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..The bolt comes in red after it's been fired.
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.. ?
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.I'm glad it's just not me who refers to him as hook-nosed in my posts about him.
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: Cassandra on Today at 02:56:32 PMSection 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that:Thanks Cassandra for expanding on this.
"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.
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 ?
Quote from: GrannyMac on Today at 02:19:17 PMIt appears he's ahead...My definition would be over two feet lower
Page created in 0.022 seconds with 15 queries.