Police Request?

[bedwards1966]

I actually see DH side of things. he isn't there to prove beyond doubt.

 

I might carry a copy of my written permission from now on.

 

He's there to investigate a report of a man in a field with a gun, who possibly should not be there.

If common sense is applied to the investigation then anybody investigating should not expect someone to move on because they don't have utter, unquestionable proof upon them that they do indeed have permission to be on that land.

Unless they have some real reason to think that the person is not there lawfully, they are able to (and should) move on, as they've investigated and found nothing to be wrong.

Requiring someone to leave or be arrested is absurd - though it seems to be a more common approach to policing these days. Arrest someone, detain them for hours to question them and take their DNA, then let them go with a 'don't think about doing anything ever again or you'll have hassle, even if it's lawful' approach.

It's up to the police how they choose to investigate, to just arrest someone over something like this, based on a phone call that is very likely to be malicious or based on no information, is rather heavy handed to say the least.

[bedwards1966]

Anyone could make up a permission slip. The only way the police could know you have it is to speak with the land owner. I can't see a piece of paper helping if you find yourself in this situation.

 

The police or operator needs to scrutinise the person reporting this. "I've seen a man with a gun on farmland" shouldn't be enough. There have been plenty of reports of people falling foul of an anti being malicious. A few questions should be asked to get some definite proof that they think something actually illegal is happening and if the caller is found to be making up stories they should be prosecuted I would hope.

 

Anyway hopefully this is what the police already do, but it is unnerving to hear the stories you sometimes see in the shooting magazines. Sadly I think a fear of litigation is behind many of the over reactions we read about. The newspapers jump on anything where they can say the police didn't do enough or were too late etc.

 

Well where do you stop? Your quite right that someone can make up a permission slip, or someone could give the police the phone number of the 'farmer', only to have it go to their mate who'll pretend to be the landowner...

In fact, someone could probably get a FAC granted by inventing a permission slip, I can't see them contacting every farmer to check that it's genuine.

Short of checking out the owner of every piece of land by computer for every investigation, then phoning them up or calling round to see them (bearing in mind this is often in the early hours of the morning), what can be done to prove beyond all doubt that someone does have permission from the landowner?

 

It may not be perfect, but signed permission slips are probably the best way of proving it, and if it's accepted by licencing departments as the 'good reason' to acquire a firearm, it should satisfy the police in these cases.

 

Yes, anti's should be in bother for wasting police time, provided it's done carefully so that people aren't afraid to call in when they have a genuine concern. I suspect that a large number of malicious calls could be prevented, I don't really know why action isn't taken.

Edited October 29, 2012 by bedwards1966

[Dekers]

As so often this has departed more than a little from the opening question.

 

..and calling in first does not prove you have permission, and showing him a piece of paper does not prove you have permission, neither does showing him your FAC, etc etc!

 

Faced with any given situation with a person holding a gun, if the police are not entirely satisfied with you/your explanation they have every right to haul you off for further investigation.

 

It's called the real world, which some of you obviously have no understanding of!

 

Some here more than likely don't even own a gun and many others possibly only have 1 permission in the middle of a farm somewhere.

 

I shoot in a MASS of different environments, from shooting birds INSIDE National Supermarket chains and other shops, to VERY High Security Animal testing Centre grounds, to MoD sites, Local Authority sites, National Trust Sites and a RSPB site is now coming on board, Warehouses and Hangers containing multi Million £ aircraft, to Garden centres, football grounds, Car parks etc etc etc

 

as I said in post 22 above...

As always there are some very macho responses here born out of little experience, or thought, in many cases.............

.........You have to be realistic and sensible and use your brains!

Edited October 29, 2012 by Dekers

[Dirty Harry]

Bedwards1966,

 

 

 

Good lord, no wonder this country is in such a mess.

The way I'm reading your post, if someone rings in saying they don't think I'm permitted to be shooting on a piece of land, and you turn up and find I have not got written permission on me, and can't contact the landowner by phone then or there, your saying that I must move on or be arrested? A little common sense would say that if you've got 1 person saying that you can be there, and one saying you probably can't be there, that's nothing to go on. Then add in that the shooter is probably a very respectable person and the complainer is probably a silly townie/anti just having a go because they don't like hearing gunshots or something, and it should be a no-brainer. Ever heard of common sense? It seems to be lacking more and more in the police farce.

So why take the view that it's best to move the person on, with such a limited amount of reason to think they could be doing something wrong?

 

 

 

It's the assumption that because someone has told you that there is a person shooting in a field who possibly shouldn't be there, you will automatically treat him as a trespasser until he can prove to you beyond all doubt he's there lawfully. That is the issue here, it needs to be/is supposed to be the other way round.

 

Stop being a drama queen. At no point have I said I would go rushing in and arrest or move on the shooter on a vague "I don't think they should be shooting there" call. I think I have explained myself and other people seem to understand. I suggest you read my posts again properly.

For your information a FAC/SGC only proves that you probably don't have any convictions or at least nothing recent and that the person who came out thinks your not likely to go on a rampage with it. It does not mean your word is worth more than anybody else's including antis. It would be very wrong of the police to side with people or prejudge on the basis they held a ticket or had a crb check.

 

Harry

[Nikk]

Hi Harry

 

I assume you probably read Sporting gun or one of the other magazines?

 

What is your opinion on the stories that you sometimes read about armed response and helicopters turning up.

 

Has something gone wrong in the decision making process for that to happen (i.e. over reaction), maybe it's due to malicious calls or maybe there's just more to the story than meets the eye?

 

I appreciate you can't believe everything you read, I'm just curious how often it actually happens, why it happens and also how often the police following up on a report/complaint actually are just normal unarmed police officers who just go there to make sure nothing illegal is happening but we never hear of that.

 

Nick

[Dirty Harry]

Hi Harry

 

I assume you probably read Sporting gun or one of the other magazines?

 

What is your opinion on the stories that you sometimes read about armed response and helicopters turning up.

 

Has something gone wrong in the decision making process for that to happen (i.e. over reaction), maybe it's due to malicious calls or maybe there's just more to the story than meets the eye?

 

I appreciate you can't believe everything you read, I'm just curious how often it actually happens, why it happens and also how often the police following up on a report/complaint actually are just normal unarmed police officers who just go there to make sure nothing illegal is happening but we never hear of that.

 

Nick

 

Nick,

 

First off I would say that every force is different because of the area they police, the people they police and the officers who do the policing.

One member of the public could be used to shooting but a townie out for a walk in the country might view things a bit different, as might the call taker, control room supervisor and control room inspector. They are all involved in the decision making process to deploy ARV's and air support.

If a job is in open country the helicopter can find people in no time at all particularly if they are not hiding. Officers on the ground could take ages to do the same job and while they are tied up doing that they can't be doing other stuff.

It's not necessarily because the job is really serious but it just saves time. Also the helicopter would be able to see what the people look like before guiding officers in. If they are acting furtive and trying to hide it may put a different spin on things.

 

I don't think things have gone wrong if you get ARV's and air support its just that someone has made the decision based on their opinion of what's needed. The ARV's are just normal police officers with a gun. What's the big deal? They are just normal officers doing their job who if it goes a bit wrong can deal with the incident. The papers and press like to make a big deal of it to sell papers but its no big deal when you think about it.

 

Harry

[Greymaster]

If Plod goes about tasering blind people, then there is a problem, agreed?

 

If Plod goes about tasering people in a diabetic coma, then there is a problem, agreed?

 

The police are the worst organisation to be involved in firearms licensing.

 

You say every force is different. That's an admission that there is no nationally standardised framework for gun law enforcement accountable to end users. If there should be a legally enforceable requirement to phone in an intention to shoot, then that law should be passed by Parliament, not by some local Chief Constable making it up because he thinks he can, and definitely not by his trade union, ACPO.

 

Shooters should stand together and not be cajoled into accepting further restrictions and inconvenience imposed by some unaccountable chief officer.

 

It is not for shooters to bring about cost effectiveness in operational policing. Forces that waste public money, such as incesting in unmanned drones that they are not legally able to use, should be admonished and the Chief Constable reprimanded.

 

Bring on the Police & Crime Commissioners.

[bedwards1966]

Bedwards1966,

 

 

 

Stop being a drama queen. At no point have I said I would go rushing in and arrest or move on the shooter on a vague "I don't think they should be shooting there" call. I think I have explained myself and other people seem to understand. I suggest you read my posts again properly.

For your information a FAC/SGC only proves that you probably don't have any convictions or at least nothing recent and that the person who came out thinks your not likely to go on a rampage with it. It does not mean your word is worth more than anybody else's including antis. It would be very wrong of the police to side with people or prejudge on the basis they held a ticket or had a crb check.

 

Harry

 

But you could be arrested until such time as the officers were happy that you had permission to be there. If I were the officer and was not happy with the details given I would be contacting the landowners then and there to get an answer. If that was not possible I would probably ask you to leave the land until I have been able to clarify if any offences have taken place and follow it up slow time. That would mean nobody getting arrested at the scene and no guns would have to be seized.

 

Harry

 

Well I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your posts (such as this one above). To me, they read in a way that suggests that, if someone complains about a man in a field with a gun, you'll turn up and if that person cannot immediately prove to you they have permission to be there, you will tell them to move off that land until they can prove to you they have permission. If they don't, you'll arrest them.

 

So, after misunderstanding the words you've typed, could you please clarify exactly what you mean, and what you would do if someone calls in and tells you that there is a person in a field with a gun, who, upon investigation, doesn't have some way of proving to you then and there that he is there lawfully? And what your reaction will be if he doesn't want to drive home and write off the day/nights shooting because you tell him it would be better to move on?

Edited October 29, 2012 by bedwards1966

[Oops Missed Again]

But you could be arrested until such time as the officers were happy that you had permission to be there. If I were the officer and was not happy with the details given I would be contacting the landowners then and there to get an answer. If that was not possible I would probably ask you to leave the land until I have been able to clarify if any offences have taken place and follow it up slow time. That would mean nobody getting arrested at the scene and no guns would have to be seized.

 

Harry

 

Well that little paragraph sums pc plod in a nutshell.

 

We must distance ourselves from the police not get in bed with them, and tell them when we are going out etc etc.

 

Are we not carrying out a legal pastime so let’s not have any of this rubbish about being arrested.

 

Some advice to all on PW be very careful what we write on here.

[bedwards1966]

Hi Harry

 

I assume you probably read Sporting gun or one of the other magazines?

 

What is your opinion on the stories that you sometimes read about armed response and helicopters turning up.

 

Has something gone wrong in the decision making process for that to happen (i.e. over reaction), maybe it's due to malicious calls or maybe there's just more to the story than meets the eye?

 

I appreciate you can't believe everything you read, I'm just curious how often it actually happens, why it happens and also how often the police following up on a report/complaint actually are just normal unarmed police officers who just go there to make sure nothing illegal is happening but we never hear of that.

 

Nick

 

Such as this? I certainly wouldn't like to be the one having to justify it! http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/533506/Avon_and_Somerset_police_criticised_after_heavyhanded_arrest.html

 

Dirty Harry, don't take this as me trying to goad you into a response, it's not aimed at you personally.

[al4x]

Well that little paragraph sums pc plod in a nutshell.

 

We must distance ourselves from the police not get in bed with them, and tell them when we are going out etc etc.

 

Are we not carrying out a legal pastime so let’s not have any of this rubbish about being arrested.

 

Some advice to all on PW be very careful what we write on here.

 

ok so how exactly do plod work out you aren't a poacher?

[JonathanL]

Such as this? I certainly wouldn't like to be the one having to justify it! http://www.shootingu...ded_arrest.html

 

Dirty Harry, don't take this as me trying to goad you into a response, it's not aimed at you personally.

 

Very weird case that. It would be interesting to find out the precise details. It is not, on the face of it, an offence to leave a shotgun outside a cabinet. This is especially true it is indeed in a locked room - I suppose it would depend on who else had acess to the room.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the chap thought that a gun was on his cert when it wasn't though. It's either on or it isn't.

 

J.

[cant hit rabbits 123]

I find it difficult to believe that the chap thought that a gun was on his cert when it wasn't though. It's either on or it isn't.

 

J.

 

I dont know, I'd bet he has a fair few shotguns and has owned many before SGC's even existed. We (well, at least I) don't sit and examine our certificates. I'm just saying that I could be done.

[bedwards1966]

Very weird case that. It would be interesting to find out the precise details. It is not, on the face of it, an offence to leave a shotgun outside a cabinet. This is especially true it is indeed in a locked room - I suppose it would depend on who else had acess to the room.

 

I find it difficult to believe that the chap thought that a gun was on his cert when it wasn't though. It's either on or it isn't.

 

J.

 

Well reading about the charges against him which were dropped, I can't help but wonder if they're just having a go at him in any way they can, and that after revoking his certificate (on the information we have) I see no reason why he wouldn't win an appeal, unless it could be proved that an unauthorized person had a key to the room.

 

As to believing that the gun was on his certificate, it may or may not be true - but I see no reason why he would risk keeping it off his certificate if he knew it wasn't on, what would he gain?

As he had 86 'decommissioned' guns it's possible that he had a large number of other guns entered on his certificate (keen collector?), making it easier for one to slip through the net - and it's not unheard of for things to go wrong at the police end, he could have had a new certificate, say at renewal, and a simple police mistake could have left it off.

[JonathanL]

Well reading about the charges against him which were dropped, I can't help but wonder if they're just having a go at him in any way they can, and that after revoking his certificate (on the information we have) I see no reason why he wouldn't win an appeal, unless it could be proved that an unauthorized person had a key to the room.

 

As to believing that the gun was on his certificate, it may or may not be true - but I see no reason why he would risk keeping it off his certificate if he knew it wasn't on, what would he gain?

As he had 86 'decommissioned' guns it's possible that he had a large number of other guns entered on his certificate (keen collector?), making it easier for one to slip through the net - and it's not unheard of for things to go wrong at the police end, he could have had a new certificate, say at renewal, and a simple police mistake could have left it off.

 

Good points.

 

J.

[artschool]

It is not for shooters to bring about cost effectiveness in operational policing. Forces that waste public money, such as incesting in unmanned drones that they are not legally able to use, should be admonished and the Chief Constable reprimanded.

 

Bring on the Police & Crime Commissioners.

 

i hope the first thing the police and crime commissioners ban is incesting in unmanned drones. it has serious consequences for the gene pool.

[Oops Missed Again]

ok so how exactly do plod work out you aren't a poacher?

 

 

You take ID with you and most normal people can tell a poacher a mile away.

 

Anyway poaching is hardly the crime of the century and doesn't warrant ARU or helicopter. Is it against the law or a civil matter anyway?

 

How much crime in this country, outside of cities, is gun related?

 

Very very little I’m sure. If a man is out in a field shooting he’s hardly going to rob a bank.

 

 

I’ve come to learn the police now use the “big stick” approach where guns are concerned. Why?

 

All it does is gets peoples back up.

 

I am really incensed by the policeman’s attitude on here.

 

But I will repeat

 

Be very careful what we say on PW or we might get a knock on the door!

[BlaserF3]

It's like I said at the start...it's becoming a police state, whether we like it or not. I was on another forum recently and there was a copper on there trying to tell someone who was going shooting he must NOT stop at a garage etc; while carrying a gun in the car.

 

Seriously the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Dirty Harry]

 

To me, they read in a way that suggests that, if someone complains about a man in a field with a gun, you'll turn up and if that person cannot immediately prove to you they have permission to be there, you will tell them to move off that land until they can prove to you they have permission. If they don't, you'll arrest them.

 

So, after misunderstanding the words you've typed, could you please clarify exactly what you mean, and what you would do if someone calls in and tells you that there is a person in a field with a gun, who, upon investigation, doesn't have some way of proving to you then and there that he is there lawfully? And what your reaction will be if he doesn't want to drive home and write off the day/nights shooting because you tell him it would be better to move on?

 

It's difficult to get the message across without going into war and peace but there would be a lot of conversation going on before any arrests were made and that would be the absolute last resort. I've always found people become very reasonable when you explain the options open to you........unless they are drunk.

I'm also sure most people could come up with the details of the landowner or provide some way of resolving the situation. As a copper I think I'm quite good at judging if someone is lying to me. I would also get hold of the caller to see if there was any misunderstanding on their behalf and find out exactly why they thought them to be there unlawfully.

It's impossible to go into every possibility in the hypothetical pretend Internet drama but all I can say is do as you wish.

I don't phone up before I go shooting and I don't carry id but I live in a very rural area where everyone knows everyone.

If my circumstances were different then maybe I would.

 

Harry

[JonathanL]

You take ID with you and most normal people can tell a poacher a mile away.

 

Anyway poaching is hardly the crime of the century and doesn't warrant ARU or helicopter. Is it against the law or a civil matter anyway?

 

How much crime in this country, outside of cities, is gun related?

 

Very very little I’m sure. If a man is out in a field shooting he’s hardly going to rob a bank.

 

 

 

I’ve come to learn the police now use the “big stick” approach where guns are concerned. Why?

 

All it does is gets peoples back up.

 

I am really incensed by the policeman’s attitude on here.

 

But I will repeat

 

Be very careful what we say on PW or we might get a knock on the door!

 

Poaching, as I've always understood it, only relates to wild creatures so is a civil matter. Well, it's sort of both; It isn't a criminal offence to kill wild animals without permission (as they aren't property of anyone) but the land owner could initiate a civil case gainst you as he is the one who has the exclusive right to kill wild animals on his land. What he would get out of it would probably not be a lot though. Once the animal is dead it becomes property (that of the landowner) so if you take it away then you would commit the criminal offence of theft.

 

If poaching also applies to things like Pheasants or Grouse reared for shooting then the situation is different as they are property from the outset. Killing them would amount to criminal damage and taking them whilst alove would be theft.

 

Apart from that there is the offence of trespassing with a firearm and I think one of going equipped for poaching. If you were going to poach animals or birds which were property then I suppose going equipped for theft or even burglary would come into the frame.

 

I think that the 'big stick' approach comes from no more reson than they can so why not cover your backside as far as you possibly can? So many people are utterly paranoid about anything to do with 'guns' that almost any level of response can be justified on the spurious 'if it saves just one life...blah, blah,' sort of rubbish. Most other things in life are tempered with a bit of common sense but guns have an almost mystical aura about them meaning that the authorities can do pretty much as they please to be 'on the safe side'. I'm sure that it comes from the fact that very few people have any experience of firearms at all. It's just another reason why the more people have experience of shooting the better for all of us.

 

J.

[guest1957]

The law on poaching quite nicely summed up by North Yorks: http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=462

[ordnance]

One good thing here you don't need to worry about a armed response unit turning up. If anyone turns up it will be the local officer that's on duty.

[DaveK]

I assume that some of you brave people made the FEO aware of your views on this last time they visited?

 

I thought not.

 

Bored now.

[JonathanL]

I assume that some of you brave people made the FEO aware of your views on this last time they visited?

 

I thought not.

 

Bored now.

 

It's not actually anything I'd really thought too much about until quite recently, to be honest.

 

Why the sarcastic use of the word 'brave'? Why does someone need to be brave to query something with a police employee? Someone whom, after all, is there to answer queries from certificate holders.

 

J.

[welsh1]

I assume that some of you brave people made the FEO aware of your views on this last time they visited?

 

I thought not.

 

Bored now.

 

I shoot a couple of very sensitive places,and when I got some of this land cleared my feo advised me to call in when I was going there, I told him that I had made security at this site aware of me and my vehicle,and I wouldn't be calling in as there was no need,he just said ok.

Do I get a brave badge now?