TeeJay

Very nice indeed

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 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) 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... 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. 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 If only we still had pound notes to be able to do that with

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... That's definitely true. I didn't realize it had been repealed, but that is interesting to know

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 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? 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...

Interesting read, thanks for the link I was just looking up what constituted an 'offensive weapon', and thought this an interesting and relevent piece: 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... Better than what?

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 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... 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..." Really? I hadn't seen that anywhere, did she admit to it in an interview or something? 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 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.

Funny that there's less tendency for road rage if there's a likelihood of getting a 'cap in the ass' for it [Edit to add] Not that I have an issue with strict licensing laws. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment rights, but, much as people are tested and licensed to drive, I don't think it unfair that people be tested and licensed to carry firearms Now that's just another kettle of fish entirely... A sad state of affairs that a crim was able to sue for compo for injuries sustained during a criminal act

I don't think that's quite the message that Myleene Klass got recently... And I quite agree, the jury is made up of regular people, but, my point is more about the settings and hindsight. When viewed analytically in a courtroom, something could be viewed as not 'being reasonable', which might have seemed reasonable at the time, to the person under attack. That is the thing about the law which concerns me by it's vagueness.

That's very true, I hadn't thought of it that way... I guess I was just thinking that it might have had more potential than some of the more compulsory 'team stuff', but you're quite right...

Well, if I was a crackhead and really wanted Jonty's Rolex to pay for my next score... Joking asside though, I don't think it's right that people have to take self-defense as an 'after-school activity', rather than something which could easily be incorporated into the curriculum, and could potentially save someone's life in the future

I totally agree with you Gotta love those Second Amendment rights As I understand it, the wording of UK Law recognizes a person's right to use 'reasonable force' to defend themselves, but this is the same kind of thing as the 'with intent'... Who defines what is 'reasonable'? A judge and jury sitting in the safety of a courtroom? WHat they consider 'reasonable', may be very different to the person who thinks they're about to get mugged/murdered/raped walking home... In recent cases, the law has shown itself to be rather against the homeowner, effectively stripping someone of the right to defend themselves, their home, or their family from an intruder, where as I know the law in the US, is much more supportive of people suffering from home-invasions.

But that is precisely the point I'm trying to make. This isn't about my personal intent, but a discussion on the legality, or how could (or even would) the law be able to definitively prove that someone was carrying coins in that matter for use as a weapon, rather than simply as a compactly carried 'emergency fund'... As for your other comments, I agree, and I think self-defense classes should be included in the national curriculum for PE, rather than some of the other more pointless sports like rugby and soccer... Does knowing how to get a ball out of a scrum, or how to aim a kick for a goal really matter after leaving school? Certainly not as much (sadly) as the ability to defend oneself should the need arise...

Absolutely, and I think that's crazy. Of course, it would be interesting to hear a court ruling on one of these: I've heard that wet sand is a popular variant in beach locations

That's certainly the best option Of course, I can see the point about carrying them through a security point and it raising a few eyebrows, afterall, I'm sure that anyone in a profession like that seeing a roll of coins is going to know they can be used as a substitute for a set of knucks, I was just wondering more about actual legalities, such as in a 'stop and search' by the police (which can happen) Would they be under the automatic rule that "Rolled coins = Knucks = Weapon" or, would someone be able to explain the amount as 'emergency funds', and not be prosecuted for 'going equipped' to spend legal tender (or maybe defend themself ) [Edit to add] In the UK, coins do not come from the bank in 'roll' form, but in bags of mid-gauge plastic. £5 of ten pence coins, if stacked together, along the bottom edge of the bag, strangely enough, is the same size as the average fist But, the bag would have to be wrapped tight, and then taped so as to prevent the coins shifting and rattling when carried, and carrying the bag of coins un-wrapped, would definitely take most of a pocket's space (and rattle with every step ) That's the thing which makes me curious as to the legality... Legal tender, but carried in a way which is 'other than how the bank provides it', and could just as easily be used as makeshift knucks, as an emergency fund...

Those're some interesting self-defense laws, especially that a blade is legal, where pepperspray is not. Could that be more to do with concealed weapons of any kind, rather than just the nature of the weapons?

That's the whole 'going equipped' part of the law which really bugs me. It's almost like they can't get someone for this, so they'll try and get them done for that, just in case... As you say, someone carrying what are legitimately 'the tools of their trade' will always be able to justify carrying them. I remember reading a while back about a chef getting in trouble for carrying a knife, but it was obviously not intended to be used as a weapon. I guess it's a bit like if someone's driving around with a baseball bat on the backseat, it could be argued that they're tooled up (regardless of if it's for self-defence or to dish out a beating) but if someone's driving around with a baseball bat, a ball, and a catcher's mitt, well, that certainly blurs the line more towards 'recreational use'... I think the thing with the roll of coins which fascinates me, is that the coins are legal tender. They are not illegal to carry. Of course, that's where 'intent' comes into play, but, as above, how could the law actually prove that someone is carrying a roll of coins so they can give someone a pasting (or weight a punch to their advantage incase they get jumped) rather than simply carrying them as a compact and convenient 'emergency fund', should the need arise...

I've previously taken 3 reps to Spain on a visit. One for daily wear, one to wear for meals out, and one as a backup. When I went to Tokyo, I took two. One on my wrist for daily wear, the other Emily wore on a strap (intended as a 'dress watch' for going to my friend's wedding) I figured it was safer for us to be only have the one watch on us 'just in case'. Amusingly, at Narita, there was indeed a wall occupied by counterfeit goods. The Sub which was on display wouldn't even get $10 on CQout, but there were some very nice handbags in the display The way I look at it, my watches are my watches, and a customs official would have to be pretty bored and pissed off to bother about what's on my wrist

I've heard for some time about folks carrying a roll of quarters to lend weight to a punch, and even that some bars in the US will not allow people to carry money inside in this form, but make them change it for paper at the door. I was thinking that in the UK, the law likes to throw in little phrases like "going equipped" or "with intent" Personally, I think those are bullshit, as intent does not always become action, and who defines when a person is indeed 'going equipped' for criminal intent? For example, I could put a roll of coins in my pocket, which would be worth £5 (or more, depending on higher denomination coins) so should I ever be in the situation where I actually need emergency cash, I would not only have enough for a basic meal, maybe a cab ride somewhere, or some coins for a phonebox, I would have them to hand. And of course, a roll of coins would have the advantage of 1) Not jangling with every movement and 2) Be small enough not to take up much pocket room. Of course, should I ever feel the need to weight a punch, well, I guess they could be used to do that as well But how would the law view that? How could they prove that I had intent to carry coins specifically to use as an offensive weapon, rather than simply for emergency survival (would not defending oneself from an attacker count as emergency survival?) I was just wondering where the law stands in your corner of the world... - Cesare Beccaria

Interesting read, amigos I'll reserve making a judgement on the iPad till I get the chance to actually handle one, but my opinion thus far, has been based on the (most likely faulty) assumption that it will effectively be an up-scaled iPhone... Personally, I can't view the iPad being a huge seller, simply because I can't see a huge demand or market for it. I find my iPhone is fine for browsing the net, but, there are times when I'll need to jump back on the PC, and of course, for actual work, the PC is a must, but, for light-weight 'on the move' stuff, the iPhone is awesome. Now, this puts me in the positions of thinking "iPhone or PC" for things. When would I actually use an iPad? When I'm watching NCIS and checking MyFacePartyBookSpace? iPhone does it... In fact, iPhone does what I need to do for almost all recreational web-browsing (and other App uses) and for anything else, there's the PC... My view, is that the iPad will be a possible use for business people who travel, as it would be a bit easier to use in an office or hotel room than an iPhone, but obviously slimmer and easier to carry than a laptop. I think anyone needing a 'serious machine', will just get a PC or a Mac. Anyone needing a bit of 'on the go surfing' could make do with their mobile, or certainly an iPhone (which I think of more as a palm computer, than a mobile phone) but the iPad, I think will just get lost in between those two limits... I'd heard a few years back that IT workers were the most disgruntled with their jobs. I guess disgruntlement has now escalated to suicides

So sorry I missed this yesterday, but congratulations to you both

A bit about wholesaleoutlet...

I bet that was messy... I once made the mistake of using a 'daylight lamp' to dry a really nasty Seamaster, and the heat warped the plastic movement retainer, so the rotor was unable to spin. The watch worked fine for manual winding I've also had the problem where putting a watch too close to a halogen bulb to charge the lume would make a plastic datewheel warp forwards and drag on the dial Needless to say, lessons have been learned, and I don't expose watches to intense heat like that anymore

No, it was a definite TV show like Judge Judy, as it was 'court room setting', and if I recall, dealing specifically with a Rolex... Always good to know it's not just broke joes who buy reps

That's true, but, as mentioned on 'the other show', the expert acknowledged that it wasn't a totally worthless item. Of course, I'm sure he was talking about the value of the parts making up the watch, rather than re-selling an illegal item