- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,004
- Reaction score
- 5,900
- Country

some would say he was a violent vigilante, a dangerous criminal. But they'd be daft. It was nothing more than lawful force to prevent crime and protect property.You're a hero mate.![]()

some would say he was a violent vigilante, a dangerous criminal. But they'd be daft. It was nothing more than lawful force to prevent crime and protect property.You're a hero mate.![]()
You forget the bit about afterwards screaming down a public street armed with a weapon...some would say he was a violent vigilante, a dangerous criminal. But they'd be daft. It was nothing more than lawful force to prevent crime and protect property.

What is unlawful about that?You forget the bit about afterwards screaming down a public street armed with a weapon...

No need - read it for yourselfYou forget the bit about afterwards screaming down a public street armed with a weapon...
No doubt you'll fill many pages (yet again) trying to argue that wasn't against the law![]()

Yup...No need - read it for yourself

wrong law dummy.Yup...
Force Must Cease When the Threat Does: You must stop using force once the danger has passed. Continuing to attack a person who is no longer a threat (e.g., someone running away or incapacitated) could result in your own prosecution
I wouldn't have gone anywhere near with a truckful of scaffolding!

titterYup...
Force Must Cease When the Threat Does: You must stop using force once the danger has passed. Continuing to attack a person who is no longer a threat (e.g., someone running away or incapacitated) could result in your own prosecution

Nope.wrong law

titterNope.
Would love to see you defending that in court...wrong law dummy.