Every US citizen has the right under the constitution to protect themselves, their kin, along with their belongings. If you reside in England you can not be blamed for thinking we have the exact same human rights, however you don't.
In the UK government spokesmen speak of human rights, individual liberty, as well as the persons right to live with no fear, discrimination, or persecution, you would believe that a man or lady had the right to look after themselves from physical assault via what ever method possible. Though, in reality this is as far from the fact as it is possible to get.
If you are physically assaulted in the UK please bear in mind when it comes to your response, reasonable force. Really? Who determines what is reasonable force. In the moment of assault the defendant choses what reaction to adopt along with the degree of force required. But, it may possibly be the police or a court judge that decides whether or not you used reasonable force.
Lets take an illustration. A girl is attacked at knife point and sexual assaulted. The attacker, having raped the lady, gets up and goes to run away. The woman staggers to her feet, picks up a heavy object and hits the man on the back of the head and kills him. Is this acceptable force? To the everyday man and girl in the street the response would be a definite yes. In reality the unfortunate girl is going to be tried for murder/manslaughter. Why? For the reason that the assailant was moving away from her she no longer needed to defend herself.
Consequently surely the answer is to defend yourself using no force. Weapons along with knives are out of the question in the united kingdom since they are offensive weapons. Subsequently that leaves self-protective weapons, but what constitutes a self-protective weapon?
Ladies in the United Kingdom have argued that some type of pepper spray is the model defensive weapon. For example; it takes little or no talent to utilize, it is non-lethal, furthermore the size and power of the user has no relevance on its effectiveness. Along with that, females maintain that the normal size and power disparities, that there are between men and women, makes the use of pepper spray the only sensible type of non-lethal defense. Yet, this claim has been rejected by the (mostly male) politicians.
This has left the UK's girls with merely two choices. One, take the gamble that they won't be assaulted or secondly, pay money for pepper spray via internet. However, the females that obtain pepper spray via internet are running the risk of prosecution, because pepper spray (UK) is prohibited in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. When you acquire, sell, or carry pepper spray you are leaving yourself open to arrest and prosecution.
However, tens of thousands of ladies continue to buy and carry pepper spray. This is because in reality, the fear of harm outweighs the fear of being arrested. Would any of us truly blame females for feeling the need to have pepper spray on them when barely one in 10 rapists are convicted for their crime.
In the UK government spokesmen speak of human rights, individual liberty, as well as the persons right to live with no fear, discrimination, or persecution, you would believe that a man or lady had the right to look after themselves from physical assault via what ever method possible. Though, in reality this is as far from the fact as it is possible to get.
If you are physically assaulted in the UK please bear in mind when it comes to your response, reasonable force. Really? Who determines what is reasonable force. In the moment of assault the defendant choses what reaction to adopt along with the degree of force required. But, it may possibly be the police or a court judge that decides whether or not you used reasonable force.
Lets take an illustration. A girl is attacked at knife point and sexual assaulted. The attacker, having raped the lady, gets up and goes to run away. The woman staggers to her feet, picks up a heavy object and hits the man on the back of the head and kills him. Is this acceptable force? To the everyday man and girl in the street the response would be a definite yes. In reality the unfortunate girl is going to be tried for murder/manslaughter. Why? For the reason that the assailant was moving away from her she no longer needed to defend herself.
Consequently surely the answer is to defend yourself using no force. Weapons along with knives are out of the question in the united kingdom since they are offensive weapons. Subsequently that leaves self-protective weapons, but what constitutes a self-protective weapon?
Ladies in the United Kingdom have argued that some type of pepper spray is the model defensive weapon. For example; it takes little or no talent to utilize, it is non-lethal, furthermore the size and power of the user has no relevance on its effectiveness. Along with that, females maintain that the normal size and power disparities, that there are between men and women, makes the use of pepper spray the only sensible type of non-lethal defense. Yet, this claim has been rejected by the (mostly male) politicians.
This has left the UK's girls with merely two choices. One, take the gamble that they won't be assaulted or secondly, pay money for pepper spray via internet. However, the females that obtain pepper spray via internet are running the risk of prosecution, because pepper spray (UK) is prohibited in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. When you acquire, sell, or carry pepper spray you are leaving yourself open to arrest and prosecution.
However, tens of thousands of ladies continue to buy and carry pepper spray. This is because in reality, the fear of harm outweighs the fear of being arrested. Would any of us truly blame females for feeling the need to have pepper spray on them when barely one in 10 rapists are convicted for their crime.
RSS Feed