mr2mk1g

That's one of the puzzling/worrying things about this case. It does not represent the letter of the law. If the court applied the law correctly, this guy should have been able to stab the crap out of the 4 blokes with a gun relying on the defence of self defence... unless there's a) something we're not hearing about (perhaps indicated by this man oddly being convicted of manslaughter not murder) or; b) someone just plane fucked up and this is an erronious jugement - they happen, no system's perfect.

I've been thinking about this one. Something's not quite right about the home owner being jailed for Manslaughter and not Murder. If he's used self defence as a defence but it was found he use more than "reasonable force" his defence would have failed and he would have been convicted of Murder. But he's not - he's gone down for manslaugher. Now we have two kinds of manslaughter; voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary is basically gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter - now this can't really be gross negligence... It could technically be constuctive manslaughter where you do an obviously dangerous and illegal act which leads to death but where you intended no harm. It's difficult to see how you can intend no harm but stab someone 4 times... not a terribly likely finding. So we're left with voluntary manslaughter. This is where you intend to kill the guy but you either have the defence of provocation (quite possible here) or of diminished responsability (meaning an "abnormality of mind" - legalees for crazy - this is what Tony Martin was eventually convicted of). For provocation to work you have to show that you suffered a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" and is usually typified by bersker type characteristics. This is possible, although not a terribly likley scenario given the circumstances... but you can see it happening. So this guy is either suffering from an "abnormality of mind" (aka crazy) or had a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" where he killed a guy. Hmmm. It is a puzzling case... I shall endevour to dig a little further through the trade as it were and see if I can find out for you all some of the unreported facts (which there always are). Thanks for brining this up, it's curious.

Control of knives: Illigality of knives, sticks and rolling pins in public places: *** Prevention of Crime Act 1953 s1(1) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable-- (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [six months] or a fine not exceeding [the prescribed sum] or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [four] years or a fine . . . or both. (2)..."offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person].

That's a pitty. That's not how the law should operate. I would not be surprised if this finding was overturned on appeal unless there's significantly more to the story than the papers report.

maybe I should'a put it in bold for you the first time round. Look again - you'll see its there. Easy - I'm referring to England not the US (see the title of the thread). If the majority wants it banned and feel they have a reason to do so, it can be banned. We have no constitution which says we cannot take away someone's right to something, we have no constitution to say we must protect a minority group. If the government wants to do something and there is popular support it can happen. Don't like it, don't come live here, no one is asking you to. If someone in the UK doesn't like it, move! It's far from bullshit.

Do you not see that that is a subjective jugement and that the majority of people in the UK have decided that the bad does outweigh the good for them. Therefore they have been banned. If it was not the will of the majority it would not have happened. Its a democracy - those who decided the bad did not outweigh the good were not numerous enough and were thus outvoted. Its the basic tennant of democracy. If you don't like it - don't come live here, no one is asking you to.

They are. They are. They are. All three examples are significantly less lethal than a firearm though, so do not need to be registered and overall are less controlled. But controlled they still are. If the majority wanted it banned - then yeah. Its called living in a democracy. If I don't like what the majority wants I can campaign to change their mind or move. (I hope you realise I am pro gun, own several, and my family lost weapons in the post 96 purge. If my posts appear to run contrary to this fact, it is because I simply can not agree with some of the arguments raised by the US gun lobby, despite the fact that their purpose is after my own heart.)

Ah - money's no object remember. 1 mil is just the pocket change I have lying round to mess with. If its the HR lady - well, I think I could stretch to it. Afterall, I'm only gonna sell the companies after I've sacked her.

Then I could hire a hobo to keep taking a dump on the windscreen of her car... in fact - they're a hobo... I don't need a million dollars for that !

It's OK - most of the posters on here are American - they'll never notice.

Buy the firm I work for and sack the HR woman. Then buy the firm she went to work for and sack her again.

Sure you do - remember last year at the gun range near Perris. This year when we go back are you gonna rent another 9mm or you want one of the fucking hand cannons Crazy Mike had? You remember the "crack crack crack" of the 9mm's and then the "Booooom" accompanied by a huge backwash from down the end of the range.

She didn't - she's six. But simply by being there her parents accepted the risk of someone falling from the sky and taking her out on her behalf. Under the UK law there would be very little hope of successfully bringing a lawsuit. Is SA law the same?

a budding lawyer

Pics from the factory must be oh, about 2 weeks old. The helmets in a row there were about to be sent out - each going to a different country in Europe so you're quite possibly right. I don't remember any other yellow helmets there.

See the photo above. Its a "D" shaped plug unique to Sony at one end which leads to an s-video cable AND set of video composite cables at the other end.

dude - you're so caught up in the need to argue with people about this that you can't see he's taking the piss.

through a process of elimination ticking off each tool against the photo it appears a "Gutenschneider" is the saw blade.

its litteral translation from German is "good cutter"... but that doesn't really help does it.

I'd love one, or at least the opportunity to have a go with one. I don’t care if it has a practical use or not… it’d be cool to shoot.

I don't see a mall from that but I have heard people suggest it may cause excessive wear on the break line.

doesnt know how to correctly calculate someone's wing loading or has at least forgotten to deduct Beth's gear from her body weight.

oooo - I participated in a very heated debate a couple of weeks ago about that. Gun ownership is a means to self defence not the right. The two concepts exist entirely separately.

hahahaha - you're right