What's the legality in carrying a roll of coins for defense?

[seroberts]

I don't go in bars ......Just not my thing, but I am usually pack'en 10mm hydra shok

Lead poisn'in

[Roma Leo]

Found the info below on a website: http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

This comports with my understanding on the law in the US and the UK. Please note that all actions with or without weapons are judged by the standard of reasonbleness. If you pummel an unarmed person half your size or an an unarmed woman with a roll or quarters because they took a swing at you, it could be a problem depending on the threat they posed to you. On the other hand if the guy is a rugby player who is larger than you, using a roll of quarters might be justified even if he is unarmed. If someone smaller has a knife, I do not think a judge or jury will have any problem with the roll of quarters scenario. One of the best brawls I was ever in, a buddy next to me who weighed about 130 lbs knocked out a monster with one punch. Turns out he was a golden gloves boxing champ which we did not know till that night.

Here is what the website says:

There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;

they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;

the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,

an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

The protection offered to the honest citizen by the principle of self-defence comes in two stages.

The Crown Prosecution Service

Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including:

Whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and,

Whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

The CPS has stated that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.

There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution.

Self-Defence and the Courts

If an individual is prosecuted after having acted, or having claimed to act, in self-defence the courts will apply the following test:

Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be?

The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.

[Anopsis]

with no regard to the fact that theyve now invented a category of weapons. So by definition if there are OFFENSIVE weapons there must be DEFENSIVE weapons...seems to have escaped them though

The media and the anti-gun community have created the term "assault rifle" as well. There is no such category of arms. What constitutes an assault rifle? A black finish? Some pro-gunners have suggested we refer to AR-15s and the like as "Homeland Defense" rifles. I personally like the ring of that.

I am usually pack'en 10mm hydra shok

Very nice Delta Elite. I seldom see them looking this good anymore. I carry 230gr Winchester SXTs (RA45T - you know what the 'T' is. )

A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.

In our state this is addressed thusly: When defending one's self, a person may use deadly force based on how the situation appears to be, regardless of whether or not it is actually so. In defense of others it changes to what the situation factually is. This allows room to protect one's self and be wrong about the circumstances while creating some liability for acting in another's defense. The logic here is represented in this example: On a darkened street one night you encounter two individuals, one with a gun and appears to be about to shoot the other. While this may appear to be a crime in progress the actual situation is an undercover police officer is apprehending a dangerous criminal. If you acted according to how the situation appeared and shot the police officer then you are liable for it.

Apologies to the OP for getting somewhat away from the roll of quarters but I am quite enjoying learning about these issues outside of the US!

[TeeJay]

A curious anomaly of the English legal psyche that it can devote tombs of explanation of what constitutes an OFFENSIVE weapon (as opposed to just a weapon) with no regard to the fact that theyve now invented a category of weapons. So by definition if there are OFFENSIVE weapons there must be DEFENSIVE weapons...seems to have escaped them though

Another anomaly is its the only time in English law were the accused has to prove his/her innocence. PC Plod takes a disapproving look at your roll o' coins & hoicks you off to the nick, desk sergeant charges you with the offensive weapon, CPS runs with it (banks dont issue these after all - so over to you Charlie)...and you'll end up in court having to PROVE that it is benign.

That's the crazy thing. How could someone prove that they didn't intend to do something which never happened... The fun of the English legal system

Anyhoo whats with the weighted punch? Lightsaber not holding a charge these days

.

It was just something I was reading about, and it got me thinking about the potential legalities. A taped stack of metal washers is pretty obvious as a weapon, where the coins, are legal tender... It was the idea of something legal possibly being illegal which piqued my interest And as for the lightsaber, that doesn't need a charge, it weighs enough to club someone to death with anyway

I don't go in bars ......Just not my thing, but I am usually pack'en 10mm hydra shok

Lead poisn'in

If I could, I would

Found the info below on a website: http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

This comports with my understanding on the law in the US and the UK. Please note that all actions with or without weapons are judged by the standard of reasonbleness. If you pummel an unarmed person half your size or an an unarmed woman with a roll or quarters because they took a swing at you, it could be a problem depending on the threat they posed to you. On the other hand if the guy is a rugby player who is larger than you, using a roll of quarters might be justified even if he is unarmed. If someone smaller has a knife, I do not think a judge or jury will have any problem with the roll of quarters scenario. One of the best brawls I was ever in, a buddy next to me who weighed about 130 lbs knocked out a monster with one punch. Turns out he was a golden gloves boxing champ which we did not know till that night.

Here is what the website says:

There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;

they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;

the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,

an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

The protection offered to the honest citizen by the principle of self-defence comes in two stages.

The Crown Prosecution Service

Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including:

Whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and,

Whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

The CPS has stated that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.

There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution.

Self-Defence and the Courts

If an individual is prosecuted after having acted, or having claimed to act, in self-defence the courts will apply the following test:

Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be?

The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.

Now that, is very intersting, thanks for the link I remember reading a while back when a footballer used the 'fear of imminent violence' for getting in the first punch, as he claimed that some guy had been eyeballing his watch in a club, and was scared that he might be attacked for it, as he had 'worked hard to earn the money to buy it...'

[Pugwash]

The media and the anti-gun community have created the term "assault rifle" as well. There is no such category of arms. What constitutes an assault rifle? A black finish? Some pro-gunners have suggested we refer to AR-15s and the like as "Homeland Defense" rifles. I personally like the ring of that.

Assault Rifle is a made-up term? Sure, made up by the US military.

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

[HauteHippie]

[Edit to add]

Not that I have an issue with strict licensing laws. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment rights, but, much as people are tested and licensed to drive, I don't think it unfair that people be tested and licensed to carry firearms

You're a wishy washy believer in Second Amendment rights, then. And that's your right too. But, driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. To be granted a privilege, one must pass tests. To exercise a right, one does not have to do anything. One does not have to pass a test and carry a card to exercise his right to freedom of religion, for example. Now, this is not to say that rights can't ever be denied. But insofar as run-of-the-mill gun ownership by law abiding citizens is concerned, firm believers of Second Amendment rights do not advocate nor support government imposed hindrances that stand between the citizenry and their constitutional rights.

[TeeJay]

You're a wishy washy believer in Second Amendment rights, then. And that's your right too. But, driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. To be granted a privilege, one must pass tests. To exercise a right, one does not have to do anything. One does not have to pass a test and carry a card to exercise his right to freedom of religion, for example. Now, this is not to say that rights can't ever be denied. But insofar as run-of-the-mill gun ownership by law abiding citizens is concerned, firm believers of Second Amendment rights do not advocate nor support government imposed hindrances that stand between the citizenry and their constitutional rights.

I believe I understand what you're meaning What I was meaning, was that there is no reason why a US citizen should not be allowed to own a gun/rifle as per Second Amendment rights. (and I wish that was a right people in the UK had) That allows that utterly fundamental right to be exercised and honored. However, does someone need to own a collection of firearms or large calibre weapons to be able to exercise that right? I feel they do not. A gun would suffice. An example I would use, would be to compare to UK motorcycle licenses. Although I admit I don't know the full details (and I'm sure there are folks here who can give the specifics), I believe that when a person initially takes a test for a bike license, they are limited to engines of a particular cc, and I believe, they are only allowed to then drive larger, faster bikes, once they have been riding x amount of time (or possibly take additional training, but as mentioned, I am not 100% sure of that) I'm not so much meaning testing for a concealed carrying license, I think that anyone who is allowed to own a gun should have the right to carry it at their discretion, but testing to license large collections, or larger calibers, I do not believe violates a citizen's right to own a gun, I may have been unclear in my meaning 'licensed to carry firearms'

[Pugwash]

(and I wish that was a right people in the UK had)

I don't. Right to bear arms in the US works because they've had it for so long. Gun control wouldn't work (although I think there should be limits - no-one needs a bazooka or nuke) in the US if you tried to introduce it, but there's no need to reverse the situation in the UK or countries where it's working well.

[TeeJay]

I don't. Right to bear arms in the US works because they've had it for so long. Gun control wouldn't work (although I think there should be limits - no-one needs a bazooka or nuke) in the US if you tried to introduce it, but there's no need to reverse the situation in the UK or countries where it's working well.

I think it could work in the UK if handled appropriately. All the ban on handguns did, was to close down a lot of shooting clubs, and increase demand for 'black market' firearms... I agree very strongly with the quote from my OP

[Pugwash]

and drive up knife-crime... I agree very strongly with the quote from my OP

Stats to back up your assertion, please?

[TeeJay]

Stats to back up your assertion, please?

I'll hit up Google... My prediction, is knife-related crime increases since the gun ban, and gun-related crimes down...

[Anopsis]

Assault Rifle is a made-up term? Sure, made up by the US military.

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

I apologize for not being more clear. The term is MISUSED and the firearms I am talking about are being MISLABELED as such. From your quote above "selective-fire" does not apply to AR-15s, AK-"type" rifles, SKS, etc. that the general populace may own. I hear people say "I'm in favor of tighter gun laws, because I don't think anyone needs a machinegun." and I have to explain to them that Class III weapons have been tightly regulated since 1986 and are generally illegal for the general populace to own. The media sensationalizes a bank robbery by saying the perp used an "SKS assault rifle, which is designed to spray a deadly hail of bullets" when in actuality it's semi-auto with a 10 round attached mag.

However, does someone need to own a collection of firearms or large calibre weapons to be able to exercise that right? I feel they do not. A gun would suffice.

By your logic you don't need to own a collection of watches; "A" watch would suffice. But you have more than one... why? Are some better suited to a particular use than others? Do you simply like collecting them and appreciate them for their variety, style, etc.? These factors are the same regardless of what is being "collected".

Having a collection of firearms or larger-caliber weapons should not be a factor. I can only shoot one gun at a time, so what's the concern about having more than one? And as for large caliber, please find a news article where someone committed a crime with a .50BMG... it just doesn't happen. No one commits a crime with a five-foot-long gun weighing ~35lbs.

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a pic of me with my 'large caliber' weapon that you apparently don't think I should have.

Gallery here: http://photobucket.com/anopsis_steyr

Edited February 7, 2010 by Anopsis

[HauteHippie]

I don't follow the UK's activities, outside of economic matters, terribly closely... But a cursory look at the gun ban situation doesn't reveal to me much in the way of success. And I did remember a statement from the 'home secretary' not too long ago talking about the dramatic increase in gun violence since the ban. I looked it up and here is the quote:

Mr Davis said: "While we welcome any action, however overdue it may be, to tackle the scourge of gun crime the Government's own figures show that in 2005/06 there were only eight incidents where deactivated or reactivated weapons were used - just 0.04 per cent of gun offences.

"We need sustained action to tackle the other 99.6 per cent of this serious problem, bearing in mind that gun violence has increased four-fold over the last 10 years." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575147/Government-accused-over-deactivated-gun-ban.html 2008) My understanding is that the ban was enacted in 1997, i.e. the 10 year period over which gun violence skyrocketed was post-ban.

[TeeJay]

By your logic you don't need to own a collection of watches; "A" watch would suffice. But you have more than one... why? Are some better suited to a particular use than others? Do you simply like collecting them and appreciate them for their variety, style, etc.? These factors are the same regardless of what is being "collected".

Having a collection of firearms or larger-caliber weapons should not be a factor. I can only shoot one gun at a time, so what's the concern about having more than one? And as for large caliber, please find a news article where someone committed a crime with a .50BMG... it just doesn't happen. No one commits a crime with a five-foot-long gun weighing ~35lbs.

EDIT TO ADD: Here's a pic of me with my 'large caliber' weapon that you apparently don't think I should have.

Gallery here: http://photobucket.com/anopsis_steyr

I quite agree, I don't need to own a collection of watches I'm not sure a watch could kill someone though, unless I was maybe to put it in a sock and swing it, or maybe ram it down someone's throat Given the times there've been high school shootings in the US, I feel that is a sufficient reason for introducing stricter controls on who is allowed access to firearms, and more importantly, how they are stored and accessed at home...

That's a nice piece, being more of a rifle-shooter, I'd love to give something like that a try, but, I'd be quite happy to obtain necessary licensing/qualifications to prove myself responsible enough

[TeeJay]

I don't follow the UK's activities, outside of economic matters, terribly closely... But a cursory look at the gun ban situation doesn't reveal to me much in the way of success. And I did remember a statement from the 'home secretary' not too long ago talking about the dramatic increase in gun violence since the ban. I looked it up and here is the quote:

Mr Davis said: "While we welcome any action, however overdue it may be, to tackle the scourge of gun crime the Government's own figures show that in 2005/06 there were only eight incidents where deactivated or reactivated weapons were used - just 0.04 per cent of gun offences.

"We need sustained action to tackle the other 99.6 per cent of this serious problem, bearing in mind that gun violence has increased four-fold over the last 10 years." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575147/Government-accused-over-deactivated-gun-ban.html 2008) My understanding is that the ban was enacted in 1997, i.e. the 10 year period over which gun violence skyrocketed was post-ban.

The key factor with that, is that the gun-related crimes now occurring, are doing so because of illegally-sourced firearms, not enthusiasts going postal, and the guy who sparked the ban with the Dunblane Massacre, was someone who should never have been allowed near children or firearms...

[Anopsis]

I quite agree, I don't need to own a collection of watches I'm not sure a watch could kill someone though,

60mm, 285g with sharp studs on the bezel.

I feel that is a sufficient reason for introducing stricter controls on who is allowed access to firearms, and more importantly, how they are stored and accessed at home...

People who shouldn't own firearms can't. No felonies, no misdemeanors for domestic violence, etc. There are several rules and regs in place to address these things. Quite often a problem we have in the states is simple ignorance of the laws that are already on the books (such as my earlier post regarding machineguns). Many states require gunlocks or trigger locks, etc. If a kid steals a car and kills someone with it do people go after the parents for not taking proper steps to hide the keys?

That's a nice piece, being more of a rifle-shooter, I'd love to give something like that a try, but, I'd be quite happy to obtain necessary licensing/qualifications to prove myself responsible enough

A Federal background check must be completed and passed in order to purchase a gun from any store. Also, as a dealer, I have the right to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason. I will say that I have exercised that right several times, too!

As an aside, please do not take the friendly debate as hostile. I just enjoy the discourse.

[HauteHippie]

The key factor with that, is that the gun-related crimes now occurring, are doing so because of illegally-sourced firearms, not enthusiasts going postal, and the guy who sparked the ban with the Dunblane Massacre, was someone who should never have been allowed near children or firearms...

So how is it that the ban is "working well"? These bans are designed to reduce gun violence, are they not?

It's sort of a rhetorical question. We've seen many times over here in the US that things like relaxed CCW regulations are what actually produce the results that bans are supposed to.

[TeeJay]

Stats to back up your assertion, please?

I'm actually having a hard time coming up with any recent stats, but here's what I could find on Google...

Article

Another article

Another article

Some stats...

Latest knife crime statistics - 2009:

Last year, the number of homicides involving a knife or other sharp instrument fell (from 270 in 2007/08 to 252 in 2008/09).

There was a rise in attempted murders involving knives (245 in 2007/08 to 271 in 2008/09).

Robbery offences involving knives fell by 2% last year.

28 teenagers were killed in violent incidents in London in 2008.

The government says 80% of all knife crime happens in just a few areas, places like London, Leeds and Glasgow.

Source

My original statement appears to have been somewhat inaccurate, so I happily retract it. One thing that is clear, is that the ban on private ownership in the UK has not made the UK any safer.

[TeeJay]

As an aside, please do not take the friendly debate as hostile. I just enjoy the discourse.

Absolutely no hostility taken here, likewise, it's a topic I enjoy discussing

60mm, 285g with sharp studs on the bezel.

As I said, if it was rammed down someone throat, or swung in a sock Might make a nice set of makeshift knucks too

People who shouldn't own firearms can't. No felonies, no misdemeanors for domestic violence, etc. There are several rules and regs in place to address these things. Quite often a problem we have in the states is simple ignorance of the laws that are already on the books (such as my earlier post regarding machineguns). Many states require gunlocks or trigger locks, etc.

That's interesting to know. How are those regs enforced without breaching the Second Ammendment?

If a kid steals a car and kills someone with it do people go after the parents for not taking proper steps to hide the keys?

I believe that's precisely what happened over the accident which resulted in the death of a friend of Hulk Hogan's son, Nick (even though he had not actually stolen the vehicle)

[TeeJay]

So how is it that the ban is "working well"? These bans are designed to reduce gun violence, are they not?

It's sort of a rhetorical question. We've seen many times over here in the US that things like relaxed CCW regulations are what actually produce the results that bans are supposed to.

Well, if shooting enthusiasts can't go to pistol clubs, on paper, that is the ban 'working well' Politicians do like their little buzz words

I think the time has come for the UK to re-evaluate its relationship with private gun ownership, and start to do more to tackle the issues which are leading to knife-related crimes... Would carrying a gun/knife/roll of coins make me safer in public? No. Would it make me feel safer? Absolutely. 10-6 years ago, I would frequently meet with friends in London, and often made my way home/through the city having had more than my fair share of booze, yet, I never felt unsafe, and was always confident in my ability to defend myself. I am sad to say, that there are indeed times now, that while I am still confident in my ability to defend myself, I no longer feel safe in public

[HauteHippie]

Perhaps the UK should go the opposite direction. 180 degrees opposite... Require citizens to own and carry handguns. How many muggings and violent crimes would happen when the thugs had to worry about an immediate, violent death themselves while committing a crime? It seems fairly clear that the problem can't be solved on the supply side, i.e. you can not take weapons out of the hands of those who want to use them to commit crimes. So perhaps it's time to tackle the demand side of the problem, i.e. the relatively high (much higher since the ban) demand for committing crimes against a defenseless general populace.

[TeeJay]

Perhaps the UK should go the opposite direction. 180 degrees opposite... Require citizens to own and carry handguns. How many muggings and violent crimes would happen when the thugs had to worry about an immediate, violent death themselves while committing a crime? It seems fairly clear that the problem can't be solved on the supply side, i.e. you can not take weapons out of the hands of those who want to use them to commit crimes. So perhaps it's time to tackle the demand side of the problem, i.e. the relatively high (much higher since the ban) demand for committing crimes against a defenseless general populace.

Sounds like a good idea to me, I think it would definitely put the low-lifes on the backfoot for a change. I fully agree with the idea of maintaining a well-armed militia, because the way things are in the UK, if the shit was to really hit the fan (not that it's likely, but you never know) many wouldn't have a clue how to handle themselves or a firearm... That's not to say I'm some James Bond/Rambo mofo, but I know how to at least use firearms (not so sharp on the disassembly at the moment) and am a fairly good shot

[specialvat]

Living in Liverpool I know what harm guns do, the police found one gun that was responsible for 20% of the shootings in the city in a year. So you could say the ban works, but face it you know how easy it is to get something illegal be it watches or dvds or fake clothes or drugs. If there is money in something its just supply and demand, not pretty not right just reality.

[TeeJay]

Living in Liverpool I know what harm guns do, the police found one gun that was responsible for 20% of the shootings in the city in a year. So you could say the ban works, but face it you know how easy it is to get something illegal be it watches or dvds or fake clothes or drugs. If there is money in something its just supply and demand, not pretty not right just reality.

Absolutely, if there's a need for something, someone will always find a way to obtain it.

[Pugwash]

"We need sustained action to tackle the other 99.6 per cent of this serious problem, bearing in mind that gun violence has increased four-fold over the last 10 years." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575147/Government-accused-over-deactivated-gun-ban.html 2008) My understanding is that the ban was enacted in 1997, i.e. the 10 year period over which gun violence skyrocketed was post-ban.

Davis is the Shadow Home Secretary. His job is making the Home Secretary look bad.

However, in London, gun crime is up. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8473029.stm But it's safe to say in most of the country, it's almost non-existant. There is currently a huge debate over the violent crime statistics the Conservative Party are using to 'prove' the current government is losing on crime. It's a very long story, but the upshot is everyone is massaging figures.

The one thing that is clear is that our gun crime is so low, especially compared to the US, that our entire crimes could be a rounding error in US amounts. When there's just a handful of Ex-IRA (and I'm not going to mention they were paid for by Americans) guns cross the Irish sea to Liverpool, the stats are drastically altered. We're at such low levels that any changes appear huge.

"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low