Police - Gun madness?

Nitefly · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:05

Andelusion said:
That's horrendous. Yes maybe he could have gone about it differently instead of carrying the shotgun to the station and putting it on the counter. But surely they can't prove that the shotgun actually belonged to him? He doesn't actually own the shotgun, doesn't he?

I think this is horrendous and providing the story in the OP's link is true then I think it's a massive injustice. Imagine if you were in his position and completely helpless to defend yourself and guilty only because of a gaping hole in the law?

There isn't any gaping hole in the law. The law is that there is absolutely no justification for having an illegal firearm at any time. Ever. This makes it easier to prosecute people who are found to have these weapons.

I do really sympathise with the 'victim', but it really was quite foolish to do what he did.

bledd · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:08

edscdk said:
But you would have still been in possession of the gun and jsut as guilty?? you would have had to have not touched it at all.. but if it was in your gargen maybe they will say it must have been yours?

You have to assume in this case the reason it's escalated out of control is because he just whacked it out on the desk (presumably without telling them first)

Common sense says you wouldn't call them up if you were likely to get in trouble for it.

The fact that he took it around in public isn't great!

Brian Stuart · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:12

Rich1988 said:
Whilst that seems utterly stupid to give him that sentence (and it is) I would if I found a gun phone the police and leave the gun where it was in case of forensic evidence etc

He will not be sentenced until Dec 11th and I strongly suspect he will plead guilty and recieve a conditional discharge or something similar.

Here is a link to the CPS site regarding sentencing guidelines

matt_fsr · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:12

I'm quite glad that I didnt bother involving the Police recently.

My g/f went to the house of a friend who had recently died, and whilst cleaning out the place found a gun she couldnt identify. She's not daft, so she called me over.

It turned out to be a 'long' rifle, most likely a decorative style flintlock copy, rather battered and quite useless - however I suspect the one-legged man used to carry it on walks to make himself feel safer.

It's still in the house, but I'm not getting the Police involved - I'll strip it, burn the wood and hacksaw it up into unrecognisable bits and distribute across multiple wheelie bins.

The scary bit is what would I do if this was a real shotgun? I'd truly be stuffed then!

Casdawer · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:16

Common sense fails again.

jp_bl_68 · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:18

Casdawer said:
Common sense fails again.

Clarke's or the police's?

Von Smallhausen · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:34

doofer said:
I've handed in someone's lost Shotgun Cartridges before with absolutely no problem, didn't even ask my name, just a 'Thank you, where did you find them?' and I was gone, better to hand them in rather than have some kids throwing them on a fire or trying to set them off with bricks whilst filming it for YouTube...

Possession of shotgun ammunition is not illegal.

scorza said:
No it is the fault of the police for the reasons I gave. The police aren't supposed to be mindless robots arresting anyone and everyone they can for the smallest of infringements. The notion of public interest comes into play here, and it is clearly not in the public interest to prosecute this chap.

It is not the fault of the police at all. Discression has been largely removed since New Labour came to power.

Custody sergeants have largely had charging decisions removed from them through the Statutory Charge Scheme where only minor section 39 assaults, drunk and disorderly, section 5 public order and other minor crimes can be dealt with by them.

Anything else, such as ABH and whether contested or not, has to have a charge authorised by the CPS

Anything to do with firearms is the responsibility of the CPS to authorise a charge or not and it was their decision to prosecute this man, not the police.

There is no statutory defence in law for possession of a firearm, which needs to be addressed, but a cop has no discretion when it comes to firearms.

Not so long back, I arrested a seemingly decent man who had his house burgled when I found an unlicenced firearm and ammunition in his house. I took no pleasure in adding to his misery at all but it comes down to that word discression. You have none in anything to do with firearms.

Von Smallhausen · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:39

matt_fsr said:
I'm quite glad that I didnt bother involving the Police recently.

My g/f went to the house of a friend who had recently died, and whilst cleaning out the place found a gun she couldnt identify. She's not daft, so she called me over.

It turned out to be a 'long' rifle, most likely a decorative style flintlock copy, rather battered and quite useless - however I suspect the one-legged man used to carry it on walks to make himself feel safer.

It's still in the house, but I'm not getting the Police involved - I'll strip it, burn the wood and hacksaw it up into unrecognisable bits and distribute across multiple wheelie bins.

The scary bit is what would I do if this was a real shotgun? I'd truly be stuffed then!

Why would you be ?

If it is in the house, tell the cops the truth and don't touch it.

I know of a job where a widow found an old Webley service revolver that was a war trophy to her late husband. She found it, didn't touch it, phoned the police and an ARV crew attended before making it safe, having a cuppa and taking it away with a thank you.

Where the fella in the OP went wrong is he touched the firarm and handed it in personally when the law does not cater for that.

Coldzero · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:50

Our legal system is a joke. :/

Gaygle · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:53

Does anyone else find it strange that he called the Chief Superintendent and just said "I'm coming to see you tomorrow". If that really did happen, surely the Chief Superintendent would have asked why?

And surely, if you call the police station after just finding a gun, you.....mention you've just found a gun?

matt_fsr · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:53

Von Smallhausen said:
Why would you be ?

If it is in the house, tell the cops the truth and don't touch it.

I know of a job where a widow found an old Webley service revolver that was a war trophy to her late husband. She found it, didn't touch it, phoned the police and an ARV crew attended before making it safe, having a cuppa and taking it away with a thank you.

Where the fella in the OP went wrong is he touched the firarm and handed it in personally when the law does not cater for that.

Agreed, but even on your advice - given what you've just posted about the removal of any Police discretion, I'm too afraid of making a mistake or getting caught in some arbitrary loophole. No thanks, i'll dispose of it how i see fit.

Gaygle · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:54

matt_fsr said:
Agreed, but even on your advice - given what you've just posted about the removal of any Police discretion, I'm too afraid of making a mistake or getting caught in some arbitrary loophole. No thanks, i'll dispose of it how i see fit.

Oh stop being so dramatic. :rolleyes:

You've found an ancient gun, which doesn't work, that used to belong to an old man.

I know you're trying to make some kind of point, but i'm not quite sure what it is...

scorza · 19 Nov 2009 at 15:54

Von Smallhausen said:
It is not the fault of the police at all. Discression has been largely removed since New Labour came to power.

Custody sergeants have largely had charging decisions removed from them through the Statutory Charge Scheme where only minor section 39 assaults, drunk and disorderly, section 5 public order and other minor crimes can be dealt with by them.

Anything else, such as ABH and whether contested or not, has to have a charge authorised by the CPS

Anything to do with firearms is the responsibility of the CPS to authorise a charge or not and it was their decision to prosecute this man, not the police.

There is no statutory defence in law for possession of a firearm, which needs to be addressed, but a cop has no discression when it comes to firearms.

Not so long back, I arrested a seemingly decent man who had his house burgled when I found an unlicenced firearm and ammunition in his house. I took no pleasure in adding to his misery at all but it comes down to that word discression. You have none in anything to do with firearms.

Odd then that the police do have discretionary powers over rape then. Personally I would say that rape was a more serious offence than possession of a firearm. Says it all :rolleyes:

matt_fsr · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:06

Gaygle said:
Oh stop being so dramatic. You've found an ancient gun, which doesn't work, that used to belong to an old man.

I know you're trying to make some kind of point, but i'm not quite sure what it is...

Ever noticed that possession of an imitation firearm carries the same sentence as a real firearm?

Another of those delicate legal nuances..... :rolleyes:

Burnsy2023 · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:17

scorza said:
Odd then that the police do have discretionary powers over rape then. Personally I would say that rape was a more serious offence than possession of a firearm. Says it all

Really? Where did you get that from?

Casdawer · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:29

jp_bl_68 said:
Clarke's or the police's?

Both.

The guy should have phoned telling the police he had found a weapon and they would have come and picked it up.

The police should realise he was handing in the weapon so he was no threat to them and he was just doing his civil duty.

jp_bl_68 · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:31

It seems harsh but to let it slide could set a dangerous precedent. Besides, there must be more to this story than we're being told. Why are no major British news outlets paying it any attention?

scorza · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:42

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8350781.stm

Research by Panorama found 739 people charged with grievous bodily harm were given cautions in England and Wales in 2008.

Cases of burglary, child neglect, sexual assault and even rape were also dealt with by caution last year.

But no doubt you'll come up with an obscure reason why the system is all working perfectly. I mean, it's not like people are resorting to private police forces is it?

teaboy5 · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:44

Burnsy2023 said:
No, it's up to the police to decide if a law had been broken, it clearly had, and they had a duty to arrest and pass the details to the CPS. It's up to the CPS to decide if it's in the public interest to prosecute.

Out of interest are you in the police?

Richie · 19 Nov 2009 at 16:47

Ummm why is everyone saying there is NO defence to this ?? I assume he has been convicted of a section 19 of the firearms act 1968 which states -

A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place

(a)a loaded shot gun,

(b)an air weapon (whether loaded or not),

(c)any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or

(d)an imitation firearm.

So this "the law doesnt cater for this kind of thing" nonsense is incorrect.

Remember also that it took "The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction" so its Joe Bloggs off the street like me and you that decided his excuse wasn't valid enough....

Police - quite correct in arresting/reporting
CPS - wrong bringing it to trial
Jury - fools for convicting.
Judge - Hopefully he will see sense come sentencing time and do the right thing.