CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am afraid that the world of constant anti police and anti authority extremism is not my world. I had hoped, being a keen shooter, to be involved in discussions about shooting, not constantly responding to people who dissect every sentence I make, put their own interpretation on it and then have the effrontery to tell me that I am using my official capacity to further some sort of agenda. I can well understand that some people dislike certain things to do with the police, but it is the constant unceasing uninformed vitriol that amazes me. It is my profession, an honourable one and one that I am proud to have achieved success in. I do not take kindly to ill informed and totally erroneous statements being made. I do not like the fact that I constantly receive threats and hate mail, for no other reason than the fact that I am a police officer. It is very sad. It has merely confirmed my view that there are a sizeable number, albeit the tiny minority, of shooters who are thoroughly objectionable people. I have unsubscribed from CS, having been invited to join a forum that consists of pure shooters, sportsmen, who are more my cup of tea. I am not decrying you, but the constant sniping is wearying. I am sure there will be some sighs of relief...one less person to disagree with. IG 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The term we use is 'barrack room lawyer'. Someone who thinks he knows it all, but can't put it into practise.< But does that make them wrong? If they have the luxury of being able to sift through law as it was written and find the original meaning, as opposed to the way it has been applied (some would say corrupted), is that a bad thing if it all appears to be going pear-shaped? All very laudable, but I can also see the other side of the coin... Unfortunately, I suspect the patches and modifications to law, illegally placed or otherwise, would take a lifetime to undo even if one had the legal and financial resources to do so, not withstanding the excellent work of the likes of Mike Burke, and in the meantime it's business as usual. So, even if IG had a sudden revelation of libertarian fervour to restore everybody's freedom to exercise all their rights, unless he was in a very senior position, I suspect his superiors and the vested interests of the establishment would very soon restrict his ability to attain any such senior position... >Can there be anyone else on this group who is subject to such intense scrutiny and hatred? IG< I can think of a few, but it's probably your turn... Actually, I would hope that the more intemperate comments I have read are "passionate" debate (even some of the handbag throwing) rather than hatred. Tim -- If you make statements that you think gun control is wonderful, with little to support the assertion, in front of a group of people who don't think it's wonderful, with libraries full of information that show it isn't, methinks you are going to be villified somehow! I have to say quite honestly that I have met people who can argue with lots of stats and research that gun control is a good thing, but I can only think of three off the top of my head, one was American, one was Dutch, and one was Swiss! I've never met anyone in this country who can argue statistically that our controls make sense, even the Home Office RDS and all their resources do pretty badly at it. The reason being quite honestly that the bulk of our controls don't make sense and things like the handgun ban were based on bigotry, with a flimsy attempt at scientific justification. Steve. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <<.>>> The term we use is 'barrack room lawyer'. Someone who thinks he knows it all, but can't put it into practise. IG 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <<<>> I despair. That's hardly in my official capacity is it?? Can there be anyone else on this group who is subject to such intense scrutiny and hatred? IG -- Pardon? How is that comment anything to do with hatred? And what the heck has your "official capacity" got to do with it? Are you telling me you have one opinion at work and another when you're not? Steve. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Allow me this: My perception from the past >discussions is that IG understands that the current law >is indeed in violation of the top law, but because he >has sworn an oath to uphold 'the' law, that he is not >at liberty to either ignore or condemn 'the' law. E.J. I take your point in general but I disagree in this specific case for the following reasons. The Constables Oath of Office includes " I will to the best of my skill and knowledge prevent all offences against the persons and property of Her Majesties subjects...". This is based on the Magna Carta requirement for "true men who know the law and mean to keep it" and acknowledges that policemen are civilians. Soldiers can be ordered to do things which result in their death but police are like boy scouts, they only do their best. The second principle a good reason not to rely exclusively on the police to protect you and the first requires individual Policemen to take steps to ascertain what the law is. In relation to British firearms legislation, none that I am aware of infringes the common law RBA. There is a Home Office "policy" which does but policy is not law. If IG is still with us and has any concerns about this please let us know. Until recently I was unsure about these things myself, but not now. And I have a duty to put him right . The power of the Internet is that forums such as this are "expert systems" which pool knowledge and allow it to be shared. Regards, John Hurst. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>. For example, IG is happy to state that in his >official capacity he does not recognise the RKBA and he gets away with it, >except in this discussion group .<< Go on, show me where I have said that. The trouble with so many people is that they are so blinded by a hatred of the police that they cannot see anything other than that which suits them. It suits to think that I am spouting official policy, so the fact that I am not is ignored. I have never ever made any statement in any 'official capacity', nor would I presume to do so. What I have consistently said, which upsets so many people, is that, IN MY OWN OPINION, there is no need for anyone in the UK to require a firearm for self defence. Nothing more, nothing less. If people can't handle that, its hardly my problem. >>>We don't want IG putting up a straw man argument do we. I have obviously been taught my law in a different school. I cannot think what context the straw man argument would possibly arise here. IG -- You aren't going to get away with that, that's not what you said, you said under certain circumstances you could accept that some people had justification for a firearm for self-defence. Steve. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The present problem in the UK is that the establishment is getting away with >exceeding their authority. For example, IG is happy to state that in his >official capacity he does not recognise the RKBA and he gets away with it, >except in this discussion group . > >Regards, John Hurst. Steve, & John, Allow me this: My perception from the past discussions is that IG understands that the current law is indeed in violation of the top law, but because he has sworn an oath to uphold 'the' law, that he is not at liberty to either ignore or condemn 'the' law. And, as he has 'the' law and its unique vagaries to contend with -- as a matter of course because of his oath, that he quite content to do just that, because for him to do otherwise would be to disobey his oath. We've been here before. -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yes but as you say the statute law has been differently >interpreted in recent years. With reference cases by >way of 'stated cases' taking preference over the Bill >of Rights, etc. >Unless there can be a well documented case where it is >demonstrated that the right to carry 'arms' is only >modified by the Prevention of Crime Act and not removed >by it then what we have is as the Prevention of Crime >Act states it - lawful authority or legal excuse. Jerry, As far as Mike Burke and I have bee able to determine, the Bill of Rights has not been raised by a person charged with an offence under the "Prevention of Crimes" Act. A point of law which has not been argued is not decided and the presumption should be in favour of the liberty of the subject to carry on doing something which he has always done before. Note that reasonable restrictions on the exercise of common law rights are allowed, as Blackstone acknowledged; "And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened". We don't want IG putting up a straw man argument do we. In any case statute law is superior to case law and it's interpretation is the issue here. And this is were an error has been made. The proof of this is the following extract from Hansard. Lord Soulton quoting from Lord Halsbury's Laws of England on a private person's common law power of arrest said; "I have always held that the preservation of the Queen's peace was the duty of everyone of her subjects, and the police were only citizens with special responsibilities"... "In fact, the idea that a person could not defend himself was, in Lord Halsbury's time, unthinkable. This was not the first time that it had been sought to make the police into a privileged class, but the attempt had always been rejected, and I hope that it will be rejected again"... "If the citizen was not allowed to defend himself, the Government would have to accept responsibility for his defence, at least in public places." "The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared to accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have undertaken? If no-one is allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence becomes a peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it must be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her Majesty's subjects, with the right to shear, kill or let die as best please themselves." The Lord Chancellor said "this was not a Bill tipped against the poor person. It was designed to protect all people alike and it would give a wrong balance to suggest that it favoured one section of the community". Regards, John Hurst. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>An "act of self defence" and then found guilty of having an >>offensive weapon - strange days indeed. >Indeed - now although the court seemed to agree this was self defence why >doesn't it also claim that the weapon was actually a defensive weapon in >these circumstances? >Neil Francis Neil, I'll try and answer this one in "simple" terms! Prior to the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which "created" a new crime, you could carry a weapon with you in a public without committing an offence. This was because you had a common law right to arms for defence. Correspondence with the Met Police Solicitors department confim this. This Act introduced two new terms covering the carriage of weapons in a public place, lawful authority and reasonable excuse. As this Act contravened the Bill of Rights, the term "lawful authority" was included which confirmed you right to carry a weapon. However, the words "lawful authority" were not defined, because to do so would have confirmed your common law right to carry a weapon in public in the very same Act which purported to take it away, negating its intent. During the debate on the above Bill,The Secrerary of State for the Home Department, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe had this to say regarding firearms. "It would be useful if, just to present the full picture, I said a word or two about firearms because it has been long recognised that firearms are in a special position. I was asked at Question time today to say something about it. It may well be that in certain circumstances, the court will hold, if a charge is brought, that a firearm is an offensive weapon for the purposes of this Bill." As a certificate was "lawful authority" in a public place, this Act did not place any restriction on certificate holders. The same obscure words were later incorporated in the1965 Firearms Act. Again, they were never defined. During the debates on the 1965 Firearms Act, the sponsor of the Bill, Sir Frank Soskice was asked to define the words "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse." He had this to say. "A lawful occasion for the carriage of a firearm will be one, for example, when it is being carried for a necessary purpose of some sort by a person who has an appropriate firearms certificate. Obviously, the phrase will have to be carefully defined in legislation. Obviously, also, there is the personal liberty aspect of the power of police search. I can assure the House that I myself and the police will be most careful in the way in which this power is exercised." The phrase never was defined in subsequent legislation. In a later debate on the 1965 Firearms Bill, Lord Stonham, another sponsor of the Bill, confirmed that you had a right to carry a firearm and a certificate confirmed it. (Page 819. Firearms Bill 25 May 1965) Now, as the Prevention of Crime Act purports to make it an offence to carry a weapon in public, any acts of self-defence would have to be spontaneous. ie. on being attacked, you would pick up something with which to defend yourself. If you already had a weapon with you at the time you were attacked, this would be construed as being anticipatory. You could not plead self-defence as you weren't supposed to be carrying a weapon in the first place. On those rare occasions, as with this case, the prosecution have likely conceded that anticipitory acts are lawful but the defence did not argue the lawful authority aspect because of the flawed judgement of Bryan v Mott. I believe that if ever a case with a plea of not guilty on the grounds of "lawful authority" were to be correctly presented and upheld by a jury, it would make unsafe all convictions since 1953 where the defendant had pleaded self defence. Regards, Mike Burke. 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: Neil Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >An "act of self defence" and then found guilty of having an >offensive weapon - strange days indeed. Indeed - now although the court seemed to agree this was self defence why doesn't it also claim that the weapon was actually a defensive weapon in these circumstances? After 2 years of bullying would a strong case for this exist? Even if not when does a simple tool, such as a pocket knife, or even a pen for example, turn into an offensive weapon (rather than say a defensive weapon)? Neil Francis Trowbridge, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daily Mail 1.12.00 Mercy for boy who cut bullies A COURT yesterday showed mercy to a schoolboy who used his penknife to attack playground bullies who had terrorised him for two years. The 15-year-old lashed out after being kicked and punched and surrounded by a mob of pupils. One of the bullies, aged 11, was stabbed between his shoulder blades, needing three stitches. Magistrates heard how the teenage victim had endured torment before the playground fracas at the school in the Halifax area. The boy told the court: `I just panicked. There was nothing else I could do. I was surrounded and I just wanted to scare them.' He was acquitted of wounding with intent at Calderdale Youth Court in Halifax, West Yorkshire. Admitting possessing an offensive weapon, the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons was given a six-month conditional discharge. He was suspended from school after the incident and has been receiving tuition at home. He now hopes to attend a different school. Chairman of the bench Rodney Allen agreed it had been an act of self-defence, saying the boy `had no alternative' and had not intended to hurt or cause serious harm. Extra staff have been put on playground duty since the incident earlier this year. --- An "act of self defence" and then found guilty of having an offensive weapon - strange days indeed. Rusty 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
