England; Self Defense Rights

[mr2mk1g 10]

Your article talks about our right to carry arms, not our right to self defence. The two are different. No doubt, legislating on our right to posses certain firearms is legislating on the means by which we can defend ourselves but that is far from saying we do not have the right to defend ourself.

Quote

England has whittled down the right of self defense to a point of near-nonexistence

No it hasn't. Its the same today as it was when the Criminal Law Act 1967 was legislated on what "reasonable force" was. And that act didn't materially change how it was before then, it simply expressed the Common Law rule in writing. Our self defence laws are not in any statute but are common law pricipal and are very similar to how they were a hundred years ago.

If you want my professional opinion on this, feel free to come over to my offices and I'll charge you $220 an hour to tell you the same damn thing. (just not today I'm home sick)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Your article talks about our right to carry arms, not our right to self defence. The two are different. No doubt, legislating on our right to posses certain firearms is legislating on the means by which we can defend ourselves but that is far from saying we do not have the right to defend ourself.

Quote

England has whittled down the right of self defense to a point of near-nonexistence

No it hasn't.

Did you read the entire article, or pass judgment on only what you think it said?

Did you see this part?:

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual’s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

and

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

and

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

and

Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."

But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy."

The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property."

Don't forget:

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

To be frank, the only way I can see you reasonably coming to say that the article "talks about our right to carry arms" is if you judged it by its title and didn't read more than a few lines into it. That's why I've posted the pithy material, in case you are wondering.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[souleh 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you're under a woeful misunderstanding of the law under which you're living

Check my profile dude.

Heheheheheh.. I do love seeing a knowitall getting put in their place..

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you're under a woeful misunderstanding of the law under which you're living

Check my profile dude.

Heheheheheh.. I do love seeing a knowitall getting put in their place..

Could you explain? He told me to check his profile, presumably because he thought I did not realize he was in the U.K. I did know that, and that is why I said that it surprised me he didn't know about the state of his laws, given that he lives there. It's in the text of my post.

So far, the only knowitall who's in his place is him, since I posted all the salient parts of the article I quoted that stipulate that the right of self-defense HAS suffered blows in the 20th century.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Everything you have posted there is about the means to defend youreself NOT your right to defend yourself. Not only that but its all about carrying them in public - not your home. Its quite legal for me to have items for self defence in my home... dumb perhaps, but not strictly ilegal.

With the exception of: "finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances" - it always has been. The concept of reasonable force has been arround in english legal history for a long long time.

and: "a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense." Same comment - it simply expressed the common law pricipal in statutory form.

Consider this case:
Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1983) where the defendants shop had been attacked by rioters. Fearing further attacks he made some petrol bombs which he intended to use to protect himself and his property. He was charged and aquitted on the basis of his plea of self defence. He had items made and modified specifically for his self defence (fucking dangerous items at that which just the possession of is usually ilegal in itself) and what he did was legal because he did it in self defence.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I said check my profile not because I live in England but because I'm a Barrister.

You said you did not know where I got my claims about self defence and that I had a "woeful misunderstanding of the law". I just felt that "check my profile" would be a better way of responding than saying erm... 6 years of law school... or its my job...

[souleh 0]

No, I think he's making a valid point. Yes, it's illegal to carry a weapon in most circumstances. After all, by having that weapon upon your person, it raises questions as to why you'd have it. If it wasnt to cause harm to another, why would you keep it? Of course, self defense is a very good reason in deed, but it comes down to the 8st woman vs 12st burglar situation. What's reasonable in the situation.

Sure, that's in the article, granted. But this discussion hasn't just centralised over the contents of the article. It moved on - partially by your self-assuming comments based on said article - to a case of commenting on the situation of british law. You made claims which in effect were not entirely true. I'm not being anti-american ("Oh they're not British so they know nothing") here, and I'm sure you could easily know as much or much more about British law than myself, but I must admit I chuckled when you tried to claim to know more about the British legal system - or rather the application thereof - than a Barrister.

I do apologise for sweepingly calling you a knowitall - however, the means by which you presented your arguments in defense of your comments did portray you as someone who'd stick to their guns at all costs. I believe there are certain names for people who adopt that manner. Sorry if it isn't you..

Peace!

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Handguns were all confiscated

Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to. Besides, I'm sure she could find another useful tool for the job were she to put her mind to it. (When a nutter broke into ex-beatle George Harrison's mansion he and his wife beat the living crap out of him with china lamps and fire pokers - just like a movie. Reading the full law report was quite chilling; they got up to some real medevil shit on this guy).

Jesus christ are we not getting the same details in our respective news stories? What I read about George Harrison was that he was PUT NEAR DEATH IN THE ATTACK BY THE INTRUDER. Possibly because he and his wife had to use "china lamps and fire pokers" to do the job that a handgun is specifically designed to do?

Do you really say that "Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to," with a straight face?

Are you really suggesting that someone retains a right to shoot someone in self defense even when the government has taken away anything with which that person might do the actual shooting? That's rather like saying you still have the right to eat, as someone prevents you from ever obtaining food.
More lawyer-talk bullshit. Thanks, but no thanks.

Quote

When the law looks at someones life being taken they have to do so very seriously. It may be concluded that it was not reasonable for this 18 stone bouncer to shoot a 10 stone burgler. He could have just thumped him and that would have been enough to save his own life. See shooting in this case would be excessive force as there was a less severe action that could have been taken to save his own life.

The same court may conclude that it was reasonable for the 8 stone timid woman to shoot him... what else could she do? There was no less sever action that she could take to save her own life.

(these are just examples and may not always work out like that - here we looked at only one of many factors the court would have to consider).

Yeah, the problem with those examples is that even an "18 stone" bruiser can be lethally stabbed by the "10 stone" burglar who was concealing a knife on his person (you know, in contravention of the LAW). The biggest issue I see here is that you seem to think it's okay to force people, based on their stature, to expose themselves to certain risks that no one can know the severity of. How can the 18stoner know whether the intruder is concealing a lethal weapon? If a guy comes through the broken window of my living room, he's getting dealt with in a fast-and-hard manner, because that behavior alone implies a threat to my life. If he's not such a threat, he wouldn't be breaking in. And to make me wait until an actual and visible and credible threat is made, that means I have to walk the razor edge between wondering if he will attempt to shoot/stab me and having him actually make his best attempt -- at which point it might easily be too late for me to save my own life. Sort of like why you're allowed to shoot someone who points a gun at you: what's the alternative? Do you say, "Oh, you don't know he's actually intending to kill you until he fires a bullet your way"? Duh, wouldn't that be too late? I mean, taken to the extreme, you could say that if the guy fired at me, I should have to determine if the bullet is on a trajectory toward me otherwise it's not a true threat and I am not yet justified in shooting him.

Our laws recognize these rights for a reason. The victim should not be under an obligation to wait for an earnest attempt at killing by a criminal before lethal reactionary force is applied. It's the law of the jungle: if you don't want someone defending against you with deadly force, don't aggress against him.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Everything you have posted there is about the means to defend youreself NOT your right to defend yourself. Not only that but its all about carrying them in public - not your home. Its quite legal for me to have items for self defence in my home... dumb perhaps, but not strictly ilegal.

Umm, why "dumb" to have items for self-defense in your home?

Is it because "the police are supposed to protect you?"

That's the logic some use, forgetting that every single crime and homicide that has ever occurred, occurred because it was not stopped by the police. (Tautology.) That means that many people who counted on the police and only the police to defend them died waiting for that defense.

So I ask again, why is it "dumb" to keep items for self-defense in your home?

If the above is your logic, I ask why anyone would keep a fire extinguisher in the home, given that it's the fire-department's job to keep you safe from fires.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

No, I think he's making a valid point. Yes, it's illegal to carry a weapon in most circumstances. After all, by having that weapon upon your person, it raises questions as to why you'd have it. If it wasnt to cause harm to another, why would you keep it? Of course, self defense is a very good reason in deed, but it comes down to the 8st woman vs 12st burglar situation. What's reasonable in the situation.

Given that one does not have to go far to prove that violent crime victimization can happen easily to any person at any time in any place, that would be my justification for carrying a defensive weapon (and even a handgun qualifies) at any given place and time. Even in the supermarket, or the library, or on the sidewalk, or at the beach. People get victimized by criminals all over the place. It is not a fair presumption that just because an otherwise law-abiding citizen is carrying a weapon that that person intends to use it unlawfully. If that were the case, they could pick me up for attempted rape just because I have a penis, or attempted arson just because I filled a can with gasoline.

What you're talking about, it seems to me, is a justification for "prior restraint," which is only legal in exceptional cases (and I can't think of one).

Quote

"If it wasnt to cause harm to another, why would you keep it? Of course, self defense is a very good reason indeed."

Thank you. That's all I feel I should EVER have to say to someone about my choice to carry the implement(s) that I may one day desperately need to save my life. You carry them every day because you can't pick the day you're going to need them -- so they must be always present. It would be nice if I could somehow know in advance, "I will definitely not be the victim of a violent attack today, so today I can leave the gun at home." Unfortunately, that sort of foreknowledge is not possible.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Re george harrison. No I think we got the same reports. That was my point - he got up to some real medevil stuff on the intruder and it was all perfectly legal - he did it in self defence - we have a right to self defence.

I know sitting here saying that I have the right to shoot someone if nessasery seems a little odd when the government have taken away many firearms (my family had many taken). It reminds me of the sceen in Monty Pythons Life Of Brian where they agree with Loretta that "It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them".

The thing is it is still an important distinction. Not all firarms are banned. I own several. It important that the law adresses those which remain.

Please dont get this thread confused with gun restrictions though. This is not a thread about gun restrictions - its about a right to self defence. There is far more than one way to skin a cat (hence the george harrison example).

Re the 18 stone bruiser. If he thinks the burgler has a knife or may have a knife he would be justified in using lethal force, including shooting him. Its his call on the day. Yes his call must be reasonable, but then I agree with that requirement. Otherwise you are saying that you can do anything even if its unreasonable. If its unreasonable to do somthing surely by definition it should also be ilegai - it was unreasonable!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Umm, why "dumb" to have items for self-defense in your home?

Because if you turn to the cop with it in your hand and say "its so I can stab little bastards like that" (pointing at the bleading crook in the corner) you may find yourself in a little more hot water than if you say "thank goodness I have this nice old sword here to look nice otherwise I would have been killed by that little bastard" (pointing at the bleading crook in the corner).

Answer keep it cos it "looks nice" or its a "piece of history" not for "self defence". How you use it is another matter .

[souleh 0]

Quote

Quote

After all, by having that weapon upon your person, it raises questions as to why you'd have it. If it wasnt to cause harm to another, why would you keep it? Of course, self defense is a very good reason in deed

Given that one does not have to go far to prove that violent crime victimization can happen easily to any person at any time in any place, that would be my justification for carrying a defensive weapon (and even a handgun qualifies) at any given place and time. Even in the supermarket, or the library, or on the sidewalk, or at the beach. People get victimized by criminals all over the place. It is not a fair presumption that just because an otherwise law-abiding citizen is carrying a weapon that that person intends to use it unlawfully. If that were the case, they could pick me up for attempted rape just because I have a penis, or attempted arson just because I filled a can with gasoline.

What you're talking about, it seems to me, is a justification for "prior restraint," which is only legal in exceptional cases (and I can't think of one).

No, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my viewpoint, but that isn't how I see the situation. I was just pointing out how the courts may view the situation over here. If you want my viewpoint on the matter, step back a few pages and look for my post. I think it'll give you a good idea of where I stand on this.

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Clearly you don't have your facts straight.

I'm glad to hear that he has finally been released from jail. But just because I didn't know he had been released 6-months ago, doesn't mean that all of my other facts are incorrect.

Quote

I've been living here since 1996, I like it here and feel rather safe actually

I'm glad you feel safe. Did you know that violent crime rates are higher in England than in America?

Quote

You are trying to pretend that you know what the Brits want

No, I just reported the results of a British radio survey, and I'm debating that subject.

Quote

all I'm reading is another thinly disguised right wing diatribe.

And I guess that comment of yours is just a blatent display of left-wing assumption and bias.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Let me be clear though, my statement is not about wealth, side of tracks or the job the accused had. My statement is purely about any psychological problems suffered by the offender. Where we are talking about the taking of someones life, how can that not enter into a juries decision process. Its possible the offender has psychological illness and thats not supposed to enter into the juries decision process?

I don't recall ever hearing anything, in all my reading of news stories about the case, of Tony Martin having psychological problems. If you have some evidence of that, then please present it. But let us not judge him based upon speculation.

The problem he did have was two dangerous intruders in his home.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Handguns were all confiscated

Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to.

Having a right, without the means to exercise the right, is kind of worthless.

Quote

Besides, I'm sure she could find another useful tool for the job were she to put her mind to it.

A woman shouldn't have to use less effective means to defend herself from a dangerous intruder. She deserves the best tool of all - a gun. If your wife/girlfriend/mother were being attacked by a rapist, would you want her to have nothing but her bare hands with which to fight him off, thereby drastically increasing the odds that the attacker will succeed in his crime?

Quote

Quote

Just because someone is big, doesn't mean that they are good in a hand-to-hand fight

No, your right - they're not nessaserily going to be good. The problem is that what matters is was it reasonable for the home owner to act as they did? That is reasonable in ALL the circumstances. So the jury has to look at everything. How big is the homeowner? Are they a martial artist? Are they timid? Do they have a bad leg? Everything has to be looked at and put onto the weighing scales in the appropriate way.

So it's okay for a small person to shoot someone in self-defense, but it's also okay for a big guy to go to prison for doing the same thing?

That's nuts. If someone's life is in jeopardy, then they should be allowed to shoot in self-defense. Period. It shouldn't matter what their physical makeup is like.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Umm, why "dumb" to have items for self-defense in your home?

Because if you turn to the cop with it in your hand and say "its so I can stab little bastards like that" (pointing at the bleading crook in the corner) you may find yourself in a little more hot water than if you say "thank goodness I have this nice old sword here to look nice otherwise I would have been killed by that little bastard" (pointing at the bleading crook in the corner). Answer keep it cos it "looks nice" or its a "piece of history" not for "self defence". How you use it is another matter.

I disagree. That's just playing games with semantics. If someone wants to carry a weapon for legitimate self defense, and doesn't misuse it, then that should be all the legitimate reason he needs. He shouldn't have to play games and make up excuses for carrying the self-defense item. Self-defense is itself a legitimate excuse, and needs no further justification.

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

A woman shouldn't have to use less effective means to defend herself from a dangerous intruder. She deserves the best tool of all - a gun.

A person can still own a gun, just not a handgun. The vast majority of the population do not want guns in their house. Removing the right to own handguns was one of best things, and they don't do many good things, that our government did in recent years. Did the British population kick up a fuss and start protesting about their rights to own handguns? No. I can't see that same attitude in a couple of countries that spring to mind.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Removing the right to own handguns was one of best things, and they don't do many good things, that our government did in recent years.

The excuse for banning them was that it would reduce crime. It didn't. Gun crime has gone up since handguns were confiscated. See the attached chart. The confiscation is a failure at its avowed purpose, and all those gun owners were deprived of their property for naught.

And you call that a good thing?

Quote

Did the British population kick up a fuss and start protesting about their rights to own handguns? No.

Handgun owners certainly kicked up a fuss, and were ignored. You shouldn't punish all of the innocent, because of something one nut did. And just because some group is a minority, doesn't mean that you should deprive them of their property.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Re george harrison. No I think we got the same reports. That was my point - he got up to some real medevil stuff on the intruder and it was all perfectly legal - he did it in self defence - we have a right to self defence.

Um, I think you are missing my point. George Harrison was badly wounded and NEARLY DIED in the fight with his intruder/attacker. What I was saying is that had he possessed a GUN to use in home defense, he would likely have fared far better, because a gun means you don't have to get within striking distance of your attacker in order to defend against him. Anytime you must be within arms' reach to hit your attacker, you are within arms' reach OF your attacker. Harrison was badly injured, and as I said, he was near death.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

I kicked up a fuss when the government started to remove our firearm privilages. (we have never had a right to firearms by the way - it was only ever a privilage to be granted... shotguns are different, we have a right to a shotgun - go figure).

When the government legislated on firearms in this country it was not in an attempt to reduce firearms cirme per-sey, it was a knea jerk response to the public outcry following two large mascres, (hungerford in 1987 and dunblane in 1996). Both of those mascres were carried out by obviously deranged people and both were carried out by men with ilegal firearms! (tony martin by the way also used an ilegal firearm!).

That fact belies the idiocy of stating increased gun control would prevent further masacres. If these two individuals could get hold of ilegal fireams then, whats to stop someone now getting hold of ilegal firearms.

Legal firearms have never been any significant issue in this country. Its only ilegal firearms that contribute to gun crime in any real sense.

I do not think the reclasification of hand guns was nessaserly a good thing in this country. I would not go as far as saying that it has caused any increase in crime. But it most certainly has not been the cause of any decrease in cirme, be it gun crime or otherwise.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Perhaps he should have bought a gun then. I have 6. All perfectly legal. And in the situation he found himself in, it would have equally legal to use it.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

A woman shouldn't have to use less effective means to defend herself from a dangerous intruder. She deserves the best tool of all - a gun.

A person can still own a gun, just not a handgun. The vast majority of the population do not want guns in their house. Removing the right to own handguns was one of best things, and they don't do many good things, that our government did in recent years. Did the British population kick up a fuss and start protesting about their rights to own handguns? No. I can't see that same attitude in a couple of countries that spring to mind.

"The vast majority of the population do not want guns in their house."

That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns.

And by the way, when your gun crime rate (and other crime rates) skyrocketed in the years directly following your gun ban, I think that proved that banning guns did NOTHING toward making your population safer from gun crime or any other type of crime (except maybe for price-fixing or gouging on gun prices).

And you must have missed reports that I remember reading that several MPs have been discussing RESTORING the right to own guns in England, since observing the dismal and disastrous failure of the ban to make people safer.

Your England is the perfect example of the truism: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

You are a living laboratory. If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now -- you can be sure that person is of a criminal mindset. Great on you! Your government has made sure that when faced with such an intruder in your home, you have to go at a gun-wielder with only a fireplace poker or cricket bat as a weapon.

Best would be to lock yourself in a room with a phone, call the police, and have a GUN handy with which to shoot your attacker if he bursts through the door. (Note I am NOT saying your best course is to engage in a gunfight.)
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I kicked up a fuss when the government started to remove our firearm privilages. (we have never had a right to firearms by the way - it was only ever a privilage to be granted... shotguns are different, we have a right to a shotgun - go figure).

This is not so. While it is true that you have long been denied your right to own firearms by your government, the right has always been yours (as a HUMAN right to self-defense and preservation).

In addition, your civil right to own arms has its root in the Common Law as well as the English Bill of Rights. Of course, at the time (I believe) there were restrictions based on one's religion.

There is a big difference between your not HAVING a right, and your government IGNORING your right. The latter is actually what's been going on. Your rights have been trampled on, and continue to be.

Quote

When the government legislated on firearms in this country it was not in an attempt to reduce firearms cirme per-sey, it was a knea jerk response to the public outcry following two large mascres, (hungerford in 1987 and dunblane in 1996). Both of those mascres were carried out by obviously deranged people and both were carried out by men with ilegal firearms! (tony martin by the way also used an ilegal firearm!).

You are INCORRECT. Now do you see why I've been challenging alleged British posters about what they know about their own country?! That guy in Dunblane had LEGAL HANDGUNS. He had been VETTED BY THE POLICE PRIOR TO BEING LICENSED TO HAVE THEM. You are WRONG. And if those guns had been ILLEGAL, that would have made the hue-and-cry against LEGAL guns all the more preposterous.

You need to check your facts more thoroughly.

Quote

That fact belies the idiocy of stating increased gun control would prevent further masacres. If these two individuals could get hold of ilegal fireams then, whats to stop someone now getting hold of ilegal firearms.

Legal firearms have never been any significant issue in this country. Its only ilegal firearms that contribute to gun crime in any real sense.

I do not think the reclasification of hand guns was nessaserly a good thing in this country. I would not go as far as saying that it has caused any increase in crime. But it most certainly has not been the cause of any decrease in cirme, be it gun crime or otherwise.

You are correct when you say that making handguns illegal was an irrational response to the massacres -- even despite being in error about the Dunblane guns being illegal. Your government took away a host of guns that had never been used in criminal attacks and likely never would have been. Those guns were already under strict control regarding purchase, ownership and storage to begin with. Now you have a situation where the ONLY guns left around in your country (except for tiny number of single-shot long guns still owned legally) are kept by CRIMINALS, from whom the government never could confiscate them because they had never been registered to their "owners" in the first place! Way to go, Parliament!

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

I think Tony Martin was not quite all there because that is what the court found. In October 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed his convicion for murder and substituded it with one of Manslaghter on the grounds of Diminished Responsability. That legal talk for "it would have been muder if this guy had all his faculties".