On Nov 19, 8:27 am, Champ  wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:30:09 -0800 (PST), JackH
>
>  wrote:
> >> You have a real talent for stupidity, you know.
>
> >You have a real talent for dismissing something when it doesn't fit
> >with your own personal POV rather than actually arguing your corner,
> >you know.
>
> <takes deep breath>
>
> We're not discussing my 'point of view', we're arguing about your
> basic inability to follow a logical argument.

> 1.  Chap is had up in court for what, on face value, seems reasonable
> behaviour - handing in a shotgun.
> 2.  I point out that, if it were indeed legal to behave as he did, any
> scrote caught with a shotgun might try and use this as a get out
> clause.

No, you pointed out what would happen if the law was repealed, if
someone was found meandering around the streets with an allegedly just
found sawn off, and they then claimed they were on their way to the
cop shop with it.

Or maybe you'd like to go back and read what you wrote again, and then
point out where exactly this chap was caught wandering the streets
with the gun concerned.

This chap is being done on the strength of actually handing the gun in
at a police station of his own freewill and without the police
apparently having any prior knowledge of him having the gun - perhaps
you might want to acknowledge your own brand of stupidity before
dismissing points raised by others, in future.

--
JackH

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:33:16 -0800 (PST), ogden squeezed out the
following:

>On 23 Nov, 13:15, "Simian"  wrote:
>> ogden wrote:
>>
>> > How many more safeguards do you want?
>>
>> Firstly, the police arrested someone /not even found in possession/ but
>> handing a weapon in. Secondly, the CPS decided to prosecute partly
>> because it was a sawn-off, and thus a particularly criminal weapon. And
>> of course, the CPS only have one side of the argument to go on which
>> was probably of the "dangerous man owns gun" persuasion. Thirdly, the
>> judge's direction to the jury stated that the offence of possession had
>> no defence, and the chap had in his statement to police admitted
>> possessing it for 48 hours.
>>
>> But like Champ, I'm not arguing about this particular case, but about
>> the unnecessary, illiberal, and inflexible nature of strict liability
>> for an offence that carries a minimum 5 year term.
>
>And that's the real issue. The mandatory minimum sentence. It rather
>defects the object of having a judge.

Ding.

-- 
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk