bedwards1966 Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) What makes you say that? Harry Well he's obviously assuming that the police did their job properly - no doubt the person drove to the shoot while also having alcohol in his system, so I'd have thought that would give them all the reason needed to test (if they need one). Yes, I can't be that sure they did their job properly either... Edited November 24, 2012 by bedwards1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Well he's obviously assuming that the police did their job properly - no doubt the person drove to the shoot while also having alcohol in his system, so I'd have thought that would give them all the reason needed to test (if they need one). Yes, I can't be that sure they did their job properly either... Read the bit I quoted again. It's the assumption over the time it would have taken that is totally unfounded. Just like yours regarding the him driving to the shooting ground. You don't know and are making it up. Why do you even bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Read the bit I quoted again. It's the assumption over the time it would have taken that is totally unfounded. Just like yours regarding the him driving to the shooting ground. You don't know and are making it up. Why do you even bother? Stop being daft. He was assuming that it took the police a couple of hours to test him. We don't know how long it took, but it's not an unfair assumption, as the news article is likely to have exaggerated it to a few hours, and the police are unlikely to have been efficient enough to do it very quickly. Edited November 24, 2012 by bedwards1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Most marked police cars have breath boxes as standard kit. They could have done him at the scene. It's 10-15 minutes travelling time to the station from there and he could have been done as soon as he walked in. He could have got a lift to the shooting ground. Like I said you don't have a clue and are making it up as you go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 I think what Dirty Harry is taking issue with, and quite rightly so, is the statement of conjecture as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Most marked police cars have breath boxes as standard kit. They could have done him at the scene. It's 10-15 minutes travelling time to the station from there and he could have been done as soon as he walked in. He could have got a lift to the shooting ground. Like I said you don't have a clue and are making it up as you go along. Chap, so are you, this is a forum, people are offering opinions, thats what happens, are your posts not opinions/suggestions, or were you actually at the scene? Edited November 24, 2012 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Does anyone know if he was breathalysed and if so what for for ? , and where the 3 times drink drive level came from , couldn't see it in the report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant hit rabbits 123 Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 The gun pictured is I believe a Mossberg 590, and is illegal in the UK on barrel length alone. Sounds about right. It annoys me when even though the chap was a total idiot the news paper just makes it worse by portraying clay shooters as walts waving tacticool short barrelled shotguns about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 What makes you say that? Harry The contents of the article. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ok so how did a PUMP ACTION gun accidentally discharge 3 times? Did he re charge the gun after shooting someone to see if it failed and shot someone again? Edit: Ignore that I completely miss read that news piece. But yeah as above the drink level in the blood does not sound even close for the time he would have been tested following the incident. The alcohol level may well have been correct. The point I was making was that if he was three times over the limit when tested (which was probably at least a couple pf hours after the incident and many, many hours after he had last been drinking) he must have been absolutely stinking of drink at the shoot. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Got to say I don't put a lot of weight on the "drink drive limit" and none driving....... Under the drink drive limit you are "safe to operate a motor vehicle which you are qualified to drive on the public highway, over that you are incapable of any function? That's not really how it works. The DD limit is just an arbitrary limit over which you commit an offence. You may well be perfectly fit and capable of driving but that isn't the point. The fact is that most people will be quite incapeble of driving safely. Also, you may well be utterly incapable of driving after a half of lager, or less. In that case there is a still an offence of driving while unfit through alcohol. The Drink/Drive limit isn't directly relevant in discussions like this but it provides a useful reference point which people can ralete to. I have never been breathalised while drunk so have no idea how drunk 3 times over the drink drive limit is, is it falling down territory ? Is it being a bit louder than usual? Is 3 times over the "limit" 3 times as drunk as being on the limit? Is it a linear relationship? It might be scientific to measure blood alcohol but is it reasonable? The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 mililitres of breath. The prosecution guidelines adivse that a prosecution is not brought at less than 40mcg. Three times the limit is actually not an easy reading to register considering the testing methods - it's a lot of alcohol. The judge said that the guy in qustion was three times over when he was tested after the incident. He apparently hadn't drunk on the day in question and the alcohol was from the night before. He was well, well wasted and must have drunk a very large amount the night previosuly. He was very likely stinking of drink at the time. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 The contents of the article. J. It makes no mention in the article of how long after the incident he was breathalysed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHE Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 That's not really how it works. The DD limit is just an arbitrary limit over which you commit an offence. You may well be perfectly fit and capable of driving but that isn't the point. The fact is that most people will be quite incapeble of driving safely. Also, you may well be utterly incapable of driving after a half of lager, or less. In that case there is a still an offence of driving while unfit through alcohol. The Drink/Drive limit isn't directly relevant in discussions like this but it provides a useful reference point which people can ralete to. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 mililitres of breath. The prosecution guidelines adivse that a prosecution is not brought at less than 40mcg. Three times the limit is actually not an easy reading to register considering the testing methods - it's a lot of alcohol. The judge said that the guy in qustion was three times over when he was tested after the incident. He apparently hadn't drunk on the day in question and the alcohol was from the night before. He was well, well wasted and must have drunk a very large amount the night previosuly. He was very likely stinking of drink at the time. J. Here's a text I received from a friend this morning, on my way to a clay ground. IMO it displays the right attitude. "not shooting today. Out drinking last night..." " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 You'd think he'd drank a bottle of whiskey or the equivalent to have that much in his system I think you are about spot on there. It's actually quite difficult to get to three times the limt. To be at that level many hours after stopping drinking means that you have consumed a vast amount of alcohol. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 That's not really how it works. The DD limit is just an arbitrary limit over which you commit an offence. You may well be perfectly fit and capable of driving but that isn't the point. The fact is that most people will be quite incapeble of driving safely. Also, you may well be utterly incapable of driving after a half of lager, or less. In that case there is a still an offence of driving while unfit through alcohol. The Drink/Drive limit isn't directly relevant in discussions like this but it provides a useful reference point which people can ralete to. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 mililitres of breath. The prosecution guidelines adivse that a prosecution is not brought at less than 40mcg. Three times the limit is actually not an easy reading to register considering the testing methods - it's a lot of alcohol. The judge said that the guy in qustion was three times over when he was tested after the incident. He apparently hadn't drunk on the day in question and the alcohol was from the night before. He was well, well wasted and must have drunk a very large amount the night previosuly. He was very likely stinking of drink at the time. J. I agree with all of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Read the bit I quoted again. It's the assumption over the time it would have taken that is totally unfounded. Just like yours regarding the him driving to the shooting ground. You don't know and are making it up. Why do you even bother? Not unfounded. The bloke shoots three people; all hell breaks loose; abulances and police are called; injured are attended to; police undertake investigations as the scene; bloke gets arrested; transported back to police station; breathalysed. Ok, maybe an hour and a half for all that. Perhaps not, maybe it was only 30 mind from him shooting someone to being breathalysed, who knows? Even so, being thre times over the limit means he had drunk a very large quantity of booze and would have been absolutely stinking of it. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Most marked police cars have breath boxes as standard kit. They could have done him at the scene. It's 10-15 minutes travelling time to the station from there and he could have been done as soon as he walked in. He could have got a lift to the shooting ground. Like I said you don't have a clue and are making it up as you go along. Even if they did then it still means he was ****** as a rat and would have been stinking of drink. If it was actually a couple or so hours after then it's even worse as his reading would have been even higher at the time of the incident. And no one noticed? Possible, especially outside, but..... J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Even so, being thre times over the limit means he had drunk a very large quantity of booze and would have been absolutely stinking of it. You would think someone should have noticed him being that drunk before this happened. Having said that where I shoot you just collect a card and crack on and pay afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 I think what Dirty Harry is taking issue with, and quite rightly so, is the statement of conjecture as fact. Educated guess more than conjecture. The judge said that the bloke hadn't drunk since the previous evening so we can take that to mean several hours previously. That being the case he must have been absolutely stinking of drink if he blew 105 on a breath test after the incident. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Does anyone know if he was breathalysed and if so what for for ? , and where the 3 times drink drive level came from , couldn't see it in the report He was clearly under the influence so some sort of alcohol test would have been asked of him, I should think. A test was obviously done as the court heard evidence that he was three times over the drink drive limit. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 He was clearly under the influence so some sort of alcohol test would have been asked of him, I should think. A test was obviously done as the court heard evidence that he was three times over the drink drive limit. J. Yes but was the request in relation to evidence of previous driving or just to provide to evidence in relation to his alcohol content whilst in posession of a shotgun ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denniswebb Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 What has really happened here is we are another step closer to having tighter controls foisted upon us by the establishment, i don't know all the facts but it appears that this ground had no real control over those that shoot at it. Part of the E petition i proposed was that the shooting bodies have a greater say it the management of this sport, an idiot with a pump action shotgun should only be allowed on the ground under strict controls, its not a clay shooting weapon. How the hell was he allowed a loaded shotgun facing other shooters, was the ground a registered ground under guidance form one of the shooting bodies, was the owner a member of one of the organisation, was it registered ? My E Petition was to try to stop the cowboy element in this sport ruining it for everyone. shooters should support it, our National Bodies should have some measure of control over the whole sport.....Has someone got to die first ? before we tackle it. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 While I agree its an arbitrary number I fail to see how it is any way useful to the point of fact regardless of the amount he had drunk he should not have been able to injure 3 people while at a clay shoot! Whilst observing safe gun handling.!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 You would think someone should have noticed him being that drunk before this happened. Having said that where I shoot you just collect a card and crack on and pay afterwards. Point taken. Not so much being noticed as 'being drunk' though. As someone has mentioned, a hardened alcoholic can hide it quite well. What they can't hide (and I'm not saying that this guy is an alcoholic) is the smell. Perhaps no one noticed but given that the guy must have been stinking of it, it would seem unikely. 105mcg is a very high reading and to blow that, many hours after having last drunk, means that you would be stinkng of drink. I sincerely hope it isn't the case that people noticed this and did nothing about it. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) You should be able to use whatever gun you want to shoot clays, after all it is a free country. What you shouldn't be allowed to do whilst shooting clays is be drunk as a skunk or turn the gun towards anything other than clear range or clay target. If nobody had noticed he was drunk or did and didn't care then there is something seriously wrong. Edited November 24, 2012 by Livefast123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts