UKC

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of this story, why are the police seemingly incapable of using normal words and phrases?

A 'bladed article' WTF, just call it a knife!

http://thetab.com/uk/newcastle/2016/10/05/one-man-arrested-killer-clown-cra...

In reply to Oceanrower: > Ignoring the rights and wrongs of this story, why are the police seemingly incapable of using normal words and phrases?

An air rifle is a firearm (FFS) and a place is an address.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

A wrong'un is a suspect and a nice bit of temple ball is cannabis resin.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Landshark for a German Shepard is my favourite.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I think the frustration is misdirected towards the police regarding this. There's certainly an element of using terms that give a better impression to the public (ie. marketing) and of political correctness (not a problem with me but I know some on here would much rather we all used enjoyed our racial slurs).
However there's many terms used to make sure they don't fall foul of technicalities within the law. We should be showing our frustration at lawyers. (well...somewhat above that but Iv'e rambled enough)

In reply to Mike Highbury:




I'm not sure it is (no fire involved and legally different). End pedantry.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Depends.

In reply to MG: > I'm not sure it is (no fire involved and legally different). End pedantry.

Firearms Act 1968 as amended by the Violent Crime Act 2006.

In reply to MG:


If its able to produce more than 12ft/lbs of energy then its classified as a firearm.

In reply to Indy: > If its able to produce more than 12ft/lbs of energy then its classified as a firearm.

But the pedant's point still stands, it's language mangled.

In reply to MG:
When I was a kid I got arrested for misbehaving with an air rifle. To this day I still have "possession of a loaded firearm in a public place" on my record. Air rifles are classed as firearms these days because even the one's within the legal power limit can and have killed.

Edit.. doesn't have to be above the 12 ft/lbs to classify as firearm. Any offence carried out with an air rifle comes under firearm act and law

In reply to elliott92:


On top of which I was on the jury for an assault with a firearm charge against a lad who had pointed a lighter (in the shape of a pistol) at a cop.

They had a ballistics expert and everything there to give evidence as to which type of Belgian hand-gun it could be mistaken for.

The case against him collapsed after the sergeant's story about being "in fear for his life" crumbled under questioning as to why if he was he had then walked up to the guy and arrested him.

The kid had spent 3 months in Barlinnie on remand before this.

In reply to zebidee:


You say this like its the right thing? If it's an imitation fire arm, you can't tell the difference, and the lad obviously pointed it at the Officer for fear and intimidation. That can be perceived as a threat to life, and could warrant a lethal response.

And if you are in fear of your life, and think you might die, you might as well die fighting. I sure as shit won't be standing about just waiting to get shot in the face.

What's the officer supposed to do? Turn around and walk away?


A bladed article might not be a knife. Could be a razor blade, could be an inprovised weapon, could be anything with a blade. A knife isn't the only thing to have a blade.
Bladed Article covers a lot more than just "Knife".

An Air Rifle is a firearm. As already proved by numerous posts above.

In reply to Oceanrower:

A 'bladed article' is just repeating the words of the statute s.139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 which makes it an offence to possess an article with blade or point in a public place- including swords, machetes, cut throat razors etc as well as knives.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139

So, whilst it is police speak, there is a reason for it. Fairly common usage in the criminal courts- which doesn't of course mean that it isn't easier simply to say 'knife' when that's what it is!

In reply to Bootrock:


Not necessarily, there are other explanations, like the lad was thick as two short planks and thought it was funny.

In reply to EddInaBox:

"let him have it, Chris"

In reply to Indy:

Its still a firearm if it produces less, however if it produces more than 12ft/lbs, as you stated it falls under a Section 1 Firearm (the same category as a rife) for which a "Firearms" Licence was required. Now you require an air weapon licence for any air weapon.

In reply to Bootrock:

Okay - I missed out the specific detail for fear of over posting ...

The cop said that the youth (who was known to the 3 officers on the scene) pointed the lighter at them and said "Bang, bang!" At which point the sergeant didn't retreat to safety (as he admitted under questioning, should have been the response) and escalate to a fire-arms unit; he walked up to the kid took the lighter off him and arrested him.

The case was poorly corroborated by the other two officers and the prosecution rested after the police officers statement after lunch despite them warning us that this was likely to be a multi-day case.

The poor quality of evidence from the sergeant (in response to the question "did the accused say anything when you arrested him?", the cop replied "he protested his innocence." Cue the sheriff turning to say "you weren't asked for your interpretation of what he said. What did he say when you arrested him?" "He said 'That's f*cking out of order.' m'lud." "Fine - in future answer the questions you're asked."); the oddness of his responses to a situation where he was "in fear for his life"; and then the prosecution resting with no remaining witnesses all led us to find him not guilty as the prosecution hadn't proved beyond reasonable doubt of an assault charge let alone one with a firearm.

In reply to AndyDWilson:


that's only in scotland

In reply to EddInaBox:

It wouldn't have been very funny if he or the Officer ended up dead.

In reply to zebidee:



Or to rush the suspect and try and neutralise the threat with surprise and violence of action.



How is that an oddness of response? It was out of order. He could have said it after the initial threat was gone.

I do understand what you are saying, and as you said, there was no reasonable doubt (in this case) I am trying to deliberately play devils advocate, mainly because firearms is such a messy area, and people need to realise that even if it's a replica or "not loaded" it's the beleif that life is in danger, Either the Officer's or another civilian.

It would have been a very different story if that Officer had responded with lethal force or deployed a taser, and no doubt the Officer would have faced serious scrutiny for it.


End of the day, it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

In reply to Bootrock:

Agree completely with what you're saying - my dad was a cop and I was brought up to respect the law, but also the application of it.

The key thing for me which didn't gel was that the cop calmly walked up to the kid and took the gun/lighter off him.

If you're genuinely in fear for your life then you don't do that - if you're saying "you're reacting" (as the sergeant did) that's not the kind of thing you expect from an officer with a reasonable amount of time served. The two statements just didn't gel.

The defence managed to plant the doubt that the kid was known to the cops as a nuisance to them and they were using this (act of stupidity) against him.

If there had been other circumstances (the kid hadn't been known to them), he'd acted in a more threatening manner ("you f*ckers are gonna get it ..." rather than just "bang, bang"); the three officers had escalated to a firearms unit, deployed a taser, or dog then it might not have been so dubious.

I also didn't mention that the defence didn't actually call any witnesses - they merely rested the case immediately after the prosecution rested.

In reply to Bootrock:


It wasn't at all funny (and no one got hurt) my point was your conclusion that "the lad obviously pointed it at the Officer for fear and intimidation" was not valid given the limited details you knew at that point. As it turns out, zebidee's subsequent post giving further details would seem to suggest my alternative explanation was closer to the mark.

In reply to Mike Highbury:




Or a premise, as I have heard on the telly on more than one occasion!

http://grammarglitchcentral.com/2011/03/premise-or-premises-there-is-a-diff...

In reply to EddInaBox:
How about I point a weapon at you, and let's see how funny you find it? You have to take a weapon pointed at you as intent. People are killed by people trying to be "funny". Funny or not, you can't tell that's an imitation or not.
You point an imitation or toy at someone, especially the police, it's for a reaction, for fear and intimidation.

Yea, afterwards when we found out it's an imitation/toy and everything was ok. But at that moment of threat when an unknown person points an unknown weapon at you, you have to take it as a direct threat to life and act. you and everyone else has an inherent right to self defence.
Such actions warrant and could receive a lethal response.


Zebidee; agreed mate. Luckily it ended with no one getting killed.

In reply to AndyDWilson:

Errrrrr don't think so....

In reply to Oceanrower:
' code 22 Mike, and blue light it'

Roughly translated as egg foo yung and chips quickly.

In reply to zebidee:

(Hopefully this doesn't come across as supercilious)
You may like to read this bit...(from https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial)
4. Discussing the trial

Don’t discuss the case with anyone, except other jury members in the jury deliberation room.

Even when the trial’s over you mustn’t discuss the case, even with family members.

Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.

In reply to Wry Spudding:
You know the link you posted is for England and Wales?

Try here https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/

Slightly different

WARNING: IT IS AN OFFENCE TO PASS ON ANY INFORMATION ABOUT STATEMENTS MADE, OPINIONS GIVEN, ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD OR VOTES CAST BY ANY MEMBER OF THE JURY DURING THEIR DISCUSSIONS, EVEN LONG AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED. IF YOU DO SO, YOU MAY BE FINED OR SENT TO PRISON.

As far as I can see nothing he posted is anything that jurors said, just what was said in open court and so already public knowledge.

In reply to Siward:

That act is so incredibly badly worded. Or very well worded if what you are trying to achieve is ambiguity so that the police can apply it or not depending on their inclination at the time.

I looked in to this in depth with respect to fencing (the sport) and there is actually case law in which a judge considers a butter knife to fall under the act. If you think about it there are so many things which fit that description: a fan, your crampons, an umberella...

In reply to zebidee:



Good. Maybe next time he'll think twice about pointing something that looks like a gun at a police officer.

In reply to Bootrock:


Why would you do that, to prove it isn't funny? At no point have I suggested it would be funny.


Depending on the context you may reasonably think that at the moment it happens, however there is a big difference between thinking there is intent and there actually being intent.


Or because the person pointing it thinks they are being funny, your assumption about intent to intimidate does not mean there was an intent to intimidate, even if the person on the receiving end was intimidated it does not mean there was intent.


I don't disagree.


Possibly.

In reply to marsbar:

Looks a lot like opinions given and arguments put forward to me.

Given the amount of detail provided about the case, if I were him I'd consider asking to get the thread pulled.

In reply to csambrook:



With a rather large get out clause of "lawful authority or good reason" which should cover most legitimate reasons for having a foil, epee or sabre in a public place, (none of which could reasonably be described as having either a blade or a point, in my view)

In reply to Indy:


Its becoming law in Scotland. From the end of the year it will be required and currently its strongly recommend to apply for it to get one in time.

In reply to Oceanrower:



Well at least it makes a change from "injuries sustained falling while resisting arrest" to explain the results of having been beaten and kicked senseless while in custody.

In reply to Indy:

12 ftlbs...?

Does The Law know we adopted the SI system some time ago...?

In reply to Indy:


Administratively, but still no more technically a firearm than a ball thrower or a catapult.

In reply to Oceanrower:

My friend got arrested and charged for use of a rocket launcher or mortar when we were teenagers...most people called them tattie guns. They did launch potatoes pretty far to be fair but rocket launcher is pushing it a little bit.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

A firearm is a lethal barrelled weapon, so it can cover nearly all guns, off the top of my head the figure of 1ft/lb energy was considered a dividing line between lethal and non lethal, hence a bb gun is not considered a firearm for the sake of the law (such things as age and possession).
In the firearm act some component parts of a section 1 firearm (normally rifles and air rifles over 12ft/lb) are termed firearm. Hence the sound moderator on my rifle is a firearm and the same laws can apply to that as the rifle (think security, possession etc.). It's just how the law is worded and not always that well thought out, but we have to live with it and often it makes sense in the end - but not always!

So if I were to hit a policeman over the head with my sound moderator, it would be a "firearm incident". Just giving an example

In reply to Moley:

what do you think of the new Scottish firearm= air rifle rules? I'm instinctively against further regulation, but I don't really know how big an issue airguns are in terms of firearms offences

In reply to Oceanrower:

To describe an air gnu as a "fire arm" is a misnomer. It uses compressed air as a propellant whereas a fire arm uses an explosive propulsion system. The effects may be similar.

In reply to toad:


My instinctive reaction is against it and I'm not convinced it will achieve the desired results (decrease in air rifle crimes?), though I haven't looked at the details of the law.

There's the obvious problem of cross border issues, like coming into Scotland to shoot, having a farm on or near the border, I don't know how they are dealt with.
I think air rifle laws in uk are quite robust and encompassing enough, the problem is that most police dealing with a more minor air rifle incident, don't know the laws (they can't be expected to know them off pat) to enforce and sometimes do not take them seriously enough - this possibly carries through to the courts.
How on earth Scotland will cope with the registration on certificates I don't know and with a certificate costing £72 how many potential "scrotes" that possess air rifles are likely to apply or even think about it?

In reply to Scarab9:


I think this is the main point here. It cant be easy to be questioned in court and have every single thing you write and say picked through, hence this terminology smooths things over a bit.

In reply to Trangia:


That gives a wonderful mental image of migrating herds gracefully soaring through the skies over the Savannah.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Gracefully soaring? Did you miss the bit about compressed air as a propellant? Gnus screaming across the sky like a katyusha barrage more like!
CB

In reply to off-duty:
"...foil, epee or sabre... none of which could reasonably be described as having either a blade or a point, in my view"
But that's exactly the problem, we both (think we) know what the act is trying to say but the ambiguity in the wording means that in fact all three pieces of sports equipment fall under the act as they all have a blade and a point.
You are of course correct that there is a get-out clause but the whole thing is set up in a way which means that if a policeman wants to be difficult they can be. Not a problem for me but for some people, in some parts of the country where the relationship with the police isn't that great it's another source of frustration.

Now consider the phrase used in the report in the OP's original post: "Northumbria Police arrested one with a ‘bladed article’ yesterday". I bet everyone here assumed that meant he had a knife...

In reply to csambrook:


.
I don't think any of those weapons could be described as having a blade, even a sabre, and none of them have what would be required ie "sharply pointed".


If you are walking down the road swinging your epee in a violent manner, you may well get locked up for having an offensive weapon (s1 PoCA 1953) , but if you are researching about whether you fall under s139 CJA 1988 for carrying your weapon to the gym, then I would suggest that you aren't going to have any difficulties.


Which he almost certainly did have. But not a folding knife with a blade under 3 inches.

In reply to off-duty:


Back in the 90s I met up with a bunch of friends in Edinburgh who were practicing some sword skills for their reenactment days. Afterwards I gave them a hand with their gear back to their flat before we headed out to the pub.

On the way I had a Hungarian hunting bow over my shoulder one of them had a 5ft double handed broadsword and another a 4ft hand-and-a-half sword. As we headed down Dalkeith road we passed a couple of coppers who weren't in the slightest bothered.

Like you say, it's all about the context and we should recognise that most officers aren't looking to arrest everybody.

In reply to zebidee:

I love the fact that the people posting on here actually know more about a case that you were on the jury for.

In reply to zebidee:



Exactly, most police are sound as a pound and would not have the slightest problem with a knife in the correct context.
I do a bit of knife throwing and travel to throws with 5 14 inch throwing knives and 3 22 inch throwing axes in the top box of my motorbike.
They are in a tool roll in the top box and I am traveling to a legitimate sporting event often attended by members of the police who transport their equipment in the same sort of way.

If I had one in my back pocket on the high street though I would expect to be arrested.


I might have a problem with a work knife one day though.
I am a sod for putting tools in my back pocket at work, if I'm on a gantry and the tool box isn't handy I will slip a tool in my pocket.
Often I will get home with a small spanner or screwdriver or Stanley knife sticking out of my pocket or worse I nip to the shop on the way home and pulling my wallet out of my pocket drops a Stanley knife on the floor.

In reply to csambrook:


No edge on them and the tip is blunted in all three cases. For sabre its bent over and the other two its either a button or covered in plastic. A foil can make a rather nasty steel whip though if you know what you are doing.
General advice for any sporting weapons is to make sure they arent easy to get to.
Did get asked by some cops once what I had in a bag and they werent fussed to hear fencing kit. That said I think they were mostly just curious/having an argument about what was in the bag since it was an oddly shaped bag. Bit like some music cases but not and bit like a gun case but not quite.

In reply to Moley:
I seem to remember that when the Firearms Act was passed in 1968, the definition of Lethal barrelled' was a morbid test on a deceased baby to see the effect of a projectile on the skull (specifically the orbit of the eye) and if it would would penetrate. If it did the weapon was lethal. As you say 1 ft pound sounds about right.

This allows Airsoft and BB excursions. Almost all air weapons are firearms, including air pistols which must be below 6ft pounds to avoid becoming Section 1 Firearms.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I would highly recommend the Levenmouth police twitter account, for a re-definition of what police talk is :

https://twitter.com/LevenmouthPol?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7C...

In reply to Siward:


Note to self....I must remember to take my knife and/or chisels out of my pockets before I leave site to go to the sadwich shop!