Quote from: Scrumpy on Today at 11:06:55 AMI wouldn't hesitate to fire a crossbow at anyone who i thought could be threat to my family..  And I bet most parents would feel the same..
I certainly hope that I wouldn't just lay there and hope that they go away..
I would fire ... no time to ask questions.. 'Are you friend or foe' ?.. 'Are you going to hurt me or my family' ?
The questions can come later..
It is they who are up to no good.. not me..
I feel strongly about this topic..

ps.  Does the crossbow come in red.. ?

The bolt comes in red after it's been fired. 

Quote from: Cassandra on Today at 05:29:41 PMI think he comes over well because he only answers 'put up' questions by left leaning media organs. I've never known anyone to rile me more just by the sight of them. Horrible little hook nosed, imported parasite.

Hall is a 'One Nation Tory', born from the didactic parents of local council and London Assembly posts. An unsupported nobody, going nowhere.

I'm glad it's just not me who refers to him as hook-nosed in my posts about him. 

Quote from: Cassandra on Today at 02:56:32 PMSection 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:

"any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Reasonable force can be adopted to "prevent a crime".

Also subsection 5, of Section 76 refers to intoxication (another case).

Of course all English Law is subsidiary to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 2 of which states that:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

To sum up, in the case referred to if you arrive 'tooled up' to support an act of burglary, you would expect in some cases to be repelled by assisted physical restraint and judges would so instruct jurors to contain this fact within their judgement. Arguably a Farmer's shotgun is a physical repellant. However within all judgements is the facet of 'reasonable force'. In this instance is a farmer owning a shotgun for say wildlife protection and pest control, justified to express this instrument as an item of reasonable force in defence of his person and property when confronted with 'armed' intruders? Herein is the argument for breaching the HRA 1998, however I defended on many occasions where farmers were discharged for the utility of a shotgun in an act of self defence. The law needs clarity and in todays 'washy-wokey' clamour for criminal liberty, the plaudits for clearing up legitimate armed response will never be changed.

The ungodly can fully expect that in 'knocking off a farm' they may encounter an armed response as most farmers own shotguns. I have successfully argued that within this act they compel the farmer to  resort to shooting in response. Sometimes many intruders target their properties and even if only one is armed the farmer is justified in assuming all invaders are similarly equipped.

Thanks Cassandra for expanding on this.

It must be quite refreshing to now live in a country where you don't have to stand placidly while an intruder attacks you or risk a life sentence if you protect yourself.

Quote from: muddy on Today at 03:58:39 PMThe thing about Sadiq Khan is is quite personable and comes over well in the media .

Naturally I think his conduct especially over the London marches has been disgraceful and I would like to see him gone .

What does anyone know about Susan Hall ?

I think he comes over well because he only answers 'put up' questions by left leaning media organs. I've never known anyone to rile me more just by the sight of them. Horrible little hook nosed, imported parasite.

Hall is a 'One Nation Tory', born from the didactic parents of local council and London Assembly posts. An unsupported nobody, going nowhere.

Quote from: GrannyMac on Today at 02:19:17 PMIt appears he's ahead...

My definition would be over two feet lower

Yes I'm actually very familiar with the Tony Martin case. He was convicted of murder by a Jury majority of 10/2. The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". In 1988, following the Hungerford massacre, the licensing treatment of semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two to equate to that of a firearm, required a valid firearms certificate.

In August '99, Tony Martin shot to death Fred Barras (16) one of two intruders  with an illegally held pump-action Winchester Model 1300 12-gauge shotgun which he claimed to have found. In 1994, Tony Martin's shotgun certificate had been revoked, after he'd found a man stealing apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. So both guilty of illegal procurement and possession of a firearm.

At trial, he was sentenced to life  with a recommended minimum term to serve of nine years, soon afterwards reduced to eight years by the Lord Chief Justice.

In October 2001, three senior Appeal Court judges headed by Lord Woolf, heard submissions by the defence that Martin had fired in his own defence and these were rejected . On this occasion, the defence also submitted evidence that Martin was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression and that his paranoia was specifically directed at anyone intruding into his home; he was also diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. This submission was accepted by the Court of Appeal, on the grounds of diminished responsibility; Martin's murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter carrying a five-year sentence, and the ten-year sentence for wounding the second intruder Fearon was reduced to three years.

Here as I've often referred the appeal asked the Court to consider the mitigation of  'mens rea', i.e that his state of mind was impaired by clinically diagnosed 'Aspergers Syndrome'.

The concept of mens rea, which is Latin for "guilty mind," allows the criminal justice system to distinguish someone who set out with the intention of committing a crime from someone who did not mean to commit a crime. Mens rea refers to what the accused individual was thinking, and what his intent was at the time the crime was committed. Intent may be anything from a general intention to do something illegal, to a premeditated objective to commit a particular crime.

To sum up, the laws clinical considerations had to be viewed both at trial and then upon appeal, where circumstances were changed by newly submitted evidence on the convicted man's mental state.

I think given the circumstances the Trial decision was wrong, manslaughter was clearly the case. So a wrongly directed decision, was further compounded by overtly rigorous sentencing. It was corrected upon appeal and then 'mens rea' became plausible upon concurrent submission. I don't think Martin was guilty of murder, because I'm sure that day when he got up he had nt decided to kill anyone. Let alone two persons Barras and Fearon he'd never met.

I believe the appeal judges knew the first decision was unsafe and gladly accepted the 'Mens Rea' submittal to get the system off the hook, by virtually releasing the convicted man that day. A classic 'Chambers' convenience 'fix'.

Here he might in a 'Blue' state he have been gonged for manslaughter, but probably given a non custodial sentence in light of mitigative accompaniment, without the need to invoke the condition of his mental health.

The thing about Sadiq Khan is is quite personable and comes over well in the media .

Naturally I think his conduct especially over the London marches has been disgraceful and I would like to see him gone .

What does anyone know about Susan Hall ? 

I am sure you are familiar with the Tony Martin case .
He was convicted of murder
A nervous older man living alone and targeted in the night by two burglars from the travelling community .
The only thing that got him out of a life sentence was public outrage .

He will win by a mile, too many muslims now in London to be countered by the rest. This is why he was installed by Blair, who then imported millions of supporters from Pakistan etc, to ensure his residence until he decides to relinquish it to 'Khan 2'.

Additionally the gathering of 'proxy postal votes' at many mosques is a well known activity today, where this sphere of influence is an established social doctrine.

Eventually this profile will convert the whole of the the UK to the paradigm of Islamic Sharia Law. Khan is the prototype Caliph for the UK and eventually Europe.

Quote from: Diasi on Today at 09:15:29 AMOne of the intruders has been charged with aggravated burglary.

A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; and for this purpose—

"firearm" includes an airgun or air pistol, and "imitation firearm" means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm, whether capable of being discharged or not; and

"weapon of offence" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.

Which, basically, means they went prepared & intending to inflict physical violence on the occupants of the farm.

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:

"any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Reasonable force can be adopted to "prevent a crime".

Also subsection 5, of Section 76 refers to intoxication (another case).

Of course all English Law is subsidiary to the Human Rights Act 1998, article 2 of which states that:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. In defence of any person from unlawful violence;

b. In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

c. In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

To sum up, in the case referred to if you arrive 'tooled up' to support an act of burglary, you would expect in some cases to be repelled by assisted physical restraint and judges would so instruct jurors to contain this fact within their judgement. Arguably a Farmer's shotgun is a physical repellant. However within all judgements is the facet of 'reasonable force'. In this instance is a farmer owning a shotgun for say wildlife protection and pest control, justified to express this instrument as an item of reasonable force in defence of his person and property when confronted with 'armed' intruders? Herein is the argument for breaching the HRA 1998, however I defended on many occasions where farmers were discharged for the utility of a shotgun in an act of self defence. The law needs clarity and in todays 'washy-wokey' clamour for criminal liberty, the plaudits for clearing up legitimate armed response will never be changed.

The ungodly can fully expect that in 'knocking off a farm' they may encounter an armed response as most farmers own shotguns. I have successfully argued that within this act they compel the farmer to  resort to shooting in response. Sometimes many intruders target their properties and even if only one is armed the farmer is justified in assuming all invaders are similarly equipped.