Morning muggings
If I might make make a couple of comments since my son has been mugged three times and myself once.
Apparently early morning muggings are not new (referring to it being common some two years ago as told by a hairdresser half way up Kirkdale who told my son he'd witnessed several outside his shop before 9am). As another poster said, it could well be to get mobiles off kids before they get on the bus for school.
Regarding "now and then", I don't recall muggers on cycles "then", but that is how I was "Got" - a handbag grab +injury at 4.30 pm (broad daylight).
Re Dulwich, two of the muggings re my son happened there. I suppose there's a presumption that "posh kids" will have more worth nicking (phones, money).
Not sure what people can do except be aware of people around them - although when I was mugged years ago elsewhere, it was by someone hiding in a doorway who "jumped out". In those days, it was more likely to be pickpockets one was worried about, not people who you daren't question in case they pull a knife on you.
Short of going out in riot gear every day, I'm not sure what one can do. Certainly when I go out now, I carry the minimum necessary, usually in my pockets rather than my handbag.
My point I suppose is that things probably are different "now". Fate has a lot to answer for if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, otherwise we just have to get on with it, so to speak.
Apparently early morning muggings are not new (referring to it being common some two years ago as told by a hairdresser half way up Kirkdale who told my son he'd witnessed several outside his shop before 9am). As another poster said, it could well be to get mobiles off kids before they get on the bus for school.
Regarding "now and then", I don't recall muggers on cycles "then", but that is how I was "Got" - a handbag grab +injury at 4.30 pm (broad daylight).
Re Dulwich, two of the muggings re my son happened there. I suppose there's a presumption that "posh kids" will have more worth nicking (phones, money).
Not sure what people can do except be aware of people around them - although when I was mugged years ago elsewhere, it was by someone hiding in a doorway who "jumped out". In those days, it was more likely to be pickpockets one was worried about, not people who you daren't question in case they pull a knife on you.
Short of going out in riot gear every day, I'm not sure what one can do. Certainly when I go out now, I carry the minimum necessary, usually in my pockets rather than my handbag.
My point I suppose is that things probably are different "now". Fate has a lot to answer for if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, otherwise we just have to get on with it, so to speak.
A nasty little tip from someone who's not a stranger to muggings and random attacks - When in a potentially dangerous situation put your hands in your pockets and put the yale key in between your two middle fingers (sharp side pointing out.) If the situation does escalate you can surprise them with a punch to the cheek and run. 9 times out of 10 they will be too busy picking their face off the floor to chase after you.
(I don't condone violence unless there is no other option
)
(I don't condone violence unless there is no other option
)but a word of warning on that piece of advice: You are perfectly entitled to defend yourself from attack but you could land yourself in a lot of trouble if you recklessly strike somone and, even, if you are caught arming yourself as such.
The law defines an offensive weapon, amongst other things, as something you intend to use as an offensive weapon. You are, however, entitled to instant arm" yourself when confront with a real and present danger. You may find youself trying to prove that in court though....
complicated stuff!
The law defines an offensive weapon, amongst other things, as something you intend to use as an offensive weapon. You are, however, entitled to instant arm" yourself when confront with a real and present danger. You may find youself trying to prove that in court though....
complicated stuff!
On the topic of carrying keys, I've always carried them separately from any other things that one might "give away" and also I've stopped carrying the post I picked up on the way out of the door in a morning, so that hopefully any stolen keys would be useless without an address. Meaning that it's easier to do (as they'll probably just be discarded) than to get a locksmith out at 11pm to change the locks... The police told me at the time of mine that it was usually for more "instant gain" items (i.e. money) rather than credit card cloning runners (whatever).
It took me a while to realise just what I was carrying with me, for example my driving licence. Also, I asked on another forum about the best case to carry a lap top in and received several helpful case suggestions, though one was to put it in a supermarket carrier bag.
It took me a while to realise just what I was carrying with me, for example my driving licence. Also, I asked on another forum about the best case to carry a lap top in and received several helpful case suggestions, though one was to put it in a supermarket carrier bag.
Just to add that a visiting girlfriend of a very good friend was mugged on a week night one month ago on Newlands Park Road at 7.30 pm! She may have looked a little out of place as she is very girly and petite but to be threatened by 3 youths for your handbag is not nice and in broad daylight - is not the best impression of the area! However having lived here for 8 years myself it's the only crime that has "touched me" .....oh and my new car that was stolen from Sydenham station in 2001! Still it's not that bad really.
My auntie - small, round & drawing her pension - got grabbed by a mugger a few years ago (not in Sydenham, but in Gravesend). She was laden down with supermarket plastic carrying bags & somehow in the struggle she managed to swing one up & clout him on the head. There was an almighty bang & he hit the ground & lay there stunned.
It was then she realized she'd clonked him with a frozen chicken.
Worried she might have killed him she leaned over to see if he was all right. He then grabbed her ankle & uttered the chilling words "I want you".
She knocked him out with the chicken & legged it as fast as her aged pins would allow.
I know it's not practical to carry a frozen chicken at all times. But I'd like to see them call that an offensive weapon in court.
It was then she realized she'd clonked him with a frozen chicken.
Worried she might have killed him she leaned over to see if he was all right. He then grabbed her ankle & uttered the chilling words "I want you".
She knocked him out with the chicken & legged it as fast as her aged pins would allow.
I know it's not practical to carry a frozen chicken at all times. But I'd like to see them call that an offensive weapon in court.
I suspect you'd find that any item used as an offensive weapon is considered an offensive weapon if it was used thus, since it's still assault. The mugger is probably claiming from the criminal injuries compensation authority as we speak...
That springs to mind from something I heard on the radio this morning about a woman who'd tried to stop a youth from riding his BMX bike over cemetary flowers. Apparently, she put her hand on his shoulder and his first words were "That's assault!" Sorry I don't have a link so I don't know where in the country it happened and, yes, it's hearsay, but it is the way things are now, i.e. the criminals seem to have more rights than the victims.
That springs to mind from something I heard on the radio this morning about a woman who'd tried to stop a youth from riding his BMX bike over cemetary flowers. Apparently, she put her hand on his shoulder and his first words were "That's assault!" Sorry I don't have a link so I don't know where in the country it happened and, yes, it's hearsay, but it is the way things are now, i.e. the criminals seem to have more rights than the victims.
-
bigbadwolf
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 7 Jan 2008 21:21
- Location: Forest Hill and Sydenham
This is also happening in Forest hill aswell. A few days ago I had a knife pulled on me in the alley that runs along the railway line between the footbridge and W.H Smiths. It happened at night and I was licky enough to get away unhurt but my friends brother was robbed there in broad daylight. Just for the record being nearly mugged is pretty much equal to actually being relieved of your possesions as you're still confronted by the threat of being harmed wether you are or not and is worse if you're still at school because you often have to stick to the same route and live with the fact that ou may encounter your assailant again.
No, criminals do not have more rights than innocent people. Its just that the tabloids want to make you think that to get you outraged.
The law is very clear in what you can do to defend yourself and is based in 2 major pieces of law.
Firstly the Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 says:
(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances (nb. it says "Any person" - not just police &c.)
in the prevention of crime,
or
in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
The second major area of legislation exists in common law. The basic principle of this is outlines in Beckford Vs. R (1988):
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
if reasonable then it is perfectly legal to use a weapon to effect this force. Whilst you are not allowed to go about with a weapon "just in case" you are allowed to grab items to hand and use them as weapons - this is called "instant arming" and allowed under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 as it would be considred a "reasonable excuse".
Indeed, you don't even have to have been assaulted to use force to defend youself - provided you genuinely feared for your safety and felt there was no other option - (R. Vs Beckford):
"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
.
---------------------------------------------------
The only problem with much of this legal theory is that if you end up assaulting someone then you may well get arrested. As police officers who attend will merely be faced with, apparently, someone who has been assaulted. Indeed, if the (crook) who has been hurt by you (the innocent pary) decides to make a complaint of assault then the police are obliged to investigate.
Most investigations (rightly or wrongly) involve the person who has been complained against being arrested for the purposes of the investigation. the police cannot be expected to work out the facts there and then so will perform an arrest to get you to the police station to interview you on record &c. - I don't like this because there are other, less humiliating, ways to get people to give evidence. However, being arrested is no indication of guilt.
If you have acted reasonably then you will not be charged or will be found not-guilty in a court.
The woman in the war-memorial incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7500718.stm) was found guilty because she physically intervened where no crime had taken place: (cf. she "thought" they were riding their bikes through the memorial) For a member of the public to arrest someone (a "citizens' arrest" an indictable offence must have taken place, or be taking place - s.24A PACE1894)
sorry for the long post, it just seems people are mis-lead about their rights and responsibilities when it comes to self-defence. Hopefully I've cleared one or two things up
The law is very clear in what you can do to defend yourself and is based in 2 major pieces of law.
Firstly the Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 says:
(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances (nb. it says "Any person" - not just police &c.)
in the prevention of crime,
or
in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
The second major area of legislation exists in common law. The basic principle of this is outlines in Beckford Vs. R (1988):
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
if reasonable then it is perfectly legal to use a weapon to effect this force. Whilst you are not allowed to go about with a weapon "just in case" you are allowed to grab items to hand and use them as weapons - this is called "instant arming" and allowed under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 as it would be considred a "reasonable excuse".
Indeed, you don't even have to have been assaulted to use force to defend youself - provided you genuinely feared for your safety and felt there was no other option - (R. Vs Beckford):
"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."
.
---------------------------------------------------
The only problem with much of this legal theory is that if you end up assaulting someone then you may well get arrested. As police officers who attend will merely be faced with, apparently, someone who has been assaulted. Indeed, if the (crook) who has been hurt by you (the innocent pary) decides to make a complaint of assault then the police are obliged to investigate.
Most investigations (rightly or wrongly) involve the person who has been complained against being arrested for the purposes of the investigation. the police cannot be expected to work out the facts there and then so will perform an arrest to get you to the police station to interview you on record &c. - I don't like this because there are other, less humiliating, ways to get people to give evidence. However, being arrested is no indication of guilt.
If you have acted reasonably then you will not be charged or will be found not-guilty in a court.
The woman in the war-memorial incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7500718.stm) was found guilty because she physically intervened where no crime had taken place: (cf. she "thought" they were riding their bikes through the memorial) For a member of the public to arrest someone (a "citizens' arrest" an indictable offence must have taken place, or be taking place - s.24A PACE1894)
sorry for the long post, it just seems people are mis-lead about their rights and responsibilities when it comes to self-defence. Hopefully I've cleared one or two things up
Many thanks, bensonby, for your comprehensive reply. It's good to know where we stand at the moment after "Martin". I'm a little confused as to how no crime was being committed (BMX-wise) if damage was being caused to another's property, or, as you say, maybe she only thought it was. I'll pass on that one. Thank you for the info
Replying to bigbadwolf: I do agree that threat of harm (e.g. pulling a knife) is a consideration one can't afford to risk. My son and two friends didn't want to risk harm and gave over watches, phones and money when the guy had his hand in his pocket. Yes, it could have been a banana.
Re schools, I've had occasion to call two different headmasters to see what they have in place and it would seem they work in concert with police (e.g. police presence). Clearly there can't be a policeman at every bus stop, but it might be worth getting the Head's take on things as they are very aware.
Replying to bigbadwolf: I do agree that threat of harm (e.g. pulling a knife) is a consideration one can't afford to risk. My son and two friends didn't want to risk harm and gave over watches, phones and money when the guy had his hand in his pocket. Yes, it could have been a banana.
Re schools, I've had occasion to call two different headmasters to see what they have in place and it would seem they work in concert with police (e.g. police presence). Clearly there can't be a policeman at every bus stop, but it might be worth getting the Head's take on things as they are very aware.
re. schools, if there are problems you get teachers and/or the local police involved - they will also be talking to eachother - then they will probably arrange to have some PCSOs or teachers standing at the local bus stops to keep an eye on things.
I remember after some trouble that my school experienced at the hands of another school they had a heavy police presence for a good few days to discourage stuff from happening. The only problem is that its not that sustainable in the long term...
I remember after some trouble that my school experienced at the hands of another school they had a heavy police presence for a good few days to discourage stuff from happening. The only problem is that its not that sustainable in the long term...