sgc holder cleared over shooting man on his property

[figgy]

The law in this country is an ***.

 

If your threatened on your property by anyone and in fear of your or your families life you should get a pat on the back for shooting them like in other countries. The only people armed and doing as they please are the criminals, and any who think getting rid of all legal guns will make a difference are fooling themselves.

 

Glad the old fella was found not guilty, years ago when I was s lad you went on farm land and being shot at with an old SxS was a nigh on a given if caught by the farmer.

 

Far to OC and namby pamby this day and age.

 

The police report should have read one of the scrotes tresspassing on a farm and upto no good shot himself in the foot through the vehicle door

Edited March 11, 2017 by figgy

[johnphilip]

I think they knew the farmer was old and thought they could get away with it, had the old boy not done anything, and hid away in his home, they would have belived they could get away with what they were doing.

Bullying comes to mind, ah an old man, what is he going to do to stop us. they would have kept coming back. but that hard brave old man stood up for himself, his family and all he had worked hard for all his life. i just hope this has not affected him in anyway, but i am sure it must have, i wish him well.

[yod dropper]

Some years back there was a change of sentiment, I think this may have been after the last Labour government. Since then people have been way less likely to be prosecuted and found guilty for these types of incident. I recall a householder who stabbed and killed a burglar and was let off, another who shot and wounded an intruder who was let off. It was acknowledged that a few years before they would have been found guilty. 'Reasonable force' (edited) has been redefined.

 

If you follow the right bits of news including farming today on R4 you'll get a far better idea of rural crime and the threats it poses. Stories include farmers having vehicles driven at them and this is just for incidents such as hare coursing. It's not unlikely you'll take a beating if you confront these people. From some of the comments on other threads I'd say some haven't got a clue what goes on.

 

Other than the usual suspects of 'organised gangs' the latest I've heard of is a number of large lorries turning up and dumping sorted compacted waste - the stuff you'd have to pay for to go into landfill. This is believed to be related to a higher level of gang so even nastier.

 

It looks like the law is taking things into account now.

Edited March 11, 2017 by yod dropper

[Gordon R]

I do not disagree with the verdict at all, but no-one seems to grasp that this could impact on his licence, or even consider that it should.

I await the outcome with interest.

As for a shotgun, not being an offensive weapon, when used at that time of night, under those circumstances - I have to laugh. Try walking down a road with a knife or baseball bat - purely for self defence.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Gordon R

[subsonicnat]

Wonder what GD would have done,,if he had the time of course,which he didn't..

It must have been terrifying,Scum..

They murdered after that,,I feel that there but for the grace of God and all that..

If they were armed,,you don't take a hammer to a gunfight..

[Danger-Mouse]

I do not disagree with the verdict at all, but no-one seems to grasp that this could impact on his licence, or even consider that it should.

 

I await the outcome with interest.

 

As for a shotgun, not being an offensive weapon, when used at that time of night, under those circumstances - I have to laugh. Try walking down a road with a knife or baseball bat - purely for self defence.

 

Obviously it could have an impact on his licence. However, given that he has been found not guilty, and therefore will have no new convictions when he applies for his renewal, then arguably there should be no reason to refuse him. However, the fact that he chose to walk out of the house with a loaded gun, and discharge it, albeit lawfully, could cause an FEO some cause for concern. Like you, I hope though that that is not the case.

 

A shotgun, loaded or not, could be considered an offensive weapon. Indeed the law is very specific about that. The point though is that any number of everyday objects could just as easily be considered offensive weapons.

 

It's somewhat pointless though to compare it to walking down a road with a baseball bat or a knife. The situation is completely different. He was responding to a threat upon his own property, not carrying a weapon in a public place just in case he was attacked.

[Gordon R]

Danger- Mouse

 

It's somewhat pointless though to compare it to walking down a road with a baseball bat or a knife. The situation is completely different. He was responding to a threat upon his own property, not carrying a weapon in a public place just in case he was attacked.

 

 

 

Fair point. I suspect we are not talking renewal, as I presume he has already lost the licence and will have to start from scratch. Therein lies his problem, in my view. I hope I am wrong.

[ph5172]

I think come renewal time (or re-grant) there will be a few heads scratched.

 

No convictions but proof he will use his gun to shoot someone, wouldn't like to sit on that meeting to be honest

[Twistedsanity]

There is a little k own allowance in law to make a pre-emptive attack if you are in danger. If John is down the pub and believes that the thug brandishing a beer bottle and behaving aggressively towards him is going to attack him John is allowed in law to use force to prevent the attack from happening, John is only allowed to use enough force to prevent the imminent attack so he can't give the thug a jolly good hiding bit pushing him, punching him etc so long as the court finds he actions were deemed as "reasonable force" is allowed. You can see how difficult this would make a case in law but it is allowed.

It doesnt matter of the trespassers were armed or not merely that they posed a threat and his use of force was deemed "reasonable", so two big guys behaving aggressively towards an 83 year old at night fits the bill as far as I can see

Edited March 11, 2017 by Twistedsanity

[ph5172]

There is a little k own allowance in law to make a pre-emptive attack if you are in danger. If John is down the pub and believes that the thug brandishing a beer bottle and behaving aggressively towards him is going to attack him John is allowed in law to use force to prevent the attack from happening, John is only allowed to use enough force to prevent the imminent attack so he can't give the thug a jolly good hiding bit pushing him, punching him etc so long as the court finds he actions were deemed as "reasonable force" is allowed. You can see how difficult this would make a case in law but it is allowed.

It doesnt matter of the trespassers were armed or not merely that they posed a threat and his use of force was deemed "reasonable", so two big guys behaving aggressively towards an 83 year old at night fits the bill as far as I can see

it must also be proportional, in this case it was deemed it was

Edited March 11, 2017 by ph5172

[Gordon R]

so two big guys behaving aggressively towards an 83 year old at night fits the bill as far as I can see

 

 

The driver was revving the engine - does that give him the right to shoot the passenger?

[Duckandswing]

I very rarely post on forums, but this is an area of great interest to me...

 

 

Sorry Duckandswing but had you done this, going out with your dog then you could still have possibly been in the dock facing charges...

 

There are several things you need to take into consideration...

 

1) the UK legal definition of an offensive weapon...The definition of an offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person.

 

Had you attended with your dog and stick, and you had allowed your dog to bite said scum bag, your dog, in law, then becomes an offensive weapon. However you acted defensively...Also by that no firearm is an offensive weapon until used in an offensive manner. No more than a kitchen knife, your big stick, dog, axe, chainsaw, car, etc etc...Also you could now be faced with the added frustration of fighting a court not to have your dog destroyed after letting it bite someone, even though that someone was committing an act likely to endanger life...

 

2) the law on self defense states that you can use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, in your honestly held belief at the time.

 

You do not have to shout a warning, or demonstrate any ability. If you firmly believe you are in mortal danger, you can, within the law, strike first, in the defence of yourself, or another person.

 

To arm yourself with anything that could be used as a weapon, gun, dog, stick, knife, is liable to get you into trouble...but as the law on self defence states you can use reasonable force...but had he attended without anything, he may well be dead himself. He chose to take a firearm. Not an offense in itself. Just as if you had taken your dog you would not be committing an offense until the dog attacks... unless there is an imminent threat in which case you have the legal defence of...self defence.

 

In discharging his shotgun he has not acted recklessly, he has used a tool to defend himself whilst being under attack from, what he believed, to be a life threatening situation.

 

Our UK laws are a greyish area over this. Everyones perception of fear is different, every situation is unique.

 

The Farmer in question acted well within the law as it is written. While I agree he should have been arrested in the first instance to establish the full extent of the situation (as this is what we supposedly have police for)...his actions of self defence against a known criminal with no actual defence for being in the location he was...who lied 3 times about how he received his injury (hmmmmmm????)

 

 

He should have been released without charge from the police station, given a police commendation for his actions, and had his guns returned, as he is not a danger to society, nor did he break any law.

 

Had he used a stick, thrown a brick which he had carried out from his house, or picked up a pitchfork and launched that, he would most likely not been charged at all...

 

Another example of the police acting heavy handed, trying to instill a fear of all firearms into lower polce ranks and the general public. An utter disgrace.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd still be going out with my dogs and a big stick. Not my fault I chose to walk my dogs at that time of night.

 

I'd have to face the consequences, and I can accept that. But rather that than let someone walk all over me, my possessions and family.

 

If it got really rough I'd fetch the wife.

[Danger-Mouse]

 

If it got really rough I'd fetch the wife.

 

Gads man, have you no pity!

[ph5172]

 

The driver was revving the engine - does that give him the right to shoot the passenger?

 

personally I dont think so but 12 people did.

 

I think his saving grace was he shot at the car not the person (if i read the news correct)

[Gordon R]

ph5172 - agreed.

[Rewulf]

I do not disagree with the verdict at all, but no-one seems to grasp that this could impact on his licence, or even consider that it should.

 

I await the outcome with interest.

 

As for a shotgun, not being an offensive weapon, when used at that time of night, under those circumstances - I have to laugh. Try walking down a road with a knife or baseball bat - purely for self defence.

 

Im with Gordon on this.

Although completely exonerated ,he will have a tough time keeping his SGC .

 

I will refer the honourable members of the Pigeon Watch massive to an incident that was widely commented on about 18 months ago,with a very similar situation in West Yorkshire.

I dont recall the exact details,but it involved a young farmer discharging a shotgun at a vehicle that was being driven at him and his mother,during a daylight burglary.

No injuries in this incident,but the police removed all firearms,and started a prosecution against the farmer,that ultimately was dropped.

He went through an expensive court battle to reinstate his FAC and SGC ,that failed ,with a large financial loss for him.

The burglars got a £100 fine I believe.

[Red-dot]

I'm not a 100% convinced that a car in your area at 2am justifies you getting your shotgun out of the secure storeage and shooting at another human being? There is as yet no death sentence for pinching diesel but well done the court for the outcome.

[Muddy Funker]

I doubt he gives a **** about keeping his sgc. Nice work jury.

[yorkierm]

 

Im with Gordon on this.

Although completely exonerated ,he will have a tough time keeping his SGC .

 

I will refer the honourable members of the Pigeon Watch massive to an incident that was widely commented on about 18 months ago,with a very similar situation in West Yorkshire.

I dont recall the exact details,but it involved a young farmer discharging a shotgun at a vehicle that was being driven at him and his mother,during a daylight burglary.

No injuries in this incident,but the police removed all firearms,and started a prosecution against the farmer,that ultimately was dropped.

He went through an expensive court battle to reinstate his FAC and SGC ,that failed ,with a large financial loss for him.

The burglars got a £100 fine I believe.

I must confess to not knowing anything about this incident. But the law, here again, regrettably, has overstepped the mark, and used the fear and repression of arms as a benchmark.

 

Every single person has exactly the same inherent right to self defence. And that right is the use of such force, as is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, to defend ones self, or another, as you honestly believe them to be at the time. Homeless man to Lord of the land...we are all the same. With the definition of offensive weapons already mentioned...a car can be used as an offensive weapon (and we all know the outcome of the lorry in France just last year)...so in such circumstances, having the threat of lethal force against you, you would be within your rights to use similar, proportionate force.

 

Being faced with the threat of being deliberately run over, the only option available is the use of a firearm...you technically have that right. Yes following the incident you would be arrested...but you have the rules of self defence on your side. completely. He should have his guns back. There is nothing in law that can stop him, other than the police unlawfully stopping him through the use of powers they have given themselves.

 

By way of a guide to the use of force...If an armed police officer faced the same scenario he would lawfully be allowed to fire. Yes he would then face an investigation into his actions, but I guarantee you he would return to active firearms duties following the investigation.

[krugerandsmith]

Good on the old guy, wonder what the outcome would have been if as suggested by some he stayed indoors and barricaded the door,,,,like he has no windows if they wanted to get in ,15 hours for the police to respond ,,,what could the two ******** have got up to in that time,all's well that ends well

 

Not really ..... He has to pay £30000 costs.

[Rewulf]

I must confess to not knowing anything about this incident. But the law, here again, regrettably, has overstepped the mark, and used the fear and repression of arms as a benchmark.

 

 

 

This is the incident

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/10165275.Shotgun_incident_farmer_s_anger_over_police_investigation/?ref=rss

 

It was discussed at length, but I either didnt comment on it,or my history doesnt go back far enough.

 

Edit ,found it with a search

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/254001-surprise-surprisesgc-revoked-for-farmer-who-was-attacked/?hl=edwards&do=findComment&comment=2223705

Edited March 11, 2017 by Rewulf

[Gordon R]

I have difficulty with some of the naïve views of the law:-

 

Being faced with the threat of being deliberately run over, the only option available is the use of a firearm...you technically have that right.

 

 

Another option would be to move out of the way, but let us not let facts cloud the issue.

 

Rewulf - thanks for the reminder. A very similar incident which didn't end well for the licence holder.

[yorkierm]

Cheers Rewulf.

 

That short article says very little about the incident, but again I maintain, he has acted entirely in self defence as it is currently written in law. Facing his mother being run over he acted accordingly. How else could he have prevented her death? How does he know if the driver is bluffing? The driver is using the vehicle as an offensive weapon...You don't actually have to hit someone to be proved to be acting offensively...

 

I appreciate your views Gordon, yes you can move out of the way, but that's only if its you they are aiming a vehicle at...in the case above they were driving at someone else. And as the law says you can defend another person lawfully. And sometimes situations happen so fast that you act first...thats why the law is written to hold your honestly held belief at the time into consideration.

 

Our laws are not fully designed to protect the innocent. And the police, who would see us all unarmed, are using their home made powers to attempt to achieve that fact.

 

Like I say, if a copper faced the same he would be let off and congratulated by his force, probably given a medal, and allowed back on duty...yet the rights he/she have are no greater than yours or mine. Carrying a firearm on duty is simply the extension of a persons inherent right to self defence, to someone who carries the tool for lethal force from a relatively safe distance.

[Gordon R]

yes you can move out of the way, but that's only if its you they are aiming a vehicle at...in the case above they were driving at someone else. And as the law says you can defend another person lawfully. And sometimes situations happen so fast that you act first...thats why the law is written to hold your honestly held belief at the time into consideration.

 

 

I am struggling with your logic. In this latest case, you accept he could have moved out of the way and no-one else was present, to be run over.

 

In a previous post :-

 

but I guarantee you he would return to active firearms duties following the investigation.

 

 

How can you justify a ludicrous claim like that?

[wascal]

 

By way of a guide to the use of force...If an armed police officer faced the same scenario he would lawfully be allowed to fire. Yes he would then face an investigation into his actions, but I guarantee you he would return to active firearms duties following the investiga

 

 

When I first did armed guard in the 90's our ROEs allowed us to fire on cars speeding towards us , But after some joyriding teenagers were shot in NI ,The MOD changed the rules .

Lawyers decided that we weren't in any danger - we could jump out of the way