# Ok What am I missing here?



## Deaf Smith (Jan 9, 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...e-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html

"Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear'Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden. 

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away. 

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon"  even in her own home  was illegal. "

Now if this had happend in Texas.... The cops would have suggested she get a gun instead of a little old knife.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 9, 2010)

I second the question--What are we missing in the story?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 10, 2010)

Countdown to someone making a snarky post about the telegraph as a paper and derision about British laws. 10-9-8...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 10, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Countdown to someone making a snarky post about the telegraph as a paper and derision about British laws. 10-9-8...



I guarantee it will be in 10 posts or less.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Actually the police were incorrect in telling her that. So either the police were at fault or she's telling porkies, take your pick gentlemen.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 10, 2010)

What better place to wave a kitchen knife then in the kitchen. In my neck of the woods we would have to encourage them to come on into the house, and from there, we are all on the same page.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

The police may have meant well in that the knife could easily have been taken off her and she could have been killed if they'd broken into the house, it may have been more by luck than judgement she wasn't. This brave young man wasn't as lucky
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...paid-to-have-a-go-hero-killed-by-muggers.html

The police don't always get it right you know, they are human and the ones that err shouldn't be taken as representative of all the police here. I'm sure you wouldn't want us to think all American police beat up people just because some have been filmed doing it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The police may have meant well in that the knife could easily have been taken off her and she could have been killed if they'd broken into the house, it may have been more by luck than judgement she wasn't. This brave young man wasn't as lucky
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...paid-to-have-a-go-hero-killed-by-muggers.html
> 
> The police don't always get it right you know, they are human and the ones that err shouldn't be taken as representative of all the police here. I'm sure you wouldn't want us to think all American police beat up people just because some have been filmed doing it.


The US cops are doing the same thing your cops are. Harassing and threatening anyone with a deadly camera.  If this poor woman had had one of those, she'd be in the tower hanging next to the portrait of Henry the 5th. 

Seriously, no cops don't always get it right, but now you have a paper (might be a good one, might be bird cage liner, I don't know) that says you can't. So how many more people will now believe this misinformation?  Don't get pissed at us for commenting on it. Get pissed with your own paper for spreading the disinformation.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 10, 2010)

Y'know, folks, there's one thing I'm kind of missing here...  Maybe it's just my local frigid weather, but it seems a tad chilly.  Let's try to remember that we can discuss things like this without taking shots at each other or other nations, OK?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The US cops are doing the same thing your cops are. Harassing and threatening anyone with a deadly camera. If this poor woman had had one of those, she'd be in the tower hanging next to the portrait of Henry the 5th.
> 
> Seriously, no cops don't always get it right, but now you have a paper (might be a good one, might be bird cage liner, I don't know) that says you can't. So how many more people will now believe this misinformation? Don't get pissed at us for commenting on it. Get pissed with your own paper for spreading the disinformation.


 

Actually I wasn't getting pissed with anyone if you notice, others were coming out with the snarky harrassment.

What's Henry V got to do with the Tower btw?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 10, 2010)

Actually I think Tez3 and Bob are right.

The cops in the UK were wrong, just as the cops in the U.S. who have a fit over being filmed are wrong.

I feel in both cases the cops have this thing for control. They feel only they should have the power to control.

The more you confuse people as to if they can defend themselves the more they 'need' you. The more you disallow people to contridict what you say, as in filming their actions, the more they can do without anyones notice.

The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely is not a hollow statement.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

It could well be a lot simpler than that, we have a huge amount of law to keep in our heads and it's sometimes easier for an inexperienced officer to state baldly that so and so is illegal rather than go into the whole letter of the law stuff. Laziness or lack of knowledge rather than any idea of taking power or control. We have no penal code here but a great many laws each with it's own nuances. A lwayer is the person to tell you whats legal and whats not. This police officer may simply have been stating what he believed to be true.
It's pointless looking for conspiracy theories everywhere, bobbies are far to busy with drunks, druggies, thieves, drunk drivers, wife beaters, muggers,prostitutes, and the miles of paperwork the government insists on to be getting above themselves.

http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexeng.htmlhttp://law.jrank.org/pages/660/Comparative-Criminal-Law-Enforcement-England-Wales.html


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

I think we need to have a revolution and break away from the tyranny!  We can become our own country with our own....er...um...never mind.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

I think some people might want to stop taking the paranoid pills and start seeing the truth that people are fallable and prone to making mistakes rather than seeing everything as a conspiracy. A tired copper at the end of a 12 hour night shift or an inexperienced copper or one with domestic problems or a heavy cold etc etc makes mistakes as we all do. Making a mistake at work doesn't mean anyone is plotting to take over the world. maybe Myleene Klass got it wrong, perhaps in a state afterwards she didn't understand what was said properly, who knows but it certainly isn't a plot to take over the world.
Why does everyone go for complicated explanations when it's usually the simplest reason thats the truth?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I dunno.  I still like that revolution idea.  But this time, lets keep the tea and send them HFCS instead.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I dunno. I still like that revolution idea. But this time, lets keep the tea and send them HFCS instead.


 

Whats that then?


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Whats that then?



HFCS =  High Fructose Corn Syrup

Its an analogue to what the Canadians and Europeans call Glucose-Fructose syrup.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Isoglucose.  We still like our sugar lol!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

I kind of like the idea of going back to the views held by early Americans when protecting one's property was not frowned upon. Where it was perfectly acceptable to blow the head off of someone who was stealing from you. 

Before you go calling me barbaric, consider that anyone who freely chooses to illegally trespass and illegally attempt to take something that is not theirs to take also freely chooses the risk and possible consequences for choosing to commit that illegal action. 

"Rights" have somehow become skewed over the last 100 years so that someone in the wrong has more protection than someone following the rules. 

It seems that the rights of the property owner; the one who's followed the rules, scrimped and saved, busted their tails, worked overtime or multiple jobs, etc.. to make life better for themselves and loved ones is in present day afforded less rights to protect their property than  someone who is wrongly attempting to take it. 

To me, that just seems whack. If you think that criminals don't take advantage of such things.... well... 

I think that we've become confused as to what being "civilized" really means.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

British law on self defence.
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html


*Public Perception of Self-Defence*

"_There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned. _



_However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear: _

_an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others; _
_they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so; _
_the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and, _
_an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence"_
*"The Crown Prosecution Service*

_Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including: _

_Whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and, _
_Whether a prosecution is in the public interest. _
_The CPS has stated that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts. _


_There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution. _


*Self-Defence and the Courts*

_If an individual is prosecuted after having acted, or having claimed to act, in self-defence the courts will apply the following test: _

_Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be? _
_The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first. _



*What if Someone Makes a Mistake?*

_The law of self-defence can even excuse an assault, or a death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the way they did - when there was never any real danger. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough. However, if the only reason the person got it wrong was because they were drunk they are unlikely to succeed in using this as a defence. _

_*Conclusion*

The law as it stands offers very wide protection to those individuals who use violence to protect themselves or others. Such is the protection that an act which could otherwise have constituted a very serious offence becomes lawful. Further, it is the stated intention of the CPS that individuals who act in this way should not even find themselves in court."


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2581201.ece


"As the law stands, if you hurt someone while defending yourself, or while stopping a crime, you wont be prosecuted even if you kill, so long as what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. Youll only be prosecuted if you have acted unreasonably. And reasonableness isnt judged by the standards of behaviour at a vicars tea party, its judged by what someone in desperate circumstances would do. "


"Guidance issued in 2005 by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers says that anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others or to prevent crime. It couldnt be plainer. It is based on the common law and section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. A citizen isnt expected to make fine judgments over the level of force used in the heat of the moment. The official advice says: 
So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon 
_


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

The only reason why the UK is being made sport of is because their news articles are in English.  I think there are other nations that have self defense laws that Americans would not find palatable, and I also suspect that those nations do not have troops that are serving alongside ours the war on terror, or at least not with the same penetration that the UK is doing.

However, to understand what goes on in those countries requires reading a news account in a language other than English, something most Americans are not wont to do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

There is a bottom line here.   That is, this is a matter of UK laws and rights, which work differently, in a somewhat different cultural mindset.  We as American's may not understand the "why", but in the end it is not our country.  Our laws and approaches to things confound the UK folks as much as theirs do us.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Actually I think Tez3 and Bob are right.
> 
> The cops in the UK were wrong, just as the cops in the U.S. who have a fit over being filmed are wrong.
> 
> ...



Actually, police have a DUTY to be in control..........but a responsibility to exercise judgment.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 11, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Actually, police have a DUTY to be in control..........but a responsibility to exercise judgment.


 
True. But some feel *only they should have the power to control.*

And that's the problem. When they feel their authority is absolute and should not be questioned then trouble will come.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2010)

It seems the story she was warned by the police was given to the press by her agent, the force concerned deny giving any warning at all.

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/hertfordshire_police_deny_giving_myleene_klass_knife_warning_1_35428

"However, a police spokeswoman told the Welwyn Hatfield Times they had NOT issued any kind of warning to Myleene about using a knife during the incident. 
She said: For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home.


I think you will find the truth in here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2010/jan/15/myleene-klass-marina-hyde


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It could well be a lot simpler than that, we have a huge amount of law to keep in our heads and it's sometimes easier for an inexperienced officer to state baldly that so and so is illegal rather than go into the whole letter of the law stuff.



This reminds me of the book I am reading now, which was written by a cosmologist about his theories. In it he mentions various annecdotes about his time in cambridge and other places.

One of his annecdotes mentions a grad student who demanded his glass of brown ale during the exam. For a prank he had gone over the ancient books of university regulations to search for something he could use. Apparently, this was a regulation from hundreds of years ago, which was simply not printed anymore in current rule books, but never officially repealed.

After a lot of discussion, an angry porter was sent to the nearest pub to get a glass of brown ale.

The porters got back at him though. After a similar journey through time and dusty tomes, they got him fined a substantial amount because he showed up at the exam without his sword.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 16, 2010)

One publicity hungry 'celeb' + publicity agent + politicians looking to score points for electon = a false story blaming police for something they didn't do.
While the police aren't perfect there's too many people willing to believe the worst of them.


----------

