Queensland police: Options for Defending

[Heckler303]

I knew it was going to be a load of bs as soon as I opened it but..


https://web.archive.org/web/20110326185 ... ptions.htm

I found this part:

"In the case of an attack involving a knife or other weapons, use the ‘fantasy’ option to remove the threat of the weapon, to enable escape e.g. "I’ve always fantasised about this happening to me, but the knife makes me feel uncomfortable..."

what in the caffeinated snow-ski riding cheesus crust-



I'm done. I'm just going to leave this here and wait to see how many of us get sent to the hospital for bursting veins due to high blood pressure due to reading this article

[AusTac]

How about we take all the police issue firearms/less lethal alternatives off them and then see how the police go when put in those same situations as civillians

[sandgroperbill]

This is a Monty Python skit, right?

[sbd3927]

Items such as a pen, keys, hairbrush, (in fact, nearly any nearby object) can be used as an effective weapon

As a rule, the law generally does not allow the carrying of anything that can be described as a weapon.

They just described pens and keys as effective weapons... so now by definition we aren't allowed to carry them.

Although I've long regarded pens and keys as suitable if you needed a weapon for defense, although I would prefer a stick or a chair.

The only time I've felt uncomfortable, late night Melbourne, bloke stepped out of alley immediately behind my wife & I and followed quite closely (2metres). I tightly rolled up a magazine/catalog I had in hand as I walked and kept an eye on him peripherally. He developed an interest in going a different direction and it was all good.

But according to the below, he certainly matched a potential attacker, both by action and appearance. They suggest it would be suitable to distract and attack/disable him?

For example, calling out to a fictitious person will generally divert the attacker’s attention, action then must be taken to either run away, or disable the attacker before seeking escape.

Wow! Great! So it's ok for me to distract them, then strike first to disable them?

Let's see, a groin kick might partially miss and just make them mad, so breaking their knee with a side kick would be better. Perfect for that imposing guy asking for a light that I think is using it as an excuse to evaluate me for attack, Oh Look! Kick <snap>. Just defense, honest!

[dhv]

Weird.
I would have thought that a smart lawyer could argue that by saying you fantasies about a rape scene you where in part giving consent, or at least offering encouragement to the attacker.
What a mine field.

[coloradoboy]

hahahahaha this cracked me up so much that I am gonna brave the cold and start shoveling snow from my sidewalk at 6 am on a Sunday morning. i feel like doing something rash.

wow actually even the people's democratic republic of kalifornia has more sensible recommendation from the cops.

[Baronvonrort]

Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in a Paris style attack is the best option for citizens between the time they call 911 and the moment Police arrive.

Lanier said citizens have three options - they can run, hide, or fight. And she said choosing to take out the gunmen is the best option if a citizen is in a position to do so.

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/1 ... -attackers

[brett1868]

The article is clearly aimed at women facing the possibility of rape and some of it makes sense and is helpful. If I get attacked I'll use the tampon defence and while he's thinking wtf I'll kick him in the nuts, punch him in the throat and stab him in the eye with my stainless Parker.
But this is Australia so I'll be the one doing time as someone's prison bitch for excessive force whilst he claims compensation and lives the good life on the governments chequebook.

My personal view is that if someone decides to attack me, the wife or boy then they forfeit the right to be protected by any law as they have acted outside of our laws and deserve no protection from it.

[Title_II]

Excuse me while I pick my nose and take my tampon out.

[Gwion]

AS long as you reasonably fear for your safety, the safety of others, you can act to disable or to neutralise the threat. So, a blitz attack groin, throat, eye, knee (to deter pursuit) will not see you get into any trouble if you reasonably fear for your life or safety. If, on the other hand, the would be attacker is now on the ground, gasping for breath, a permanent limp, pancakes for balls and your best pen protruding from his bleeding eye socket whilst you proceed to kick three colours of ****** out of him, breaking multiple ribs and piercing a lung...... you may be up for charges of excessive force.

There is an escalating scale of force that must be adhered to. You can only use lethal force when threatened with lethal force or a are reasonably afraid for your life. You can only use force to cause bodily harm when reasonably afraid of bodily harm... etc... once the threat is removed (in this case by depositing your pen adjacent to his brain and rupturing his cruciate and lateral ligaments), then you must de-escalate the attack immediately.

It's all very tricky. What's trickier still is proving that, as an able bodied adult male, you are in reasonable fear of another able bodied adult male. Unless they are armed, you are out numbered or there are other potential victims (such as women and children) involved, any pre-emptive attack is likely to get you into some very warm water indeed.

The law apparently sees all grown men as equal and an individual 65kg 5'7" uni student apparently has no reasonable fear from an individual 6'5" 105kg tattooed, meth dealing neaderthal; as they are both grown men they are assumed to have the same abilities to either flee or fight. Of course, the lawyer of the uni student who drives his BIC into the alleged meth dealers throat will argue that the disproportionate size and outwardly aggressive appearance of the large, tattooed individual was cause for reasonable fear for the poor dweeby arts student, but it will not be assumed under law and the case for bodily harm or attempted murder will have to be heard if the escalating scale of force was not adhered to; ie: the student was not threatened with lethal force in any reasonably believable manner.

[Gwion]

Sorry about that.... i got a bit carried away with my story!

The above info is my understanding from Victorian training in the legal use of force for the purposes of employment in the security industry. My trainers were both ex-SOG and ex-Police Prosecutors. I, myself, am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice in any way.

[pajamatime]

Sorry about that.... i got a bit carried away with my story!

The above info is my understanding from Victorian training in the legal use of force for the purposes of employment in the security industry. My trainers were both ex-SOG and ex-Police Prosecutors. I, myself, am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice in any way.

to late I just went and beat me up a "tattooed, meth dealing neaderthal" and made sure my wife and kids where there while I did it so that I wouldn't get in trouble. I love life! thanks Gwion!

[happyhunter]

.

[Gwion]

Sorry about that.... i got a bit carried away with my story!

The above info is my understanding from Victorian training in the legal use of force for the purposes of employment in the security industry. My trainers were both ex-SOG and ex-Police Prosecutors. I, myself, am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice in any way.

to late I just went and beat me up a "tattooed, meth dealing neaderthal" and made sure my wife and kids where there while I did it so that I wouldn't get in trouble. I love life! thanks Gwion!

Hehe... now you'll just have to demonstrate the manner in which the meth dealing neanderthal was threatening your wife/child to justify your pre-emptive attack.

Again, i am not a lawyer...

[adam]

Am I reading this correctly?

As a rule, the law generally does not allow the carrying of anything that can be described as a weapon. This includes mace, spray dyes, most personal alarms, or any other items which have been specifically adapted, such as sharpened combs, knives carried for the purpose of self defence etc.

Granny is now a criminal because she's carrying a weapon now when she goes shopping (in the form of a personal alarm)?!!?

You can legally use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself if the need is genuine although some people seem to be hung up on bitching otherwise.

Seriously? That might be OK for you - who might be capable of defending yourself with whatever force is necessary, but it obviously wasn't for Jill Meagher, or many of the other women who have been raped and killed.

How about having some consideration of others who are less defensible than yourself. Those where a can of pepper spray could be the difference between life and death - but are not allowed to equip themselves. Using whatever force is necessary to defend yourself only works when you have the available force required.

[Gwion]

hmmm... so maybe take up smoking and use a lot of hair spray for your 'beehive' or deodorant for your 'perspiration problem'..... i have seen footage of a lighter and aerosol being used to great effect.

Squeeze bottle of Tobasco for your chili and taco addiction???

In all seriousness, non-lethal means of defence should be available to the community at large. However (from memory; feel free to research and correct me), these 'no weapons for self defence' laws were introduced back in the 1920s or 30s because thugs/crims/gangsters were carrying offensive weapons and using them to rob/standover innocent people, then claiming they were being carried for self defence when pulled up by the constabulary.

As it stands, officers can use discretion when they find a person carrying a proscribed weapon of self defence (actually an offensive weapon).

How would you guys suggest the law be changed so that 'decent' people can defend themselves but 'thugs/crims' can still be charged for carrying offensive weapons; or, do you just let everyone carry what ever they like and wait for the thugs to be caught with a weapon after a known offence, before they can be charged???

[AusTac]

Concealed carry - lol naah but in all seriousness its a slippery slope, i would like to see some clarification on the posession of knives ( always carry a leatherman in the jeep ) and maybe a limited, legal lenth blade size etc non locking 3 inch blade as i would imagine it would be hard to stab someone with a non locking blade whilst keeping all your fingers, been bitten by a swiss army knife before, almost took half my thumb off

[Gwion]

Yeah... i follow... but you don't need a locking blade to cause some real damage; as the razor gangs proved in the 20s.

Just playing devils advocate here, as i often carry a knife for utilitarian purposes, and sometimes forget to take it out of my pocket before jumping in the ute to head into town.

[FuzzyM]

Concealed carry - lol naah but in all seriousness its a slippery slope, i would like to see some clarification on the posession of knives ( always carry a leatherman in the jeep ) and maybe a limited, legal lenth blade size etc non locking 3 inch blade as i would imagine it would be hard to stab someone with a non locking blade whilst keeping all your fingers, been bitten by a swiss army knife before, almost took half my thumb off

Most leatherman tools including mine have a locking blade.
My leatherman blade is over your 3 inches too.

I don't think it makes much difference to criminals.

Friend of one of my colleagues got slashed with a box cutter on the train for not handing over his shoes

[bear foot bowhunter]

this is the most disgusting thing I have read in a long time .
if they see a need to pout this up , there is a need for people to be able defend themselves
what is the acceptable force for a sawn of shotgun ?
can my family hire me as an armed body/security garde?

[Title_II]

Absolutely abhorrent. If human rights and charity organizations did any good, Oz would be under sanctions and an embargo. Not that there's anything wrong with your people or nation, but your government is radically oppressive.

[happyhunter]

.

[Chronos]

Seriously? That might be OK for you - who might be capable of defending yourself with whatever force is necessary, but it obviously wasn't for Jill Meagher, or many of the other women who have been raped and killed.

How about having some consideration of others who are less defensible than yourself. Those where a can of pepper spray could be the difference between life and death - but are not allowed to equip themselves. Using whatever force is necessary to defend yourself only works when you have the available force required.

And when your attacker is also carrying CS spray or a taser? What then? A knife, oh wait he's already got one, A gun? Where does it end? Where does a defensive weapon cease to be defensive and become a weapon with potential start a fight rather than end one?

Once you open the door it could be very hard to shut it. Not having a go just asking the "devils advocate" question

Chronos

[Vati]

Errrrm.

Nope, brain has seized up trying to figure this out.

[adam]

Once you open the door it could be very hard to shut it. Not having a go just asking the "devils advocate" question

And it's good to consider both sides. Something that should be encouraged more in a world that seems to be increasingly of the opinion "Shut the other side up, they're dangerous"...

Firstly remember that I'm talking about defensive non lethal weapons. Not offensive lethal weapons.

As for attackers carrying these things - criminals already carry worse. That's the similar logic that's used against us as LAFO's. What if a criminal gets the weapon.

Knives seem to be quite popular already. (And illegal to carry). If they managed to get their hands on pepper spray, I'll take my chances with getting sprayed over stabbed any day. Even better if I had the equivalent to fight back with.

By restricting law abiding people from having access to defend themselves you make the fight one way. By allowing people to have some sort of equipment you counter that. Take a page from the USA and see where the massacres occur. In areas where there are tighter restrictions on the law abiding.

Now before you think I'm going gun ho - I'm not saying that we go the way of America and give out lethal weapons - but you can learn from what's happened there where they have placed restrictions on the law abiding and the results and apply it to our situation...

As Gwion asked (A fair and reasonable question worth consideration):

"How would you guys suggest the law be changed so that 'decent' people can defend themselves but 'thugs/crims' can still be charged for carrying offensive weapons; or, do you just let everyone carry what ever they like and wait for the thugs to be caught with a weapon after a known offence, before they can be charged???" - a reasonable question that adds to the discussion.

As such, my suggestion would be to allow people to get a permit for carrying such items. (Similar to CC in America, but have it here with non lethal options). Requirements could include a clean record, law abiding, etc. It would have a two fold approach in my opinion:

1) It would allow people who are concerned, or even have a need to have some sort of defense available. (Such as those with IVO's against someone else)...

2) It would also give an incentive to people to have a clean record. If you have a good record, you can be trusted more. At present, good record or not - we're all untrusted.

The government rarely use incentives, and instead just try to go for penalties. Giving out incentives such as the ability to be trusted carrying such equipment may actually give people more of an incentive to do the right thing.

[Gregg]

How about having some consideration of others who are less defensible than yourself.

Agreed.

I don't see many grandmothers getting the handbag swing up to speeds of 'necessary force'.

[Mich]

Faking a coughing fit and asking for a glass of water;

These are the dumbest things I have ever read.

[Redwood]

Someone is mugging you in a car park...

"Pardon me, before you stab me would you have a glass of water?"



You suck QLD Police

[adam]

OK - devils advocate here for a moment and trying to consider the 'other side'.

I think there's some psychological reasoning behind some of those suggestions.

One of the things I've seen taught in self defense is that if someone's about to attack you - you can try ask them a question. "What's the matter". It can get someone focused on the question and their response - delaying them giving you the upper hand of the first strike.

So, In this situation I guess they're thinking along the lines that if the attacker thinks you are suffering / choking - and you ask them for a drink - it is something they don't expect. It may jolt them into a different frame of mind and forget their initial intention, etc - maybe even enough to go searching for a drink.

In saying that - it would be an absolute last / desperate measure where "what have I got to lose" comes into play and there's no alternatives.

And let's face it - for many people - that's exactly the situation they will face themselves in if attacked in Australia. No other alternatives and doing anything is better than doing nothing.

It's not QLD police that "suck". They don't make the laws, just have to work with them.

Politicians have put them in a place where this is the best advise that they are able to give for what we are legally able to work with, or what they can legally recommend.

It's easy to put down someone else's work - it's harder to come up with a better solution:

So, as such - and for a bit of fun - what other / better legal recommendations can people come up with for self defense within the boundaries of our current laws for people who can not fend off their attackers such as Grandparents?

Qld police have come up with a list - can we better it?

[Title_II]

OK - devils advocate here for

Boom, you're dead. you were telling the rest to St. Peter.