[Closed] Tazers - Stun guns..

They are not acceptable at all and any place that thinks they are is somewhere to avoid visiting I would suggest.

Taser is a brand name.

They are a section 5 prohibited weapon so there is no lawful reason to have one, like CS spray even having one in the house will get you prosecuted.

Best left well alone

supercarp - Member

They are a section 5 prohibited weapon so there is no lawful reason to have one, like CS spray even having one in the house will get you prosecuted.

Yep. If you want a weapon to intimidate or attack people in the UK or Ireland, get a dog.

tazer sellers?
Criminals?
My mistake apparently being Polish is what tells us the most about them

🙄

The main theme of the OP was the punitive fines for possession being handed out which surprised me.

I thought you didn't think it was punitive [i]enough[/i]?

Bring on your tasers, I am A LEGEND!

If brexit has taught us anything, it is that calling racists racist hurts their poor ickle feelings.

Bring on your tasers, I am A LEGEND!

The people of Margate, a notoriously ferocious bunch.

Yep. If you want a weapon to intimidate or attack people in the UK or Ireland, get a dog.

[URL= http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa46/amticoman/zzzzzzz078.jp g" target="_blank">http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa46/amticoman/zzzzzzz078.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

right am off to mug and murder folks

If brexit has taught us anything, it is that calling racists racist hurts their poor ickle feelings.

I was under the illusion that being Polish was a nationality rather than a race.

I'm sure that if I was a racist, being called one would inflate my ego rather than insult me. Bet you're quiet as a mouse face to face.

right am off to mug and murder folks

Not me you don't.

I'm tooled up

[img] [/img]

Yep. If you want a weapon to intimidate or attack people in the UK or Ireland, get a dog.

To balance perchy and trout - I’d rather take a taser shot to the eyes and / or balls than face one of these buggers

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Give me your phone, wallet and polo mints.

perchypanther - Member

trout

right am off to mug and murder folks

Not me you don't.

I'm tooled up

I'm guessing the salesperson at the dog shop failed to mention this but there are, how can I put it, slightly more high performance dogs available to you. Or anyone. Almost anyone at all.

You wouldn't be talking that big talk if you were faced with Poppy the Puppy and she thought you had a biscuit.

I was under the illusion that being Polish was a nationality rather than a race

I love it when people get pulled up for being a bit erm (whispers) “racist”

Then promptly point out that “whatever” is not [i]actually[/i] a race, so they can’t be racist.

Never fails to make me instantly review my opinion and change it accordingly.

I’d rather take a taser shot to the eyes and / or balls than face one of these buggers

My old neighbour had three of those beasties.
They could drown a grown man in slobber in about five minutes. You are right to be scared 😆

The people of Margate, a notoriously ferocious bunch.

£80 fine - punitive?
Wouldn't buy you a big night out - as for C&H, forget it.
If your mates are flogging these at your gym, be a good boy and tell the management.

Ok, so is a toy light sabre powered by a pp3 illegal or not?

It emits electricity and my lads old one even had the extending sabre.

How did he not get done for 10 years minimum? 😀

Did they offer you the stun gun at the same time you were purchasing your roids?

So knowing a couple of Polish lads selling them, classes as "the Poles"?

Taser's under firearms act. So are aerosol cans I think. Or drinks bottles with ammonia in.

If your mates are flogging these at your gym, be a good boy and tell the management.

This - they'll be due their commission.

I love it when people get pulled up for being a bit erm (whispers) “racist”

Then promptly point out that “whatever” is not actually a race, so they can’t be racist.

There was no malice in my original post, it was a concern about the small fines which may encourage others to carry such things. The Poles at the gym are referred to as the poles because they are.. I'm sure they are very proud of being referred to as the poles, I know a lot of them (one of them my son in law) and they are a proud people. I see no difference referring to them as the poles as I do referring to the owners as the owners. It's simply a term of reference that is a fact. It is people like you who sit there frothing at the mouth, seeing racism everywhere who appear to have an unhinged problem with it. Unfortunately though, outside the realms of this forum, people say things that may make you cry, you're going to have to learn to live with it because the vast majority wont actually give a damn that it upsets your little feelings. Must be a sad lonely existence though being so obnoxious.

[i]The paper simply reported people fined for possessing them.

(I made an error though.. it was actually £85 fine) [/i]

again - link/newspaper name?

Must be a sad lonely existence though being so obnoxious.

Sounds like you're talking about yourself to be honest....

again - link/newspaper name?

I'm fascinated.. Do you think I'm lying?

If so.. why would I?

It is people like you who sit there frothing at the mouth, seeing racism everywhere who appear to have an unhinged problem with it.

I love it when people let their imagination run away them and make out a perfectly calm and reasoned opinion to be “frothing at the mouth” and “unhinged”

Generally I think it really bolsters an otherwise very weak argument.

The OP reffering to Poles as Poles is fine. This is how people actually speak. I might go into the pub and say "do you know what, a polish guy tried to sell me a tazer" are the "Poles living down the road are a good bunch of lads" just normal every day language.
But £80 fines for possessing a stun gun/tazer ???? A quick google ony shows prison sentences or huge fines.

[i]Do you think I'm lying? [/i]

the only reason I'd think someone is lying is if they constantly acknowledge a request without then providing the supporting information.

my original reason for asking way back up there ^ was to try and understand the context of the case and the sentence.

The OP reffering to Poles as Poles is fine

It is. But somehow in the context of his first post it all went wrong. Something about nuance maybe. There seems to be a gulf between what he thought he wrote and what everyone else read. Rather than examine what he wrote, understand what that nuance is and clarify what he meant he's angry at the people who read what he actually wrote and took that to be what he meant.

I'm going to ask my mate Pete the Pole if he's got one he can sell me. The only issue might be that Pete's Hungarian.

Pete the Pole

Wasn't he the local fireman in Ivor the Engine?

Think you've be playing too much Beat the Pole perchy

Whack-a-Pole

my original reason for asking way back up there ^ was to try and understand the context of the case and the sentence.

There is no context.. just a brief summary in the 'court results' of the local paper. As it's the second time I've seen small fines for someone caught recently in possession of a 'tazer' and I am aware of the source for the majority of them circulating locally, I thought maybe the law on possession had been relaxed, or that the courts in my area were being unreasonably lenient due to the number of them about atm. My error it seems was not taking into account the sensitivity of some on this site. In my daily life I dont come across people of such a sensitive nature. I dont take kindly to being called a racist.. and people who throw the insult around so freely do an injustice to the word.

ahaa the link... [url= https://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/court-results-worksop-and-retford-1-8860615 ]Link[/url]

You only seem to get fined about £80 if caught with one..

Whereas from the link

Stephen Day, 54, of Highfield, Retford. Possessed a weapon, namely a tazer. Community order made with rehabilitation activity requirement and electronic monitoring. Also ordered to pay £85 court costs and a victim surcharge of £85.

So he actually had to pay out £170, was tagged and had a community order. A long way from only being fined about £80.....

Why not spread your BS elsewhere.................

Why not spread your BS elsewhere.................

You seem to have keyboard anger issues.. Relax and take deep breaths.

He was fined £85.. court costs are not part of the fine.

[i]Stephen Day, 54, of Highfield, Retford. Possessed a weapon, namely a tazer. Community order made with rehabilitation activity requirement and electronic monitoring. Also ordered to pay £85 court costs and a victim surcharge of £85.[/i]

so not actually an £85 fine then 🙄

[edit] there was no fine. The punishment was the tagging, rehabilitation activity.

Additionally, there were court costs and a victim surcharge - neither of which is a fine.

[edit2] so not lying, just misunderstanding the criminal justice system.

The court costs and victim surcharge aren't the punishment/sentence. The tagging, community order and rehabilitation (a "weapons are bad mkay" course, presumably) are. He didn't get a fine.

Edit: post above says exactly the same as me.

so not lying, just misunderstanding the criminal justice system.

It appears so.. not much of a punishment though for a firearms offence.. To most people, a tag is a badge of honour. Often see them flashed about with a big grin.

My error it seems was not taking into account the sensitivity of some on this site.

No your error was not writing what you now say you meant.

That was the first error anyway. 🙂

It appears so.. not much of a punishment though for a firearms offence

So he actually had to pay out £170, was tagged and had a community order. A long way from only being fined about £80.....

Why not spread your BS elsewhere.................

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #

Tbf you are just being pedantic now. The ops point still stands, it is a measly fine and punishment and far less than what was expected.

As for accusations of racism. I guess if you are looking for it at every opportunity then yes it could be construed as racist. If however like me and most normal folks you don't, then it's probably not.

 

maccruiskeen - Member

Whack-a-Pole

Reported for hate crime.

Ok,
Re-reading the firearms legislation / guidance:

Prohibited Weapons Defined by section 5 Firearms Act 1968 as Amended
It is an offence under section 5 to possess, purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or transfer (without the authority of the Secretary of State) the weapons listed below. The weapons below are subject to the mandatory minimum sentence

Section 5(1)(a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted so that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger, e.g. machine guns, burst fire weapons;
…. Loads of other weapons listed
….
Section 5(1A)(a) [b]any firearm which is disguised as another object[/b], e.g. pen guns, key fob guns and phone guns.

Note the disguised as another object.

In addition the following are also prohibited but are not subject to mandatory minimum sentences:

Section 5(1)(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. Generally stun guns or electric shock devices, CS gas not usually cattle prods but depends on type.

So a plain old stun gun, that looks like a stun gun may not be subject to a minimum sentence, unless:

Note: Parliament has provided that disguised weapons fall within the provisions for a minimum sentence and so, an offence contrary to section 5(1A) should be charged rather than an offence contrary to section 5(1)(b) where a stun gun is disguised as another object and also meets the requirements of section 5(A1), (R v Brereton [2012]EWCA Crim 85) ;

I.e. a stun gun made to look like a mobile phone.

And the mandatory minimum sentence part:

Mandatory Minimum Sentence:
The mandatory minimum sentence is 5 years' imprisonment for an offender aged 21 or over and 5 years' detention in a young offender institute for those aged 18, 19 and 20 at the date of conviction. Offences that attract the minimum sentence are triable only on indictment (Section 288 Criminal Justice Act 2003, which also amends Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968).

There is also guidance of exemptions from the minimum sentences on exceptional circumstances.

So, it looks like in the case of the OP, it may be the case that the stun gun device possessed was clearly marked as such ... hence the less than minimum punishment.