20
   

Has England really become this ridiculous?

 
 
Carol Hemmerick
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:53 pm
@McGentrix,
It is disturbing that a former soldier is to receive up to five years jail time for turning the gun he found into the police. It would appear that doing the right thing was wrong. This story affects me
personally. My nephew, of St. Leonard's on Sea, Sussex was sentenced to five years in prison when a gun was found on his property. He had no knowledge of its existence. Neither his finger prints or his DNA were found on the gun though the prints of another individual were. The gun would appear to have been planted. My nephew with little doubt, is certain who put it there. I cannot help but think the law is unjust in both these cases. Yes, there was clearly possession of the guns but was clearly not the intent to use them. Neither of these men were given due process. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The way these cases have been handled is appalling. Were I living in England still I would crusade for these young men.

tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 09:59 pm
@Carol Hemmerick,
Ms. Hemmerick,
Let me give you my condolences for this injustice that's befallen your nephew.

Well even if it's this travesty of justice that brings you to our beloved forum, welcome aboard.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2009 10:18 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Yes, it seems to be more to it..

I've been reading here and it appears to be a lot more controversial..


A discussion forum, now that's authoratative.

Afterall, I'm sure they would let you participate.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 12:39 am
@Carol Hemmerick,
Carol Hemmerick wrote:

It is disturbing that a former soldier is to receive up to five years jail time for turning the gun he found into the police. It would appear that doing the right thing was wrong. This story affects me personally.
My nephew, of St. Leonard's on Sea, Sussex was sentenced to five years in prison when a gun was found on his property. He had no knowledge of its existence. Neither his finger prints or his DNA were found on the gun though the prints of another individual were. The gun would appear to have been planted. My nephew with little doubt, is certain who put it there. I cannot help but think the law is unjust in both these cases. Yes, there was clearly possession of the guns but was clearly not the intent to use them. Neither of these men were given due process. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The way these cases have been handled is appalling. Were I living in England still I would crusade for these young men.


Welcome to the forum, Miss Hemmerick.
My grandfather came from Devonshire, England
about 112 years ago. It is shocking and saddening
that the land of my ancestors has fallen under irrational tyranny.

Its Kafkaesque.

I understand that until around 1920, Englishmen were legally free
to arm themselves defensively. Traditionally, thay wore their
pocket watches and their revolvers. Thay were dignified.





David
P.S. Aberrations in my spelling are attributable
to my championing of fonetic spelling.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 12:46 am

It was part of the English Bill of Rights (100 years older than the American Bill of Rights)
that Protestants were free to defensively arm themselves.





David
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 02:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
there was once an English common law right to keep and bear arms (because no law forbade it), this is no longer the case and has not been so since Victorian times.

Gentlemen might have had guns at home - not for the reason you do David - but for hunting. A gentleman certainly did not carry any form of guns to work, to the theatre, a consert, a dinner or a ball.
You are getting carried away with you gun fantasies.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 03:44 am
Finn wrote:
A discussion forum, now that's authoratative.


A bit more than your spelling.

Some posters found the reading interesting, anyway...

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 04:08 am
@Carol Hemmerick,
People on this thread are confusing two issues: justice and the law. The law has nothing to do with justice despite all the hype. It is an organisational process that lives in a grey world and reflects the prejudice of those in power at the time. That we expect justice from the law is unreasonable but a very commonly held misconception.

The world is full of injustice to individuals but the law is there to organise large numbers of people, not to give justice to individuals.

I think most people would be shocked to know how many laws we have like this, where guilt is not a matter of intent but of simple association. The law said the association with a firearm made them guilty of a crime and they could not disprove association. Their intentions were not relevant. They were guilty, not innocent. It is not justice. It is the law.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 07:01 am

Justice is an arrangement of facts
of which the observer personally approves as being morally correct.

Different philosophers will disagree among themselves as to what justice is.





David
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 09:01 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

I agree. There are too many questions:

1. I wonder why he said he didn't know what to do - he's a soldier, is he not? And 27, not a child. Surely he must have some common sense.

2. And why wait till the next day? And why call the Chief Supt? Wouldn't you just call 911?

3. And why did he touch it?

I'd have looked in the bag, called the cops, and waited for them to show up.

I wonder if he's 'known to the police'.

Even so, if there is no more than that, do you think he deserves a jail sentence?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 11:17 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Even so, if there is no more than that, do you think he deserves a jail sentence?


Five years minimum - says the law.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 11:22 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Even so, if there is no more than that, do you think he deserves a jail sentence?


i think that's the question, if

he's had at least one other run in that made the newspapers and went to trial, it's possible he's well known to the cops

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 11:37 am
@Brandon9000,
I would think that a reasonable citizen, finding an abandoned firearm, would think that it might have been discarded by a criminal. Further, reasonable citizens should know not to disturb evidence any more than necessary.

He should have called the cops and said "someone abandoned a gun on my property; what should I do with it?"

Taking a firearm to a police station is just dumb.

For all we know, he's the guy the cops suspect of the crime, and this is a way to get him off the streets.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 02:03 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Quote:

I would think that a reasonable citizen, finding an abandoned firearm,
would think that it might have been discarded by a criminal.
So WHAT?? Its a SHOTGUN; it cannot be identified to any shooting; its smoothbore.



Quote:
Further, reasonable citizens should know not to disturb evidence any more than necessary.
Evidence of WHAT ??
A shotgun abandoned on your land.




Quote:
He should have called the cops and said "someone abandoned a gun on my property;
what should I do with it?"
Thay 'd probably have come and arrested him for what he possesses on his land.



Quote:
Taking a firearm to a police station is just dumb.
That 's true; he shud have kept it for his own use
or just thrown it away. Instead, he got an expensive lesson in trusting English police.
He ' ll have a long time to consider the wisdom thereof.



Quote:

For all we know, he's the guy the cops suspect of the crime,
and this is a way to get him off the streets.
Sure; u shud not use the streets, if police suspect u of something; yeah.





David
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 03:49 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Quote:

I would think that a reasonable citizen, finding an abandoned firearm,
would think that it might have been discarded by a criminal.
So WHAT?? Its a SHOTGUN; it cannot be identified to any shooting; its smoothbore.

Presumably, someone ditched the weapon for a reason. Blood? Fingerprints? Serial number that can match it to a theft?

You are insufficiently imaginative.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 04:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That 's true; he shud have kept it for his own use
or just thrown it away. Instead, he got an expensive lesson in trusting English police.
He ' ll have a long time to consider the wisdom thereof.


Well, he's actually old enough to have heard of the Firearms Act .... it's from 1968.

And the "Minimum sentence for certain firearms offences" [section 51a of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) - Criminal Justice Act 2003 Chapter 44 ] is law since 2003.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 06:10 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even so, if there is no more than that, do you think he deserves a jail sentence?


Five years minimum - says the law.

I said "deserves." I asked if it was fair, not for someone to quote the law.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 06:12 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Even so, if there is no more than that, do you think he deserves a jail sentence?


i think that's the question, if

he's had at least one other run in that made the newspapers and went to trial, it's possible he's well known to the cops

But if what occurred in this case is accurately reported in the article, is it fair? I'd say, clearly no. You leave the gun there, you go to jail. You report it, you go to jail. How is that fair? What did he do that merits five years in jail?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2009 06:13 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

I would think that a reasonable citizen, finding an abandoned firearm, would think that it might have been discarded by a criminal. Further, reasonable citizens should know not to disturb evidence any more than necessary.

He should have called the cops and said "someone abandoned a gun on my property; what should I do with it?"

Taking a firearm to a police station is just dumb.

For all we know, he's the guy the cops suspect of the crime, and this is a way to get him off the streets.

It may be dumb, but does it merit five years in prison?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Nov, 2009 02:16 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

I said "deserves." I asked if it was fair, not for someone to quote the law.


This "deserves" certainly can be seen differently, depending on where you live, your culture, your experiences, your ...

No British citizen, for instance, would think that someone crossing the street at a red light gets handcuffed.
No German could imagine to go to jail just because someone drinks alcohol at the age of 18.

Et cetera ...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Stupid Laws Thread - Discussion by Craven de Kere
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 02:21:54