where to start. ok. the paragraph you quoted is about CARRYING an "offensive weapon" (a knife or a blade for example) which you intend to use...
:lol::lol::lol::lol: the tripod was there for it's ordinary everyday purpose you total mong. :patsch that paragraph is saying you are...
you are entirely incorrect. it does not have to be an item that you are carrying...it just can't be something you are carrying as a weapon....
david haye was carrying a weapon? in fact...if you are referring to the tripod; that would be an "ordinary everyday object" as described in...
http://www.learndirect.co.uk/qualifications/adult-literacy-english/?CMP=ps_sfl_eng
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a...
english law? you are completely & utterly wrong. "running away" is not a legal duty. you have to show that you acted reasonably & felt that...
yes. but it is not what that case was about. & the specific paragraph you quoted (more than once) was about returning when the "peril" was gone...
it doesn't say that. the case was about a man who poisoned someone because they were in a feud with them & felt threatened btw. work out the...
& what do you think it clearly says? :huh i'll be honest...i'm no expert in american law. didn't really think about it in the context of...
jesus. stop posting stuff off wikipedia. you clearly aren't a law student & don't get this stuff at all. the "duty to retreat" is applicable...
it does not in any way mean that. seriously...if you are a law student (which you clearly are not or god help any clients you get) ask your lecturers.
read that back...mr law student...then read this:
maybe i'm arguing cos i'm not getting all my information off wikipedia. & you are talking horse****. "duty to retreat" does not mean &...
you were talking about palmer vs the queen & saying that "it's recognized that continuing an attack after the danger is over is not justified."...
