Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/17/2003 2:10:09 PM EDT
Heard on the radio this morning that Bush is going to england and if a would be assassin is shot by the secret service they will be held and punished just like any other English subject. It is illegal to protect yourself with force and that includes firearms.


Fuck those people!
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:13:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 2:13:37 PM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
There is NO damn way. Perfect time for an idiot to shoot at Bush. He gets off easy and then has a legal British right to sue.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:13:29 PM EDT
I think the commentator is incorrect. Most countries have agreements with other in regard to official VIP security. Also in the end the Crown would never prosecute.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:25:06 PM EDT
Some kind of extension of diplomatic immunity to the USSS guys will be in effect, I'm sure.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:26:33 PM EDT
Diplomatic immunity folks, diplomatic immunity.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:42:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
Diplomatic immunity folks, diplomatic immunity.



Thats EXACTLY what the guy on the radio said they would not have. The brits will not agree to it.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:45:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:46:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 2:47:20 PM EDT by deimos]

Originally Posted By RipMeyer:

Originally Posted By warlord:
Diplomatic immunity folks, diplomatic immunity.



Thats EXACTLY what the guy on the radio said they would not have. The brits will not agree to it.





I garanfuckingtee you that if someone in the SS shoots someone defending Bush ANYWHERE on the planet, he won't get detained by ANYONE.

NsB
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:48:14 PM EDT
I'm actually in London at the moment and the Bush visit is all over the news (along with lots of references to the "so-called war on terrorism). The way the press has been making it sound there will be tens of thousands of people out protesting.

Went by Trafalgar Square this afternoon and one of the "huge protests" was taking place. There were more news crews there than protesters; probably less than 50 people actuyally participating in the protest.

The media here is far more left-slanted than in the US (obviously). There was a special on Tony Blair's relationship with GWB on the BBC last night; the title was "GWB and Tony Blair: Bond or Bondage?" And the focus was that GWB was just dragging the UK along with whatever he wanted.

Be good to fly home tomorrow.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:54:01 PM EDT
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html

The relevant article here does state that SS would be liable to Brit laws.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 3:18:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html

The relevant article here does state that SS would be liable to Brit laws.



That's not true, if they shoot the right person then no jeopardy attaches.

"Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.
In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed."

Link Posted: 11/17/2003 3:53:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1086397,00.html

The relevant article here does state that SS would be liable to Brit laws.



That's not true, if they shoot the right person then no jeopardy attaches.

"Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.
In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed."




Nevertheless it would appear that they DO NOT have diplomatic immunity. Accidental shooting or not.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:18:23 PM EDT
i say no way....you think the SS is gonna let the brit police take one of their own into custody?
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:30:05 PM EDT
I know! KILL THEM ALL!

The Brits are being stupid......AGAIN!
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:37:44 PM EDT
How long will it be before the British people are totally enslaved? And when will they realize that it's their own damned fault, and it could have been prevented if they had a ball among them all and had not surrendered their firearms rights?


Here's what I say:

If Bush goes to Britain and somebody takes a shot at him and the SS blows the perp away, and the Brits try to prosecute him, then it's time to first send in a SEAL team to extract the SS agent, and then pull out and watch the first wave of bombers come in and smash London. That'd remind them that pacifism is for LOSERS.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:37:44 PM EDT
I dont think the SS will stand for one of their own being imprisioned for protecting the Prez.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:49:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 4:51:31 PM EDT by jrzy]
Maybe we can bitch slap them again, it seems every couple hundred years we have to smack them around to keep them in line.
Either that or we are saving them from the Germans.
The next time Germany gets the balls to attack England or France I say let em.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:58:48 PM EDT
...maybe Bush should stay out of a country where he is not welcome. Just a thought.

Seems there was a big hub-bub about the UN protection detail carrying MP-5's in the US. There is something to be said about a countriy's law enforcement working out side of their domain.

We don't like it either - why should they?
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:00:32 PM EDT
The next time Germany gets the balls to attack England or France I say let em.


--"Stand off, nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure..." [/aliens]
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:03:39 PM EDT
Well if a SS agent accidently shots someone in the US there is a chance they will get prosecuted also.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:07:33 PM EDT
Those faggy blokes might try to blow president Bush but I doubt they would try to shoot him. A country of hand wringing serfs.

Their military on the other hand is a force to be dealt with.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:20:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Those faggy blokes might try to blow president Bush but I doubt they would try to shoot him. A country of hand wringing serfs.

Their military on the other hand is a force to be dealt with.



Argentina didnt seem to think so. The brits only lost a few ships. LOL
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:27:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Those faggy blokes might try to blow president Bush but I doubt they would try to shoot him. A country of hand wringing serfs.

Their military on the other hand is a force to be dealt with.



Don't kid yourself, we own their military. They can't piss without us OKing the order.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:31:37 PM EDT
Britan has been ACTIVELY discouraging ANY sort of self-defense for many years now, all the people have had it rammed into their heads to just roll over and allow themselves to be victimized. They fear violence of any sort.

I tried to find the article but could not, it is somewhere on newsoftheweird.com, there is an article about this guy in prison in Britan, he keeps coming up for parole and "the state" keeps quashing the possibility. He's in rpison for shooting a burglar (it is a crime to use deadly force to defend yourself in britan as stated before). The reason the state is still denying the parole is because "he poses a threat to burglars". Yup, if some slime ball breaks into this guys house, this "dangerous" person might just kill him. I really wish I could find the article, it is scary.

My brother went to school with a bunch of kids from england, he brought them to our house on one of the breaks. Every one of them was terrified at the guns in my parents house. I tried talking about their fear with them (I was much more liberal back then), they all went on saying that they were dangerous, and no one should have that much power, and on and on and on.

Then we took them shooting, after a few stupid mistakes, they completely changed their tune.

Britan as had several ad campaigns over the years to discourage self-defense. There are many laws about self-defense. What they want their subjects to do when attacked is to just allow it to happen and then call the police.

The next time some idiot liberal starts comparing our gun laws and crime statistics to those of britan, mention a few of these things.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:31:58 PM EDT
1. I agree that the SS would not allow one of their own to to be held by a foriegn power.
2. If there was an attempt on the pres, the SS would go in to automatic pilot and take what ever measures needed to clear the pres out safely.
3. If there was an attempt and the Brits got to close or involved, I am sure that one or more of them would become casualties. When the bullets fly the SS will not trust anyone but there fellow SS officers.


Now all that aside, the worst part of this is...


The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'


NO MINI GUNS!!!! Well shit, call the F-ing trip off.
CH
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:41:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:
NO MINI GUNS!!!! Well shit, call the F-ing trip off.
CH



The Secret Service uses these quite a few mini-guns at every event (well hidden of course). Whenever anyone attends a presidential function (or ex-presidential for that matter). They have a least one mini-gun pointed at them, sometime during the event.

Kinda makes you hope they got their coffee that morning huh?

I'm pretty sure that if they want to have equipment to protect the president, they'll get it. Britan doesn't seem to have a problem with deploying tanks in Ireland, why not to defend a head of state?
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:47:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 5:48:43 PM EDT by FREEFALLE6]
nothing will happen and fu*k them English laws.
FREE

Link Posted: 11/17/2003 5:50:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 6:01:43 PM EDT by RipMeyer]

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:
I tried to find the article but could not, it is somewhere on newsoftheweird.com, there is an article about this guy in prison in Britan, he keeps coming up for parole and "the state" keeps quashing the possibility. He's in rpison for shooting a burglar (it is a crime to use deadly force to defend yourself in britan as stated before). The reason the state is still denying the parole is because "he poses a threat to burglars". Yup, if some slime ball breaks into this guys house, this "dangerous" person might just kill him. I really wish I could find the article, it is scary.



Tony Martin


The parole board, however, has continually refused him early release - saying he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars


Imagine being woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of men breaking into your farm house. Your nearest neighbor is hundreds of yards away. Burglars killing homeowners is common place; you see it on the news all the time. You’ve been robbed several times over the past year. The police are all but unresponsive; home invasion and burglary is routine to them now. The only means of protection you have is a five shot pump shotgun, one of the very few firearms still legal to own. It’s a bad situation.

Now imagine one of those burglars confronts you, immediately blinding you with a flashlight. Unable to see in the blinding glare you know what will be next. You will most likely be shot and killed, just like all those news stories you’ve seen. In a hope to save your own life you fire on the burglars. You're safe for now, or so you think.

You defended your life from career criminals in your own house, but yet you find yourself sentenced to life imprisonment for that act of self-defense. To make matters worse, while you are in jail you are being sued by the people that attacked you, and the government has given the burglars tax dollars to pay for their legal aid.

I know, it sounds like a story made up to scare you into voting a certain way or feeling a certain way about gun control and the right to self-defense. It isn’t though. It’s true. This is the story of Tony Martin.

(From a website in support of Martin)

On the night of August 20th 1999 three persons, Fred Barras 16, Brendan Fearon 30 and Darren Bark 34, travelled by car from Newark to Emneth Hungate for the purpose of robbing Bleak House, an isolated farm property owned and solely occupied by Mr Anthony Martin. They had received information in a local pub that there were valuables on the property. They got past Mr Martin’s three dogs which he kept in an outbuilding and advanced on the dwelling house. Fearon and Barras effected entry by forcing a ground floor window. Mr Martin heard noises and saw lights. He left his first floor bedroom armed with a loaded five-shot pump action shotgun. While still at some distance from the intruders he was caught in a torch beam. He fired a total of three shots, one in the general direction of the torch beam and two more into ‘total darkness’. Fearon and Barras both sustained gunshot wounds but were able to retreat from the property through the same window. Bark who was driving the car apparently made off in it without waiting for his accomplices. Fearon managed to get away from the farm but Barras crawled away into some undergrowth where he was later found by the police, having died from his injuries.
He was subsequently arraigned at Norwich crown court, charged with (1) murder of Barras, (2) wounding Fearon with intent, (3) attempted murder of Fearon, and (4) possessing a shotgun with intent to endanger life [the numbered sequence of the charges is specific to this document and may not reflect the bill of indictment].
He was sentenced as follows:


14. The rake of charges and the respective verdicts is as follows: -
1. Murder of Barras [guilty by a majority of 10-2]
2. Wounding [Fearon] with intent under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.18 [guilty by a majority of 10-2]
3. Attempted murder of Fearon under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1 [not guilty, unanimous]
4. Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life under the Firearms Act 1968 s.16 [not guilty, unanimous]

For the Murder of Barras Martin was sentenced to life in prison. For wounding Fearon, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison that would be served concurrently.

An appeals court latter reduced his sentence to 5 years for manslaughter.
The criminals that attacked Martin were certainly no strangers to the system.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 6:01:33 PM EDT
He should have killed both and buried the bodies where no one would find them...


NsB
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 6:05:41 PM EDT
Thank you Rip, I knew it was out there somewhere.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:27:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 4:30:24 AM EDT by Ross]
First of all, the Secret Service should be subject to the law in any shooting. Just like any cop that shoots a bad guy is also subject to the law. It doesn't mean that if the Secret Service actually shoot someone, the agent will have to do time. It means that the shooting will be investigated according to British law.

Secondly, many Brit PDs carry guns. In fact more British cops carry guns, and kill bad guys with them, now than they used to. Ever see the MP-5 wielding bobbies at Heathrow? The London Metropolitain police were the first PD to issue guns, and they still issue them for various reasons. The image of the unarmed bobbie being the way all Brit cops are is false. Most of the patrol cops walking a beat are indeed unarmed, but many on the force are also packing a great deal of modern heat as well.

Even when the SAS killed all those terrorists at Princess Gate, (where they also had all sorts of armed police supporting and covering the raid, and the one copper on the inside of the Iranian Embassy had a gun hidden on him the whole time) were subject to British law. There was a coroner's inquest, the SAS weapons were bagged, tagged and ballistic tested, and the shooting was investigated to see if anything was done wrong. The shooting was, of course, declared justified.

This is nothing but media sensationalism to stir up the image of gun-toting cowboys to sell papers. The fact is there will be more Brits carrying guns in the outer security perimeters than there will be Americans carrying guns to protect the POTUS.

Anyone with half a brain can realize that ANY shooting should be subject to legal investigation. The huge difference is the one between the common subject (or citizen) and the govt agent. It had nothing to do with the sorry state of personal freedom in England, or what the average English subject can or can't do. Those rules (just like ours) don't apply to governments. They get different ones.

Ross
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:38:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 4:51:06 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Badseed:
...maybe Bush should stay out of a country where he is not welcome. Just a thought.

Seems there was a big hub-bub about the UN protection detail carrying MP-5's in the US. There is something to be said about a countriy's law enforcement working out side of their domain.

We don't like it either - why should they?



You need to go look at what all that hub-bub was about before ya make a comment like that. And there is a big differance between the leader of a country and the leader of an organisation that is usless.

Read This it might help ya understand the hub-bub
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/10/111956.shtml
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 6:54:53 AM EDT
There's no such thing as the POTUS going somewhere without the USSS in tow, packing serious heat.

They will have their hardware or Bush will not go.

To hell with the British law! I'd be pissed if I were head of the USSS. "Don't tell us how to do our job!! This is the effing President we're talkin about here!"

The USSS is above the law.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:18:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:
He's in rpison for shooting a burglar (it is a crime to use deadly force to defend yourself in britan as stated before). The reason the state is still denying the parole is because "he poses a threat to burglars". Yup, if some slime ball breaks into this guys house, this "dangerous" person might just kill him.



OK guys, c'mon, most of us _are_ on your side FFS!

As to Tony Martin, the above shooter, that's not the whole story, he _ambushed_ the little toe-rags in question with an illegally held shotgun and killed one of them. Try that in the US and see how long you stay out of jail for. _Even_ if you do live in a state that allows you to use deadly force on fleeing robbers.

Personally I think he should have been treated a lot better than he was. But according to the law, parole is for those who are remorseful and regret their crime. Martin doesn't. Whether you believe he actually comitted a crime or not is another matter.

I'm glad the one little pikey bastard is 6 feet under and the other one can't get it up. Screw 'em.

And if you think that's mad, the survivor of the shooting actually tried to sue Martin for the "erectile disfunction" and "loss of earning" (from fenced goods one assumes). Fortunately the case was _throw out_ of court. TWICE I believe.

Just remember, our troops, my friends in Iraq and a lot more of the British public is behind you than our media would have you believe.

You believe your own media 100% right? Well why believe ours...

Jeeze.

/Phil

PS. If I was allowed anywhere near I'd have a little US flag to wave at Georg Bush in Support tomorrow. Unfortauntely they're clearing the streets of supporters as well as protestors.. bugger!
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 12:00:35 PM EDT
Wait, England is still our ally.

Do you guys really think that the Secret Service does not have the full cooperation of British Intelligence (MI 5 and 6), Scotland Yard, and the London P.D.?

I mean, come on, really.

An attempt on an American President in jolly old England would be handled the same way as in the U.S. There would be no official repersussions to nearly any act by the President's security detail.

Sounds to me like the one reporting this gibberish wants to encourage an attempt on our pres.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 12:21:43 PM EDT
Okay fellows. I happen to know about this subject. As an ex-LEO who got a chance to work on a detail with the Secret Service, I know what I am saying is correct.

While protecting the POTUS in England, the SS agents will be armed. If they should go "off-duty" while in England, they are not allowed to be armed. For example, if they are off-duty and decide to go to a resturant, they cannot carry their weapons.

But any time they are "on-duty", guarding the POTUS, they will be fully armed.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 12:54:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By equin0x:

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:
He's in rpison for shooting a burglar (it is a crime to use deadly force to defend yourself in britan as stated before). The reason the state is still denying the parole is because "he poses a threat to burglars". Yup, if some slime ball breaks into this guys house, this "dangerous" person might just kill him.



OK guys, c'mon, most of us _are_ on your side FFS!

As to Tony Martin, the above shooter, that's not the whole story, he _ambushed_ the little toe-rags in question with an illegally held shotgun and killed one of them. Try that in the US and see how long you stay out of jail for. _Even_ if you do live in a state that allows you to use deadly force on fleeing robbers.
/Phil

PS. If I was allowed anywhere near I'd have a little US flag to wave at Georg Bush in Support tomorrow. Unfortauntely they're clearing the streets of supporters as well as protestors.. bugger!




Come to Texas my friend.

TXLEWIS
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:38:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By equin0x:

As to Tony Martin, the above shooter, that's not the whole story, he _ambushed_ the little toe-rags in question with an illegally held shotgun and killed one of them. Try that in the US and see how long you stay out of jail for. _Even_ if you do live in a state that allows you to use deadly force on fleeing robbers.




Evidently you didn't read what I wrote before you responded, despite the bad spelling my actual intent was rather clear.

I'm not outraged by the fact that he went to jail, I'm outraged by the fact that the British government is protecting burglars.

Never mind the fact that this guy (who is more than likely a bit off his rocker) had been victimized repeatedly before blowing those shits away. Anyone who has been victimized that many times without any help from the police (real or imagined) would begin to feel that he had to do something on his own.

My concern now is that the reason he is still in prison is that he poses a threat to burglars, I'm pissed off that in Britan, burglars are a protected class.

I'm sorry for not using small words in my prior post so you could understand, it won't happen again.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:55:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:

Originally Posted By equin0x:

As to Tony Martin, the above shooter, that's not the whole story, he _ambushed_ the little toe-rags in question with an illegally held shotgun and killed one of them. Try that in the US and see how long you stay out of jail for. _Even_ if you do live in a state that allows you to use deadly force on fleeing robbers.




Evidently you didn't read what I wrote before you responded, despite the bad spelling my actual intent was rather clear.

I'm not outraged by the fact that he went to jail, I'm outraged by the fact that the British government is protecting burglars.

Never mind the fact that this guy (who is more than likely a bit off his rocker) had been victimized repeatedly before blowing those shits away. Anyone who has been victimized that many times without any help from the police (real or imagined) would begin to feel that he had to do something on his own.

My concern now is that the reason he is still in prison is that he poses a threat to burglars, I'm pissed off that in Britan, burglars are a protected class.

I'm sorry for not using small words in my prior post so you could understand, it won't happen again.



He should have never gone to prison in the first place, PERIOD. These were felons with long rap sheets. Fuck them and anyone who feels sorry for them. They should have all died.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:02:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By equin0x:

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:
He's in rpison for shooting a burglar (it is a crime to use deadly force to defend yourself in britan as stated before). The reason the state is still denying the parole is because "he poses a threat to burglars". Yup, if some slime ball breaks into this guys house, this "dangerous" person might just kill him.



OK guys, c'mon, most of us _are_ on your side FFS!

As to Tony Martin, the above shooter, that's not the whole story, he _ambushed_ the little toe-rags in question with an illegally held shotgun and killed one of them. Try that in the US and see how long you stay out of jail for. _Even_ if you do live in a state that allows you to use deadly force on fleeing robbers.

Personally I think he should have been treated a lot better than he was. But according to the law, parole is for those who are remorseful and regret their crime. Martin doesn't. Whether you believe he actually comitted a crime or not is another matter.

I'm glad the one little pikey bastard is 6 feet under and the other one can't get it up. Screw 'em.

And if you think that's mad, the survivor of the shooting actually tried to sue Martin for the "erectile disfunction" and "loss of earning" (from fenced goods one assumes). Fortunately the case was _throw out_ of court. TWICE I believe.

Just remember, our troops, my friends in Iraq and a lot more of the British public is behind you than our media would have you believe.

You believe your own media 100% right? Well why believe ours...

Jeeze.

/Phil

PS. If I was allowed anywhere near I'd have a little US flag to wave at Georg Bush in Support tomorrow. Unfortauntely they're clearing the streets of supporters as well as protestors.. bugger!

The only reason the shotgun was illegal is because of the fucked up gun laws in your country.

Many states in the US would allow what happened. Where did you get that they were fleeing?

Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:05:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:
NO MINI GUNS!!!! Well shit, call the F-ing trip off.
CH



The Secret Service uses these quite a few mini-guns at every event (well hidden of course). Whenever anyone attends a presidential function (or ex-presidential for that matter). They have a least one mini-gun pointed at them, sometime during the event.

Kinda makes you hope they got their coffee that morning huh?



They have miniguns? Small caliber? What is small caliber? 5.56 or 7.62 NATO? Can be used anywhere? What a lie!

At least one mini-gun at each event? That sounds kinda cool. "Flick...whirwhirwhirwhirwhirwhirBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB­BBBBBBBBBBBBBB.......Can someone help me pick up my brass before the blood runs into the pile?" muhaha!



Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:11:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 5:13:50 PM EDT by cyrsequipment2003]
I almost think the miniguns are of an off caliber. But I don't really know, the belt is fed through one of those "guides" whatever the technical name is, brass is directed down or into a brass catcher.

They bring them everywhere, they are mobile and are constantly manned during an event. They are kept well hidden but TRUST ME they are always there.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 3:10:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:
I almost think the miniguns are of an off caliber. But I don't really know, the belt is fed through one of those "guides" whatever the technical name is, brass is directed down or into a brass catcher.

They bring them everywhere, they are mobile and are constantly manned during an event. They are kept well hidden but TRUST ME they are always there.



And why should we do that?

There is no reason for the SS to have "hidden mini guns".
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 4:13:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrsequipment2003:

My concern now is that the reason he is still in prison is that he poses a threat to burglars, I'm pissed off that in Britan, burglars are a protected class.

I'm sorry for not using small words in my prior post so you could understand, it won't happen again.



Ouch sorry mate, didnt mean to get you all riled up there, and I certainly didn't mean to offend, for one I agree with you. Why do Ialways come over as irritating on line :)

Tony Martin is out, he's been out for a while. Him not getting parole kept him in jail for another six months or so. He was in the media eye for bit campaigning to extend the right to self defence here (shrugs, sighs, shakes head, wonders why we dont have that right...).

I agree with you, the use of law there was extremely fussy, I thought they were trying to make is that you aren't allowed to shoot people running away, and that's the case in _some_ US States, right? Obviously there are others where you can use lethal force to defend property as the thief flees.



By LarryG :-
The only reason the shotgun was illegal is because of the fucked up gun laws in your country.



Can't really argue with that, I'm not sure why Martin didnt have a firearms cert for pest control, etc, what with him being a farmer.


By LarryG :-
Many states in the US would allow what happened. Where did you get that they were fleeing?



From what I remember of the case at the time, the conviction for murder of the guy who died was based on him being hit in the back...?

Something about Martin being at the top of the stairs while the pikey was at the bottom, and had started to turn and move away, the jury went for it, and hence the conviction.

Perhaps if he had still been moving upwards towards Martin then it moight have been self defence. Pity it wasn't.

/Phil

PS.

mmmm Texas.
Top Top