Knew this was coming....

[Born Hunter 17,622]

4 hours ago, TOMO said:

did neither of you watch the hole film.......

No, I only posted it for the likes!

[Night Walker 591]

If there criminals hit them off there scooters, f€ck them. Live by the sword etc. typical of this country that we  can't do what needs to be done, it's a joke

[mushroom 12,352]

5 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

He bounced off the windscreen. Couldn't you have reversed in instead?

Was goin' too fast sheriff, I woulda dunna wrecked the gearbox too 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

26 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Was goin' too fast sheriff, I woulda dunna wrecked the gearbox too 

Well, the good news is we've discontinued the Crown Victoria so we're all up for new Taurus' and Explorers! Thanks for speeding up the timeline for new squad cars, lads!

[neil82 1,008]

2 hours ago, mushroom said:

To be fair in the old days of nicking cars, they had the stinger and didn't give a fec if you wrecked after blowing out your tyres. How is this any different? Imo it's a step back in the right direction! Next should be if some cnut invades ya gaff, you can plug them without consequence. Give the honest man his rights back

if someone "invades your gaff" and you think you or any others may be in danger you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to defend your self and others, if the cnut dies the only thing you have to persuade the court to believe is that the force was reasonable and the death was not the outcome you expected (lump hammer to the head to try and knock the twat out you might get away with, if we still had hand guns and you did a double tap to the head, not sure if that would count as reasonable ((fuckum, what they deserve)), plenty of cases where attacker/assailant killed and no action taken)

 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

17 minutes ago, neil82 said:

if someone "invades your gaff" and you think you or any others may be in danger you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to defend your self and others

That's true but the phrase reasonable force is open to interpretation. Where I live the exercise of deadly force is presumed reasonable from the outset. Arizona's is the same.

We joke about it but the extension to protection from civil lawsuits further protects the homeowner meaning we can sue the assailants family to clean the blood from the carpet.

Edited December 4, 2018 by ChrisJones
Additional

[neil82 1,008]

1 minute ago, ChrisJones said:

That's true but the phrase reasonable force is open to interpretation. Where I live the exercise of deadly force is presumed reasonable from the outset. 

I presume you are stateside, over there hand gun ownership (legal and illegal) is so wide spread it is reasonable to assume any intruder might be armed so that response is sensible (as well as double tapping them to ensure there is no medical bill to deal with)

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 minutes ago, neil82 said:

I presume you are stateside, over there hand gun ownership (legal and illegal) is so wide spread it is reasonable to assume any intruder might be armed so that response is sensible (as well as double tapping them to ensure there is no medical bill to deal with)

Yeah. States vary but where I am (Utah) has some of strongest protections in the nation. It's not limited to the defence of the home either it's extended to intervening to protect others at risk from violence. The castle doctrine laws (a man's home is his castle) cover your property also. Which mean if you're in your car, or out in the woods camping, etc.

Edited December 4, 2018 by ChrisJones