"Offensive Weapons" in the UK

[Tiberius]

Footballer with a "baton" fined and the baton destroyed.

Meanwhile, people can carry as many baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, etc. as they like.

*clap* *clap*

[Jackalope]

Footballer with a "baton" fined and the baton destroyed.

Meanwhile, people can carry as many baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, etc. as they like.

*clap* *clap*

So, as this was a police-style baton, does this mean that the police are on the offensive?

The difference between an offensive weapon, a defensive weapon, and a harmless inanimate object: intent.

[Cato]

Ha! I thought for sure it would be Joey Barton before reading the article.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ha! I thought for sure it would be Joey Barton before reading the article.

Ha. +1

[Cyberman]

The offense according to the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 is that of "carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". To the best of my knowledge, a person can carry any item which could be used as a weapon if that item would be a reasonable or normal item for that person to carry, a tool of the trade. I've probably butchered it horribly but the upshot is that a plumber could reasonably carry a pipe wrench, a carpenter a hammer, and so on. Police-style batons are restricted for use by police. Since an offensive weapon is defined in law as "any object that has been made or adapted to cause injury" and includes "an object not designed to hurt anyone, but you're carrying it round intending to cause injury, like nail scissors", then carrying a baseball bat for the purpose of using it as a weapon is definitely illegal. It's no defense to say that you're only carrying it for self-defense.

[Tiberius]

The law is stupid.

[Autumnlicious]

That's not a criticism of Stimbo's counter, Tibs.

[Tiberius]

His counter is perfectly valid; legally speaking, what he had was an offensive weapon. I'm just stating my disagreement with the law.

[Autumnlicious]

Are you implying that it's perfectly reasonable and expected to be able to waltz around public with a potential weapon, attract police attention (why would such occur?) and refuse to give rationale as to why you have said potential weapon?

[Tiberius]

I don't believe any part of my post or response implied that, no.

The report said he had it in his car; he wasn't carrying it around in public. The police most likely stopped him for some other offense, and searched his vehicle. If he's using it as a weapon, he should be arrested and the weapon taken from him. Otherwise, he should be left alone.

The fact is, we all waltz around public with potential weapons; we all have fists, our heads, our feet, etc. In a moment's notice, we can unleash some real damage on people by using our bodies. I fail to see why carrying weapons around is grounds for arresting someone and removing it. Self-defense should be an adequate defense.

I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.