TIGHTCHOKE Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Blimey I didn't expect that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Some common sense in our courts for a change, still think there is more to this than a burglary. They were geared up for torture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 What a brilliant result regarding the victims and the culprits. With a bit of luck the victims might find their way into proper housing now too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 In two minds on this one, It would seem that he had good reason to shoot the scumbag but he used an illegally held shotgun. then again it would look like he had reason to have it and I think the headlines may have been a bit different if he hadn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me matt Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 I'm surprised he only got 10 months for illegal possession Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 I agree with the opinion he did no more than necessary to protect himself, but why only 10 months for illegally holding a shotgun? I think that part is joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 It's a tough one, how can you punish someone for an illegal shotgun, when the outcome in this case is likely they'd have been tortured and possibly murdered If he didn't have it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 30 minutes ago, walshie said: I agree with the opinion he did no more than necessary to protect himself, but why only 10 months for illegally holding a shotgun? I think that part is joke. Would be interesting to read the Judge's summing up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 I assume his age etc was taken into account. Quote General nature of offence: Possessing, etc. shot gun without shot gun certificate. Mode of Trial: Triable Either Way.Punishment: (a) Summary 6 months or the statutory maximum; or both [Applies to Scotland only.] (b) On indictment 5 years or a fine; or both . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 43 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: It's a tough one, how can you punish someone for an illegal shotgun, when the outcome in this case is likely they'd have been tortured and possibly murdered If he didn't have it? Sorry but struggling to understand the logic here and with a few other similar posts. How can u justify owning an illegal gun full stop?? Does that mean other people who expect to get attacked are ok to tool up on the quiet? it's not a massive leap for crim's to tool up and justify it as they will have a good chance of being attacked.. Ur not really a massive leap of faith away from all those kids that used to carry chibs/knifes just in case they need it. I've said all along there must be more to this case, it just doesn't really make an awful lot of sense. Not sure if the sentence is harsh or not, I'm sure I've heard/read of 'proper' crims getting away with having illegal guns and not doing any jail time, which I think is wrong. They're needs to be a really harsh detterent to put folk of owning illegal guns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strimmer_13 Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 glad to see the other ****** got 10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Whilst I think he got off lightly for illegal possession, overall I think justice has been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 Without having been in the Courtroom for the duration of the trial, we will never really know all the facts of the case and the proceeedings. Court cases depend on advocacy, so how strident were the prosecution? Or were they just going through the motions? How good were the defence? And finally was the defendant lucky to have Judge Paul Dugdale presiding? He has certainly made some controversial rulings in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonk Posted December 11, 2017 Report Share Posted December 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Whilst I think he got off lightly for illegal possession, overall I think justice has been done. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 I don’t know what to think of this really. He was in illegal possession, but if he hadn’t been there’s a good chance he would now be dead and his killers free to roam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 (edited) I'm thinking the case has some scumbag deterent value in that they can never be sure what defence tools people in their own home might have available - legally or otherwise. Edited December 12, 2017 by Dave-G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 It just doesn't sit right with me. If someone had just been done for an illegally held gun on say a random search, people would be baying for the maximum sentence. He used said illegally held gun which obviously makes the situation far worse, but according to opinion somehow it makes it justifiable? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he wasn't hurt and the scumbags deserved what they got, but surely this is sending out the wrong message. It makes it look like having a gun illegally is bad, but as long as you use it, you will get of with a lighter sentence. There's a lot more to this than the snippets we've been drip fed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 12 hours ago, scotslad said: Sorry but struggling to understand the logic here and with a few other similar posts. How can u justify owning an illegal gun full stop?? Does that mean other people who expect to get attacked are ok to tool up on the quiet? it's not a massive leap for crim's to tool up and justify it as they will have a good chance of being attacked.. Ur not really a massive leap of faith away from all those kids that used to carry chibs/knifes just in case they need it. I've said all along there must be more to this case, it just doesn't really make an awful lot of sense. Not sure if the sentence is harsh or not, I'm sure I've heard/read of 'proper' crims getting away with having illegal guns and not doing any jail time, which I think is wrong. They're needs to be a really harsh detterent to put folk of owning illegal guns I would never usually condone illegal gun ownership but I'm trying to use common sense in this case, reading between the lines it seems to me they've lived in the same caravan since 1964, I'm guessing they were the type who just keep themselves to themselves, the shotgun was probably owned before licencing was needed and may even have been handed down through the family, I'm also assuming the guys led an otherwise law abiding life. Now imprisonment is supposed to deter and rehabilitate you from doing furher crime, tell me, if you had just used a gun to save your own and sisters life illegally held or not, do you think given the option to re-live that event you would chose not to have the gun and face you and your sister being murdered or killed. I think youd do exactly the same thing again. So what purpose does jailing him serve? If it's to deter others I think that' very harsh as they'e essentally used the bloke as a political scape goat who did nothing more than save his and his sisters life. This obviously assumes that my assumptions are correct and there's not alot of further issues to this case, but if my assumptions are correct, that is my reasoning, like I said, a tough one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 Could have been a frying pan that he killed the intruder with. Personally I dont think it matters if the shotgun was held legally or not, if the intruders had not have been there they would still be watching Jeremy this morning. The old chap held the shotgun because of his lack of faith in our police force or justice system. He felt the need to defend his life and property in anyway he felt fit legally or not. Basically he was at the end of his options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 In the press, there was talk of him having had a shotgun since the 1970s & £20+k of cash and gold in a safe. based on what the scumballs arrived with, I don't think they were there to help clean the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 I'm not picking an argument here, but a lot of people have no faith in our police or justice system. Does that give them the right to have illegal guns? Does that mean they should be able to walk down the high street with a machete in case they are mugged? Where would it end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 A fair result on both charges in my mind. The intent of the person in possession of the uncertified gun plays the bigger part in the equation, rather than the simple possession. IMO there is a world of difference to a pensioner in the middle of nowhere having one for 'just in case'/an old war trophy etc and a teenager actively engaged in gang behaviour having one to 'protect themselves'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 You're right about no confidence in the police to routinely enforce the law, Police numbers and funding are causing them to prioritise - and PC seems be at the top of the list. Not saying what is right or wrong but lets face it - the police have all but disappeared from the streets - and that's wrong, Those who are able to protect themselves legally or otherwise are more likely to do whatever it takes to do what the police can't or won't. We can't be far off more otherwise blameless ordinary civilians taking the law into their own hands as a preventative measure. I anticipate more far right feelings being shown more openly too - and new less tolerant political parties gaining more seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Ruler Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 I read yesterday that he obtained the gun years ago following a previous attack, then applied for a certificate but was turned down, but kept the gun anyway. I wonder why he was turned down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted December 12, 2017 Report Share Posted December 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said: I read yesterday that he obtained the gun years ago following a previous attack, then applied for a certificate but was turned down, but kept the gun anyway. I wonder why he was turned down? My understanding is the caravan wasn't considered secure enough. 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.