Overdose Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Thing is, if he removed the gun from the garden and secured it in his house while he waited for the police to arrive, surely they'd still be able to prosecute him for possession of a firearm? Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdose Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 He wasn't specifically saying whether he challenges specific laws or challenges the whole system. Who cares? Or are you just looking to de-rail yet another topic with your inane ramblings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Crazy. He was just acting responsibly. Anyone who, having read that news item, now finds a gun will avoid alerting the police. The result will be more guns on the street. The law is an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 He wasn't specifically saying whether he challenges specific laws or challenges the whole system. Who cares? Or are you just looking to de-rail yet another topic with your inane ramblings? MilitaryDogOwner seems to, it's enough for me. Yes, if I am to referred to or see someone's comments possible misinterpreted. But I do agree with Jimbms. The law is an ass. Regardless of what the law says, he found a (seemingly) discarded gun and he handed it in. No harm, no problems. Why the punishment? . However, Jimbms has told us so many times something along the lines of that The Law is The Law. If you break it you SHOULD get punished. No excuses. Bit puzzling as to why he has changed his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 He wasn't specifically saying whether he challenges specific laws or challenges the whole system. Who cares? Or are you just looking to de-rail yet another topic with your inane ramblings? MilitaryDogOwner seems to, it's enough for me. Yes, if I am to referred to or see someone's comments possible misinterpreted. But I do agree with Jimbms. The law is an ass. Regardless of what the law says, he found a (seemingly) discarded gun and he handed it in. No harm, no problems. Why the punishment? . However, Jimbms has told us so many times something along the lines of that The Law is The Law. If you break it you SHOULD get punished. No excuses. Bit puzzling as to why he has changed his mind. Yes the law is the law but also common sense is common sense there is a big difference between some thieving toerag stealing and a person doing his civic duty, in this case although he had a technical posession of the firearm he did not have so intentionally he only took temporary possession as a means to ensure the safety of others same as if someone charges at you with a big fuck off machette and you hit him with the nearest thing you can get hold of and kill him, it is justifiable homicide and you could be found not guilty of his death, what I am saying is there should be a similar case of justifiable possession as he did so for the sake of safety to the public. Now had it been a one legged blind lesbian refugee from Albania who found the said weapon they would have no doubt got an award, heaven forbid an ex british soldier daring to handle a firearm and do his duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 The law is an ass. And so is this soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Jimbms, you really should know better than to post a thread on here containing just staightforward common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I think we are all broadly in agreement then; the law in this case is wrong. There is a procedure for this happens: people complain about it and it gets fixed. There are, though, very strong arguments for a system of strict liability in certain cases (industrial accidents, mass food poisoning, water pollution, accidents involving chemicals known to cause birth defects etc) and Denning does a very good job of summarizing these arguments and then dismissing them in one of his books. Whether or not the possession of a firearm should be strict liability though is a matter of opinion and I think that everyone on here seems to agree that in this case the motive should be taken into account so therefore we think it should not be strict liability. Bear in mind that strict liability offenses do not consider the motive. I suspect that the judge will also hold the same view as we seem to and will hand down the least sentence permissible and in time the machinations of government will get around to overturning the law and introducing the more normal concept of mens rea (which means guilty mind). This means that (unlike strict liability offenses) the guilty person must not only have done the act he must also have intended to break the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not in agreement, please don't imply I am, the law is correct here. If people carry on in such a cavalier & reckless manner tragedies will occur. His intentions were possibly good and if so I hope he is treated leniently (say a heavy fine and a suspended sentence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not in agreement, please don't imply I am, the law is correct here. If people carry on in such a cavalier & reckless manner tragedies will occur. His intentions were possibly good and if so I hope he is treated leniently (say a heavy fine and a suspended sentence). Declan, I'm sorry I didn't mean to misrepresent your view. But note that you say above "His intentions were possibly good...". This means you are considering his intentions. But since this is a strict liability offense his intentions being good or bad is irrelevant. In fact, in theory at least, he should get the same sentence as someone who kept a gun with the intention of killing someone. All I mean that i thought we (the thread) were broadly in agreement over was that his intentions SHOULD be considered. Ergo, this shouldn't be a strict liability offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 No it's something that should be taken into account when determining his punishment, but it's irrelevant when determining his guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yes the law is the law but also common sense is common sense there is a big difference between some thieving toerag stealing and a person doing his civic duty.I think you are shifting your position on matters. Your previous posts have always made out that the law must be obeyed regardless of what it is. But I do agree with this post, there is a difference. I'm not in agreement, please don't imply I am, the law is correct here. If people carry on in such a cavalier & reckless manner tragedies will occur.I find it hard to see how you think the law is right here. If he knew this law - he would have acted differently and if he is stupid - it isn't his fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 For what it’s worth I believe that the law had to run its course. If the guy had not been arrested and brought to court and it had become known what he had done, as was bound to happen, any toerag who was lifted carrying a weapon could use the “just found it guv, taking it to the nick” and had an excuse that a smart arsed lawyer could use. And would. What the guy should have done was call the police leaving things for them to resolve and not touched or even gone near the gun. I know it goes against all common sense, I know it would open a risk that someone might have picked it with goodness knows what consequences, but we live in a strange world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges. "I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. "At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall." Sorry to have to say it, but that story sounds like a complete load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.