emptive strikes so long as intention is clear and criminality imminent. Complicated isn't it?

And the above are by no means set in stone. There is still the human element of those involved in the legal process. A vicious prosecutor will attack and might break your self-defence case. Similarly the jury or the magistrate may or may not like you/what you were doing. Of course they are told to be impartial but that's a hard state to achieve. Do you want to run the risk?

Now the thorny issue of using things other than your hands. The police have special dispensation in law to carry batons, CS gas and, on occasion, firearms. Even then, this only exists when on duty. Private citizens do not have this right. Weapons such as guns, knives, swords and pretty much anything designed to cause injury of death to people are expressly illegal. Items which could be dangerous are also banned although one is permitted to have them if they are part of one's trade. Don't let that put you off going round B&Q this Saturday but don't delay putting whatever you buy into the garage/shed. There is a final important caveat and that is one of intent. If you carry an item with the intention of using it to cause injury then, regardless of what it is, it becomes an offensive weapon. Obviously the list of items that can be weaponised is endless but it is the intent that counts. Therefore, if something happens to come to hand in the heat of the moment, it will not be classed as a weapon however the same item would be in different circumstances. A good example of this would be sleeping with items by your bed. A brick is obviously a weapon as there is no other (obvious) reason to have a brick beside your bed. What about a heavy torch used to hit an intruder? On one hand, you could keep it there in case you had a power cut (and many people do) and you just so happened to reach out and grab it in panic. However, if the torch is just to hit people, it's a weapon.

This is all convoluted and confusing and bluntly, leads to innocent people getting criminal records for behaviour that can barely be classed as criminal. If I was being awkward I would suggest that people are being prosecuted for defending their right to a private and family life as defined in the Human Rights Act (see previous post). For this reason, I think the law needs clarifying. I do not think a universal right to bear arms is the way forward. If nothing else, it will complicate issues around crimes involving weapons and potentially make life worse for the law-abiding citizen. Currently, if the police see someone with a gun, knife or other specific weapon it is illegal and they can act accordingly. Changing this would confuse matters to a dangerous degree.

What about improvised weapons? Stories are being released of people defending their property with baseball bats, snooker cues and table legs. Here things get more complicated. I don't support the population as a whole arming themselves. However, the law should view sympathetically those that do in extremis. Put simply, in situations like the last few days, people protecting their community should be allowed to use more than their bare hands and be entitled to the protection of the law rather than the discretion of police officers on scene.

As I said yesterday, a step forward would be to change the word, "reasonable" to the word, "necessary" in relation to force in the context of self defence. I think it would also be helpful to update the concept of self-defence (this is a bit of an academic point but bear with me). Currently it is a defence meaning in essence you still broke the law but you're being let off because you did it for the right reasons. I think this criminalises natural human instinct and is overall unhelpful. Instead make it a basic right thus creating a presumption of innocence for the person using force rather than a presumption of guilt.

The downside of this is that I can see the criminal subspecies that have been perpetrating the recent rioting crying self-defence at every possible opportunity and using it like the human rights act to cover all manner of sins. For this reason I would suggest that the police should be allowed to exercise common sense in their approach to dealing with violent crime (they know who the repeat offenders are) and a common sense based approach by the Courts possibly linked to greater disclosure of past criminal offences at trial.

What does everyone else think?

JR