The article conveniently fails to mention whether it was sharp (extremely unlikely, the cheap steel used for these can't really hold an edge), and even more conveniently crops out the tip of the "blade" so we can't even see if it was pointed (also extremely unlikely, toys like this almost always have blunted tips).
This isn't a weapon, it's a toy. Sure, you could hurt someone with it, just like you could hurt someone with a baseball bat.
I'm guessing it's pretty much a letter opener. From a read, letter openers count, and many people are mocking the idea of a letter opener being included in such a ban.
The handle is just 4cm or about 1.5 inches, so a grown man can't even hold it in his hand properly, it is clearly a kids toy. He may have used for role playing, although he called it a fidget toy?
Victims of every crime that has one.
It's a fund for paying compensation to victims of crime and £154 is just what you have to pay to it if you get jailed for 6 months or below.
So when someone does commit a crime that has a payout to a victim, it doesn't matter if they have money or not as it comes from the fund to the victim first.
Kinda like... If you got hit with an extra vehicle/traffic insurance bill every time you get a speeding ticket or get caught driving drunk, even if you didn't cause an accident.
Oh, ok. Thats a far better description than the other guy said of just "court costs".
I would say that America needs something like that, but, I just can't see the money ACTUALLY going to victims. I see some policeman, or politician, or whomever, pocketing it if they tried that here.
I don't know if this is the same but Sweden have a thing where you pay into a fund that helps victims of crimes. When a criminal gets convicted and has to pay a victim money, the state takes money out of the fund and pay the victim and then the fund tries to get the money from the criminal. This way it doesn't become the victims problem that the criminal can't pay.
Seriously. I've seen letter openers more threatening than that "sword". Was it dumb? Sure. Does he deserve a slap the wrist, absolutely. But prison?? No way. What the actual fuck?
The stupid thing is that the UK is literally running out of prison spaces currently so that we are considering letting long term prisioners out on licence early to free up room.
Yet apparently this man needs to have his life turned upsidedown in order to occupy one of those spaces for four months.
In addition to the four months in prison, he was required to pay a victim surcharge of £154.
So not only was there no victim here but himself he is also now out of work for a minimum of 4 months he's now out 154 bucks. Fuck this world. Like ya, I get that there is that law for a reason, so sure, maybe give him a fine or better yet community service and then let him be on his way. What they have done benefits no one at all and wastes local resources.
Victim surcharge is just a fine with another name.
It goes to a fund that pays compensation for victims of crimes and £154 is just what you have to pay for any crime that results in you getting a jail sentence of 6 months or below.
I know people are reacting strongly, prob a large US contingent here and that’s understandable. It is a completely different world in the UK. The police don’t carry firearms (specialist response teams do) as they are just not as available to the general public. Knives or clubs/bats are the most common weapon encountered.
Even in that context I too find the sentence pretty heavy on the face of it. The article was rubbish at giving anything other than rage-bait. It didn’t explain if there were circumstances of aggravation, does he have form (ie prior same or related offences), were there vulnerable people in the vicinity, which specific charge was he accused with (possessing or threatening with) did he plead guilty, were there mitigating factors that actually reduced his sentence as the mandatory minimum sentence for “threatening with a weapon” is six months, eg did he cooperate, is he a sole caregiver for someone at home etc.
Only thing I’ve walked away knowing is the author of the article seemed more interested in provoking outrage and upping their hit count than demonstrating any investigative
nous or journalistic integrity.
Bit draconian hey. I admit the whole thing was stupid but considering he didn't hurt anyone with this toy or show intention to do so a fine alone would have been more than enough. 4 months prison? Wtf
Have police there never heard of a “letter opener”? 🤔
At this point, a significant number of them are young enough to have never opened a letter in their lives, so possibly. But this is still extremely stupid.
Not for simply having, but for brandishing said bladed device as the police approached. That's the law, in that city. As the officer said, “It is possible to find fidget toys that aren’t six-inch blades. It is possible not to walk down the street holding them out in front of you. With a bit more self-awareness, Bray could have avoided contact with us completely.” Bray brought this on himself, and could have avoided any contact with the police. He chose otherwise.
Brandish is a stretch nothing in that article noted an intent to intimidate others, it is simple possession of a tchotchke. Unless you count the author's flavor text.
Just to be clear this was not in the US. Their weapons laws are way more restrictive then ours. Apparently he was brandishing it and approached police with it. Sounds like he is a moron.
That's way longer. 20cm is the average blade length for chef's knives. Over here in Germany, with way more liberal knife laws: Legal to own (duh) but also very much not legal to carry much less wield in public unless you have a good reason -- like actually preparing food in public. You can transport that kind of thing without fanfare but transporting very much involves not having it at the ready.
Four months are still completely overkill, though. Impounding and maybe a week's worth of fine (one day of disposable income == one day in prison here) if he was being stupid and careless but non-aggressive. Four months go way beyond "let this be a lesson" territory and very much into "the state is nuts and doesn't make sense". If you're feeling poetic, how about some social hours in a charity store sorting donated fidget spinners.
The image in the article shows the entire thing being 20cm and the actual 'blade' portion of the toy being around 13cm long. a little longer than the blade on a pretty standard multi tool like a Leatherman.
Is this seriously what the police were actually concerned about, I understand that it's different in the UK vs the US, but this is definitely overkill. This thing would need to be pinched between your thumb and index finger like a cigarette to be wielded and is arguably less dangerous than a fork.
They're only allowed to have 7.62 cm, so from a legal standpoint it's almost twice the legal limit.
If the law doesn't make sense you don't challenge it by breaking it.
The police don't carry guns there so yeah they're concerned.
Running around twirling a clearly illegal item in public is pretty good logical grounds for police intervention. If the law says 3 in when do you actually stop them is it 4, 10, 12? If he was just transporting it from one house to another they might have let it go. But he's walking around fidgeting twirling it in the open. I suspect he was performing twirls and dagger tricks. So the general public is probably also a little concerned. If he's walking around his neighborhood twirling it around all the time it might even been a neighbor that called the police on it.
The fine is reasonable, getting locked up for 4 months is probably a bit much.
MASTER SWORD = 22 cm or 8.6 inches including handle and holster.
We also have very strict knife regulation here (Denmark), but I think if it is a first time offense, he would have gotten off with a fine, since it's obviously a toy.
If I’d encounter someone wielding a naked 15cm blade, I’d be extremely wary as well. That blade can easily cause serious harm or kill, regardless of being a replica toy or not. Walking around with what is essentially a dagger is reckless. Maybe the sentence is a bit harsh, but that dude deserved being stopped.
Yes, you're right everything can cause serious harm or kill, but certain things are designed to harm or kill, or designed to look like something that could harm or kill.
Context is a big factor here. A person holding a 6 inch knife in a kitchen? No one is going to bat an eye. They're probably using that knife to prep vegetables. Same knife, same person but they are walking around a market/playground/movie theatre? Suddenly it's a very different situation and context.
Is that stranger with the knife safe? I don't know, but I do know that I don't have anything to defend myself aside from what is around me if they ARE NOT a safe person.
I feel like he could have been let off with a fine and confiscation where if he would do it again or act provocatively the prison sentence would apply. 4 months in prison is a lot
I agree with your point seeing as how the article dosen't have this info, but the context that He's a known burglar, has done at least 4 years in prison and 'but it's just a novelty item' has been a tactic of criminals in England for a long time, it makes more sense why he was busted.
A man has been jailed for brandishing a replica of a sword from the Nintendo game The Legend of Zelda on the streets of a Warwickshire market town, which he said was a “fidget toy” to keep his hands busy.
Anthony Bray, 48, of Nuneaton, was sentenced to four months in prison after being found in possession of a bladed article in public.
The article in question was a replica of the “master sword” from The Legend of Zelda series which had a total blade length of 6in, Warwickshire police said.
On 8 June, officers were made aware via CCTV of a man, Bray, walking down Queens Road, Nuneaton, with the sword in his hand.
Sgt Spellman, of the patrol investigations unit, said: “We take a zero tolerance [approach] to bladed articles in public, and Bray has fallen afoul of this.
Police said Bray admitted that the sword could be perceived as threatening if someone else had seen it, but he insisted in interviews he would not have used it as a weapon.
The original article contains 290 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 40%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!