Intruder shot

[fse10]

28 minutes ago, Breastman said:

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'.

Plus 1. 

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Dave-G said:

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.

Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

[old'un]

I am glad it was an illegally held gun.  

[tx4cabbie]

Laws are made based on society's needs, which does little for the individual and their more specialist requirements- 

Fine to say that weapons aren't allowed, as I'm a 20 stone lump, but my neighbours are 80+ and infirm, bat or broom will do nothing for them in the case of an attack by young fit thugs. 

Were there to be a class of defensive tool, allowed by law to those with no record of crime, and requiring photo id to acquire, perhaps marked with a serial number  (smartwater style) to prevent loan or unwitting transfer ("..its me nan's, innit!"), then individuals wouldn't feel the need to break the law. 

I fully appreciate the arguments about tooling up the police, criminals will need etc etc... but that doesn't do my wife any favours when accosted in the darkened car park , she doesnt feel any better knowing that she's one of the tiny percentage suffering violence in our society,  and that, whilst HER life may be ending tonight, most people will get home safely. 

Absolutely true that the elderly people didn't know what the scum had in store for them, but to be fair,  by the time you know you are to be the victim of a rape/murder rather than a burglary,  it's a bit late to change tack from the submissive ("take what you want but don't hurt me").

Agreed, illegal shotgun=bad.  Always. If you live a long way from help, or have no means of asking for help, though, is it not justified to find an effective means to protect yourself? 

[Good shot?]

In his position and us only having scant background information regarding facts etc I am sure he did the right thing in having an illegally held gun.

 

The end result is testimony to that IMO.The alternative outcome for him and his sister does not bear thinking about.

Unfortunately he now has to pay a (reduced) price.

[Dekers]

Not quite following this whole situation, something smells strange to me!

[toxo]

On 12/12/2017 at 11:01, Dave-G said:

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.

I agree.

Not only is the law an *** but it's a lottery of an *** that get's into gear when it suits. It's no longer the law that dictates any action to be taken, it's the CPS that have to establish whether or not a case is economically viable before spending money on it.

I can't abide "the law is the law" attitude. Any just and compassionate society should be able to tell whether a s case is black and white or does it have some grey bits. In this case The guy had been using the shotgun since the 70s, no doubt to provide some meals now and again. Illegally yes but would you really put him in the same bracket as the burglar caught in the street in the middle of the night with an illegal shotgun in a bag of tools and balaclavas? I don't condone illegal firearms but let's get real people. And I don't rule out the possibility of there being a "stash" somewhere either. The crooks didn't go to a caravan in the middle of a field to steal the crown jewells but all that is beside the point.

Unless more money is spent on the police force, as Dave G said, people will start to take things into their own hands. Of course this will never han under a Conservative Govt because the police force is another of those irritating things that don't actually make money so can be pruned without affecting the coffers.

[Gordon R]

Quote

 It's no longer the law that dictates any action to be taken, it's the CPS that have to establish whether or not a case is economically viable before spending money on it.

That is not correct. There are many factors, but finance plays little, if any, part.

[12gauge82]

The CPS will decide if a case is "in the public interest" and if there is "a reasonable prospect of prosecution" during the the evidential stage.

[12gauge82]

Cost does play a part in the public intrest stage of CPS decisions they will decide what the cost to the cps will be, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likley penalty. So toxo is quite correct in that respect.

Edited December 15, 2017 by 12gauge82

[walshie]

I think people have missed the possible reason why he was refused a SGC in the first place. 

Was it:

A: Because he lived in a caravan?
or
B: Because he was a weirdo living in the woods with his sister?.

Either way he was refused and chose to ignore that. 

Fearing for your safety doesn't entitle you to break the law or we'd all have handguns when we went to the pub. 

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, walshie said:

 

A: Because he lived in a caravan?
or
B: Because he was a weirdo living in the woods with his sister?.

 

Im not certain , but I think people are still entitled to live how they choose,as long as its legal .

But I know what you mean with caravaners ! 

29 minutes ago, walshie said:

 

Fearing for your safety doesn't entitle you to break the law or we'd all have handguns when we went to the pub. 

Might make the pool match more interesting !

Seriously though, they had one similar terrifying attack years before, from which his mother never recovered and died soon after, he tried to acquire a shotgun legally after that, and was refused (quite rightly) because of storage issues, and probably because he used self defence as a reason ?
We have to live by the laws of this land, it doesnt always mean they are right.
Good luck to the old man, I hope hes out before long, and gets a bit of crowd funding or someone drops him a few quid.

[Scully]

I’m firmly of the belief that if the state cannot protect you ( and to suggest it can is dangerously naive ) then you should not be prosecuted for protecting yourself. If the state is so terrified to entrust its law abiding citizens the means to effectively defend themselves to the extent those law abiding citizens have to break the law to do so, then it is a sad reflection of that state. 

[Rewulf]

 

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m firmly of the belief that if the state cannot protect you ( and to suggest it can is dangerously naive ) then you should not be prosecuted for protecting yourself. If the state is so terrified to entrust its law abiding citizens the means to effectively defend themselves to the extent those law abiding citizens have to break the law to do so, then it is a sad reflection of that state. 

+1

[ordnance]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m firmly of the belief that if the state cannot protect you ( and to suggest it can is dangerously naive ) then you should not be prosecuted for protecting yourself. If the state is so terrified to entrust its law abiding citizens the means to effectively defend themselves to the extent those law abiding citizens have to break the law to do so, then it is a sad reflection of that state. 

You will not be prosecuted for defending yourself if it was justified. What the state allows citizens to legally obtain to use to defend themselves is a different matter, very few countries allow firearms for example for self defence. 

[Scully]

Just now, ordnance said:

You will not be prosecuted for defending yourself if it was justified. What the state allows citizens to legally obtain to use to defend themselves is a different matter, very few countries allow firearms for example for self defence. 

I don’t care; if the old boy who is the subject of this topic had abided by the law, there is a strong possibility he and his wife would now be dead. 

The law is an ***. 

[ordnance]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

I don’t care; if the old boy who is the subject of this topic had abided by the law, there is a strong possibility he and his wife would now be dead. 

The law is an ***. 

That's up to the individual to decide if they abide by the law or not, and take their chances if they are caught.

[Scully]

Correct. 

[old man]

Maybe we have arrived at this situation due to; 

A micromanaged Police Force unable to function effectively?

A constant political erosion of personal freedoms relating to the ability to apply reasonable self-defence to family?

An incessant dilution of the rule of law by making many concessions on the basis of the lawbreaker being disadvantaged or special so requiring lenient treatment and reduced sentences? 

Maybe leading to a sad and irreversible situation that will probably not end well?

Not being aware of any of the facts in this case I would propose that we must uphold the law such as it is, I would have expected him to have been subjected to the full weight of the law relating to illegally held firearms, as would be prescribed in that law.

It is surely not a valid defence to quote what may have happened?

Just a personal view.