Man denies possessing fake AK-47 rifle in unrest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k4g75mxlxo
Posted by ClassicFlavour
Man denies possessing fake AK-47 rifle in unrest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k4g75mxlxo
Posted by ClassicFlavour
6 Comments
Can only find a [Daily Mail ](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13728501/Counter-protester-denies-using-fake-AK-47-threaten-Tommy-Robinson-EDL-social-media-video.html#v-1103791656375633430) article that features the video and fake AK.
Pretty bold to claim not guilty on this one if it is him.
“A man accused of possessing a fake AK-47 assault rifle with intent to cause members of the English Defence League (EDL) to believe violence would be used against them, has pleaded not guilty.
Habeeb Khan, 49, of Sparkbrook, Birmingham, also denied sending a communication threatening death or serious harm, between 4-6 August, in a video uploaded to social media platform X.”
Why would you have a fake AK-47 in the first place?
Why wait until November he should be on trial within days like the rest of the people taking part in unrest, or wait, sorry no, he’s from the “good” side so it doesn’t apply to him. Joke of a country at this point, British man arrested for shaking a stick, on trial within days, immigrant arrested for brandishing fake firearms a much more serious offence, on trial within months for most likely a suspended sentence.
I’m not defending anyone I’m just interested to know what the law is regarding fake weapons, are they legal or otherwise? The reason I ask is that there is a shop in a town near me that sells replica hand guns.
I just don’t get why anyone would want one but I imagine they could be used to terrify people but I assume they are allowed to be sold as they are in a legit shop on a high street.
>A man accused of possessing a fake AK-47 assault rifle in a video with intent to cause members of the English Defence League (EDL) to believe violence would be used against them, has pleaded not guilty.
Anyone think that this sentence is worded so badly that it really takes a few reads to understand what is being said.
“A man has plead not guilty to possessing a fake AK-47 assault rifle in a video, which was created with the intent to cause members of the English Defence League to believe violence would be used against them.”
Why is it even that intent
Why is the intent not to explicitly threaten violence against members of civilians. Why is it “believe”. He’s using a weapon that is indistinguishable from the real thing, at least from a layman’s perspective and openly threatening to shoot members of the public.
Why exactly is the charge so light?