yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 pitch black night, loud running engine getting louder indicating it is advancing towards you, pure fear of the victim, (83 years old) not knowing where to go...only thinking you are about to be attacked, possibly run over and killed...then what...does the assailant enter your home and attack your wife? What if they take you hostage? even more fear... I fully understand your confusion sir, the law in this case is a very very complicated issue. But that said, the rights to self defence are the same for every human in the land. And yes, if a firearms officer acted within the bounds here he would be returned to active duty. Google rules of engagment... The rights of someone who carries a firearm on duty are simply the extension of the rights of self defence. If you killed an intruder with a kitchen knife because he was trying to attack you with a knife...do you think you would then be banned from owning cutlery ever again? why is it so different with the case of a firearm being involved, despite the fact that as we all now know the definition of an offensive weapon, the rights of self defence... it is simply because the powers that be are trying there very utmost to remove all privately owned firearms. Not because there are (yet) specific laws to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 If you are a law student, I suggest you do a little more work. The case does not confuse me, nor does the law. What does confuse me is your naïve interpretation. Leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions at Olympic level. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 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 Its half way between the 2 now mate. You can only use lethal force to protect life...so yes you can jump out of the way...but you would also not be prosecuted if you opened fire, if you are in genuine fear for your life you have the legal right to defend it. There are always variables in these situations, and yes there should always be an investigation into actions...but it is not wrong, in the eyes of the law for an armed copper to fire when being faced with being run over...so why is it wrong for a member of the public? Answer... It is not... But the police will not support it for fear of supporting vigilantism...not because you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 yorkierm - It is some time since I came across an armchair barrister of your standing. No doubt, when the farmer applies for his SGC, you will be available to rip any Police concerns to shreds. Problem solved. I will leave the debate to you. I am bound to say that your view of the law seems almost totally flawed. :no: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 yorkierm - It is some time since I came across an armchair barrister of your standing. No doubt, when the farmer applies for his SGC, you will be available to rip any Police concerns to shreds. Problem solved. I will leave the debate to you. I am bound to say that your view of the law seems almost totally flawed. :no: No armchair barristers here sir, just someone with a sound understanding of what is right and wrong and not scared to admit to it. In both cases named in this, no one has been convicted of any crime, as they acted within the rules of self defence. I am also not saying that I support the use of firearms for self defence...But in situations where they are used, and it is proven that it was lawful self defence, what reason is there to be refused a gun licence...no crime is committed... As already aluded to, should they be banned from owning a knife if they used a knife to defend them self? or perhaps you would prefer they got made to live in a tent because they had used a house brick? These people are no threat to society, they have not run amok in a town with a firearm, there is no reason they should not be allowed one., other than the police acting out of relative spite. Sorry you cannot grasp this. I sincerely hope you never have the cause to consider if had you had your gun you may have a had a better method to defend yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonk Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 The only thing that confuses me is how the Police are allowed to use a lawful act against an individual to revoke / refuse. Illogical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) :lol: Not directed at you Gonk. Edited March 11, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 I cant answer that mate, but bearing in mind that its the police who issue our licences...if they don't want you to have one, you wont get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 As already aluded to, should they be banned from owning a knife if they used a knife to defend them self? or perhaps you would prefer they got made to live in a tent because they had used a house brick? These people are no threat to society, they have not run amok in a town with a firearm, there is no reason they should not be allowed one., other than the police acting out of relative spite. Sorry you cannot grasp this. I sincerely hope you never have the cause to consider if had you had your gun you may have a had a better method to defend yourself. There is no licence applicable for ownership of a knife,or indeed a house brick. You really need to read the entire thread about farmer Edwards ,and try to see that your logic is flawed. Firearms grants and renewals are not a right as such,but more a privilege granted on risk assessment,Im not going to argue with you on the definition of privilege either. But in this case and farmer Edwards,the powers that be, may decide that,even though both men did nothing wrong in the eyes of law ,they 'may' be a future risk. They will always err on the side of caution, as recent incidents where guns have been given back show, tragedy can sometimes follow. Then the anti/self righteous brigade will demand why the guns/licences were reinstated to such an 'obviously dangerous ' individual. I hope this helps you understand some of the replies you have had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 :lol: Not directed at you Gonk. And what prey tell is your legal back ground to be able to insist so fervently that they should not be allowed their guns back? what danger to society do you in your legal wisdom think they present? No I am no lawyer sir, but I have a very firm, sound, trained and tested grasp on this from a military perspective. And bearing in mind that every single person in the UK has exactly the same rights... If It is right for an armed copper or soldier to act in one way, and in the circumstances outlined in both of these cases it would be lawful for them to open fire...And I can absolutely assure you that it is. why not a civilian? You have the same rights. The only possible answer is the police attempting to remove firearms from private ownership. Not because there is a genuine risk to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich1984 Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 Right or wrong who knows... I suspect the only reason the got off is the fact he is an 80 odd year old man. Im 100% certain had he been a young man it would have been a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Rewuld - you have stated it plainly and correctly, for all those who choose to ignore reality.If the Police say that they have reservations about returning his SGC, as he has already used it to shoot someone, albeit in a moment of fear and was acquitted of the alleged offence - does anyone honestly think that a Court is going to over-rule that and insist he has his SGC back?yorkierm - just where have I said this:- so fervently that they should not be allowed their guns back? Despite your claim to have specialist knowledge, you do not appear to be able to read, without jumping to a silly conclusion. I suspect he won't get them back - there is a difference. Edited March 11, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 I'm amazed that some people think that a 84yr old man has the agility of a 20yr old to just jump out of the way of a moving car. In his mind set at the time, he probably thought that the only way to defend himself was to discharge his gun. Well done to the jury for the outcome, as for retaining his S/G Cert I really don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 And what prey tell is your legal back ground to be able to insist so fervently that they should not be allowed their guns back? I wouldnt go there And bearing in mind that every single person in the UK has exactly the same rights... No they dont Im afraid, not when it comes to firearm ownership. And to say you have the same rights as a soldier or police to use firearms for self defence,sorry mate ,youre well off there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 Gents I do not disagree with you that that is how they (the Police) will approach it. I am simply stating that in both cases, had an armed cop been present, and acted the same way, he would very unlikely have been prosecuted, and been allowed to return to active duty. And in doing so I am asking where the difference lies between a civilian and copper, despite all our rights being exactly the same. It is not because they acted wrongly. They defended themselves in accordance with the law. The refusal to re grant any form of licence is not because there is a risk, its because the police are too scared to admit and support these men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 A soldier or armed Police Officer would be carrying a firearm because it is their job, whereas the farmer chose to arm himself. If anyone can't see the difference, I really do feel sorry for them. The refusal to re grant any form of licence is not because there is a risk, This will come as a shock to most GPs, who are asked to comment on the grant of an SGC and also FEOs, who will question whether they have totally misunderstood the purpose of their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkierm Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Guys I do not wish to get off on the wrong foot with any of you. We are all shooters and as such should support one another, and I do not wish to cause undue arguments. But we all know that we as a community are persecuted because of the actions of a few men in the past, which was ultimately the fault of poorly enforced licencing by the police, and a badly written, confusing and not fit for modern society set of firearms laws which are in urgent need of a fair and workable rewrite. Yes firearms ownership is now a privilege. Again more down to the above statement than anything... But as far as self defence goes, yes we all have exactly the same rights, copper, soldier, civvy. you do not need a gun to inflict lethal force, a well placed punch can and has done it. And as we have already ascertained, an offensive weapon can be anything. Certain roles in society are allowed to carry guns...but their rights to self defence are the same. They have no greater right to kill someone just because they have a gun, and you can just as easily kill without one...it just gives the user a degree of safe distance. I agree that it'll be unlikely that he gets his guns back, but I am arguing the fact there is no lawful reason that he should be refused. Where is the risk? neither of these men chased down an assailant after scaring them off to gun them down...They made a hasty decision as they were scared. Hence self defence. You could argue that the elderly man went equipped...my arguement is that the law should defend his right to do this. If he had picked up a baseball bat and hit the man over the head causing brain damage he would not likely be facing loosing his guns, because a gun wasnt involved. Or do you think that had he done this then there is still cause to remove his SGC? If your home gets broken into tonight and you confront the burglar holding the cleaver from the kitchen draw, then you are arming yourself, in the hope that your presence, displaying what is now an offensive weapon, will scare them off, and in the hope that you do not have to do anything other than stand there and look threatening enough. What if it doesnt? If you then stab him, and he dies, should you have your guns revoked because you killed someone, on your property, in an act of self defence? It is only the police trying to to disarm everyone that will lead to it, not the fact he is a danger to anyone else. Edited March 11, 2017 by yorkierm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonk Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 No worries Gordon, I didn't take it as it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AULD YIN Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) I'm amazed that some people think that a 84yr old man has the agility of a 20yr old to just jump out of the way of a moving car. In his mind set at the time, he probably thought that the only way to defend himself was to discharge his gun. Well done to the jury for the outcome, as for retaining his S/G Cert I really don't know. I wonder if some members were put in the same situation would their actions be the same as they are saying ,sitting on their chair with a computer in front of them Edited March 12, 2017 by AULD YIN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 The mollusc that was shot in the foot lives in Bradford. Hi sdriver that did a bunk was from Oldham. Surely there are closer rabbits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 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. That doesn't equate Gordon? He was presumably on his own land and could have bee going out to shoot a fox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 That doesn't equate Gordon? He was presumably on his own land and could have bee going out to shoot a fox? The three-day trial was told how Mr Hugill was woken by a light at his bedroom window at around 02:00 before he got dressed and went outside, with his shotgun, to investigate So he was just popping out to shoot a fox was he? its all irrelevant as he was found not guilty, what is now relevant is if he is given back or gets to keep his licence? It has not been mentioned in any reporting, i should imagine over the last few weeks the least of his worries were his ticket to be honest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 ph1572 - that is the crux. I am not against the farmer, as I have said on more than one occasion. I have every sympathy for his plight, but sympathy will not help him keep his certificate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Agreed. What is the source of your statement about what the court was told, transcript? press? It's all about how you tell the story under interview and in court, the people who caused this, probably, from experience had more of an insight of the process? There is no doubt in my mind that his prime concern might be the fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Whether he keeps his licence is a separate issue but there appears to be little doubt in the law surrounding this case - as to how black and white it was, all over in less than half an hour. That says much about what you need to know about the legality of his actions. 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.