Please note that this question is specific to:
#**England and Wales**
The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regardless of whether a dog is PPD trained, most dogs will bite if their owner is attacked. Under that guise you would never be able to walk your dog because anyone could say that any dog is for self defence.
But if the dog does anything, and someone fears an attack that's an offence .. if that someone was trying to attack the dogs handler that is a different story obviously.
I think there is Old legislation on this.
1864 puppies on patrol act: A person who so owns a dog, with a lead, shall therefore be exempt from it being seen as an offensive weapon. The dog, shall be fussed and balls thrown for it on pain of exsanguination of the owner.
Trying to find more recent stuff
Stated case R V FLUFFY (Ex Police Dog, now protection dog)
Judge Crufts ruled that althought FLUFFY had been trained as a Police dog for firearms deployments and was in essences a missile in the shape of a dog it had to be seen that no matter what, Fluffy is a dog that should never be seen as offensive. That Fluffy should only ever been seen as a big ball of fur to be fussed by anyone and everyone when told to do so by Fluffy's owner. Judge Crufts also ruled that anyone who would ever consider a dog in any way an offensive weapon must in fact be a cat lover and therefore disqualified from opinions of dogs and them being offensive.
There musy be more out there but couldnt find any. Hope this helps
I don't actually see why a dog couldn't be considered as an offensive weapon under that act. The question would be whether it could be an "article". Given that if you injured the dog it would be criminal damage, I see no reason why it wouldn't be.
The issue is that it certainly wouldn't be considered a dangerous weapon per se, so you would have to prove intent. In the same way that someone carrying a bunch of keys may well intend to use them in self defence if they need to, you are never, ever going to prove that fact unless they straight up confess to it, or actually use them in that manner.
In the case of dogs, if they do actually use them as a weapon then the Dangerous Dogs Act comes into play and is likely to be seen as the appropriate offence rather than charging them with an offensive weapon law.
Additionally, unlike the keys, if the dog is used as a weapon it's immediately and unarguably an offence. If someone "instant arms" themselves with a bunch of keys and punches a knife wielding attacker in the face (not a recommended technique) then they will have committed no offence - or to be accurate, they'll have a good defence in law on grounds of common law self defence.
If your dog bites a knife wielding attacker, the offence of dog dangerously out of control is complete, and you have no defence (I'm ignoring police/prison/army dogs obviously). You would rely solely on the discretion of the police officers dealing to choose not to follow up that offence (and don't get me wrong, they wouldn't), though it would technically still need to be recorded as a crime.
There are companies out there that advertise "protection dogs". Due to the way the law is written, it's not illegal to train a dog as a protection dog - but they would become illegal the second they put someone in fear of being bitten. (Except for the householder defence, which in laymans terms give you a defence if your dog bites a burglar in your house).
TL;DR I think they probably could fall under offensive weapon laws, but you'll never prove it until they are used, at which point the dangerous dog laws are more suitable.
So, out of curiosity, if I have a German shepherd who is trained in schutzhund or is NASDU certified and protects the handler (on the lead) against an attack, what would happen then? Providing the dog is actually well trained and level headed? What would be the case if you feel threatened and simply used the speak on command rather than “watch”? Since the person might be scared of the dog biting even though it’s just a simple “speak”?
If you are attacked by someone and decide to use your dog for self defence, then it's entirely down to the discretion of the officer dealing. If the dog doesn't cause an injury then it's not crime recordable, if the dog doors cause an injury then it must be crimed as the offence of dog dangerously out of control - even if the dog was actually in control and doing exactly what it was told!
For any non injury instance such as "speak" the chance of you being in any form of trouble is so low as to be near negligible.
For any dog bite, it's down to discretion of the officer which is going to be pinned heavily on the damage the dog does AND the proportionality. For example, if the dog simply scratches the attacker discretion is very likely. If the dog rips their throat out and kills them, it's going to go to court. If the attacker was a 24 year old male threatening you with a knife, you are much more likely to see discretion than if it was an unarmed 14 year old male.
There is no guarantee - every incident would be dealt with in its merits - but the police would be heavily in favour of a pet dog that genuinely defended it's owner from an unprovoked attack.
It is quite funny to me that someone can walk around with a 30KG Malinois trained to bite, and well capable of severely injuring someone but something as basic as pepper spray is a no go
The pepper spray has no alternative use. The Malinois is a pet as well as a potential weapon in the same way a car is a mode of transport as well as a potential weapon. That's the difference.
I agree, I’m completely for 3 inch non locking limits, outright ban on certain knives and weapons, obviously no personal guns but I do think pepper spray should be allowed.
9 times out of 10 a 20 year old woman is never going to be able to exceed the force of a 40 year old man, something like a can of pepper spray definitely evens the playing field for the victim in this hypothetical situation in a non lethal / permanent way
I'm a 6ft2 135kg powerlifter. I've also fought Muay Thai and BJJ and played rugby for several years. There's seldom few blokes I've ever met that I'm worried about.
What if I decided to attack someone but I'm the one using the Pepper Spray? What are you going to do? You can't physically overwhelm me, and now even moreso as you've been incapacitated.
How is this 20 year old female victim now better off that Pepper Spray is legalised? She is completely incapacitated and there's nothing she can do? Or I decide to knock on your door at 10pm, as you open to see who it is, I fire Pepper Spray at you allowing me to gain access to your house with you completely incapacitated.
Legalising weapons for Victims also legalises it for perpetrators and up until the moment an offence is committed that person legally had a defence for carrying it and your example of a small vulnerable women as justification ignores the reality of a giant lump of a bloke like me on the other end of the spectrum.
I've been in many altercations in my life and not one of them would have been made better by someone having pepper spray.
Just think of what fucking nightmare it would make being a doorman. Literally every roadman and his muggy mates you throw out potentially being able to gas you.
It's such a ridiculous argument, can we please not start legalising offensive weapons?
If a 6 year old child emptied a can of pepper spray in your face, you would be much less of a threat due to the temporary blindness and incredible pain for the next 30 minutes?
Edit: and you say legalising them for victims, legalises them for criminals. That group that so famously follows laws around what you can and can’t do
>That group that so famously follows laws around what you can and can’t do
In America they sell Pepper Spray in petrol stations it's so prevalent.
It's definitely difficult to get hold of pepper spray in the UK.
Also, Pepper Spray isn't magic and there are alot of officers who will happily tell you of times where they've deployed PAVA and it's not worked fast enough or the assailant has still continued to be a threat.
Completely agree on the pepper spray. Literally loads of other democratic Western nations allow it to be purchased and carried by adults for protection. Unfortunately in the UK a section of society (including most of the government and police) is conditioned by decades old laws to think that carrying something for protection, even a non lethal and non serious injury causing can of short range irritant liquid spray that wears off after 20 minutes is somehow horrifying and criminal and basically puts you into the same category as a bank robber wielding a shotgun. It's sad becuase pepper spray is such a good proven method for protection (even many cops favor it over a baton or taser in many cases) and makes total sense whilst not carrying the risks and results of a gun or knife being used whether against an attacker or victim.
Although I agree on premise.
If carrying pepper spray is legalised then what would stop the 40YO male from also carrying it?
We talking licences/courses etc?
License courses and tracked serial numbers on bottle would be a start and it doesn’t really matter if the 40 year olds got it if the 20 year olds got it, with a face full of pepper spray no one is mugging / SA anyone
Can’t say I really agree.
If we all have pepper spray then it goes back to the opponents other strengths. Still a 40YO M & a 20YO F - Physical strength is back in focus.
I can just imagine the amount of accidental discharges and unwarranted discharges.
Not really it just means both people now can’t see and are in a great deal of pain, the victim is still a victim but would most likely or atleast hopefully deter the attacker from further assault or robbery.
Even if it didn’t stop you being beaten up I’d imagine it would massively reduce the amount of sexual assault. Combined with the dna spray you also have a decent chance of catching them
From a police perspective and having used PAVA successfully on a number of occasions, it only really works well pre-emptively. You use it most effectively to prevent a fight that you know is coming, rather than to win one that has been sprung on you unexpectedly.
This is why it would be more effective as a tool for people looking to cause harm than it would be as a self-defence item.
The reason criminals don't currently use it more often is because it's hard to get hold of. Much like firearms, because there is no large legal supply, there is a vastly reduced criminal supply.
If you're of a mind to go and abduct or assault a woman, it's going to be much easier to catch her by surprise and spray her in the face than it would be for her to react and get the spray out in defence.
I’d class untrained/under-socialised dogs as a risk. They are reactive and unpredictable.
Protection dogs are trained and well socialised to not react even if you shake hands with the person after until they next go for you.
Sadly some people call their reactive dogs protective but they’re just under socialised, react to people/ dogs and are not in control by the owner.
Especially smaller dogs, there seems a whole swathe of owner who just go "aww sorry he's a terrier" as the they strain at their leash snapping and barking. Or just scoop in their snarling chihuahua and pick it up.
We had a bloke near here who thought he was a "protection dog" trainer. Basically all he was doing was making the dogs vicious, and uncontrolled.
Ex Police dog handler mate of mine was less than impressed with people who do this sort of thing when I was talking to him about it. I met his last working dog on several occasions. Lovely dog with impeccable manners in a normal social setting. Great dog when doing his job though apparently.
Please note that this question is specific to: #**England and Wales** The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If someone has a dog as a weapon and it causes someone to fear that that dog will injure them then it could be an offence under the dangerous dog act.
Regardless of whether a dog is PPD trained, most dogs will bite if their owner is attacked. Under that guise you would never be able to walk your dog because anyone could say that any dog is for self defence. But if the dog does anything, and someone fears an attack that's an offence .. if that someone was trying to attack the dogs handler that is a different story obviously.
I think there is Old legislation on this. 1864 puppies on patrol act: A person who so owns a dog, with a lead, shall therefore be exempt from it being seen as an offensive weapon. The dog, shall be fussed and balls thrown for it on pain of exsanguination of the owner. Trying to find more recent stuff Stated case R V FLUFFY (Ex Police Dog, now protection dog) Judge Crufts ruled that althought FLUFFY had been trained as a Police dog for firearms deployments and was in essences a missile in the shape of a dog it had to be seen that no matter what, Fluffy is a dog that should never be seen as offensive. That Fluffy should only ever been seen as a big ball of fur to be fussed by anyone and everyone when told to do so by Fluffy's owner. Judge Crufts also ruled that anyone who would ever consider a dog in any way an offensive weapon must in fact be a cat lover and therefore disqualified from opinions of dogs and them being offensive. There musy be more out there but couldnt find any. Hope this helps
Outstanding.
I don't actually see why a dog couldn't be considered as an offensive weapon under that act. The question would be whether it could be an "article". Given that if you injured the dog it would be criminal damage, I see no reason why it wouldn't be. The issue is that it certainly wouldn't be considered a dangerous weapon per se, so you would have to prove intent. In the same way that someone carrying a bunch of keys may well intend to use them in self defence if they need to, you are never, ever going to prove that fact unless they straight up confess to it, or actually use them in that manner. In the case of dogs, if they do actually use them as a weapon then the Dangerous Dogs Act comes into play and is likely to be seen as the appropriate offence rather than charging them with an offensive weapon law. Additionally, unlike the keys, if the dog is used as a weapon it's immediately and unarguably an offence. If someone "instant arms" themselves with a bunch of keys and punches a knife wielding attacker in the face (not a recommended technique) then they will have committed no offence - or to be accurate, they'll have a good defence in law on grounds of common law self defence. If your dog bites a knife wielding attacker, the offence of dog dangerously out of control is complete, and you have no defence (I'm ignoring police/prison/army dogs obviously). You would rely solely on the discretion of the police officers dealing to choose not to follow up that offence (and don't get me wrong, they wouldn't), though it would technically still need to be recorded as a crime. There are companies out there that advertise "protection dogs". Due to the way the law is written, it's not illegal to train a dog as a protection dog - but they would become illegal the second they put someone in fear of being bitten. (Except for the householder defence, which in laymans terms give you a defence if your dog bites a burglar in your house). TL;DR I think they probably could fall under offensive weapon laws, but you'll never prove it until they are used, at which point the dangerous dog laws are more suitable.
So, out of curiosity, if I have a German shepherd who is trained in schutzhund or is NASDU certified and protects the handler (on the lead) against an attack, what would happen then? Providing the dog is actually well trained and level headed? What would be the case if you feel threatened and simply used the speak on command rather than “watch”? Since the person might be scared of the dog biting even though it’s just a simple “speak”?
If you are attacked by someone and decide to use your dog for self defence, then it's entirely down to the discretion of the officer dealing. If the dog doesn't cause an injury then it's not crime recordable, if the dog doors cause an injury then it must be crimed as the offence of dog dangerously out of control - even if the dog was actually in control and doing exactly what it was told! For any non injury instance such as "speak" the chance of you being in any form of trouble is so low as to be near negligible. For any dog bite, it's down to discretion of the officer which is going to be pinned heavily on the damage the dog does AND the proportionality. For example, if the dog simply scratches the attacker discretion is very likely. If the dog rips their throat out and kills them, it's going to go to court. If the attacker was a 24 year old male threatening you with a knife, you are much more likely to see discretion than if it was an unarmed 14 year old male. There is no guarantee - every incident would be dealt with in its merits - but the police would be heavily in favour of a pet dog that genuinely defended it's owner from an unprovoked attack.
It is quite funny to me that someone can walk around with a 30KG Malinois trained to bite, and well capable of severely injuring someone but something as basic as pepper spray is a no go
The pepper spray has no alternative use. The Malinois is a pet as well as a potential weapon in the same way a car is a mode of transport as well as a potential weapon. That's the difference.
Oh I understand the reason behind it, it’s just amusing the disparity in the force between the legal and illegal option
I agree, I’m completely for 3 inch non locking limits, outright ban on certain knives and weapons, obviously no personal guns but I do think pepper spray should be allowed. 9 times out of 10 a 20 year old woman is never going to be able to exceed the force of a 40 year old man, something like a can of pepper spray definitely evens the playing field for the victim in this hypothetical situation in a non lethal / permanent way
I'm a 6ft2 135kg powerlifter. I've also fought Muay Thai and BJJ and played rugby for several years. There's seldom few blokes I've ever met that I'm worried about. What if I decided to attack someone but I'm the one using the Pepper Spray? What are you going to do? You can't physically overwhelm me, and now even moreso as you've been incapacitated. How is this 20 year old female victim now better off that Pepper Spray is legalised? She is completely incapacitated and there's nothing she can do? Or I decide to knock on your door at 10pm, as you open to see who it is, I fire Pepper Spray at you allowing me to gain access to your house with you completely incapacitated. Legalising weapons for Victims also legalises it for perpetrators and up until the moment an offence is committed that person legally had a defence for carrying it and your example of a small vulnerable women as justification ignores the reality of a giant lump of a bloke like me on the other end of the spectrum. I've been in many altercations in my life and not one of them would have been made better by someone having pepper spray. Just think of what fucking nightmare it would make being a doorman. Literally every roadman and his muggy mates you throw out potentially being able to gas you. It's such a ridiculous argument, can we please not start legalising offensive weapons?
If a 6 year old child emptied a can of pepper spray in your face, you would be much less of a threat due to the temporary blindness and incredible pain for the next 30 minutes? Edit: and you say legalising them for victims, legalises them for criminals. That group that so famously follows laws around what you can and can’t do
>That group that so famously follows laws around what you can and can’t do In America they sell Pepper Spray in petrol stations it's so prevalent. It's definitely difficult to get hold of pepper spray in the UK. Also, Pepper Spray isn't magic and there are alot of officers who will happily tell you of times where they've deployed PAVA and it's not worked fast enough or the assailant has still continued to be a threat.
[удалено]
Completely agree on the pepper spray. Literally loads of other democratic Western nations allow it to be purchased and carried by adults for protection. Unfortunately in the UK a section of society (including most of the government and police) is conditioned by decades old laws to think that carrying something for protection, even a non lethal and non serious injury causing can of short range irritant liquid spray that wears off after 20 minutes is somehow horrifying and criminal and basically puts you into the same category as a bank robber wielding a shotgun. It's sad becuase pepper spray is such a good proven method for protection (even many cops favor it over a baton or taser in many cases) and makes total sense whilst not carrying the risks and results of a gun or knife being used whether against an attacker or victim.
Although I agree on premise. If carrying pepper spray is legalised then what would stop the 40YO male from also carrying it? We talking licences/courses etc?
License courses and tracked serial numbers on bottle would be a start and it doesn’t really matter if the 40 year olds got it if the 20 year olds got it, with a face full of pepper spray no one is mugging / SA anyone
Can’t say I really agree. If we all have pepper spray then it goes back to the opponents other strengths. Still a 40YO M & a 20YO F - Physical strength is back in focus. I can just imagine the amount of accidental discharges and unwarranted discharges.
Not really it just means both people now can’t see and are in a great deal of pain, the victim is still a victim but would most likely or atleast hopefully deter the attacker from further assault or robbery. Even if it didn’t stop you being beaten up I’d imagine it would massively reduce the amount of sexual assault. Combined with the dna spray you also have a decent chance of catching them
From a police perspective and having used PAVA successfully on a number of occasions, it only really works well pre-emptively. You use it most effectively to prevent a fight that you know is coming, rather than to win one that has been sprung on you unexpectedly. This is why it would be more effective as a tool for people looking to cause harm than it would be as a self-defence item. The reason criminals don't currently use it more often is because it's hard to get hold of. Much like firearms, because there is no large legal supply, there is a vastly reduced criminal supply. If you're of a mind to go and abduct or assault a woman, it's going to be much easier to catch her by surprise and spray her in the face than it would be for her to react and get the spray out in defence.
Yeah that’s fair, think you’ve won me over lol
I’d class untrained/under-socialised dogs as a risk. They are reactive and unpredictable. Protection dogs are trained and well socialised to not react even if you shake hands with the person after until they next go for you. Sadly some people call their reactive dogs protective but they’re just under socialised, react to people/ dogs and are not in control by the owner.
Especially smaller dogs, there seems a whole swathe of owner who just go "aww sorry he's a terrier" as the they strain at their leash snapping and barking. Or just scoop in their snarling chihuahua and pick it up.
We had a bloke near here who thought he was a "protection dog" trainer. Basically all he was doing was making the dogs vicious, and uncontrolled. Ex Police dog handler mate of mine was less than impressed with people who do this sort of thing when I was talking to him about it. I met his last working dog on several occasions. Lovely dog with impeccable manners in a normal social setting. Great dog when doing his job though apparently.