mr2mk1g

Two lenses means two CCDs right?... two CCD's means it should be able to shoot both at once... great appeal to skydivers. Ugly little bastard though.

Yeah totally simple and perfectly clear. Im not questioning what you post in the slightest. Im just saying that the common belief that UK jumpers have, which stemms from their experiance at US DZ's, is very oddly out of sync with the true state of affairs. I would have at least thought that if the rules were going to be broken, at least the whole of the rule would be broken and not just one half of it.

perhaps "no batteries" in the Cypres means they can't figure out how to turn it on. 4 presses with the light isnt exactly a common whuffo activation procedure.

You are confusing the ease with which a right can be exercised with its existance. All I have ever said in this thread is that in England there does exist a right to self defence and that that right does extend in limited circumstances to the use of leathal force. I am not contending any more or any less.

In England you can apply for a shot gun licence as of right, ie you will get it unless the police can show a reason for you not to get it. The firearms certificate was different. You had to show good reason for why you wanted it. Therefore this was not a right, but a privilage. We have no writen constitution here, we have one by convention. The convention says citizens can do anything they like unless the law says they cant do it. There was a law which said we cannot hold a firearms certificate unless we could show certain things. Therefore it was not a right. We have not, and never have had a constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms in this country. Yes Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan had legal firearms. They also had ilegal ones. Michael Ryan used a semi-automatic rifle and they were banned, Thomas Hamilton used a centre-fire pistol and they were banned. The papers happily ignored these facts as they did not fit with their sensationalist "ban all guns" headlines.

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".

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.

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.

what did you think those two bloody great lumps on the sides were for ?

the dumb fuck is dozing off at the wheel

Odd indeed. Its commonly held in England that to jump in the states you must be within the 120 day repack cycle but that there is no requirement for a seal as the reserve was packed under UK regs. It seems that we are applying one half of a rule whilst simultaniously ignoring the other half of the same rule.

Na they're supposed to be without sound. Flairing... hey - twas their first go...

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 .

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!

I like the idea assuming its practical to put in place. Watching threads is fine for the ultra important stuf such as an incident your involved with or something, but it would be great run-of-the-mill threads you want to regularly contribute to at the top of the page until you unchecked the box. Threads like that are often high volue which would fill your inbox were you to watch them. I have no idea if it feasable from programming point of view though.

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...

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.

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. 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)

Check my profile dude.

Dude, seriously. Chill. No need man. Jeffrey be peaceful!

I was going to be doing this over the next dozen jumps or so with an FF2. I havn't jumped an open face helmet now for over 100 jumps and wanted to get used to the feel again before I strapped a couple of pounds of electronics to the side of my head. I figured with the FF2 there's no snag risk (at least no more so than your average open face) so why not... Would you think otherwise?

Yes it does - but thats my point. The Tony Martin case is not nessaserily that great an example of English law. 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). 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. 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).

Possibly - we will never truly know as we can't examin a jury's decision making process here. 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?

yes it was used a few times. Ive posted on it in history and trivia but im too tired right now to find it. theres even some footage of it in an old john wayne film called "green berrets" where they reinact the real extraction of an nva general . talk about a hairbrained idea. I think the first use was to extract a couple of CIA agents from an abandond soviet ice station (airbase built on an iceburg) in the north pacific after they had raided it for intel. must sleep now... flue.

Nope - the lone woman should shoot the bastard, our law allows her to. Where someone breaks into your home at night this may automatically be treated as a threat to your personal safty. Therefore she is permitted to use lethal force. What is reasonable also depends on who you are. It may be quite reasonable for a delacate young woman to pick up a gun... less so for me at 6'2" and 3' wide. In that case the law may require me to resort to more physical tactics. And trust me - tony martin was not quite all there... enough so for the jury to have their doubts about him... I strongly believe that many other people would have come out of that trial in a different situation. All else aside, no new law came out of the case. The law remains the same now as it has been for decades and I doubt this little radio program will change that. The only thing that this case demnostrates is that the media will make people think something new is happening.