From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Aside from that, I had an interesting chat with
the security guy from the hospital who informed that they
had all been issued with batons for self-defence, but could
only use them to deflect or stop blows against them; they
could not under any circumstances hit anyone with them.
[...]
Once again: uhhh . . . . . . what?
Please allow me to beg your indulgence here.
On the one hand a person is 'allowed' to pack
a whittled-down 2x4 stud - ostensibly for self-defence,
but in reality, said 2x4 is a legal canard?
If the bloke who attacks the stick packer,
knows full well that the packer cannot resort to using
said stick, then what pray tell, is the stick for?
Isn't that a bit like saying that you may have a
licence to go do something, but that in reality you will be
arrested when you go do it?
Hmmm.
Talk about contrary contrariness . . .
Is this the Brit equivalent of 'having your cake,
but not being able to eat it'?
If your nation keeps up with this, I'm going to
start referring to it as 'Wonderland'. You know, as in Alice
and Wonderland.
ET
--
The point here is that while you may be able to walk around
"positively festooned" with "offensive weapons" on property
where you have a right to be, that doesn't mean you are
allowed to use them! You can only use "reasonable force"
to stop an attack.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
