Offensive Weapons

[Martyn]

While not really my concern it sounds as a bit desperate semantic play to call anything a weapon just if it is used to clubber someone. A weapon is something designed to be a weapon not one by use, then again we do have the same misuse of terms here too.

There should be a law against twisting the proper meaning of words.

TLM

I beg to differ - actualy so does nearly every definition of the word I can find.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...=define:weapon

[narsil]

I think that the offensive weapon law in the UK is actually very sensible; it addresses the actual problem rather than making easy but pointless generalisations.

It allows legitimate users and collectors to go about thier business and gives the police the ability to arrest real criminals who are actualy out to threaten and hurt people.

Plenty of things which were never intended as weapons are neverthless very effective as such and plenty of quite harmless people collect things which were desiged as weapons but would never dream of doing anyone any harm with them.

Surely anything which is used with the intent to injure must be a weapon by definition.

[stonehard]

"My apologies. A bad example used to illustrate a sound principle. OK, substitute flick knife for kukri - you get the idea. Go on Danny-boy, find some case law for that then.
________________
Er, Martyn, a Kukri IS an offensive weapon per se, following the cases of Gunga Din (1664), Tarzan (1066) and England v Wales (13-26)

[mojofilter]

Supposing I try to smother someone with a feather pillow! Would I be charged with assault with an offensive weapon? tHe offensive weapon in this case being the feather pillow!

[narsil]

you would probably be charged with attempted murder.

It would probably depend on where you were carrying it, I think that the offensive weapon legislation only applies to 'public places'eg you are allowed to keep a kife in your own home for the purpose of self defense, but carrying one in public for the same reason woud be illegal.

[mojofilter]

It would probably depend on where you were carrying it, I think that the offensive weapon legislation only applies to 'public places'eg you are allowed to keep a kife in your own home for the purpose of self defense,

As far as im aware, you would be quite likely to egt done for defending your nome with a knife. No doubt someone will hve a better answer soon.

[narsil]

at the risk opf starting another unprofitable debate the latest police guidelines state that you are allowed to keep weapons in your own home for the purpose of self defence. The interesting thing about this is that it is the only isntance that i have come across in uk law where items intended as weapons (except those issued by the government) are permitted.

I should also point out that this does not give you free licence to attack anyone who comes into your home , but you are allowed to use whatever force you deem nessecary to defend yourself or others if you feel that you are in immediate danger. I think that this is reasonable, people should be allowed to defend themselves, they should not be allowed to administer retribution as they see fit.

This is the current state of the law as I understand it...it has been in the news quite a lot recently.

I know that this is a sensitive issue so please consider any responses to this post carefully, bearing in mind the nature and policies of this forum. It is intended convey my understanding of the law as it stands and is open to correction.

[TLM]

Sorry to be a bit tardy, Martyn:

Your quotes seems mostly legal definitions (not quite sure) where the "wrong" assumption is already made.

If weapons are illegal (generalizing a lot) and everything can be considered a weapon and you have to prove something...

This basically generates a logical situation where anyone anywhere can be arrested just by the police claim of "weapon", not very funny. Almost like our local definition for treason, its defined afterwards, no way to know beforehand what might be it. Also depends on the political party in power and the phase of the moon...

These all are against the principle that by reading the law you should be able to deduce what is illegal what is not.

Maybe we should not take it so seriously, we have already lost it.

TLM

[Martyn]

Sorry to be a bit tardy, Martyn:

Your quotes seems mostly legal definitions (not quite sure) where the "wrong" assumption is already made.

If weapons are illegal (generalizing a lot) and everything can be considered a weapon and you have to prove something...

This basically generates a logical situation where anyone anywhere can be arrested just by the police claim of "weapon", not very funny. Almost like our local definition for treason, its defined afterwards, no way to know beforehand what might be it. Also depends on the political party in power and the phase of the moon...

These all are against the principle that by reading the law you should be able to deduce what is illegal what is not.

Maybe we should not take it so seriously, we have already lost it.

TLM

I think it is logical.

Mans first weapons, were not designed and built as weapons, they were just things he picked up off the ground - sticks and stones. They served him very well as weapons and are just as good weapons today as they were then. But they were not designed for the job, it was mans application that turned them into weapons.

Anything that gives you mechanical advantage, can be a weapon if that's what you choose to use it for - whether it is an M16 rifle or a stick.

If you are carrying a rock in your pocket, it can be simplay a rock, or it can be a weapon. If you are at a football match and your intent is to throw it at someone, it's a weapon. If you are taking home a fossil you have just found to add to your collection, it's just a rock.

The difference is context and your intent.

The law says anything can be used as a weapon and that is logical, but the courts do have to prove it - they look at context and intent.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Danzo]

These all are against the principle that by reading the law you should be able to deduce what is illegal what is not.TLM

As a lawyer, TLM, I can assure you that the principle is not that you can read the law and deduce what is illegal.

It is that I can read the law and deduce what is illegal.

That's why lawyers cost so much.



Danzo

[TLM]

Now Danzo I can see your point, but actually in most european countries (Ithink maybe) it was a principle before the bloody lawyers got the better of us. Now I have this business idea of charging lawyers double for car servicing...

TLM

[trojanargus]

but you are allowed to use whatever force you deem nessecary to defend yourself or others if you feel that you are in immediate danger.

...... It is intended convey my understanding of the law as it stands and is open to correction.

Just have to do a bit or correcting, sorry.

You may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, not what you deem necessary. A nit picky difference, but in court a significant one.

[TLM]

I still disagree Martyn, by your logic you could call anything anything and most of the language usage would be useless, hmm... you just barely can get some meaning out of that.

I can see what you are after, but letting the law makers set their own usage of words is dangerous. It should follow the usage of non- lawyers, especially on things like this, or the next thing you'll see is a pencil always called " a dangerous weapon only used for illegal killing", just in case it can sometimes be used advantageously in a newspaper because some politician has to show he did something.

TLM

[trojanargus]

I still disagree Martyn, by your logic you could call anything anything and most of the language usage would be useless, hmm... you just barely can get some meaning out of that.

I can see what you are after, but letting the law makers set their own usage of words is dangerous. It should follow the usage of non- lawyers, especially on things like this, or the next thing you'll see is a pencil always called " a dangerous weapon only used for illegal killing", just in case it can sometimes be used advantageously in a newspaper because some politician has to show he did something.

TLM

I have to say Martyn has it spot on. Weapons are divided in to three areas in law. Made, intended, and adapted.

Made is obvious. It has no other purpose. A sureken, for example.

Adapted, less obvious. An ordinary object that has been adapted for use as a weapon. A heavily studded belt for example.

Intended. Heres the bit about context and intent. A pepper pot on a cafe table is just that. On a football terrace it may be an intended weapon. The context is fact, but the intent would have to be evidenced by the actions or methods of the person carrying it.

[TLM]

Hmm.. I wonder if we have a language problem here, I am of course partly translating the connotations of my own language to english here. But looking my larger Webster's I see the primary meaning as the purpose made weapon. Only secondarily the on spot usage. I don't know (apparently fortunately) that much about british law but if you let the by-usage definition stay you are on a slippery slope.

I can see why an aircraft designed by lawyers would never fly, nothing would be defined in a way that would be the same the second time around, that is by the way an engineering point of view.

TLM