StoppaRed UV - Self Defence Spray, is this legal in Ireland?

Graphite Chunks

Is StoppaRed UV - Self Defence Spray legal in Ireland?

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/news/april05/stoppared_uv_info.pdf

FreudianSlippers

By the looks of it, my feeling is that they would be legal provided they are only used in a self-defence situation.

From their website re: UK Law (which is similar enough to Irish regarding Firearms and Offensive weapons)

Is StoppaRed legal?


It's contents are inert with no chemical irritants, it is completely non toxic and non flammable and in no way could be described as noxious. To remain legal sprays cannot contain pepperspray or CS gas or any other irritants as these are classed as being noxious and therefore contray to the Firearms Act. It should only be directed at the face in emergency situations where you fear for your or some one else's personal safety or to protect property. The bottom line should be "Is it reasonable for me to fire StoppaRed in this situation." StoppaRed is a 'force option' that can be used before physical self defence methods and as such is likely to be more reasonable.

hession.law

What would be your criminal liability, if your attacker, after being sprayed was to wander on the road and be killed by a passing car?

Reloc8

Potentially assault, assault causing harm, reckless endangerment.

(6 months, 5 years, 7 years in worse case scenarios)

As with any item employed in 'self-defence', full criminal liability attaches where it is used illegally, i.e. not in self-defence.

"difficult to remove without water" - potentially cause breathing/suffocation issues ?

Graphite Chunks

In the case of an attacker armed with a knife/broken bottle/pint glass etc., coming towards you and not heeding calls to back off?

questioner

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0012/sec0009.html#sec9


(6) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (5), it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to allege or prove that the intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate was intent to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate a particular person; and if, having regard to all the circumstances (including the type of the article alleged to have been intended to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate, the time of the day or night, and the place), the court (or the jury as the case may be) thinks it reasonable to do so, it may regard possession of the article as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the accused.


its up to you but i wouldnt chance it. Judges take a dim view of posession of anything designed to incapacitate/intimidate for "self defence". Look at it this way, even if you do get away with it is it worth going to court for? a lot of how much hassle being caught with something like this is will be directly related to your attitude to the investigating officer.

BTW I get the feeling that you may be involved in door security, I could be wrong but if you are under NO circumstances bring anything like that to work with you , the PSA are Militant (and rightly so) in relation to this. about the only thing you could bring to work with you as a doorman with lawful excuse would be a maglite.

jakdelad

smart hession smart well said

Resend

hession.law wrote: »

What would be your criminal liability, if your attacker, after being sprayed was to wander on the road and be killed by a passing car?

what would happen if you punched someone as reasonable force in self defence and they were confused and wandered to road and got killed? is there a difference between spray and punch? if spray/punch is used in reasonable force to stop an attack how could the defender be responsible if the person then wandered and got killed

Our man in Havana

No difference in law.

Resend

Our man in Havana wrote: »

No difference in law.

Then the issue of the attacker wandering to road and getting killed seems irrelevant as it could happen without the use of the product

FreudianSlippers

Resend wrote: »

Then the issue of the attacker wandering to road and getting killed seems irrelevant as it could happen without the use of the product

But don't you think it's at least reasonably foreseeable that if you spray some gunk on someone's face that is difficult to remove they may wander in an effort to attempt to get it off?

The point is that obviously if you use this on someone it's assault, but if used in a genuine self-defence scenario is it acceptable or is it classified along the lines of pepper spray or tasers?

I would lean towards it being different than pepper spray or tasers, but as pointed out earlier that would a) depend on the situation; b) depend on the difficulty of removing the spray

Dyr

I like how they show the major flaw in that device on their front page.."what if he's wearing glasses?"


*not legal advice* You might want to read section 9 of the firearms and offensive weapons act. Self defence would probably not be accepted as a valid reason to have this item in your possession when in public

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0012/sec0009.html#sec9

Resend

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But don't you think it's at least reasonably foreseeable that if you spray some gunk on someone's face that is difficult to remove they may wander in an effort to attempt to get it off?

or may be he will just sit down and try to get it off. i would not wander if i could not see where i was going

The point is that obviously if you use this on someone it's assault, but if used in a genuine self-defence scenario is it acceptable or is it classified along the lines of pepper spray or tasers?

is it not reasonable force in some circumstances

I would lean towards it being different than pepper spray or tasers, but as pointed out earlier that would a) depend on the situation; b) depend on the difficulty of removing the spray

agree. but all self defence depends on the situation as to how much force can be used

FreudianSlippers

I don't do any crime really, but my understanding of the law in this area is that pepper spray and tasers are never acceptable to use, even if in self-defence?

Pkiernan

hession.law wrote: »

What would be your criminal liability, if your attacker, after being sprayed was to wander on the road and be killed by a passing car?

What a left wing pansy liberal bull-sh!t response.

Who gives a crap if a would be rapist or mugger gets hit by a car?

What is your solution? Have a woman allow herself to be raped to avoid any possible lawsuit from her attacker?? Grow a set. You make me sick.

hession.law

Pkiernan wrote: »

What a left wing pansy liberal bull-sh!t response.

Who gives a crap if a would be rapist or mugger gets hit by a car?

What is your solution? Have a woman allow herself to be raped to avoid any possible lawsuit from her attacker?? Grow a set. You make me sick.

OMG I never use this word but you are a classic example of a ****ing retard which frequent this site. It was a hypothetical question asked simply because if you use excessive force in self defence you may be charged with murder/manslaughter! How could you deduct from my question that I could condone a woman being rape or do you have trouble understanding basic English?

FreudianSlippers

hession.law wrote: »

OMG I never use this word but you are a classic example of a ****ing retard which frequent this site. It was a hypothetical question asked simply because if you use excessive force in self defence you may be charged with murder/manslaughter! How could you deduct from my question that I could condone a woman being rape or do you have trouble understanding basic English?

Don't sink to his level. Ignore it and know that if there is another comment like this from that poster they will be banned.

Oberlord

It is illegal to have pepper spray, even in your home, you'll also have a firearms charge to your name if caught

NUTLEY BOY

Context matters a lot as virtually anything can, on the evidence, constitute a "weapon".

Benbulnen64

Oberlord , seems this stoppared can be distinguished from actual pepper spray so perhaps not as clear cut as you suggest.

Hooch

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Oberlord , seems this stoppared can be distinguished from actual pepper spray so perhaps not as clear cut as you suggest.

Pepper spray as a liquid would be covered as a Section 2 or 3 assault.

Where pepper spray or OC spray becomes automatically illegal in ireland is with regards he canister. If it shoots the liquid out at 1 joule or more, it is classed as a firearm. Most if not all OC spray canisters are over a joule.

Benbulnen64

Yes, as your post demonstrates there is an ambiguity. It's not enough to say "most if not all". The criminal law is precise in its application, of which I am aware as I have practised in the area for many years. The stoppared canister would have to be shown to eject the liquid at one joule or more...

Kevin3

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

The stoppared canister would have to be shown to eject the liquid at one joule or more...

No, no. The one joule muzzle velocity only applies to air guns. Pepper spray is specifically covered in the definition of a firearm in the Firearms Act 1925 (as amended by section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006):

“ firearm ” means—

(a) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,

(b) an air gun (including an air rifle and air pistol) with a muzzle energy greater than one joule or any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which any projectile can be discharged with such a muzzle energy,

(c) a crossbow,

(d) any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy emission,

(e) a prohibited weapon,

(f) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or projectile or of causing a shock or other disablement, as the case may be,

(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e), and

(iii) any object—

(I) manufactured for use as a component in connection with the operation of a firearm, and

(II) without which it could not function as originally designed,

and

(h) a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun,

and includes a restricted firearm, unless otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires;

“ prohibited weapon ” means and includes any weapon of whatever description designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, noxious gas or other noxious thing, and also any ammunition (whether for any such weapon or any other weapon) which contains or is designed or adapted to contain any noxious liquid, noxious gas or other noxious thing;

Now noxious is not defined in the Act so the dictionary definition applies:

Oxford English Dictionary Definition:

adjective
harmful, poisonous, or very unpleasant:
they were overcome by the noxious fumes

I believe the spray could easily be described as "very unpleasant" and so is a firearm and illegal.

Interestingly the manufacturers website says the spray is legal referring to the dictionary definition of noxious from the Oxford dictionary as "unpleasant and harmful". Unless the definition has recently changed the article is misleading of the true definition.

Benbulnen64

Nice bit of statutory interpretation on your part, Kevin. I wonder if the court would agree with you though...

I still think it is ambiguous as to whether the stoppared is illegal. For example, if I was carrying perfume and sprayed it in the eyes of a potential assailant it would have a similar , albeit less drastic effect, to the stoppared and the carrying of the foregoing is certainly not illegal.

Kevin3

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Nice bit of statutory interpretation on your part, Kevin. I wonder if the court would agree with you though...

I still think it is ambiguous as to whether the stoppared is illegal. For example, if I was carrying perfume and sprayed it in the eyes of a potential assailant it would have a similar , albeit less drastic effect, to the stoppared and the carrying of the foregoing is certainly not illegal.

Why wouldn't a court agree?

The difference with perfume is that it is not designed for the specific purpose of discharging a 'noxious liquid' whereas this StoppaRed clearly is.

I also think it would fall foul of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 as an offensive weapon:

(4) Where a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on him), has with him in any public place—

(a) any flick-knife, or

(b) any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

Again the dictionary definition of incapacitate is:

verb
[with object]
prevent from functioning in a normal way:
he was incapacitated by a heart attack
Law deprive (someone) of their legal capacity.

Again the spray can absolutely 'prevent from functioning in a normal way' and can easily be described as an offensive weapon.

There can be no possible reasonable explanation for having the spray and it is solely 'made for use for causing incapacitation' while perfume is made for a different reason and there would be a 'reasonable explanation' for having it. They are two completely separate things.

Benbulnen64

What you're missing is that I'm saying it is ambiguous whether it would fall within the Statutes you suggest. You cannot be sure that it does; you are picking parts of dictionary definitions that you like as and when they suit your argument.

How about you just accept that it is currently unclear under existing law as to whether the use of stoppared is illegal...

Kevin3

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

What you're missing is that I'm saying it is ambiguous whether it would fall within the Statutes you suggest. You cannot be sure that it does; you are picking parts of dictionary definitions that you like as and when they suit your argument.

How about you just accept that it is currently unclear under existing law as to whether the use of stoppared is illegal...

What's ambiguous? I'm using definitions for words that are in the legislation. Where an act doesn't define the word the standard dictionary definition is used.

I have given you two offences where the possession of stoppared IS an offence. You said yourself in a previous post in this thread:

The criminal law is precise in its application, of which I am aware as I have practised in the area for many years.

Possession of it could leave you liable to arrest, detention and prosecution under either of those offences. Don't you agree that prosecution could result under either of the two offences?

Jo King

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

What you're missing is that I'm saying it is ambiguous whether it would fall within the Statutes you suggest. You cannot be sure that it does; you are picking parts of dictionary definitions that you like as and when they suit your argument.

How about you just accept that it is currently unclear under existing law as to whether the use of stoppared is illegal...

There is no ambiguity. The carrying of any article purely for defensive purposes is forbidden. That is the only purpose of that substance.
Other dual use items create a doubt as to what their use was at the time of apprehension. An umbrella cannot be carried for self defence. It can be carried as a protection against rain, sun or wind. It is for the person carrying the article to justify it. There ia a presumption against the carrying of any article at all if the article is capable of being used as a weapon of offence. This is so because it would be almost impossible to convict people otherwise.
An incapacitating spray has no dual use function which would provide any sort
of defence.

LoveCoke

One day i was doing a job and using a scissors. i got a call to go to a hospital to see doctor about a family member. waitng to see the doc i found the scisors was in my pocket

Purely hypothetical: If i had been attacked and used it what would happen. i genuinely did not know i had it when going to the hospital

Kevin3

LoveCoke wrote: »

One day i was doing a job and using a scissors. i got a call to go to a hospital to see doctor about a family member. waitng to see the doc i found the scisors was in my pocket

Purely hypothetical: If i had been attacked and used it what would happen. i genuinely did not know i had it when going to the hospital

In short you can use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances to protect yourself from assault. This may include the use of the scissors but only if it's use is 'reasonable in the circumstances'.

Possession of the scissors might be explained by you by your 'reasonable explanation' for having it ie you forgot you put it in your pocket.

Whether you would be prosecuted for either offence would be up to a Garda Superintendent or the DPP and if prosecuted your guilt or innocence of either offence would be decided by a judge or jury after considering if the force used was justified and reasonable and your excuse for being in possession of the scissors was reasonable. You could only be convicted if you were believed beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the offence(s).

champkelly

does anyone know if mini self defence spray criminal identifer it sprays a red die
that lasts for a few days its gel based is legal in ireland.its not a pepper spray

Bepolite

champkelly wrote: »

does anyone know if mini self defence spray criminal identifer it sprays a red die
that lasts for a few days its gel based is legal in ireland.its not a pepper spray

Yep, illegal. If you're that worried it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

BornToKill

Bepolite wrote: »

Yep, illegal. If you're that worried it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Why would you consider that to be illegal? I wouldn't consider it covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons legislation.

Bepolite

BornToKill wrote: »

Why would you consider that to be illegal? I wouldn't consider it covered by the Firearms and Offensive Weapons legislation.

Fair enough, I do.