Posession of an Offensive Weapon

A screwdriver becomes an offensive weapon when you use it e.g. killing someone.

Such is for instance a fact in Roman law (although of course not referring exctly to screwdrivers) since .... well, since Roman times.
(You find this legal practise in the Sachsenspiegel, the German law book from 1220 as well.)

Thank you Walter for stating the obvious.

Now that you've killed someone with your screwdriver, that the law failed to protect, if caught will you be charged with possessing an offensive weapon?

Can't say that for British law (but you can find out it by yourself here.)

In German (and Austrain and Swiss law [and French and Dutch, if I'm not totally wrong, most certainly in others, similar as well]) you get prosecuted of an attack, an assaul, a homicide with an offensive weapon (which could be 'murder' [= first degree] in German/Austrian law.]

Well, you really should teach law.

Right, you get charged with murder. Your victim is still dead, despite the feel good law that was supposed to protect them.

I hate feel good laws.

Well, in our legal system criminal laws aren't primarily made to protect someone >"bases of punishability".


I honestly wonder that you know the differences in German criminal law between, murder, manslaughter, less serious kind of manslaughter, homicide, bodily injury resulting in death ...
Such sometimes is a problem even for law students in their forth year.

I don't really know what your getting at here, cj. But I think it's obvious that a gun has one purpose. A screwdriver has many. Anything CAN be a weapon used offensively, but you wouldn't claim to have a gun on you just in case your boat needs fixing.

Precisely my point about feel good laws. The population at large always favors them, though they do no real good. In fact, they harm law abiding citizens.

So your a follower of the idea that criminal laws should be abolished.

Well, now I wonder how this anarchistic idea fits with your genrally extrem rightwing view ... but there are some examples in istory of such coalitions ...

Where did you get that idea? Why do you insist on drawing conclusions that simply aren't there?

Should there be a law against murder? Absolutely. Should there be a law that says you cannot carry a weapon to defend youself? I think not.

Because to answered to my response, even citied part of it.

?

My car keys are on a beaded keychain my kids made for me years ago. The beads are strung on some very strong nylon "string" in the shape of an alligator. Stretched out, the gator is about 10" long, with the keys on a metal ring at the end.

Would I be arrested in London for this?

Are you going to list all you killed besides those in London?

Since you yourself have figured out that this keychain decoration could be used to defend yourself, you won't be needing a gun.

Right?

I'll never tell.

If I had anything to do with it most certainly yes. Regardless of bits of nylon string.

??

Reduced to personal insults over a simple question? Whadya gonna arrest me for there Mr. bobby?

Er... wouldn't that be a defensive weapon then?

Possession of an offensive personality






love ya really

since, as seems to be usual with cj, he apparently hasn't actually bothered to find out what the law is or what it considers an "offensive weapon", but just plunges directly into the ranting, I thought it might be useful to see exactly what they are talking about in Britain.

Below is a portion of the government's discussion of the law. Find the rest of the discussion at http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_c.html

"Code for Crown Prosecutors
As a general rule, subject to the sufficiency of evidence, it is not in the public interest for persons to go about armed with offensive weapons. This applies even though they may believe they may possibly be attacked. A prosecution will thus normally be in the public interest, even where the offender is vulnerable.
In determining the choice of charge, prosecutors should take account of Paragraph 7.1 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This states that Crown Prosecutors should select charges which:
reflect the seriousness of the offending;
give the court adequate sentencing powers; and
enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way.
This means that Crown Prosecutors may not always continue with the most serious charge where there is a choice. Further, Crown Prosecutors should not continue with more charges than are necessary.
Top of page
The Law
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. <Archbold 24-106a>
Definition of an offensive weapon <Archbold 24-115B>:
'Offensive weapon' is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use. The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury.
Lord Lane, CJ, in R v Simpson (C), 78 Cr. App. R. 115, identified three categories of offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person, i.e. offensive per se; those adapted for such a purpose; and those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
In the first two categories, the prosecution do not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Top of page
Offensive Per Se
For the caselaw on instances of weapons considered to be offensive per se <Archbold 24-116>.
Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits the possession in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed (including a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches). <Archbold, 24.125>
Both offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are triable either-way. The offence of having an offensive weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment on indictment. Having a bladed article carries two years imprisonment on indictment.
Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997 prohibit the marketing of a knife in a way which suggests it is suitable for combat or otherwise encourages violent behavior using the knife as a weapon. <Archbold 24-133>
The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession for sale or hire, of 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives'. <Stones 8-22469>
The Crossbows Act 1987 prohibits the sale to, or possession or purchase by, a person under the age of 17 of certain types of crossbow. <Stones 8-22660>"

Gee. Big knives. Crossbows. Yep, I always use a crossbow in my daily life. All kinds of uses, right, cj? And, hey, god knows, in my daily walks I'm all too likely to be attacked by a rabid bush and need a 2 foot long concealed machete to fight it off, right, cj?

Seems like a reasonable law for a CIVILIZED society to enact.