Carrying a torch when working.............

[doorstaff28]

i highly doubt this!! if he did it in self defence then why the chrage, ? what exactly was he charged with.....?

 

[Pyrene]

DS28,

mag make them as there is somewhere a need for them....where still to find out, but im sure theres a need.


However you need to look at it this way.

A man (or woman...) gets dressed and ready to go on their door shift, they put on the boots (with no toe caps..!) they put on their shirt etc etc.
They get to picking the torch for the night.
They have in one hand a 6D cell mag, and in the other a 2aa cell lenser, both equally as bright. Why he (or she..) thinks to themselves would there be a need in carrying a 6D cell mag, answer....self defence...its the doors after all. However to carry it in such a manner with such intent makes it a weapon, there for illegal. The only difference between the two torches is one is good for hitting people and pulling your trousers down, and the other is more descrete and fits in your pocket.

Ever seen those cop programs, where they pull over a car and find a baseball bat in the car? The driver may be a baseball fan, but he has no kit with him, not coming or going to anywhere base ball related, only reasonable view point is a weapon



see where getting at here?

 

[rhea]

see where getting at here?

Never seen "Police, Camera, Action" where the driver gets arrested for having a torch in his car. Have you got a link?

 

[K9medic]

Of course you could buy a big 4 cell mag-light, the kind with the built in charger and painted red, a couple of fire extinguishers, one powder and one CO2, and a florescent fire marshals jacket. Have them next to the door in case the fire alarm goes off or you need to evacuate the clients due to power cut.

Then a nice small AA torch, about the size of a Minnie Mag-light, in your hip pocket for when you need to look under tables for dropped phones and wallets. Worked for me for 12 odd years when I was on a door, and I still have the same set up in the house (- the jacket) in case I need to get the kids out in a hurry.

 

[rhea]

I dont really think that many on this thread know what they are talking about, it would make no difference if i carried a 6 cell maglite or a smaller torch, if part of my job is to search bags, evacuate the premises if the power goes off, and walk home where not every street is greatly lit up, then i can carry any size torch i like....

But your original question was "but what happens if a fight kicked off and they used it to strike with?" so I think you broadly got the answers you asked for.

If it was just a "fight" on the doors and you used you "6 cell" you would probably have some questions to answer.

 

[doorstaff28]

if i did, in theory use a 6 cell maglite either on the door or on my way home, i highly doubt that having it on me would cause an issue, i dont use a smaller torch because i bought this one as it was advertised and rated as having a powerful beam, if the police then did ask me why dont i carry a smaller one, my response would be because i already have this torch.... why would i buy another torch when i already have a perfectly good one.... ok the size can be annoying, but ive spent good money on it, it has a powerful beam, and its a torch........??

 

[doorstaff28]

not so, i only have one torch, the 6 cell, it was a gift officer, its a good torch officer, why would i buy another torch when this one works officer....?? that argument does not make sense.......

 

[Howardk]

The only difference between the two torches is one is good for hitting people and pulling your trousers down, and the other is more descrete and fits in your pocket.

Why does it have to be an offensive weapon? A 4 or 6 cell Maglite can be used in a defensive manner as well. A couple that comes to mind is to block a blow from the offending party, shine in the eyes to disorientate, or used to creat more distance between you and your attacker.

 

[littlewoman]

Why does it have to be an offensive weapon? A 4 or 6 cell Maglite can be used in a defensive manner as well. A couple that comes to mind is to block a blow from the offending party, shine in the eyes to disorientate, or used to creat more distance between you and your attacker.

There is no provision in our law for "defensive weapon". If it is intended to cause harm, even if that's bruising the arm in a block then it is classed as an offensive weapon. Temporarily dazzling people with the beam isn't counted as harm, so you can do that. You can also use anything that you happen to be carrying for another purpose as a weapon as long as it comes within the level of force that is considered reasonable in the circumstances. So, for instance, we can't carry mace or pepper spray but you could spray someone in the face with deodorant, perfume etc.

DS28, you asked a question in the initial post. You seem reluctant to accept the answers. If you think it is going to be easy to explain to the police why you feel the need for a huge torch, that you've just hit someone with, then there's no point arguing with us on here, wait until you get arrested and then you'll find out.

 

[Pyrene]

DS28,

can we just sum it up now,

if you wish to carry a massive chunk of metal around then you do it, you'll see the consequences.

At least your fellow door staff with think you are a tw*t and wouldnt like working with you as you attract too much attention from authorities

At most, police come along, arrest you for offensive weapon, good bye SIA.

Or you kill someone....and then its a whole new kettle of fish.



On the subject of defensive/offensive weapons.
One of those police camera programs I saw was where the cops wore body cams. I remember this inncident quite clearly. Cops pull over a bloke and find a bat in his car and ask what its for, he responds "self defence" and he then gets nicked

 

[danny56o]

Another point as has already been said why have a massive 6 cell when a small lenser works just aswell and is a lot brighter

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Howardk]

There is no provision in our law for "defensive weapon". If it is intended to cause harm, even if that's bruising the arm in a block then it is classed as an offensive weapon.

A) This is so foreign to me.
B) If an attacker bruises his arm whilst attacking me how is it an offensive weapon? And if he injures himself by his own hand how am I responsible?
C) Is a torch not just a tool first and a weapon of opportunity second? It's job is intended to illuminate not cause harm.

 

[littlewoman]

A) This is so foreign to me.
B) If an attacker bruises his arm whilst attacking me how is it an offensive weapon? And if he injures himself by his own hand how am I responsible?
C) Is a torch not just a tool first and a weapon of opportunity second? It's job is intended to illuminate not cause harm.

The legislation is intended to stop people carrying weapons about that they might then use as an offensive weapon. It allows the police to prosecute criminals for carrying a weapon before they have actually used it.
Yes, a torch is a tool until a security guard decides to carry around a 6 D Cell maglight in broad daylight when his duties don't have any need for a torch. On the other hand if you're partial to the odd mint and you carry a tube of mints and use that like a kubotan in self-defence then the police would find it very difficult to prove that you carried it with intent to use as a weapon. Likewise if you have a sensible sized torch at night or when your duties might need you to go somewhere dark, there is no problem using that to defend yourself.

 

[Pyrene]

A) This is so foreign to me.
B) If an attacker bruises his arm whilst attacking me how is it an offensive weapon? And if he injures himself by his own hand how am I responsible?
C) Is a torch not just a tool first and a weapon of opportunity second? It's job is intended to illuminate not cause harm.

In the USofA, your bill of rights includes the right to defend ones self, which also covers (in places) right to carry fire arms "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
(State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions)
Here in the UK, we took a different step towards it, as put out by LW, we try to ban the weapons before they actually can be used in defence, thus stopping them from been used in the offence. Thats the theory any way.

Which way is better is a whole different threat.

However in simplistic terms, which DS28 can't seem to grasp is in the UK - DONT carry a torch that can be used as a weapon.
And, DS28, if you rocked up to my door with one, you would be sent home, no pay, no furture job with company. If you used it whilst at work, id write a statement against you as you are putting me at risk, customers in un-necssary risk and bringing the whole industry down a peg.

 

[Howardk]

On the other hand if you're partial to the odd mint and you carry a tube of mints and use that like a kubotan in self-defence then the police would find it very difficult to prove that you carried it with intent to use as a weapon. Likewise if you have a sensible sized torch at night or when your duties might need you to go somewhere dark, there is no problem using that to defend yourself.

Not trying to be argumentative so please forgive. Whose the one in charge of deciding what's a weapon, when, and how? I mean it's a dang flashlight for christs sakes. I imagine that 3-4 out of 10 cars that I do traffic stops on have some sort of 4-6 cell flashlight in it. I don't even think twice about it unless it's in their hand. It's a flashlight. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, even a tube of mints. So the question is....if people start using a tube of mints as weapons then will you have to justify having mints on your person? See where I'm going with this? It's so micro managed it's not even funny.

Read a story a few months ago where a chef was not allowed to buy more than two limes at a time. Why? because apparently it's believed that the citric acid in the rhine will be used as a weapon! C'mon. If that's the case why sell limes at all? That's how ludicrous it seems to me.

Pyrene...so because someone carries that sized flashlight it is assumed to be a weapon therefore a liability? The UK now governs assumed thoughts and intentions of people?

Had a young Brit lad over here for a year involved in a police K9 business. It really blew my mind watching his expressions and gasps of surprise when we were out and about doing business. There was a knife display at a local hardware store. I thought he was going to pass out. He asked if they were legal and could he buy one. Of course the answer was yes. I mean, they are knives...tools. He couldn't get his money out fast enough. For a week he was paranoid of getting caught by the police. He finally calmed down when he realized he was doing nothing wrong or illegal. Now, 75 years ago you could buy guns through mail order and in hardware stores but not anymore. Slowly things have changed. Even back then school boys would bring their rifles and shotguns to school because they would hunt after school. What a great time they must have had.

I really do understand what the govt is trying to do there, I really do. My only issue is that when you try to 100% protect people from themselves, or others your freedom suffers. That's all I'm saying. I imagine if I went to live in the UK I'd be in the pokey within a week

 

[littlewoman]

Who is in charge of deciding what is a weapon? Well firstly the police, secondly the Crown Prosecution Service (like your DA), thirdly the court. If you're a known criminal sneaking about a back alley with a big maglight the police will be much more likely to arrest you than an average person going about their lawful business with the same torch. Carrying it in a car isn't much of an issue as you may need it to look around the engine if something starts to play up. But consider someone walking about in broad daylight with a 6 cell maglight, its just so unwieldy you're going to start thinking there's something suspicious. Our police will usually stop you for a chat and see what sort of attitude you have.

They would never prosecute for a packet of sweeties, firstly because they'd look really silly in the newspapers and secondly, because they could never make a case that eating them was not your primary purpose for carrying them.

As for the story about the limes, I don't know where that comes from but I very much doubt there's a law on it. More likely to be some stupid shop policy.

 

[Pyrene]

Not trying to be argumentative so please forgive. Whose the one in charge of deciding what's a weapon, when, and how? I mean it's a dang flashlight for christs sakes. I imagine that 3-4 out of 10 cars that I do traffic stops on have some sort of 4-6 cell flashlight in it. I don't even think twice about it unless it's in their hand. It's a flashlight. ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, even a tube of mints. So the question is....if people start using a tube of mints as weapons then will you have to justify having mints on your person? See where I'm going with this? It's so micro managed it's not even funny.

Read a story a few months ago where a chef was not allowed to buy more than two limes at a time. Why? because apparently it's believed that the citric acid in the rhine will be used as a weapon! C'mon. If that's the case why sell limes at all? That's how ludicrous it seems to me.

Pyrene...so because someone carries that sized flashlight it is assumed to be a weapon therefore a liability? The UK now governs assumed thoughts and intentions of people?

Had a young Brit lad over here for a year involved in a police K9 business. It really blew my mind watching his expressions and gasps of surprise when we were out and about doing business. There was a knife display at a local hardware store. I thought he was going to pass out. He asked if they were legal and could he buy one. Of course the answer was yes. I mean, they are knives...tools. He couldn't get his money out fast enough. For a week he was paranoid of getting caught by the police. He finally calmed down when he realized he was doing nothing wrong or illegal. Now, 75 years ago you could buy guns through mail order and in hardware stores but not anymore. Slowly things have changed. Even back then school boys would bring their rifles and shotguns to school because they would hunt after school. What a great time they must have had.

I really do understand what the govt is trying to do there, I really do. My only issue is that when you try to 100% protect people from themselves, or others your freedom suffers. That's all I'm saying. I imagine if I went to live in the UK I'd be in the pokey within a week

3 types of weapons
Made, these are made to be used as weapons, so guns and knives
Adapted, these are items which have been altered to become weapons, you add or subtract items, or alter the physicality of the item. Such as chelsea brick or gloves with razers in them
Intentional, These are items which are carried with the intention of becoming weapons, for example a huge torch or a tube of polo mints. What sets this appart from everything else is reason for it been present, and could an alternative be used. So with the torch...its dark, yes, but can something less dangerous do the job?

absense of reason/intent make the item no longer a weapon.

News paper, not a weapon
Rolled up newspaper, weapon (quite a good one too)
Rolled up newspaper carried by paper boy, not a weapon.
Rolled up newspaper carried by a doorman, weapon
Cross rolled and folded newspaper carried by anyone, weapon (previously mentioned chelsea (or millwall) brick)

 

[Howardk]

Good explanations, both of you.

Regarding the newspaper....if I see a local sh*thead walking around openly carrying rolled newspaper on his back pocket I can't do a thing about it. The second he uses it unlawfully he's committed a crime and will be arrested. If I stop him and discover that he's carrying it concealed, I MIGHT be able to charge him with a concealed weapon if I can articulate that's what he's doing. I also have to develop probable cause for the arrest as well otherwise I violate his constitutional rights (to be a sh*thead). Even if I arrest him for it I would be lambasted by my co-workers for making such a chickensh*t, green arrest. It's something a rookie would do.

We have lots of people who take walks carrying "walking sticks". Everyone knows why they carry it, protection against criminals and aggressive dogs. No crime is committed unless used in a criminal way. Those people don't have to justify to anyone, including the police, why they have it on them. It's a stick. For me to tell them they can't carry it, or arrest them for having it, goes completely against what we believe in here. Amazing the differences, and mentalities between the two countries.

 

[rhea]

We have lots of people who take walks carrying "walking sticks". Everyone knows why they carry it, protection against criminals and aggressive dogs. No crime is committed unless used in a criminal way. Those people don't have to justify to anyone, including the police, why they have it on them. It's a stick. For me to tell them they can't carry it, or arrest them for having it, goes completely against what we believe in here. Amazing the differences, and mentalities between the two countries.

Howard, there is no difference in the way things are dealt with here in the example that you give above so please do not get too dispirited.

The same goes for the newspaper, however it is rolled. Until that is, like you say, it is used or intended to commit an offence.

The original question was about a bouncer using a big torch in a fight. I would again imagine there is not much difference in the way any complaint is dealt with in our two countries, it would depend on the severity of the fight. If used in self defence there would be no problem but to beat the crap out of some incapable drunk there probably would be a case to answer.

Some of the stuff posted on here about carrying a torch has been a tad far fetched and to suggest that by just carrying one around whilst doing your job, whether that be day or night, or having one in the boot of your car is anywhere near an offence in its own right, is talking absolute nonsense. Obviously if anyone can post any case law and not just something they may have heard down the pub I would gladly make an about turn.

So Howard if you ever feel like a holiday in the UK then please feel free to bring a torch to see in the dark, even if it hasn't got dark yet, and use a stick to help you walk along our pavements. Please buy a newspaper and indulge in art of origami if that is your wish. And if you pop into an Asda supermarket (Wal-Mart) and need a bag of limes for your Gin and tonic then do not be worried that buying more than two will automatically mean a deep cavity search at the check out However you will have to leave behind your guns and all those nasty knives

 

[Pyrene]

The original question was about a bouncer using a big torch in a fight. I would again imagine there is not much difference in the way any complaint is dealt with in our two countries, it would depend on the severity of the fight. If used in self defence there would be no problem but to beat the crap out of some incapable drunk there probably would be a case to answer.

Quick question then.
So reasonable force can at times allow you to use a massive torch as a bat round someones head.

But would the judge/legal bods later come back and say "you have been found not guilty of excessive use of force, but you will be charged with carrying an offensive weapon" .....as there was no legal reason to carry the torch up to the point of its useage as a beater