Jump to content

surprise surprise......sgc revoked for farmer who was attacked.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i do feel for the poor chap and like you sprackles i hope he wins any case he has. from another point of view though the police can't be seen to giving people sgc for protecting there premises and detering scumbags. having said that if he had beat up the said scumbag he would still have probably lost his cert. seems a bit unfair all round and suggests to would be theives that they don't have alot to lose when trying to rob farms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same guy, just goes to show how it drags on!

 

I can see why they have revoked but cannot condone it in any way. If anything he showed level hotheadedness and restraint by shooting the tyres out rather than putting both barrels through the screen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been dragging on for a while partly because the police have just disclosed 3 empty cartridges were found on a public bridleway up the lane as if he had been shooting at the criminal speeding off.



It's the same guy, just goes to show how it drags on!

 

I can see why they have revoked but cannot condone it in any way. If anything he showed level hotheadedness and restraint by shooting the tyres out rather than putting both barrels through the screen!

He did put both barrels through the screen, and not at the tyres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as ever its what doesn't get reported that is important, if the above is true then its very much why he has suffered a revoke. It won't affect his ability to be a farmer it will just affect the sport he likes which we can all understand.

The law is pretty clear on self defence but its once you step past that there are issues and obviously he will only get backing from his shooting organisation if he is a member and if the facts stack up to have a fair chance of winning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the facts.

 

A quick search shows that he did not fire at the tyres.

 

He put two through the screen - albeit through the passenger side. He later fired one through the passenger door, another through the passenger window and the last into the back of the van.

 

Whilst the first two shots - he could rightly claim to have directed his fire away from the driver - he would struggle to explain that shots three and four were not directed at the driver. I presume that is why the Police revoked his SGC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on which facts you read - the CPS stated “I have decided not to prosecute either suspect, Bill Edwards and his mother, people are entitled to use reasonable force in self defence to defend themselves, their family and their property. The evidence I have seen does not weigh against the claim by the defendants that they were acting reasonably when the shots were fired” It has been many months since then. I appreciate that no prosecution does not equal suitable to fold a FAC / SGC but from what I have read from Bill's father there is a hell of a lot more going on in the background - including IPCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not in Florida - where it helps your case immeasurably if the person you shot actually dies.

You're obviously thinking of the same case that i was thinking of! The congressman of florida was disgusted it even went to court!

 

Back in the UK though. We are not allowed to possess firearms for self defence (which everybody knows). The only slight problem with some laws is, some/many cases are not always so clear cut.

 

For example, your life or anyone else's life is in immediate danger from a wreckless criminal, with intent to cause serious harm... Naturally, you'd want to react to save yours/other lifes. But legally you cant, even if morally its right.

 

Still... The law is the law, we must adhere to it for the greater good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zimmermans life is pretty much screwed. Imagine being a 'free' man in his shoes now. Also - he may well still find himself in court with a civil lawsuit - similar to OJ Simpson. The burden of proof is much lower in a wrongful death civil suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the facts.

 

A quick search shows that he did not fire at the tyres.

 

He put two through the screen - albeit through the passenger side. He later fired one through the passenger door, another through the passenger window and the last into the back of the van.

 

Whilst the first two shots - he could rightly claim to have directed his fire away from the driver - he would struggle to explain that shots three and four were not directed at the driver. I presume that is why the Police revoked his SGC.

 

He continued to shoot at them because the man in the van continued to drive at him and his mother. The man was found to be acting in self defence and was cleared of any wrongdoing, so that would have nothing to with it if the police are doing their job properly. Which is very questionable in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know all the ins and outs, but it never ceases to amaze me how people just accept a fraction of a story and proceed to slag the Police off.

 

Unless anyone on here knows what the Police know, how can we criticise them? Never stops anyone though.

 

If he is totally innocent - as some seem to think - he will clearly get his SGC back. If he is - I wish him well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know all the ins and outs, but it never ceases to amaze me how people just accept a fraction of a story and proceed to slag the Police off.

 

Unless anyone on here knows what the Police know, how can we criticise them? Never stops anyone though.

 

If he is totally innocent - as some seem to think - he will clearly get his SGC back. If he is - I wish him well.

 

What do you mean "if" he is totally innocent? He was cleared of any wrongdoing long ago and has still not got his guns back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reece - only an idiot would assume that cleared of any wrongdoing meant "innocent".

 

You don't know enough of the facts to argue, so perhaps we could wait for the outcome of his appeal, unless you feel the need to continue an argument you can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the bit that gets me is they went there expecting thieves to be there and he took a gun to go "shooting". Under that scenario the police have done all they can, look at recent licensing errors this one won't be their call it will be down to a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the UK though. We are not allowed to possess firearms for self defence (which everybody knows).

Sorry but you are and many people in Northern Ireland currently have FAC's for that purpose.

 

The fact that you will not be granted a certificate in the rest of the UK is a different matter though. There is nothing in law which prevents and FAC or SGC being granted for such a purpose.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...