7daysinaweek Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just come across this on the news: Would make an assumption that the use of reasonable force and fearing endangerment of life was taken into account by the jury. Would this be a test case to support unfortunate individuals in a similar situation. Must have been a very frightening experience, one i would not wish for anyone! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-39233017 Apologies if this has already been threaded. atb 7diaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I like the injured man's story of him and his friend stumbling on to the farm in the middle of the night. Their previous convictions for burglary and theft make a mockery of their excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I was going to post this morning but the verdict hadn't been delivered so wasn't really in the public domain. 24 minutes is all it took for the jury to decide... The fact that his chum dropped him off at the hospital then was never seen again says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7daysinaweek Posted March 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I was going to post this morning but the verdict hadn't been delivered so wasn't really in the public domain. 24 minutes is all it took for the jury to decide... The fact that his chum dropped him off at the hospital then was never seen again says it all. Ahhh, every man for himself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me matt Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 How could he claim discharging a shotgun was reasonable force when he couldn't see what the threat was in the first place? Sod running out of fuel/breaking down late at night and knocking on his door lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Well it was in the Sun newspaper this morning, now then did the perps not say they were hunting rabbits? considering they accidentally stumbled onto the farm with presumably a firearm for hunting the rabbits with does that make them guilty of aggravated trespass with a firearm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonk Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Excellent result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7daysinaweek Posted March 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) How could he claim discharging a shotgun was reasonable force when he couldn't see what the threat was in the first place? Sod running out of fuel/breaking down late at night and knocking on his door lol I do see your point matt, however i was pointing out i assume that the jury have taken into account that under the current law the chap in hand had genuinely felt his life was at risk. Also discharging a firearm in that moment was proportionate at having a vehicle drive at him i an agressive manner as felt to endanger life. No one will ever know the exact turn of events only the individuals involved. atb 7diaw Edited March 10, 2017 by 7daysinaweek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Ahhh, every man for himself! It sounds like it. I also wonder if the lamping was on land the pair had permission on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPhantom Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 How could he claim discharging a shotgun was reasonable force when he couldn't see what the threat was in the first place? Sod running out of fuel/breaking down late at night and knocking on his door lol They drove at him at night with the headlights off. I would say that was very threatening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 A disgraceful prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I read this in the paper this morning. The farmer is 83 years old and the ****** that was shot in the foot and his mate claim they were looking for rabbits with their dog and stumbled into the farmyard by mistake. Apparently, the poor chap has to be wheeled everywhere since the shooting......I wonder how quickly he will heal now the not guilty verdict reduces any chance he has of getting some compo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 i`d like to add a few thoughts.... 1, it seem odd that someone randomly appears on farmland not to steal diesel. 2, Mr stables, was out hunting rabbits with his friend? armed with what? if someone appears to be reving up and engine, he isnt very concerned with his safety after being shot at.. i`d be concerned whos going about stealing diesel tooled up to shoot rabbits (probably not tooled up, but seriously?) nb, just wait for the claims of post traumatic stress after being shot in the foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 The bullying, politically motivated cps, made an 83 year old, decent and innocent, pillar of the community cry, I hope they are proud of their work and the cost to the public purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Playing devils advocate here. I thought that in order to satisfy a court that acceptable force was used in discharging a gun that you would have to have"known" that the other bloke was armed and willing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Playing devils advocate here. I thought that in order to satisfy a court that acceptable force was used in discharging a gun that you would have to have"known" that the other bloke was armed and willing. You do not have to be armed to endanger the life of another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Reading the article I don't think they were driving at him but trying to get away from the farm. "stumbled on the farm accidently" well I would have thought the farm was off the main road and have an obvious entrance, so its obvious they were up to no good so they got what they deserve in my opinion. Guess it begs the question that if you get to his age and fear for your safety would you do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Reading the article I don't think they were driving at him but trying to get away from the farm. "stumbled on the farm accidently" well I would have thought the farm was off the main road and have an obvious entrance, so its obvious they were up to no good so they got what they deserve in my opinion. Guess it begs the question that if you get to his age and fear for your safety would you do the same? Don't answer that one or the 'Thought Police' will be round to collect your guns! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospero Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 The real question is whether he will have his SGC back now? 😅😅😅 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Playing devils advocate here. I thought that in order to satisfy a court that acceptable force was used in discharging a gun that you would have to have"known" that the other bloke was armed and willing. he was armed with a car . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ips Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Certainly an interesting outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Don't answer that one or the 'Thought Police' will be round to collect your guns! Don't be so paranoid...... he was armed with a car . But were they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I will be interested to see the outcome regarding his licence. I suspect he can kiss it goodbye. Whatever fear he felt, he took a shotgun with him - albeit for self defence. Not really a legitimate reason to own a shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog1408 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I will be interested to see the outcome regarding his licence. I suspect he can kiss it goodbye. Whatever fear he felt, he took a shotgun with him - albeit for self defence. Not really a legitimate reason to own a shotgun. the legitimate reason for owning the shotgun was I am sure target or game shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygreengrass Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Glad he was found not guilty, they where going to use the car as a deadly weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.