TeeJay
-
Posts
10,951 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by TeeJay
-
-
Right, so here's an idea - let's make it illegal to steal them and then use them in a crime! That will help!
Just kidding, I know what you mean (I just couldn't help it). The old quote which still holds as true as ever is "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Further tightening the gunlaws will only serve to restrict the law-abiding gunowners from obtaining them. It has no effect on criminals who, by definition, tend to have little regard for the law. Very rarely is it a one-owner, store-bought gun that a criminal uses.Precisely.
-
All guns start off legally owned.
And?
All knives start off legally owned, all cars start off legally owned, but that does not mean that everyone who legally owns something is going to use it to kill someone...
-
I'm not guessing. Across the US, the stats are very clear. Not everyone in Texas is armed, though many/most parts do have relatively low crime rates. Pulling US stats in to the picture, though, is flawed in and of itself. There are many population factors in the US that make comparisons to most other countries extremely difficult at best. But it's still fairly obvious that the deterrent of an immediate, violent death is effective in any country.... except of course where we have to start dealing with religious fanatics seeking 72 virgins in the afterlife or what have you.
-
How can you be sure that the ban hasn't made the UK safer? You were wrong about knife crime, who says you're not wrong on guns too?
I don't believe that the statistics reflect that the UK is safer...
I enjoy shooting and am still undecided on the ban, but I'm not going to go as far as to say it's not made the UK safer.
The ban has only reduced incidents with legally owned weapons, and even those, were a rarity and instances of failures in vetting and licensing procedures, rather than true indications that the general population are ill-equipped to own firearms. That said, given how there is a binge-drinking culture in the UK, which is quite different to the drinking cultures of say France and Spain, there're many people in the UK who might prove unsuitable for private ownership of a firearm. I think the things which need to be addressed, are not just the facts and figures, but also the cultures and mentalities involved, such as the previous examples of Sweden... There are many reasons why the UK is less safe than it was a decade ago, but, as I said above, carrying a gun in public would not make me any safer, but it would definitely make me feel safer.
-
The one thing that is clear is that our gun crime is so low, especially compared to the US, that our entire crimes could be a rounding error in US amounts.
And yet according to the info I dug up, a person is more likely to be attacked with a knife in the UK, than shot in the US...
-
Living in Liverpool I know what harm guns do, the police found one gun that was responsible for 20% of the shootings in the city in a year. So you could say the ban works, but face it you know how easy it is to get something illegal be it watches or dvds or fake clothes or drugs. If there is money in something its just supply and demand, not pretty not right just reality.
Absolutely, if there's a need for something, someone will always find a way to obtain it.
-
Perhaps the UK should go the opposite direction. 180 degrees opposite... Require citizens to own and carry handguns. How many muggings and violent crimes would happen when the thugs had to worry about an immediate, violent death themselves while committing a crime? It seems fairly clear that the problem can't be solved on the supply side, i.e. you can not take weapons out of the hands of those who want to use them to commit crimes. So perhaps it's time to tackle the demand side of the problem, i.e. the relatively high (much higher since the ban) demand for committing crimes against a defenseless general populace.
Sounds like a good idea to me, I think it would definitely put the low-lifes on the backfoot for a change. I fully agree with the idea of maintaining a well-armed militia, because the way things are in the UK, if the shit was to really hit the fan (not that it's likely, but you never know) many wouldn't have a clue how to handle themselves or a firearm... That's not to say I'm some James Bond/Rambo mofo, but I know how to at least use firearms (not so sharp on the disassembly at the moment) and am a fairly good shot
-
So how is it that the ban is "working well"? These bans are designed to reduce gun violence, are they not?
It's sort of a rhetorical question. We've seen many times over here in the US that things like relaxed CCW regulations are what actually produce the results that bans are supposed to.
Well, if shooting enthusiasts can't go to pistol clubs, on paper, that is the ban 'working well'
Politicians do like their little buzz words 
I think the time has come for the UK to re-evaluate its relationship with private gun ownership, and start to do more to tackle the issues which are leading to knife-related crimes... Would carrying a gun/knife/roll of coins make me safer in public? No. Would it make me feel safer? Absolutely. 10-6 years ago, I would frequently meet with friends in London, and often made my way home/through the city having had more than my fair share of booze, yet, I never felt unsafe, and was always confident in my ability to defend myself. I am sad to say, that there are indeed times now, that while I am still confident in my ability to defend myself, I no longer feel safe in public
-
As an aside, please do not take the friendly debate as hostile. I just enjoy the discourse.
Absolutely no hostility taken here, likewise, it's a topic I enjoy discussing
60mm, 285g with sharp studs on the bezel.
As I said, if it was rammed down someone throat, or swung in a sock
Might make a nice set of makeshift knucks too People who shouldn't own firearms can't. No felonies, no misdemeanors for domestic violence, etc. There are several rules and regs in place to address these things. Quite often a problem we have in the states is simple ignorance of the laws that are already on the books (such as my earlier post regarding machineguns). Many states require gunlocks or trigger locks, etc.
That's interesting to know. How are those regs enforced without breaching the Second Ammendment?
If a kid steals a car and kills someone with it do people go after the parents for not taking proper steps to hide the keys?
I believe that's precisely what happened over the accident which resulted in the death of a friend of Hulk Hogan's son, Nick (even though he had not actually stolen the vehicle)
-
Stats to back up your assertion, please?
I'm actually having a hard time coming up with any recent stats, but here's what I could find on Google...
Some stats...
Latest knife crime statistics - 2009:
Last year, the number of homicides involving a knife or other sharp instrument fell (from 270 in 2007/08 to 252 in 2008/09).
There was a rise in attempted murders involving knives (245 in 2007/08 to 271 in 2008/09).
Robbery offences involving knives fell by 2% last year.
28 teenagers were killed in violent incidents in London in 2008.
The government says 80% of all knife crime happens in just a few areas, places like London, Leeds and Glasgow.
My original statement appears to have been somewhat inaccurate, so I happily retract it. One thing that is clear, is that the ban on private ownership in the UK has not made the UK any safer.
-
I don't follow the UK's activities, outside of economic matters, terribly closely... But a cursory look at the gun ban situation doesn't reveal to me much in the way of success. And I did remember a statement from the 'home secretary' not too long ago talking about the dramatic increase in gun violence since the ban. I looked it up and here is the quote:
Mr Davis said: "While we welcome any action, however overdue it may be, to tackle the scourge of gun crime the Government's own figures show that in 2005/06 there were only eight incidents where deactivated or reactivated weapons were used - just 0.04 per cent of gun offences.
"We need sustained action to tackle the other 99.6 per cent of this serious problem, bearing in mind that gun violence has increased four-fold over the last 10 years." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575147/Government-accused-over-deactivated-gun-ban.html 2008) My understanding is that the ban was enacted in 1997, i.e. the 10 year period over which gun violence skyrocketed was post-ban.
The key factor with that, is that the gun-related crimes now occurring, are doing so because of illegally-sourced firearms, not enthusiasts going postal, and the guy who sparked the ban with the Dunblane Massacre, was someone who should never have been allowed near children or firearms...
-
By your logic you don't need to own a collection of watches; "A" watch would suffice.
But you have more than one... why? Are some better suited to a particular use than others? Do you simply like collecting them and appreciate them for their variety, style, etc.? These factors are the same regardless of what is being "collected".Having a collection of firearms or larger-caliber weapons should not be a factor. I can only shoot one gun at a time, so what's the concern about having more than one? And as for large caliber, please find a news article where someone committed a crime with a .50BMG... it just doesn't happen. No one commits a crime with a five-foot-long gun weighing ~35lbs.
EDIT TO ADD: Here's a pic of me with my 'large caliber' weapon that you apparently don't think I should have.
Gallery here: http://photobucket.com/anopsis_steyr
I quite agree, I don't need to own a collection of watches
I'm not sure a watch could kill someone though, unless I was maybe to put it in a sock and swing it, or maybe ram it down someone's throat Given the times there've been high school shootings in the US, I feel that is a sufficient reason for introducing stricter controls on who is allowed access to firearms, and more importantly, how they are stored and accessed at home...That's a nice piece, being more of a rifle-shooter, I'd love to give something like that a try, but, I'd be quite happy to obtain necessary licensing/qualifications to prove myself responsible enough
-
Stats to back up your assertion, please?
I'll hit up Google... My prediction, is knife-related crime increases since the gun ban, and gun-related crimes down...
-
I don't. Right to bear arms in the US works because they've had it for so long. Gun control wouldn't work (although I think there should be limits - no-one needs a bazooka or nuke) in the US if you tried to introduce it, but there's no need to reverse the situation in the UK or countries where it's working well.
I think it could work in the UK if handled appropriately. All the ban on handguns did, was to close down a lot of shooting clubs, and increase demand for 'black market' firearms... I agree very strongly with the quote from my OP
-
You're a wishy washy believer in Second Amendment rights, then. And that's your right too.
But, driving a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. To be granted a privilege, one must pass tests. To exercise a right, one does not have to do anything. One does not have to pass a test and carry a card to exercise his right to freedom of religion, for example. Now, this is not to say that rights can't ever be denied. But insofar as run-of-the-mill gun ownership by law abiding citizens is concerned, firm believers of Second Amendment rights do not advocate nor support government imposed hindrances that stand between the citizenry and their constitutional rights.I believe I understand what you're meaning
What I was meaning, was that there is no reason why a US citizen should not be allowed to own a gun/rifle as per Second Amendment rights. (and I wish that was a right people in the UK had) That allows that utterly fundamental right to be exercised and honored. However, does someone need to own a collection of firearms or large calibre weapons to be able to exercise that right? I feel they do not. A gun would suffice. An example I would use, would be to compare to UK motorcycle licenses. Although I admit I don't know the full details (and I'm sure there are folks here who can give the specifics), I believe that when a person initially takes a test for a bike license, they are limited to engines of a particular cc, and I believe, they are only allowed to then drive larger, faster bikes, once they have been riding x amount of time (or possibly take additional training, but as mentioned, I am not 100% sure of that) I'm not so much meaning testing for a concealed carrying license, I think that anyone who is allowed to own a gun should have the right to carry it at their discretion, but testing to license large collections, or larger calibers, I do not believe violates a citizen's right to own a gun, I may have been unclear in my meaning 'licensed to carry firearms' -
A curious anomaly of the English legal psyche that it can devote tombs of explanation of what constitutes an OFFENSIVE weapon (as opposed to just a weapon) with no regard to the fact that theyve now invented a category of weapons. So by definition if there are OFFENSIVE weapons there must be DEFENSIVE weapons...seems to have escaped them though
Another anomaly is its the only time in English law were the accused has to prove his/her innocence. PC Plod takes a disapproving look at your roll o' coins & hoicks you off to the nick, desk sergeant charges you with the offensive weapon, CPS runs with it (banks dont issue these after all - so over to you Charlie)...and you'll end up in court having to PROVE that it is benign.
That's the crazy thing. How could someone prove that they didn't intend to do something which never happened...
The fun of the English legal system Anyhoo whats with the weighted punch? Lightsaber not holding a charge these days
.
It was just something I was reading about, and it got me thinking about the potential legalities. A taped stack of metal washers is pretty obvious as a weapon, where the coins, are legal tender... It was the idea of something legal possibly being illegal which piqued my interest
And as for the lightsaber, that doesn't need a charge, it weighs enough to club someone to death with anyway I don't go in bars
......Just not my thing, but I am usually pack'en 10mm hydra shok 
Lead poisn'in
If I could, I would Found the info below on a website: http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html
This comports with my understanding on the law in the US and the UK. Please note that all actions with or without weapons are judged by the standard of reasonbleness. If you pummel an unarmed person half your size or an an unarmed woman with a roll or quarters because they took a swing at you, it could be a problem depending on the threat they posed to you. On the other hand if the guy is a rugby player who is larger than you, using a roll of quarters might be justified even if he is unarmed. If someone smaller has a knife, I do not think a judge or jury will have any problem with the roll of quarters scenario. One of the best brawls I was ever in, a buddy next to me who weighed about 130 lbs knocked out a monster with one punch. Turns out he was a golden gloves boxing champ which we did not know till that night.
Here is what the website says:
There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.
However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:
an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.
The protection offered to the honest citizen by the principle of self-defence comes in two stages.
The Crown Prosecution Service
Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including:
Whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and,
Whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
The CPS has stated that citizens who have acted reasonably and in good faith to protect themselves, their families or their property should not face prosecution for their acts.
There will be instances where the circumstances of an individual case demand that it goes to court. These may include cases where it is not clear that an individual really was acting in self-defence or where serious injuries or death have resulted. However, this does not mean that a death will automatically lead to prosecution.
Self-Defence and the Courts
If an individual is prosecuted after having acted, or having claimed to act, in self-defence the courts will apply the following test:
Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be?
The jury will have to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault. An individual may even take what is known as a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe that the circumstances demand it. This means that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.
Now that, is very intersting, thanks for the link
I remember reading a while back when a footballer used the 'fear of imminent violence' for getting in the first punch, as he claimed that some guy had been eyeballing his watch in a club, and was scared that he might be attacked for it, as he had 'worked hard to earn the money to buy it...' -
8mm from center to each chrono post for the tricompax movement, sec @9.
6.75mm from center to each chrono post for a Rolex w/. sec @6.
If you want I can post pic of the Rolex dials I have. One is sec @6 the other is sec. @9. So you can see the subdial spacing difference. Let me know
Thanks for the measurements, I'll check my dial tomorrow, once I'm a bit more refreshed from the events of the weekend thus far, and if you could post the pics of the dials, that would be fantastic
Thanks indeed [Edit to add]
I just measured up, and I think 8mm seems to be the right figure
Definitely worth ordering a movement when I can spare the cash and see how it all fits Worst comes to the worst, I'd just pass on the movement Thanks again for the measurements -
Very nice indeed
-
Scotland still produces pound notes (perhaps for this very purpose!!). Or use fivers
If only my pockets were deep enough
-
I'm heading off to help run a mind/body/spirit fair with my father in law, so wanted to try and address everything before 24 hours away from a computer... Thanks for the awesome comments and input, amigos, this has truly been an interesting and enlightening discussion
In the UK the use of the words 'Going equipped' only refers to Burgulary not acts of Violence.
The term 'intent' refers to the action taken by a person in hitting them with hands etc or weapon. If you done someone with a bat you would be charged with GBH with intent and carrying an offensive weapon if you took the bat off your attacker and did him with it you would probably be charged with GBH only though tht depends on at what point he stopped being a threat and whether you carried on hitting him with it.
For carrying weapons the key as TeeJay mentioned is 'Offensive' basically its an article that can have no other use but as a weapon or be an article carried by a person who could have no other reason than to use it as a weapon. So it can be a matter of circumstances and rely on Police descretion.
A kid on the way back from the park carrying a basebal bat and ball during the day has a better reason than a kid on his way back with just the bat at night. So the former wouldnt be considered to be carrying an offensive weapon on the face of it.
In the old days it was common practice to always have a ball to hand in your car say if you were carrying a bat or the like in it.
Of course sharpening steel combs, razor blades in soles of shoes or sharpened coins were also common plus the Millwall brick (rolled up newspaper) was also a way of getting round this if you knew how to use it/them. But generally the best way was to be aware of your surroundings and items to hand and whether or not you feel the situation is deteriotating enough to do so or concerned it would. Kubos were also pretty useful as they sat nicely on a key ring though these were better for self defense rather than offense. Many a time bricks would be removed from the top of gardens walls you name it you can use it.
Currently football authorities are considering banning coins at footie matches as they are thrown regularly at fans and players.
UK law is softening with self defense mitigation as violent anti social crime increases. The key is 'reasonable' force in self defense which is measured generally in what would it reasonably take to stop that person from threatening or harming you that in turn depends on there size, weapon, number etc. You can also go on state of mind fear can easily turn to panic and panic can increase the response of the defensive action.
Basically the 'self defense' defence is subject to great confusion in the UK and where you are in the country, who you are, what you did, how you did it, why you did it and who you did it to can mean the difference between no charge and jail time.
Thats IMHO
That's precisely the point I was trying to focus on, as a roll of coins, at the end of the day, is literally just a roll of coins, and can always be used as the currency they're intended to be, rather than something which has been modified into a weapon, and will remain a weapon (like a sharpened comb, for instance)
Reading the thread it sounds like you're honing in on the point. Carrying a roll of coins could be an offence with intent to use them as a weapon (as suggested), proving intent is a matter of evidence.
The moment it gets used in a fight, then there's both intent and also a very good chance of proving it. In fact it would be a very bad idea to use coins, because it would raise the type of charge and penalty, and reduce the odds of success of claiming any kind of self-defence - it's more likely to be argued that the person was out 'looking for trouble'.
But someone walking down the street with coins in their pocket being wrongly accused? It would be very hard to prove intent. That may not stop the police intervening, but the odds of it being prosecuted would be minimal, and of actually succeeding even less. There are circumstances where you can imagine intent being proven though. If a group of thirty men going to a football match all had a roll of coins in their pocket, I think that would be an unlikely coincidence, say.
That's precisely the points I was meaning: Would a roll of coins, on their own (with no fight occuring) be considered an 'offensive weapon', or, would they simply be considered as carrying currency? Of course, as soon as someone tools up and hits someone, then that's a different matter, but even then, there is a difference between an offensive, and a defensive weapon...
Ditto what Pug said above, but on a serious note...
I knew someone who was punched by someone with a roll of quarters. It literally caved in the side of his face. Multiple plastic surgery's later, and lawsuits against the guy who punched him, the guy with the quarters LOST.
Using something like this will invoke devastating damage. Your LIFE better be at real risk here, and not just a testosterone based bar fight.
As a martial artist for over 25 years, and instructor at times, lesson #1 is to avoid a physical altercation. So be a Pussy and run. Then if push comes to shove, use what you have at your disposal.
Also, by the time you reach into your pocket to pull out your roll of coins you have 'telegraphed' your move so badly you might just loose anyway. (I know if I saw someone reach into their pocket and pull out the coins, their ass would be knocked out (with one proper blow) before they could raise their fist)
I have to admit, I didn't realize a roll of quarters could inflict that kind of damage, that's some pretty serious stuff. I guess the guy with the quarters was the one starting the fight? And you're absolutely spot on about avoiding physical confrontations. I think it's funny when people think they're going to learn martial arts 'to be hard', when anyone who's actually studied martial arts will try and avoid confrontation where possible.
I agree that people should be licensed and tested to carry, but not to own. The US Constitution / Bill Of Rights do not mention your RIGHT to drive a car. Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT and as such can be controlled to the nth degree.
I am a Concealed Carry Instructor for the State of Kentucky, and our laws are pretty relaxed.
WITHOUT a permit for concealed carry, a person may:
- carry it on their person, provided it is VISIBLE (legal, but not recommended obviously)
- Place it in a glovebox (NOT a center console, etc.), on the dash, or on the seat next to you in a vehicle. Again, must be visible unless in the glovebox.
Obtaining a permit is necessary only for concealed carry. Kentucky has reciprocity with several other states (concealed carry is regulated at the state level and not Federal), but not all states in the US will recognize ours because we allow other items to be carried with the permit. It's not a "concealed gun permit", it's a "concealed deadly weapons" permit.
As such, KY allows:- Firearms
- Knives, including autos
- Brass knuckles
- Billy clubs
- Blackjack / Slapjack
- Throwing stars (I'm serious here)
- Nunchaku (see above)
I am constantly amazed that some states will not recognize our permit because we allow knives. A GUN is ok, but not a knife.
I agree, people should be allowed to own, because as you say, that's what the Second Ammendment allows, but, as legislation, that could apply to someone being allowed to own one handgun/rifle, possibly of a specific calibre/non-auto, but to be a collector and have access to a wider range of firearms (as well as concealed carrying), that's when I think the licencing should come into play. That's interesting to know that the CDW will allow things like knucks and blackjacks as well as the other more exotic knives, rather than just relating purely to firearms
EXACTLY. I have had students with a "now I can walk through the bad part of town at 3am" attitude. There will always be some people that just don't understand carrying a weapon is a defensive measure.
deadly force is a last resort, not a first option.
Absolutely. I think that is something that some people just can't understand, and in the UK, it is certainly more of a widespread attitude. The recent spate of knife crime in the UK has been horrendous, and I think it's only right that someone be allowed to carry something to defend themselves, should the need arise (Mace, taser, coins etc), and people shouldn't have to live in fear of an attack, or being able to defend themselves, because of the law. As I quoted last night:
- Cesare Beccaria"laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."I guess the upshot of the conversation is to take a roll of notes instead - to throw up in the air as chaff while you leg it.
If only we still had pound notes to be able to do that with
- Firearms
- carry it on their person, provided it is VISIBLE (legal, but not recommended obviously)
-
The moment you use a roll of coins to deck someone, it's a weapon. You have no defence at that point.
If you're worried about being stopped and searched for weapons, maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with something else. Hopefully,. this is all conjecture rather than a plea for assistance in helping you commit a crime.
If I was going to commit a crime, I certainly wouldn't discuss it on an internet forum
This is all very hypothetical conjecture about the legality, given that a roll of coins is quite simply, legal tender, until, as you rightly pointed out, its used to deck someone, but, the issue which interested me, was: If someone was to carry a roll of coins with the intent of it being 'emergency funds' or self-defense, would that be categorized as an offensive weapon, given that it would be 1) legal tender, and 2) not being carried by a crim with the intent to whack someone, but possibly by someone wanting to carry an 'equalizer' should they be attacked...Better than having laws that restrict what you can attempt legal action over. Those sorts of laws tended to favour the gentry.
That's definitely true.
This law was repealed in 1863.
The legal system isn't that stupid, thankfully.
I didn't realize it had been repealed, but that is interesting to know
-
Yeah in Canada too if you use the intruders weapon against him and you werent in a situation where it was him or you, you're in the wrong. If you over hear someone planning to break into your house and you setup a trap and it injures them, youre in the wrong, which means premeditating to use a blunt common object as a weapon is a crime once used.
Now that touches back on the stainless steel dildo scenario...
Attourney: "Why do you keep a stainless steel truncheon by your bed, Sir?"
Defendant: "My wife likes it shoved in her *insert orifice of choice here* while we have intercourse..."
That'd get a chuckle if nothing else
You can get around carrying pepperspray if it's labeled "bear repellent" it still contains 0.5% capsicum but is NOT "intended" to be used on humans.
In such a case, would someone have to prove that they actually needed to repel bears (ie camping etc) or would the fact that it's "bear repellent" rather than "Mace" on the can be sufficient?
In Switzerland it's your civic duty to be armed and carry your weapon, things like the Gestapo I guess have made some nations edgy since and it's not a far fetched scenario as history has taught us. I used to think Americans were gun totting fanatics, and I never understood the obsession. But after taking a history lesson in high school and learning about world war 2 and American history i'd say this quote from Thomas Jefferson clarified it for me "tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry". the right to protect your family and property is a good right to have. In my experience police exist after the fact, to collect information and make arrests. I'd have to say I take a more proactive interest in protecting my loved ones cause after the fact may be too late, and wouldnt rely on the police to provide such protection with all due respect to the officers who put their lives on the line daily.
I think if you murdered a burglar with his own weapon that he intended to use against you a jury of your peers would not, should not ever find you guilty. I know Louisiana has a "shoot the carjacker" law, which means if you're threatened with a carjacking youre within your rights to shoot them with out fear of prosecution, but then again Louisiana has other interesting antiquated laws as well... is it still legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet there?
I totally agree with you, and I think the quote in my OP definitely covers the same issue (why Jefferson quoted it). That's interesting about the carjacking law, and indeed, many strange antiquated laws about. In England, it's still illegal for a young man not to practice his archery on the village green on a sunday due to an antiquated by-law...
-
Not yet, but the police are bewildered as they can't even work out what law she thought they thought she was breaking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8451877.stm
Interesting read, thanks for the link
I was just looking up what constituted an 'offensive weapon', and thought this an interesting and relevent piece:Possession of an Offensive Weapon11. Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold, 24.106a)
12. 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". The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (24-115 Archbold).
13. Lord Lane, CJ. in R v Simpson ©, (78 Cr.App.R.115), identified three categories of offensive weapons:
those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988;
those adapted for such a purpose;
those not so made or adapted, but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person.
14. In the first two categories, the prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant had the weapon with him for the purpose of inflicting injury: if the jury are sure that the weapon is offensive per se, the defendant will only be acquitted if he establishes lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
On the true subject of the topic, I can certainly see how making a roll of coins (in the UK) could constitute an offensive weapon, as it is something 'adapted for such a purpose', but, given that the items making that item are legal tender, and can always be explained as 'emergency funds', I'm curious as to if it would be something someone could be charged for, simply for possessing (and if no one has been hit) as I think it would be very hard to prove the intent to use them as a weapon, over the intent to have 'emergency funds'. Of course, if said roll of coins was carried while inside a sock, then that would be a bit easier to prove 'intent'...
[Edit to add]
For example: Someone carrying a stack of coins in a roll, can always use the defense that they are being carried as legal tender, where someone carrying a stack of metal washers in a roll, cannot justify it as anything other than a make-shift cosh...
Welcome to living a free country. You can sue anyone for anything, but it doesn't mean you stand a chance. Trust me, it's better this way.
Better than what?
-
I think the booby traps were planks of wood and buckets of stones rather than kettles of fish but you are right about how sad it was to see that he could sue for damages, maybe next time Tony will use some thing with better range an penetration.
back to the original idea i have thought about getting one of these to carry round
I first got the idea after watching "Lock stock and two smoking barrels"
And to avoid strange question just gift wrap it and write your better half's name on the label.
Hence my post of the stainless steel dildo
Keeping a cricket bat under the bed (while not impossible to rule out 'marital relations') certainly wouldn't be as easy to explain as something specifically sold as an 'adult toy', but one thing's for sure, I wouldn't want a stainless steel bludgeon hitting my melon whatever name it's sold under It would be amusing to hear in court though Tony Martin deserved jail time. He set a trap and laid in wait with an illegal firearm. He only got the murder reduced to manslaughter because he was certified a loony.
But, was he not laying in wait due to repeated burglaries? I agree, it was an illegal firearm, but, when an unwell mind is threatened (or perceives itself to be threatened) the results are often most unpleasant...
Murdering people, even pikeys, is illegal.I don't know why that struck me as funny, but it did...
May - "Don't use that!"
Hammond (with hammer) - "Why not?!"
May - "It's the tool of pikey..."
She made that bit about being told off up. Don't believe the hype.
Really? I hadn't seen that anywhere, did she admit to it in an interview or something?
It's vague so there can be leeway. It's never cut-and-dried, but most cases never make it to court.
I agree, but, as mentioned by P4GTR, it's sad that the first thought through a person's mind if they're jumped or hears a noise downstairs should be "Can't hit them tooo hard, don't want to get banged up for defending myself..." Personally speaking, I think once someone intentionally forces their way into someone else's property, they should lose the law's protection if they get smacked about, although of course, illegally held fire-arms are a different matter all together, and one of the key issues I'd hoped to explore in this discussion, was the legality of using a legal item 'in a manner other than its intended purpose', or rather, how such intent could actually be proven
You can sue for anything you want. I could sue you for offending me on the internet, even though it's plainly clear you haven't. And, just like the pikey, I would not get very far.
So, it's not a sad state of affairs. It would be if he'd stood a chance of winning, but he didn't, so it's not.
I know, it's just the idea that a crim can try and sue for something which happened while they were being illegal really gets me.
What's the legality in carrying a roll of coins for defense?
in The looney bin
Posted
But the point is, that has not been the case. Some might say that criminals now have less easy access to firearms than before, but I'd counter that by pointing out that it is (and likely always has been) easier for a criminal to acquire a firearm illegally, than it has been for an enthusiast to legally acquire one for sport.