Some Police Officers just don't get it, do they?
"You just don't get it do you? If no one can carry weapons, then it is so much easier to be able to arrest and get them off the street, making it safer for everyone - yes, everyone. Once again, how do we, as the police, tell if someone is carrying a weapon for self-defence or for nefarious purposes? Do we let women carry one because they are women?"
I have had an interesting discussion with a serving Police Constable who said the above to me as a justification for him to ignore the law and common sense. I find it interesting on several levels.
Firstly what he is suggesting should be the case is actually the complete opposite of what the law allows. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 allows any one of us to carry a weapon for self defence in a public place with lawful authority OR a reasonable excuse. Plenty of caselaw confirms to us that given a real and present threat of danger we ARE allowed to carry a truncheon for example into a public place.
The issue of lawful authority has never been ruled on in the 53 years and the comments made in Bryan v Mott were in fact obiter. That case, you may recall saw a defendant using a reasonable excuse defence for having a broken bottle so as to commit suicide. The jury decided against him and that as that.
He is also asking us to accept that by scaring a women into making sure that she is not carrying ANYTHING in public with which she is prepared to defend herself with we as a society, become instantly safer. Why? Because when the Police eventually catch her rapist, through the marvel of DNA evidence, they expect the violent criminal who has already demonstrated a contempt for the law, will obey a law that says "no one shall carry a weapon for self defence".
OK in the UK we pretty much have the situation that is described above. I can see how it helps the rapist or the mugger, and if you stretch the credibility of the Police Officer's point of view to the point where one actually believes that the criminals don't carry weapons - because it is against the law, you can see how it helps the Police.
Has anyone noticed that the only person here not helped is the women who was violently assaulted? Oh, I forgot, she is a member of society, and overall it's society that becomes safer by making women helpless.
Silly me. Is that what they tell the victims of violent crime these days? "you may have been victimised madam, but your helplessness helps the Police to feel safer in themselves and society benefits indirectly."
I have had an interesting discussion with a serving Police Constable who said the above to me as a justification for him to ignore the law and common sense. I find it interesting on several levels.
Firstly what he is suggesting should be the case is actually the complete opposite of what the law allows. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 allows any one of us to carry a weapon for self defence in a public place with lawful authority OR a reasonable excuse. Plenty of caselaw confirms to us that given a real and present threat of danger we ARE allowed to carry a truncheon for example into a public place.
The issue of lawful authority has never been ruled on in the 53 years and the comments made in Bryan v Mott were in fact obiter. That case, you may recall saw a defendant using a reasonable excuse defence for having a broken bottle so as to commit suicide. The jury decided against him and that as that.
He is also asking us to accept that by scaring a women into making sure that she is not carrying ANYTHING in public with which she is prepared to defend herself with we as a society, become instantly safer. Why? Because when the Police eventually catch her rapist, through the marvel of DNA evidence, they expect the violent criminal who has already demonstrated a contempt for the law, will obey a law that says "no one shall carry a weapon for self defence".
OK in the UK we pretty much have the situation that is described above. I can see how it helps the rapist or the mugger, and if you stretch the credibility of the Police Officer's point of view to the point where one actually believes that the criminals don't carry weapons - because it is against the law, you can see how it helps the Police.
Has anyone noticed that the only person here not helped is the women who was violently assaulted? Oh, I forgot, she is a member of society, and overall it's society that becomes safer by making women helpless.
Silly me. Is that what they tell the victims of violent crime these days? "you may have been victimised madam, but your helplessness helps the Police to feel safer in themselves and society benefits indirectly."
posted by Mr Insignificant at 9:30 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home