http://www.suarezinternationalstore.com/ProductImages/Shotgun.jpg

That dude, I would give a free pass to.

Anybody who sticks their tongue out to aim, I just feel, society has to have a little headroom for tongue sticker outers.

Gregory

But something that warrented him being charged? No.

Had he just been given a bit of a grilling and let go I would not question this.

For the individual any discernable intentions are clearly a factor in determining whether a crime has been committed, just as they are definitely a mitigating or aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.

Relying on purely technical arguments about whether the letter of the law has been adhered to is a retrograde step towards dogmatism, and which, as we have seen in the expenses scandal, is no defense from the ire of the public.

True justice is about the spirit of the law.

So if any gap opens up between the spirit and the letter of the law then that creates an argument for political change… just one more to add to the pile.

“If someone’s intentions are taken into account, then you will presumably place the verdict of innocence or guilt on the basis of what they say.”

No, you will base it on the rest of the evidence and whether you believe their account or not. That used to be the basis for English justice – guilt had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the state of mind of the alleged perpetrator was taken into account, were the consequences intended? – but that was before trial by tabloid and the “if you are accused you must be guilty” mantra brought to these shores in 1997.

The concept of guilty intent – mens rea -seems to have been abandoned hence so many people being locked up for accidents and “strict liability” offences. It makes me suspicious, as though the state are deliberately flexing their muscles and cowing ordinary people with the fear of doing something wrong – even relatively minor – and being banged up for it in order to exert more control over us.

If someone’s intentions are taken into account, then you will presumably place the verdict of innocence or guilt on the basis of what they say. For example, someone could walk into a gay club with a shotgun and get caught by the police, only to plead that they had no intention of using and should therefore be excused jail.

See where this all gets messy?

“It appears to us to be inherent in that statement that he possessed the necessary mens rea (intention) in making the images concerned,” he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4677882.stm

I did this, as a public spirited act etc.

Like a helpful villain, who wants to do a General de Chastelain? – Well they get a dude, he’s dun stuff, ya know jobs, he’s gotta eat, and that means bank withdrawals – the peelers want him in the witness protection program, problem is,

he is caught with a 9mm biscuit whilst delivering pizza to a women’s refuge in Leeds, it was his fault really, it was a reality TV set the West Yorkshire police were doing about Slovakian Big Issues sellers

The piece is sent down to London, and ballistically tested on a Brazilian consultant for the World Wildlife Fund.

The Home Secretary needs to get rid of the witnesses, and who better to call than the Poppy Project, because if you need a no-witness solution, you need gold standard experts.

‘We’re doing something about gun crime, no really, we ARE..’

far-frigging-out – but what?

Gregory

Make the call from a public phone booth, and give a false name. Don’t give them any reason to nick and charge you. A bit difficult for this gentleman, admittedly, as the firearm was on his premises.