harestone Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Agreed. This bloke should be given a medal , not grief on here. Or even better, somewhere to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker61 Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 He'd probably be arrested for carry a dangerous weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 He'd probably be arrested for carry a dangerous weapon. Why?he uses it to chop for fire wood. ---------- Post added 05-02-2013 at 10:13 ---------- Surely if he actually used it as a weapon it could not possibly be classified otherwise? He did use it to save someones life.If he hadnt there would be a dead person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 He saved the woman from a nut case. What's your problem? I assume the nra would have preferred he had a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyesOpen Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 There is a simple solution for things like this. Ban all hatchets obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 He did use it to save someones life.If he hadnt there would be a dead person. That doesn't appear to be an argument against what I said. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it I was just pointing out that it is silly to argue that a hatchet that was used to beat a man isn't a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Why not let him go? He hasn't done anything actually wrong apart from defend two people against someone who was assualting them. ---------- Post added 05-02-2013 at 14:51 ---------- I think there would be two separate issues. Did he have a reasonable explanation for having the item about his person and was it reasonable for him to use it in the way he did under the circumstances. The article seems to suggest the guy attacking the man he'd run over was considerably bigger than the chap who stopped him so from the info available his actions seem reasonable. If he's a drifter then he may well use it for chopping firewood so would probably also have a reasonable explanation for having it on him. Was it his hatchet? He'd hitched a ride with the assailant - it could have come from inside his vehicle. Even so, it's perfectly acceptable to carry on in the car - I have on in winter months to deal with fallen trees on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I assume the nra would have preferred he had a gun? Why not. A whack over the head with the barrel of a revolver would be a lot less messy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Why not. A whack over the head with the barrel of a revolver would be a lot less messy somehow I dont think the nra want you to use guns as a club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 somehow I dont think the nra want you to use guns as a club Works very well as club and you dont have to shoot them either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.