From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the original point was that -
if you are away from private property then the right to
self defence is in effect denied to you because if you
are caught in possession of *any* implement intended to
be used defensively you *WILL* be charged and *WILL* be
convicted of being in possession of an offensive weapon,
even though it's purpose was purely defensive.
Mrs Harrison took up the poker within her own home in an
effort to defend her husband and herself. Ergo she was
'legal' in the circumstances.
If she or her husband had advanced onto the street in
search of a suspected prowler then she would likely have
been convicted if she admitted the item was for 'self
defence'.
Any 'prior preparation' or an 'advance to contact' with
an intent to use a weapon woul dalso land you with some
explaining to do.
Regards
Jerry
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
