The Law on Weapons

I'm sure it wasn't meant the way it sounds.
at least I hope to god it wasn't.
I've used various weapons over the years, and it has calmed the situation down completely on each occasion.
Preventing further injury, not just to me, but to all the participants in the on going violence or rapidly escalating confrontation.
I know that physical intervention can work. But I will try and talk it down when ever I can.
Yes, it is the first course of action, we ALL know that in the Murky world of security.
 
Cplowman said:
My experience is that professional door staff, CPO, SG, and even cops NEVER need to resort to force.
Click to expand...

The your experience must have been a very lucky one!

Tell your advice to the single handed police sergeant who was called to the drunk and drugged-up guy wielding a bowie knife in a busy high street, myself and an employee helped (at the sergeant's request) and it took all three of us to subdue this fella. Even with three large and fit blokes on this guy's chest all we could do was keep him down until a van arrived.

Talking did not work.

Pepper spray (as it was then), did NOT work.

Being clotheslined and he ran between my oppo and I, chasing (yes chasing) the sarg down the middle of the road, DID work.
 
Hiya,

If you need to know what you are entitled to use and how and when, what constitutes an offensive weapon then refer to the NPLD, the National Police Legal Database. The database is an everyday tool that is refered to by police officers prior to interviewing suspects or charging and gives points to prove, stated cases and legal precedence. Anyone can access it for a fee which is rolled out on an ascending scale from daily for about £12 to annually as an individual or group. It covers all aspects of criminal law.

Also, for free, cps.gov.uk then hit legal resources which is used by the Crown Prosecutions Service.

Basically The Provention of Crime Act 1953, section 1, prohibits the possession in any PUBLIC PLACE of an offensive weapon without lawful excuse. An offensive weapon is any article intended or adapted for use to causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

The last thing you should be saying is that its not offensive but defensive as you would be charged and convicted. I'm only carrying it for my own protection won't work. Remember you can only be convicted of carrying a weapon if its in PUBLIC, a sword or bayonette carried in a private place is pefectly lawful. The Prevention of Crime Act was brought about to stop outbreaks of large scale disorder e.g. the Mods fighting the Rockers.

Possession includes in the boot of your car or if your mate is holding it for you. Only the Secretary of State can authorise the carrying of offensive weapons in public i.e. military use or police, security services. Sikhs can carry knives that are part of their religious beliefs....

Last of all remember that if you are convicted of a criminal offence your SIA licence will more than likely be revoked so learn your powers under the law and be safe.

Call the cops and let them deal with violence, if you can, avoid it, if you can't your mouth and presence should be your weapons, closely followed by you hands and feet. If all else fails your feet moving very quickly.......run away.
 
Bluemean1e said:
Call the cops and let them deal with violence, if you can, avoid it, if you can't your mouth and presence should be your weapons, closely followed by you hands and feet. If all else fails your feet moving very quickly.......run away.
Click to expand...

Good post, until you got to the above.
We're CPOs, we're hired by people at risk, the general idea being that we provide them the protection the Police cannot give.
You can't call the cops to deal with the violence; if that was a viable solution there wouldn't be a CP industry as all VIPs would have local plod on speed dial, so you have to deal with it yourself and while this would normally mean planning to avoid trouble in the first place, if it kicks off YOU have but a few short seconds to deal. You can't run away.

The original question was 'what weapons can be carried' - officially nothing, unofficially you may have a number of items about your person that spring to mind in an 'instant arming' type way, and that's about it, end of thread.
 
Cplowman said:
My experience is that professional door staff, CPO, SG, and even cops NEVER need to resort to force, and use the number one tool of communication before anything else.
Click to expand...

So presumably all your former mates who we see using force in the media regularly are unprofessional.

Any of us on this board who have used force and not faced consequences because it was deemed justifiable and proportionate are also clearly unprofessional despite the scrutiny faced for such actions; but you know best.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
Time for me to do my bit again, appreciated or not here it is :)

Some of you who actually know me, know that I love the 'tools' we can carry while on the job.

Here is what I carry on the door, it is pretty much the limit of what you can carry as far as I am aware.

1/ Spray - RedWeb Offender ID Spray [this is the only spray acknowledged by the association of chief police officers, other sprays like STOPPA, are out there but RedWeb is the one to have. Its skin dye, UV dye, DNA - the DNA in that can in unique to that can, registered on the internet to have you as the handler] A course HAS to be sat for RedWeb.
Yes its only a dye, not an incapacitator like PAVA etc, and yes you have to should "REDWEB" when aiming, but at the end of the day (and in reality for me a few weeks ago) the public don't have a clue and still think its gonna screw them over, so they back off

2/ Cuffs - Tri-fold/plastic restraint, Hinge, Rigid, all legal to carry. A course is recommended. I personally carry hinge (ASP hinge) as I can't really justify the expense of buying rigid at the moment.

3/ Torch. No not a 6 cell mag lite, and no not a torch with a spike on the end. I carry a torch that is dam bright (MT7 actually by LED Lenser) 220lumens (legal limit is 230). The use, it is extremely bright, even during the day you can shine it in someones eyes and they still have to look away. Has many functions, including a strobe function. Someone has a knife or gun, they can't focus on where you are, enabling you to escape or take other action. I tend to use it for a different function, because I'm not 'physical presence' i shine it at someone doing something naughty and they can't see what I look like - they will go by stereotype doorman as what I look like. (good for telling someone to get off a table, get out the cupboard etc etc)


You can sit training courses in defenceive torch. (Niton999 do a course in this). all depends on how much money you have flying around, or in my case people you know :)

and yes I have a covert rig to carry it all in, but its better than carrying it on the waist. plus the rig allows quick draw on spray/torch
 
Last edited:
Years ago, many years ago in a far off land calledmy memory.
All door men had a work name, as you usually lived close to where your work was.
So you could differentiate between friend or foe, when you inhabitted the off duty part of your life.
I think Pyrene after that last comment, you'd have been saddled with the door title of ;
Quick Draw McGraw.
Just be grateful your not Jewish, as we had a kid working, known as 'Billy the Yid'
 
Oddjob said:
Years ago, many years ago in a far off land calledmy memory.
All door men had a work name, as you usually lived close to where your work was.
So you could differentiate between friend or foe, when you inhabitted the off duty part of your life.
I think Pyrene after that last comment, you'd have been saddled with the door title of ;
Quick Draw McGraw.
Just be grateful your not Jewish, as we had a kid working, known as 'Billy the Yid'
Click to expand...

I already have a nick name :)

well two...


one - Turtle (last club I worked at I was the only guy who wore body armour)
two - is a name of someone I apparently look a lot like
 
Originally Posted by Cplowman
Ex-cop here.
and even cops NEVER need to resort to force,




Can tell by the riots last year
 
Pyrene......brilliantly said.

(after having just watched the best film of all time on CH5......be it that I am a skinny bloke)

Roadhouse (by the way)
 
I can just see the scene now between Pyrene and AJ11 being re enacted on the front door of a club.

''Nobody puts Baby in the corner''
 
Oddjob said:
So why do police officers end up in violent situations.
Never need to resort to force is utter bollox.
Typical cop, (as usual causing more trouble than you solve)
I advise all DS the police can be the enemy as well. Be very, very careful around them.
Glad you remain to type. To prove my belief.
Click to expand...

Well, may I offer a bit of advice to differ with my colleague. And perhaps try to ease some trouble, with some points for thought. Take or leave it as you wish.

Yes, you have to use force now and again as a police officer. Preferrably on the most favourable terms for you (both at the time in an subsequent criminal court, please note I do not touch civil which I am unqualified to comment on).

Here is the CPS legal guidance, which is quite important as these are the people who will decide whether or not to prosecute any use of force (by any one)


Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service


When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:


"the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence general"

So those overlapping principles must guide any legal response to “self-defenceâ€. I'll skip over the Criminal Law Act s3 (which is the any person right to use reasonable force) and the general “Common law†right of self-defence if I may-look up the acts if you wish.


In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

"was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances"

Ultimately, the question must be answered

"The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive".

Critical is is;

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
Please, please, please pay attention to that bit".

And you must, repeat must, remember this:

"The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable
Now this always comes up: the premptive strike".

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75)

This is not a substitute for legal guidance, but I hope it is a useful general guide to the legal philosophy of this tricky concept.


I haven't touched “instant arming†yet (ie, you face someone with a knife, and so in the dire emergency of the situation, you cannot retreat and so to preserve your life or the lives of others, pick up and chair and clobber him, for example).

Then of course, you must refer to the level of injury sustained by you assailant and the relevant charge and points to prove (murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent, GBH, ABH, common assault, etc).

Hope that all makes a bit of sense.

Right-as to instant arming. I would sugget that this is covered by the prevention of crime act 1953 (creating the offence of offensive weapon) as ammended by section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (I'm not touching firearms, area of law I am thoroughly unqualified to speak on).

Essentially the offensive weapons reverses the burden of proof to the defendent having reasonable excuse or lawful authority for the offensive weapon (which is something made, adapted or intended for causing harm or injury to another) or the sharply pointed or bladed object.

With me so far?

So if you instantly armed due to the exigency of the situation (in proportion to the fear of the force you were about to be subject to), I suggest this is different to preparatory arming in anticipation and then perhaps going to cause the confrontations, whereby you then rely on "self-defence".

Do you follow? I suggest the later would be frowned on, but the former not.

Hope that's clear.

Please note I do not touch CS sprays, etc, etc as they are prohibited weapons for the purpose of the s5 Firearms Act.

Section 5(1)(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends on type. Note: Parliament has provided that disguised weapons fall within the provisions for a minimum sentence and so, an offence contrary to section 5(1A) should be charged rather than an offence contrary to seciton 5(1)(b) where a stun gun is disguised as another object and also meets the requirements of section 5(A1), (R v Brereton [2012]EWCA Crim 85) ;

Firearms: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

Anyway, if you have got to the bottom I thank you for your attention and hope it has helped your thinking on this subject.

It is not of course a substitute for legal advice; but may focus thinking on this issue, and avoid unfortunate and avoidable problems for forum users.
 
Back
Top