22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wastelander
Wastelander's picture
Cell Phones as Improvised Weapons

Hello, everyone!

This week, on Waza Wednesday, we take a look at some tekko/chizikunbo techniques, utilized with an improvised weapon that just about everyone carries with them at all times--their cell phone.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Going way back my good friend carried a pencil sharpened to a wicked point and a pot of white pepper.

He was well aware that he would need to use the pepper down wind etc.

In a fracas outside a nightclub around the same period of my life I even used a cheeseburger (with mustard ).

Regards 

Mark

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Personally I never leave home without my sharp wit and startlingly good looks

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Improvised weaponry is important. Worth remembering that, here in the UK, it is an offence to carry an offensive weapon; where the term '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". - Section 1 (4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/

So everyday items carried with the purpose of being used as a weapon are still illegal. I could use as metal comb as a weapon, but carrying one in public for that purpose would put me on the wrong side of the law. However, someone who was not bald could have such a comb with them for keeping their hair tidy – so not an offence under the prevention of crime act – and if the item was used in self-defence then it would be up to a court to determine if that was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as the person using the comb honestly believed them to be.

I carry my phone so I can be contacted and keep in touch with the wider world (as does every one). It is not carried with the intention of injuring someone. So consider how to use it in a situation of last resort is sensible and, so long as the action taken is legally justifiable, the fact a phone was used is unlikely to be an issue.

Mark B wrote:
Going way back my good friend carried a pencil sharpened to a wicked point and a pot of white pepper.

The pencil or pen is likely to be fine (we all have a need to write at varying points in the day), but the pepper could be classed as an offensive weapon unless he had a reason to justify having it with him (spice salesman?). If it was used without such a reason in place there could be legal issues. Especially when you consider that getting it ready to use would take time, and hence demonstrate the threat was not imminent.

Mark B wrote:
I even used a cheeseburger (with mustard).

You’re on safe ground there I feel :-)

There’s a story of karate master Seyu Nakasone (seen as the last master of tomari-te) using a hammer to defend himself, but because he was as carpenter, and at work at the time, it was regarded as acceptable. Very similar to how it would work under UK law:

"At that time in Okinawa, when a karateman's fame grew, his chances of being attacked by hooligans who hoped to defeat him and rise to fame were great. Often there were open challenges. The master, once approached by a man in such a way, treated him with indifference. Mortified, the man tried to take the master by surprise while at his work. Master Nakasone, who was a carpenter by trade, and one of Okinawa's best furniture makers, was busily working with his hammer at the moment the man chose to strike. He instantly blocked the assailant's attack with the hand that held the hammer and in the same move, struck the man on the head with the hammer. The man, knocked unconscious, was taken to the hospital. Fortunately it wasn't fatal, but Master Nakasone was questioned by the police anyway. Though he had used a hammer, it was decided that since the tool was natural to his profession, and hence likely to be in his hands at any time, his use of it was not premeditated and he was cleared of any charge of over-reaction to the attack. Nevertheless, I think Master Nakasone knew exactly what he was doing, for it is said that the assailant never bothered the Master again."

http://seinenkai.com/articles/noble/noble-shorin3.html

Not legal in the UK, but for those where stun guns are legal this is a way to boost things up:

All the best,

Iain

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

At the jujutsu dojo I train at we have "improvised weapons from your natural home or work environment" as part of the 2nd dan grading requirements. It is always fun and enlightning to watch what people have come up with, but it has to be said that some people's professions give them much better toys to play with than others!

I can still remember one grading where Kevin, a builder by trade, had already shown use of a broom, shovel, bucket, hard hat and work gloves and was stopped from bringing a bottle of brick acid onto the floor with the words "that's enough now, I think your attacker has got the point!". The next guy up, Rupert, owns a music shop and demonstrated the use of power leads and drum sticks etc as well as an umbrella.

As a translator I don't really have anything like that immediately available (I guess the "sticks and stones" saying was accurate after all!), but I have recently started practicing with a dog lead and ball catapult toy (I feel it is far more likely I will be attacked while out walking the dog than in the office too).

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

This set of comedy sketches would seem to be relevant to his thread!

Warning: Mild bad language!

All the best,

Iain

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

A slight tangent from the subject perhaps, but I'm wondering about people who carry tonfa and sai to the club for practice purposes. Carried in a training case within a bag, I wonder if these are illegal? Kindest Regards,

Ally

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

AllyWhytock wrote:
I'm wondering about people who carry tonfa and sai to the club for practice purposes. Carried in a training case within a bag, I wonder if these are illegal?

I think they would be perfectly legal. If they were inaccessible (i.e. in a zipped carry case in the boot of car as opposed to held in hand ready to use) then it’s clear they are not being carried with intention of being used. You would also have a good reason for having them in a public place because you were taking them to training.

It’s ultimately up to the court to determine if the reason for having weapons in a public place is a good one:

“It would be for an individual to demonstrate that he or she has a good reason or reasonable excuse to possess a bladed article or offensive weapon in public. Whether the individual’s explanation amounts to a ‘good reason’ or a ‘reasonable excuse’ is a matter for the courts to determine.”

Seeing as things like martial arts using bo, sai, tonfa, bokken, etc are legal activities, it stands to reason you have to get the weapons to and from training. So you’d like to think the legality of safely and securely transporting them is beyond question.

Think of it this way: If I have a cricket bat, in my zipped kit bag, on my way to and from a cricket match then that’s perfectly legal. If I take a cricket bat for a drink as “insurance” then I’m carrying it with the intention of using it as a weapon and I have no good, and legally recognised, reason to have it with me, so it would now be an “offensive weapon”.

It’s not always what it is, but what the intention for having it with you is.

Weapons (whether or not it is an actual weapon, or something that can be used as a weapon) carried for actual use would be illegal. Weapons for training and sport (archery, fencing, martial arts, etc.) can be legally transported in public in connection with those activities.

But, and this is key, “it would be for an individual to demonstrate that he or she has a good reason or reasonable excuse to possess a bladed article or offensive weapon in public” and therefore to help make the case that you had no intention of using it when travelingto and from training it is wise to ensure it is inaccessible.

There are some martial weapons that are banned outright though i.e. butterfly knives, kusari, etc. So you can’t have them in public no matter what.

This is a good UK resource:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/knives-and-offensive-weapons-information

All the best,

Iain

Dave. H
Dave. H's picture

I always have a mini maglite (2x AA battery) on me because it comes in very handy, and being a maglite is designed with secondary use as a weapon in mind, which was why we were not permitted to carry one larger than a 2 'D' cell when i was in the police. I regularly carry swords and Bokken to and from teaching Kenjutsu but i am not sure how i could justify opening a bag and fishing out a sword/Bokken as a spur of the moment or reactionary improvised weapon, and the same would apply when i take sticks and other weapons to and from Karate and Jujitsu, I would be far more likely to use the bag as a weapon by swinging it or throwing it. I am not to sure about using a phone to create wrist locks as wrist grabs are not what I would consider as a HAOV (habitual act of violence), these may have been common in times when the use of swords and weapons were prominant and used as a means to control the weapon without getting cut.  In my experience grabs tend to be of the clothing of the upper body. In my time in the prison service I have seen prisoners use a variety of objects as weapons.  Metal flasks of water are one of the more common ones, as are pool balls and soap in socks.  To combat this the prison service bars of soap are tiny, but prisoners will collect them up soak them and squeez them into a lump.  Sharpened plastic cutlery (usually to a point rather than a blade), sharpened ID cards, screws in the top of a roll on, mop bucket handles, newspapers (folded then rolled), CD's, hot water and sugar, and there was even an officer who had a hole punched into her back with a glass jar that had been sharpened around the rim. With the right mentality (or wrong one depending on if you are giving or receiving)anything can be a weapon.

I even saw an advert once for something called an 'unbreakable umbrella'  that was developed for close protection in countries where carryong of batons and firearms were not permitted.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Deciding whether a sharpened pencil,  or a pot of pepper could be considered legal tends to demonstrate the different understanding of the law abiding people who haven't really socialised with people who may think in a slightly different way. . 

I don't mean to be rude in saying that but honestly no "villain /thug/criminal ", call it what you will would give much of a damn about such things.

Explaining a pepper pot would be easy. 

Police -"why did you have the item in your pocket"

Accused - " I was clearing the table after tea, must have put it in my pocket by accident "

Police -"how was it that you had it in your hand ready to use"

Accused - "I had my hand in my pocket as the individual approached.  I was frightened and simply used it without thought,  through panic"

In the UK at least it's the job of the police to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.  A decent brief could easily defend the pepper pot.

II'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just that decent,  law abiding people regularly make the mistake of judging behaviour/ expectations by their own morals or experiences.

Regards 

Mark

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Mark,

Mark B wrote:
Deciding whether a sharpened pencil, or a pot of pepper could be considered legal tends to demonstrate the different understanding of the law abiding people who haven't really socialised with people who may think in a slightly different way.

It’s a legal requirement Mark. Any good approach to self-protection does need to factor in legalities.

They may not care about breaking the law, but most criminals have a much better understanding of the law than the law-abiding. Experianced criminals know the law really well because they keep running in to it. They therefore “play the game” better.

If we are not every bit as knowledgeable, we could find that they say all the right things, while we say all the wrong things. More on that in a moment.

Mark B wrote:
I don't mean to be rude in saying that but honestly no "villain /thug/criminal ", call it what you will would give much of a damn about such things.

That’s generally true. And that is why there are a lot of them in prison :-) However, the experianced criminal will know the law, and hence will try to break it with the minimum of risk to themselves. So in that sense they do “give much of a damn”.

The key point is that it is possible to legally protect yourself. We don’t need to resort to being criminals ourselves. And what would be the point of choosing to defend yourself in a manner that could see you imprisoned as a result? Any good self-protection system needs to consider the law.

Mark B wrote:
Explaining a pepper pot would be easy.

Police -"why did you have the item in your pocket"

Accused - "I was clearing the table after tea, must have put it in my pocket by accident "

Police -"how was it that you had it in your hand ready to use"

Accused - "I had my hand in my pocket as the individual approached.  I was frightened and simply used it without thought, through panic"

That is not likely to be an explanation the police, a judge or a jury, would buy. Who accidently puts pepper pots in their pocket?

Focussing on pepper probably takes us away from the key points though. It’s not really a good weapon. You can’t throw pepper, it would need to be blown. And in the time it would take to lift my hand up and blow, I could have already struck him and been on my way (way more effective). The “best” delivery – the one with the least telegraphing – would be having it in a loose fist and disguising it as cough, but even then as a pre-emptive method it is way less effective than a simple slap. The effect of a strike is also not dependent upon wind direction nor is it rendered ineffective should the enemy blink. (Impracticalities and legalites aside, a dry, fine, toast snuff would be a better option anyway because that is a fine powder that many people keep a tin of in their pocket to satisfy nicotine addiction).

Mark B wrote:
A decent brief could easily defend the pepper pot.

I doubt that’s the case Mark … especially if the police can present as evidence a print out of a public forum post made by the accused’s friend / known assocaite which states the pepper (or pencil) was indeed carried as a weapon ;-)

One of the issues around recounting “war stories” online is that it is immediately very public. Something for all to consider and one of the reasons I discourage it.

Back to the legal side of things:

Mark B wrote:
In the UK at least it's the job of the police to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

You’re wrong there Mark. When it comes to weapons in public places the law works the following way (as per my post above):

“It would be for an individual to demonstrate that he or she has a good reason or reasonable excuse to possess a bladed article or offensive weapon in public. Whether the individual’s explanation amounts to a ‘good reason’ or a ‘reasonable excuse’ is a matter for the courts to determine.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/knives-and-offensive-weapons-information

So it’s not, as you suggested, up to the police it prove you don’t have a good reason. It’s up to you to prove you do have a good reason. And whether a reason is deemed “good” or not is for the court to determine.

The police will have already established you had a weapon (by the legal definition) in a public place; so in that sense your “guilt” is already proven. However, the law states that if we can provide a “good reason” – to the court’s satisfaction – for having the weapon in a public place (i.e. use in work, national dress, etc) then the court should find us not guilty. As you can see, it up to us to provide that good reason though. It is not up to the police to prove we don’t have a good reason; they just need to prove we had a weapon in a public place. You are mistaken in thinking otherwise.

Also remember that, legally, anything “intended” to be used to harm others is an “offensive weapon”. (So all of these laws would apply to your pepper pot).

I can’t walk about with anything I chose and say to the police, “I forgot I had it with me”. As former electrician, I could not walk around town with knifes and screwdrivers on me and simply expect to get away with it by saying, “I forgot”. Especially, if I had used those tools to harm others.

If it was that simple no criminal would ever be prosecuted with regards to weapons. That’s why the law does not work that way. It’s up to me to give a good reason for having the item with me.

Mark B wrote:
I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just that decent, law abiding people regularly make the mistake of judging behaviour / expectations by their own morals or experiences.

I don’t think that’s relevant to this discussion because we are discussing the law’s expectations. Section 1 (4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is clear that we can’t carry any item with the intention of using it to harm others.

The common sense expectation is that criminals will break the law (isn’t that the very definition of a criminal?). They will carry weapons that are illegal, and even “everyday items” with the express intention of using them to harm others. No surprise there. Thankfully the law does permit us to defend ourselves and remain within the law. As part of this, we can legally use improvised weapons.

These improvised weapons would need to be something that we can demonstrate we would have with us for benign reasons. A cell phone is safe. Having a “crook-lock” in the car is safe. A chain lead when walking the dog would be safe. We could use all those as a weapon and in doing so we would be very unlikely to find ourselves on the wrong side of the law. However, anything we can’t demonstrate as having an immediate benign use would probably land us in legal trouble.

If we have used a weapon - including everyday items put to that purpose - to successfully incapacitate a criminal, we need to remember that the criminal is not going to immediately confess that they are the bad guy in all of this!

If we think they will then we are making the mistake you alluded to earlier i.e. “decent, law abiding people regularly make the mistake of judging behaviour / expectations by their own morals or experiences”.

The criminal will lie. They are going to say it was all you, that you are the criminal, and they are an innocent victim who you have harmed.

If you have hurt them with an item you can’t justify having on you, then, in the eyes of the law, you are already a criminal (possessing an offensive weapon in a public place). The criminal could then argue that you assaulted them with that weapon, and that could very well see your sentence increased because weapons are a “factor indicating higher culpability” under UK assault laws.

Whichever way you look at it, by carrying an item you can’t legally justify having with you, you are making problems for yourself. Especially if that item is put to use.

Back to your first point:

Mark B wrote:
I don't mean to be rude in saying that but honestly no "villain /thug/criminal ", call it what you will would give much of a damn about such things.

We need to give a damn though. If we don’t, then we have an ineffective solution to self-protection i.e. it is ineffective because it will see us on the wrong side of the law. A good self-protection solution will not only work, but it will consider the law and keep us out of jail too.

As Rory Miller said, the notion of “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six” is a false choice. We can keep ourselves safe and stay on the right side of the law. But to do that, we need to know what the law is.

All the best,

Iain

MCM180
MCM180's picture

As I wrestle with my kids, I usually take off my wristwatch because I inevitably end up scratching them. Which has gotten me to wondering, is there likely any practical value to a reasonably heavy wristwatch in a self-defense situation? Protecting one's wrist in a blocking move, or using it to pummel an attacker?

I wouldn't want to try it with a $400 smartwatch, but fortunately only wear a $20 Timex that I'd have no qualms smashing on a badguy's face. With a metal band, it's not insubstantial. The downside is that using it as a weapon would also threaten my own wrist. Again, though, I'll trade my wrist for a badguy's face.

I also suppose that depending on one's occupation, steel-toed boots would be a nice armor. I teach accounting, so the risk of crushing my toes is negligible (unless I drop the textbook!). But were I a factory worker and worked in a dangerous area, I'd train myself on good ways to use those to the groin, knees, thighs, etc.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

Even in the US, we have similiar laws in some states of an "intent to go armed".  Same idea, if you are carrying a "legal item", but tell the police that it is used for protecting yourself, it is now an "illegal item".

In the United States, we also have the "innocent until proven guilty" concept in our courts. BUT, here is what many people forget, "Self-Defense" is a legal DEFENSE.  Another way to put this is that you broke the law (assault), but had a legal and valid reason for doing so the supersedes the law.  This means that the state has to prove that an "assault" occured, YOU have to prove that the force you used was within certain parameters spelled out by the law to constitute self-defense.

So, if you use a cellphone as a weapon, even if you use the excuse "it was just in my hand and I was afraid".  You STILL have to make sure that you have met all the other criteria for self-defense to be not guilty.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kevin73 wrote:
So, if you use a cellphone as a weapon, even if you use the excuse "it was just in my hand and I was afraid".  You STILL have to make sure that you have met all the other criteria for self-defense to be not guilty.

Absolutely. Over here, you would need to demonstrate the action taken was necessary and reasonable. Here, “reasonable” is defined as instinctive action or what was honestly believed to be needed, even if it transpires it was a mistaken or unreasonable belief. The law also does not expect us to “judge to a nicety” the level of force used.

UK law differs for the law of most US states in that there is no “reasonable person test”. In short, it does not matter what a “reasonable person” would have done in the circumstances; all that matters is what you, as an individual, honestly believed needed done.The exception being “voluntary intoxication”. If you were drunk, then you can’t rely on your honestly held belief because you are in a position where your understanding and belief is impaired through your own actions.

So hitting someone with a phone would be fine if you honestly believed it to be necessary. As you point out, the fact an incidental weapon was used does not alter the criteria for legal self-defence though.

Kevin73 wrote:
In the United States, we also have the "innocent until proven guilty" concept in our courts. BUT, here is what many people forget, "Self-Defense" is a legal DEFENSE.  Another way to put this is that you broke the law (assault), but had a legal and valid reason for doing so the supersedes the law.  This means that the state has to prove that an "assault" occured, YOU have to prove that the force you used was within certain parameters spelled out by the law to constitute self-defense.

A little different over here. Self-defence is not a legal defence in that way. Over here, when the issue of self-defence is raised it is up to the prosecution to put forth sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the person claiming self-defence was either not acting to prevent a crime (including crime against themselves) or that the force was excessive i.e. not instinctive or not commensurate with the situation as the individual believed it to be; accepting that the level of force cannot be judged to a nicety. So in the UK, in regards to self-defence generally, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It’s therefore not a legal defence in the way you have described.

However, when it comes to weapons laws things work in a similar way to how you described. If you have a weapon in a public place (“weapon” being anything designed to harm, altered so it can harm, or simply carried with the intention of causing harm) then once the prosecution has established you did have the weapon in public, then the burden of proof shifts to the individual to satisfy the court they had a “good reason” to have the weapon.

If an illegal weapon was used in self-defence, then a crime has been committed because self-defence is not deemed to be a satisfactory reason to justify carrying weapons under UK law. The fact the item has been used obviously establishes that the weapon was in a public place; so job done on that front for the prosecution. The individual would then – under weapons law – need to provide a good reason for having the weapon in a public place. If they can’t, then they have broken the law.

Of course, the criminal is going to paint you as the bad guy and themselves as the innocent victim (i.e. claim you did not act in self-defence but committed an assault), and by carrying an illegal weapon you have already committed a crime. And that will massively help make the case against you because it has already been established you had on your person an item intend to harm others.

If we want to claim legal self-defence then we need to be sure we are not outside of the law from the onset. Sticking to effective unarmed methods and the use of benign objects as improvised weapons is the way to keep ourselves safe during the event, and safe from prosecution after the event. Illegal weapons are a very bad idea.

Always interesting to compare and contrast laws around the world!

All the best,

Iain

Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture

Hi everyone!

I have come late to the party and a lot has already been said and clarified, especially regarding weapon law.

In reference to the last few posts by Iain and Kevin with regards to "burden of proof" - the prosecution must prove the crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt. It is correct that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove a crime has been committed (ie an assault has taken place).  There is also something in UK Law called the "evidential burden". This is usually placed on the prosecution, which means they need to prodeuce enough evidence to jusitfy leaving the case for the jury to decide. In essecence, the evidential burden is to satisfy the judge there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial, and the burden of proof is to convince the Jury that the offense was carried out beyond reasonable doubt. 

In a case where self-defence is raised by the Defendant, then the evidential burden will pass to the Defendant. In practice this means that the Defendants Legal Team is required to produce evidence, usually including by the Defendants witness report, to back-up their claim that the Defendant acting in self-defence. All the Defendants Legal Team has to do is to "adduce enough tangible evidence on the issue to make the defence ‘live' ". At that stage, it is then up to the prosecution to 1) prove the elements of the offense and 2) disprove the the Defendant claim of self-defence.

Leigh!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Leigh,

Leigh Simms wrote:
I have come late to the party and a lot has already been said and clarified, especially regarding weapon law.

In reference to the last few posts by Iain and Kevin with regards to "burden of proof" - the prosecution must prove the crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt. It is correct that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove a crime has been committed (ie an assault has taken place).  There is also something in UK Law called the "evidential burden". This is usually placed on the prosecution, which means they need to produce enough evidence to justify leaving the case for the jury to decide. In essence, the evidential burden is to satisfy the judge there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial, and the burden of proof is to convince the Jury that the offense was carried out beyond reasonable doubt.

In a case where self-defence is raised by the Defendant, then the evidential burden will pass to the Defendant. In practice this means that the Defendants Legal Team is required to produce evidence, usually including by the Defendants witness report, to back-up their claim that the Defendant acting in self-defence. All the Defendants Legal Team has to do is to "adduce enough tangible evidence on the issue to make the defence ‘live' ". At that stage, it is then up to the prosecution to 1) prove the elements of the offense and 2) disprove the the Defendant claim of self-defence.

Fantastic and understandable clarification with regards to the law’s “inner workings”. Thank you for adding that. Most useful.

All the best,

Iain

PS More from Leigh here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Self-Defence-Law-Practical-Understanding-Defending-ebook/dp/B00V44TZ2U

Marcus_1
Marcus_1's picture

This reminds me of my shodan grading years ago where I had to do a demo as part of it. I chose to use my phone in the demo as a self defense item, difference was, back then mobiles still have aerials and as such could be used effectively on pressure points etc. Also reminds me of when I worked in the prison, a colleague always carried a whiteboard marker with him (used for updating the role boards), when asked why, he replied "this makes a good mini-kubotan, helps equal the power", granted, so.e of the inmates were huge! Now, in my current job, I fully understand the use of force/self defense laws in my country, the equipment I carry in my job is very extensive but anyone seen carrying it as a normal day would be in serious trouble. I don't carry a thing with me when out as I don't feel the need to, I am more than happy with my ability to talk to people. Back on subject of mobile phones for self defense though, one way in which it can assist (without using it to hit people with) is with the hollie guard app which essentially sets your phone up to notify a contact you need police help etc when the phone is shaken as well as other very useful stuff, food for thought.

Tau
Tau's picture

I am reminded of this: https://youtu.be/zksrMCMDaJo (Some Adult Humor)

In all seriousness I carry a MagLite AA most of the time. For work it enables me to look places most people would rather avoid. At night it means I can negotiate the awkward path to my front door. I know that it would make a damned fine kubotan but that's not its primary purpose. I also often carry some paracord!

I own a tactical pen but I see it strictly as a martial arts weapon, much like a katana and treat it as such. There's no hiding its purpose partly because of the brand "Colt" and partly because of the "DNA catcher" which makes it an edged weapon. I have advised a paramedic to cease carrying a similar one for work because of the legalities. It's sad that he feels the need to

Stuart Akers
Stuart Akers's picture

I was going to post a video, two problems 1) I don't know how, 2) I realized it was taken 6 days before my heart attack and it says far more about that than ever it does about makeshift weapons.

I actually keep forgetting I had one surprise

Interesting experience.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Stuart Akers wrote:
I was going to post a video, two problems 1) I don't know how,

I’ve just sent you a message explain how to add videos, but essentially all you need do is post the YouTube link, and then I will emend that link the next time I am online (only moderators can enter code like that). Is that OK?

All the best,

Iain

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Obviously dependent on the stage of engagement, but I'd like to suggest a more efficient self-defense use of the phone would be to call for help or a defense app (some, for example, send live video to a help center to deter assault). Those probably work better before you smash the phone into someone's face, but if your assailant is already on you, go for the more immediate results...

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dash3 wrote:
Obviously dependent on the stage of engagement, but I'd like to suggest a more efficient self-defense use of the phone would be to call for help or a defence app (some, for example, send live video to a help centre to deter assault). Those probably work better before you smash the phone into someone's face, but if your assailant is already on you, go for the more immediate results...

Assuming you have the opportunity to call for help, then that’s obviously a smart move … but it will take time for the help to arrive in most cases. And while some situations may be deterred by the thought that help may be on the way, in other cases it could inflame things. Start filming someone who is agitated and aggressive, and it’s likely that will make things worse and you could give them the motivation to forcefully take the phone from you and destroy it in order to prevent that footage being shared. Each case needs judged on its own merits because what will work best in one situation may make it worse in another. A charged up phone in a strong case certainly has many self-protection uses though.

All the best,

Iain