Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

They currently have a Queen and unless they skip a generation in some manner their next King will be a Queen also...

In 1999, Martin, a bachelor, was living alone at his farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, nicknamed Bleak House, which he inherited at age 35 from his uncle.[3] He claimed to have been burgled a total of ten times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture. Martin also complained about police inaction over the burglaries. The police reports state that multiple items and furniture were stolen such as dinnerware and a grandfather clock.[4]

On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras 16 – broke into Martin's house.[5] Shooting downwards in the dark, with a pump-action Winchester shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their lower limbs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[2]

On 10 January 2000, Fearon and Darren Bark, 33 (who had acted as the getaway driver), both from Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin's farmhouse. Fearon was sentenced to three years in prison, and Bark to 30 months[5] (with an additional 12 months arising from previous offences). Fearon was released on 10 August 2001.[5] Fred Barras, the dead youth, had accumulated a lengthy criminal record, having been arrested 29 times by the time of his death at the age of 16, and had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for assaulting a policeman, theft and being drunk and disorderly. On the night he was killed, the teenager had just been released on bail after being accused of stealing garden furniture. Barras' grandmother, Mary Dolan, stated: "It's not fair that the farmer has got all the money and he is the one that took Fred away."[6]

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.[7] The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".[8] However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.[9]

During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained.[15] However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun, showing him "cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty" suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.[16] While the case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a conviction for dealing heroin.[17] Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim. Tens of thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on the case.[18]

Quote:

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.[7] The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".[8] However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.[9]

That is similar in many other jurisdictions - no matter of they have Roman Law or Common Law.

think it is all well and good that you can't kill somebody for stealing your furniture.

even is you consider them scum...

In that case, if done here in Germany, your sentence will be mitigated (German criminal code, section 32,section 35 (2), section 49 (1) ).

There were no fallout shelters here and nor were our kids trained to dive under their desks at school.

What's the use of buying firearms if they are not always within easy reach.

Oralloy wrote:

You are now mere serfs.

You really do hate your powerlessness don't you?

You have PACs which are for oligarchs to control you with.

Oralloy wrote:

Nonsense.

Oh yeah. Explain the USSC vote the other week.

Oralloy wrote:

People who want to erase America's civil rights are often horrified by the realization that America's liberty is eternal.

It's a fond delusion.

Anyway--what tyranny.

You must have me confused with an Obama supporter.

prevent an existent UN from voting on a treaty that doesn't exist.

oralloy wrote:

Quote:

UN vote next week on a global small arms treaty

The UN grows tiresome.

The problem is idiots like you that claim the UN is doing something it isn't.

Please provide info that shows the UN vote will take guns away from Americans. You can't. So that claim is idiotic.

In a nutshell, the individual mandate was found to be a tax

The tyranny of masses of people like you rampantly repealing the civil rights of your countrymen.

What claim? Regarding their current proposal, I have not taken the time to read it, and so have made no claims about it.

The treaty does exist, as a proposal.

That is an attack on democracy.

No, it doesn't exist as mentioned.

There is no treaty to take guns away from American citizens.

Perhaps they should introduce a treaty to prevent stupidity. That would certainly affect you.

oralloy wrote:

The UN grows tiresome.

There's still a UN?

In a nutshell, the individual mandate was found to be a tax, which is something that the federal government has the jurisdiction to carry out. And the Medicaid requirement was found to be something that could not be imposed on states.

Well, currently it is a proposed treaty.

And based on their past attempts, it is reasonable to be suspicious of this one.

Whether this one mirrors their past attempts will have to be judged my looking over the text of their proposal.