This will make me think very carefully before coming to the UK.

[Mark Rippetoe]

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

It is amazing that the culture that produced the Magna Carta has degenerated to this.

[JM3]

If you see a gun or any contraband, keep it or dont touch it- thats common sense.
I damn sure wouldnt pick it up and run it over to the cop shop as a friendly gesture of citizenship
- Im sorry for him yeah- but this guy is pretty naive where the police are concerned.

[GianMilano]

I had to read that article a few times just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. If I understand it correctly, the government which trained that man to handle firearms is now imprisoning him for handling one.

How can people have faith in a state that enforces such ridiculous rules? Why aren't people rioting in the streets, flipping cars and setting shit on fire? That guy is going to go to jail for five years. They're going to take five years of that man's life without batting an eye. I don't live in England and won't set foot there, ever, if I can help it, but one can't help but be upset that such a thing can happen to anyone anywhere. If only people knew how hard they're getting fucked.

[Mark Rippetoe]

You didn't read the article very well: 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." Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

By the time he knew what it was, he was already fucked. As far as being naive about the cops in the UK, there are a lot of people who are less naive now.

[tmatt]

If you see a gun or any contraband, keep it or dont touch it- thats common sense.
I damn sure wouldnt pick it up and run it over to the cop shop as a friendly gesture of citizenship
- Im sorry for him yeah- but this guy is pretty naive where the police are concerned.

If his story is true, he found a bag in his garden, took it inside, and it contained a gun. He was then in possession of a gun and breaking the law. So, with this reasoning, I don't think he could have done anything. If he had called the police to his home because he found a bag with a gun, he could be charged with the same crime. There is nothing he could do. Simply by picking up a bag in his garden, he became a criminal. It wasn't as straightforward as seeing a gun on the ground and picking it up.

[GianMilano]

If you see a gun or any contraband, keep it or dont touch it- thats common sense.
I damn sure wouldnt pick it up and run it over to the cop shop as a friendly gesture of citizenship
- Im sorry for him yeah- but this guy is pretty naive where the police are concerned.

The part that really strikes me as unfair is that the man is a former soldier and probably felt obligated to turn the gun in, maybe under some sense of civic duty derived from his service in the military. It's just sad. But, as Rip points out, people in the UK are less naive as a result of things like this. They still have shitty food though.

[coreJack]

Three failures allowed for this miscarriage of justice.

1. The law should have included an exception for this good samaritan type of situation.

2. The prosecutor should have declined to prosecute this case.

3. The jury should have come back with a not guilty verdict. They don't tell you this as a juror, but even if a defendant is without a doubt guilty of breaking a law (i.e., there is no factual dispute as to whether a law was violated), the jury can return a not guilty verdict. Even if one of the jurors insisted on not guilty, they would have had a hung jury. But instead, the jurors behaved like lemmings, thinking they were handcuffed by the laws.

[Kyle Aaron]

He carried the firearm with its ammunition through the town, concealed in that plastic bag. This was not a wise course of action; had he been mugged or had an accident, the firearm could have passed to someone less law-abiding.

You see something dodgy, you report it and wait for the cops to come to you. It's a bit like how when they pull you over in your car, you're not meant to get out of the car and say hello, you let them come to you.

For example, if you found a bin bag with 10kg of heroin in your yard, would you grab it, putting your fingerprints all over it, walk through the streets with it, then into the cop shop with it? You could, but it would not be a brilliant thing to do. Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it.

That said, he ought not to have been charged at all. Before panicking about the results of this trial, best to note that he has not yet been sentenced; the judge may order an entirely suspended sentence, after which no conviction is recorded. Or he may be sentenced and appeal, and the conviction be quashed; that happens from time to time. We don't expect our justice system to be perfect at every level, just for them to get it more or less right in the end.

We have to wait and see. If we hear nothing more, it probably means justice was done. It's like when you hear about someone suing someone for something ridiculous, then never hear about it again... it's because in the end the judge said, "don't be stupid," and that was that.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Are you a Brit, Kyle?

[Bolla]

It seems that this rather unfair sentence was foretold by some when the law was passed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2634285.stm

My bet is that this poor fellow will not go to jail if he appeals the verdict. Lower courts often don't feel they have the authority to create precedence.

[JC400]

Unfortunately this is not that hard to believe our judicial system like our government is severely lacking in the common-sense department.


We don't expect our justice system to be perfect at every level, just for them to get it more or less right in the end.

Maybe we should not expect our justice system to be perfect but we should definitely expect more from it. Guy tries to do right thing and hand in firearm and is looking at 5 year sentence vs Child rapist that gets freed only to commit further offence next week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8290669.stm

hmm...yes the judge got this more or less right in the end. Pity it has ruined an innocent child and families life in the process.

[Alyion]

He carried the firearm with its ammunition through the town, concealed in that plastic bag. This was not a wise course of action; had he been mugged or had an accident, the firearm could have passed to someone less law-abiding.

Because all criminals are hanging around street corners waiting to mug guys carrying bin liners in the off chance it contains a firearm?

If criminals want a gun they will get one very easily

You see something dodgy, you report it and wait for the cops to come to you. It's a bit like how when they pull you over in your car, you're not meant to get out of the car and say hello, you let them come to you.

Which would take 6 weeks for them to arrive, only to be arrested anyway

For example, if you found a bin bag with 10kg of heroin in your yard, would you grab it, putting your fingerprints all over it, walk through the streets with it, then into the cop shop with it? You could, but it would not be a brilliant thing to do. Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it.

I would wager you would still get arrested - its not as simple as ringing the police and saying "oh hey theres 1/2 a million pounds worth of class-A drugs in my yard, Its not mine though - I pinky swear!"

That said, he ought not to have been charged at all. Before panicking about the results of this trial, best to note that he has not yet been sentenced; the judge may order an entirely suspended sentence, after which no conviction is recorded. Or he may be sentenced and appeal, and the conviction be quashed; that happens from time to time. We don't expect our justice system to be perfect at every level, just for them to get it more or less right in the end.

I seriously doubt hes gonna face any real punishment - its just that some people dont like the idea of having firearm offences on their criminal record

We have to wait and see. If we hear nothing more, it probably means justice was done. It's like when you hear about someone suing someone for something ridiculous, then never hear about it again... it's because in the end the judge said, "don't be stupid," and that was that.

Long story short - this piece of news, and the police dealing with this case are quite simply fucking retarded

[knkavo]

I took my Uni degree in law in the UK and so I am probably about to make a potentially stupid and irrelevant comment on this, as per the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" principle, especially when that little knowledge was gained 12 years ago whilst a drunk student.

(The above is a disclaimer in case the UK authorities come to Greece and arrest me for disseminating false info [as I am both a UK citizen AND a republican [lower-case "r"] I am probably on some kind of black-list anyway).

A "strict liability offence" under UK law is the same thing as it is under the law of most US states that use the Common Law system. It means, of course, that no intention to commit certain criminal acts, nor knowledge that those acts might be criminal, is necessary at all for a conviction. In the US it applies in the main to very minor offences (parking violations, though in some states to the very serious offence of statutory rape as well). In the UK it applies to a much wider and growing range of offences.

If I remember correctly, the logic behind legal pinciple when it was created was that each example would act as a deterrent. If you were to sleep with or sell alcohol to an underage person, or park in a no-parking zone, then you would be found guilty and punished, regardless of whether you kew what you were doing, and others would learn from your mistake. It is apparently worth the sacrifice of one poor innocent so that society at large is protected. So it would appear that Mr. Clarke will be the latest lamb to the slaughter. I am sure that when he is rotting in jail he will be comforted by the thought that he has assisted the all-powerful State in their education/indoctrination/subjugation of the stupid and childlike masses.

Some people might put this down to the growing stupidity and bureaucratic nature of the UK administration. I think/fear that something much more sinister is happening. Not so long ago (maybe a little over a decade) I would have been fairly confident that members of the judiciary would have exercised their powers under the Common Law system and would have handed down a judgement in a case such as this that Mr. Clarke is innocent, being a man who knows how to handle weapons, is aware of the risks involved in carrying them, and so on. They might have slapped him on the wrist for taking a risk. In recent years though the Judiciary has been further and further weakened as the Executive and a tame Parliament have used statutes to diminish the flexibility of Common Law.

I think that Mr. Clarke is fucked and will be presented to the subjects of the British Crown as guilty, pretty much in the manner of a public execution, with the silent message behind to the people "next time it could be you".

Of course I might be a paranoid and delusional (though entirely harmless) lunatic and in my lucid moments a diehard supporter of the UK administration as it stands. This is my second disclaimer.

The only thing I can say is that Greece is probably worse, but as sadly Rip is not likely to be coming here any time soon (though if you do, Coach, accommodation and food etc etc will all be courtesy of me), I won't bore you all with anecdotes about the political jungle of a measly 10 million people that I live in. We have great weather, beaches and food though, which the UK doesn't.

[Sami]

Rip, can I come back to Texas?

[Robert Beckett]

Isn't it illegal to possess a sawed-off shotgun in certain states or municipalities in the US too? Assuming so, technically it would be illegal to do the same thing here (bring a sawed-off shotgun + ammo into a police station). And yet I don't see this case being handled the same way here as it was in the UK. Not that we don't have our problems. But still, 5 years?

[Patrick L.]

Kyle's reasoning is typical of most Europeans, I am afraid. They look to the government to know what is "the right thing to do" rather than let each individual make their own decisions and live with the consequences. The man was trying to do the right thing for society by turning the gun into the authorities. Is it really necessary to cordon off the area and let the government come in and handle the situation because they are the Great and All-Knowing Oz? Besides the obvious liberty v. government argument, where is the common sense here? This reminds me of the recent American case where a high school Eagle Scout had a knife in the trunk of his vehicle, inside of a survival kit. The school authorities made him get it for them, and then proceeded to suspend him because of the "zero tolerance" policy of the school concerning "weapons". Both cases are perplexing...

Live Free or Die

[Rorschach]

Lets not turn this into an American vs British thing, neither legal system is without flaws. It's a Kafkaesque nightmare whichever side of the pond you live on.
Yes, he should have told the police what it was over the phone, and got them to pick it up, but 5 years is completely disproportionate. Here's wishing him luck on the appeal.

[cmdrfunk]

This is the purpose of jury nullification. I'm pretty sure that applies in the UK too since our systems are more or less based on that same common law.

Jury nullification is meant for the jury to say "we're not convicting due to common sense or that the law is bullcrap."

It's used sort of frequently in the US for convictions of things like marijuana possession. It's not really advertised because police and courts don't really want us to know that the jury has the power to refuse to convict anyone for anything just because they feel like it.

It's another of the checks and balances we have in case the court/police are corrupt.

[TomC]

This case is most surely a serious miscarriage of justice, but we don't need to look very far before we find blatantly innocent people that have been convicted of rape and murder in the US and left to rot in prison and sometimes on death row. This is somewhat more ridiculous and black and white than murder case and I can only hope this awful verdict gets corrected quickly. However, it's not like we can hold our heads high in the US, confident in the knowledge that our judicial system does a stellar job of keeping the innocent out of prison.

[Manowar2010]

He carried the firearm with its ammunition through the town, concealed in that plastic bag. This was not a wise course of action; had he been mugged or had an accident, the firearm could have passed to someone less law-abiding.

You see something dodgy, you report it and wait for the cops to come to you. It's a bit like how when they pull you over in your car, you're not meant to get out of the car and say hello, you let them come to you.

For example, if you found a bin bag with 10kg of heroin in your yard, would you grab it, putting your fingerprints all over it, walk through the streets with it, then into the cop shop with it? You could, but it would not be a brilliant thing to do. Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it.

That said, he ought not to have been charged at all. Before panicking about the results of this trial, best to note that he has not yet been sentenced; the judge may order an entirely suspended sentence, after which no conviction is recorded. Or he may be sentenced and appeal, and the conviction be quashed; that happens from time to time. We don't expect our justice system to be perfect at every level, just for them to get it more or less right in the end.

We have to wait and see. If we hear nothing more, it probably means justice was done. It's like when you hear about someone suing someone for something ridiculous, then never hear about it again... it's because in the end the judge said, "don't be stupid," and that was that.

What if he left it where it was, called police, but by the time they arrived some child picked it up and it went off in the child's face? Would everyone say "well, he did all he could be expected to under the law"?

What if someone was about to use the weapon on Gordon Brown (who was walking without security) and bystander #1 felt very confident he could wrestle the weapon from the criminal/would be assassin? Wrestling the weapon from the assassin would mean taking possession, according to the article. I find this interepretation of the law hard to believe, but I guess it's true.

I know it's usually not a good idea to take the law into one's own hands, but what if you don't have time to wait for the law?

Ken

[Robert Callahan]

Before panicking about the results of this trial, best to note that he has not yet been sentenced; the judge may order an entirely suspended sentence, after which no conviction is recorded.

You do realize that the article states it is is a Minimum five year sentence right?

[renegade_01]

Whats wrong guys? You don't like the collapse of common sense? It's only going to get worse. Hell, here in the states they are locking up old seniors for failure to maintain a green lawn. HOA says they gotta get a new lawn installed or GO TO JAIL....

the tree of liberty must be replenished with the blood of tyrants and patriots...

ahh....the circle of life.

[RandallH1989]

Thankfully, freedom lovers have the quote "MOLON LABE" to live by.


From my cold, dead hands.

[Kyle Aaron]

Are you a Brit, Kyle?
No, I'm Aussie. But we have the same legal system, and similar laws about firearms. Which I am not entirely keen on, but it means I'm familiar with them, and the approach police and courts take on these sorts of issues.

Guy tries to do right thing and hand in firearm and is looking at 5 year sentence
I'm sorry, what part of "not sentenced yet, and may not receive a custodial sentence at all" did you not understand?

The newspaper, in talking about 5 years in prison, was engaged in premature speculation. I hear they have a pill for that these days.

knkavo's comments were useful. The "strict liability offence" is one like speeding - if you were speeding, you were speeding, and that's that. But the judge has complete discretion in their sentencing, and indeed may order that no conviction be recorded after the suspended sentence or "good behaviour" period is up. "You were a bit stupid, behave yourself for a year and we'll forget the whole thing."


What if he left it where it was, called police, but by the time they arrived some child picked it up and it went off in the child's face?
This would be why I said,

"Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it."

You can guard something, prevent others from touching it, without touching it yourself. In the case of drugs and firearms, that's the most prudent thing to do. Imagine if while walking with the firearm he'd walked past a bank with a security guard, and the security guard had challenged him. What would the news reports look like then?

"Man walks up to bank with shotgun, claims he found it in his yard and was taking it to the police."

It is simply not a good idea, in a country where people are not allowed to carry firearms on a daily basis, to do so. You can certainly argue whether or not people ought to carry around firearms; but in a country where nobody else does, if you do, expect to get in trouble. I believe someone mentioned something about people using their common sense. This guy didn't.

You do realize that the article states it is is a Minimum five year sentence right?
Yes, and the article is wrong in the way it presents this.

A minimum sentence is not a mandatory sentence. A minimum sentence is the total time a convicted person will end up being involved with the law, at least. A mandatory sentence is how long a convicted person will be in prison, at least.

For example, a person could kill another in May 2005, arrested immediately, be remanded in custody, and not come to trial until June 2006, which trial lasts until February 2007. The minimum sentence might be 10 years. Time already served in remand will be credited towards this sentence, so it's a minimum of 10 years from May 2005 (when the offence was committed), not from February 2007 (when convicted). Thus to May 2015. Then the prison sentence may be reduced by parole (typically 2/3 the full time), so 6 years and 8 months - to January 2011.

Then the press says, "murderer gets only four years!" and everyone is unhappy, forgetting that between the offence and the sentence he has already been 21 months behind bars, and that when released on parole, if he does anything more offensive than fart loudly in public he'll be straight back into prison. If he does get five years, almost certainly the newspapers will tell us all about it as he launches an appeal. If he receives no custodial sentence, almost certainly we won't hear a thing.

Like I said, when you hear about stupid lawsuits, you never hear that a month later the judge said, "no, don't be stupid," and dismissed the case. The newspaper is not going to report the news that the news they reported wasn't actually news.

As well as "time already served" and "parole", a judge may decide to suspend part or all of the sentence. Commonly we see, "2 years' imprisonment, 10 months already served on remand awaiting trial, remaining 14 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months." That is, if the person commits any other offence in those 12 months, not only are they punished for that new offence, but must go back and serve the 14 months remaining for the original crime. If they behave themselves for 12 months, they have a conviction on their record but are free.

In some cases, the judge may order that after the period of suspended sentence is up, no conviction will be recorded. This is most common in the cases of offences of young people, or first offences which are taken to be out of character for the person. For example, Mother Teresa kicks someone in the nads, she receives a 6 month sentence, suspended for 6 months, no conviction recorded after that period. She's usually rather nice, says the judge, so while she did the wrong thing this time, so long as she behaves herself for a bit she'll get off.

A mandatory sentence, on the other hand, is a certain time in prison no matter what; there is no judicial discretion. Many of us are in favour of mandatory sentencing for all sorts of crimes, right up until we or someone we know or sympathise with receives a mandatory sentence for something we think isn't that bad, really. I am in favour of leaving the judicial discretion there, so long as we have appeals courts and such.

A minimum sentence is not a mandatory sentence.

Again, this guy ought not to have been charged. But once charged and convicted, he ought not to receive a custodial sentence. He is plainly an idiot, but stupidity should not be the only thing that sends you to prison. And he very probably won't go to prison.

There is something fishy about this whole case. He rang the Superintendent? Good luck getting the Super on the phone unless you're his wife or his boss. He told him he wanted to come in for a chat? About what? If he didn't say what, why did the Super say yes? Did he think he guy had some tips about some crime gang?

If he said why he was coming in, and the Super said to come in with the firearm, why didn't his barrister argue entrapment? "Hey police, I found this gun in my yard, what should I do?"
"Just bring it in to the cop shop."
I don't think so.

Many times before I've heard of strange court cases, and when you dig a bit further you find the media didn't give you the whole story.

[Glover14]

I am a police officer in WV and this subject angers me. I must tell you that this type of behavior would be honorable in my community. That weapon may have been used in a crime (why else would someone leave it). A reasonable person would do a proper investgation as to why the weapon was left. The individual that turned in the weapon would not be arrested by me. I cannot believe that he was convicted. I am sure that there is more to the story, because there always is. If the printed story is 100% accurate, then shame on the UK. I hope they never come to WV.

[TomV]

I am agreeing with your line of thinking Kyle in that this bloke, whilst doing something I consider a bit silly should still obviously not be sentenced. I also strongly suspect that the media is spinning bullshit to sell papers... It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last.

[knkavo]

Thankfully, freedom lovers have the quote "MOLON LABE" to live by.


From my cold, dead hands.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ actually translates better as "come and get it", which I think is much cooler/funnier/more bad ass.

Or as the Texans would say, I have now learned, "Come and take it".

[Relentless]

What did I tell you Rip? It gives me no pleasure to write this, but I am a UK citizen and becoming less proud by the day to be so. Life over here is getting claustrophobic. As law abiding citizens we get dumped on by the authorities, were in the system and so are seen as soft tatgets. Meanwhile criminals are proliferating and shootings against the person are massively increasing in several of our major cities, particularly London. Anti social behaviour (a euphamism in many cases for violence) is endemic in town centres at night. This mostly involves what our media refers to as "youths" and alchohol......the repercussions for the mayhem caused is more often than not minimal.

We have some of the most draconian firearms laws in the world, but these laws of course only apply to those that choose to abide by them. Legally you can still just about own a rifle, shotgun or blackpowder arm for sporting use only. Good reason must substantially be proved to the police before they will consider issueing the appropriate licences.

Even then, as demonstrated by previous events here, your guns are essentially on tolerated loan by the government.....until they decide they no longer trust you.

All this from a government who sponsors some of the largest exporting UK arms manufacturers in the world!

I and many of my friends look with envy at the US and the many freedoms that you continue to preserve.....We have lost many of ours forever.

[JM3]

Glover- first of all, WV is a totally different place with totally different cultural values- Appalachian people generally have respect for gun rights and gun ownership so it's not much of a comparison. I remember one time relating how I got jacked in New Orleans at a pickin party in Bristol TN- all my buds immediately produced pistols and said - why didnt you have one of these? I had no idea any of them were packing (we were just playing music and drinking) but ALL of them were packing- and there is not much crime down there. Its just a different culture than a place like England where it's illegal. I dont even like guns- but we had three of them.
Secondly- and more importantly- you are saying that if someone broke the law, put their hands on a throw down gun- you wouldnt do a thing? Where is that in your training? The guy tampered with evidence- that should piss off any detective trying to do a job. Thats probably why they booked him.
Im taking bets from some of these wee wee crying gun toters that the guy wont be sentanced beyond a small fine, if that. I got 50 bucks on a cool judge- any "cold, dead hands" takers? I take checks or money orders and could use a set of do wins.

[fullpen]

No, I'm Aussie. But we have the same legal system, and similar laws about firearms. Which I am not entirely keen on, but it means I'm familiar with them, and the approach police and courts take on these sorts of issues.

I'm sorry, what part of "not sentenced yet, and may not receive a custodial sentence at all" did you not understand?

The newspaper, in talking about 5 years in prison, was engaged in premature speculation. I hear they have a pill for that these days.

knkavo's comments were useful. The "strict liability offence" is one like speeding - if you were speeding, you were speeding, and that's that. But the judge has complete discretion in their sentencing, and indeed may order that no conviction be recorded after the suspended sentence or "good behaviour" period is up. "You were a bit stupid, behave yourself for a year and we'll forget the whole thing."


This would be why I said,

"Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it."

You can guard something, prevent others from touching it, without touching it yourself. In the case of drugs and firearms, that's the most prudent thing to do. Imagine if while walking with the firearm he'd walked past a bank with a security guard, and the security guard had challenged him. What would the news reports look like then?

"Man walks up to bank with shotgun, claims he found it in his yard and was taking it to the police."

It is simply not a good idea, in a country where people are not allowed to carry firearms on a daily basis, to do so. You can certainly argue whether or not people ought to carry around firearms; but in a country where nobody else does, if you do, expect to get in trouble. I believe someone mentioned something about people using their common sense. This guy didn't.

Yes, and the article is wrong in the way it presents this.

A minimum sentence is not a mandatory sentence. A minimum sentence is the total time a convicted person will end up being involved with the law, at least. A mandatory sentence is how long a convicted person will be in prison, at least.

For example, a person could kill another in May 2005, arrested immediately, be remanded in custody, and not come to trial until June 2006, which trial lasts until February 2007. The minimum sentence might be 10 years. Time already served in remand will be credited towards this sentence, so it's a minimum of 10 years from May 2005 (when the offence was committed), not from February 2007 (when convicted). Thus to May 2015. Then the prison sentence may be reduced by parole (typically 2/3 the full time), so 6 years and 8 months - to January 2011.

Then the press says, "murderer gets only four years!" and everyone is unhappy, forgetting that between the offence and the sentence he has already been 21 months behind bars, and that when released on parole, if he does anything more offensive than fart loudly in public he'll be straight back into prison. If he does get five years, almost certainly the newspapers will tell us all about it as he launches an appeal. If he receives no custodial sentence, almost certainly we won't hear a thing.

Like I said, when you hear about stupid lawsuits, you never hear that a month later the judge said, "no, don't be stupid," and dismissed the case. The newspaper is not going to report the news that the news they reported wasn't actually news.

As well as "time already served" and "parole", a judge may decide to suspend part or all of the sentence. Commonly we see, "2 years' imprisonment, 10 months already served on remand awaiting trial, remaining 14 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months." That is, if the person commits any other offence in those 12 months, not only are they punished for that new offence, but must go back and serve the 14 months remaining for the original crime. If they behave themselves for 12 months, they have a conviction on their record but are free.

In some cases, the judge may order that after the period of suspended sentence is up, no conviction will be recorded. This is most common in the cases of offences of young people, or first offences which are taken to be out of character for the person. For example, Mother Teresa kicks someone in the nads, she receives a 6 month sentence, suspended for 6 months, no conviction recorded after that period. She's usually rather nice, says the judge, so while she did the wrong thing this time, so long as she behaves herself for a bit she'll get off.

A mandatory sentence, on the other hand, is a certain time in prison no matter what; there is no judicial discretion. Many of us are in favour of mandatory sentencing for all sorts of crimes, right up until we or someone we know or sympathise with receives a mandatory sentence for something we think isn't that bad, really. I am in favour of leaving the judicial discretion there, so long as we have appeals courts and such.

A minimum sentence is not a mandatory sentence.

Again, this guy ought not to have been charged. But once charged and convicted, he ought not to receive a custodial sentence. He is plainly an idiot, but stupidity should not be the only thing that sends you to prison. And he very probably won't go to prison.

There is something fishy about this whole case. He rang the Superintendent? Good luck getting the Super on the phone unless you're his wife or his boss. He told him he wanted to come in for a chat? About what? If he didn't say what, why did the Super say yes? Did he think he guy had some tips about some crime gang?

If he said why he was coming in, and the Super said to come in with the firearm, why didn't his barrister argue entrapment? "Hey police, I found this gun in my yard, what should I do?"
"Just bring it in to the cop shop."
I don't think so.

Many times before I've heard of strange court cases, and when you dig a bit further you find the media didn't give you the whole story.

First, the thing was in a garbage bag. The minute he picked the bag up he was in possession of the weapon, thereby making him "guilty" in the eyes of the UK legal system. I'm confused, because I guess the RIGHT thing to do was put it down, call the police, and lie to them. It was his property, so how was he to know if they would just accuse him of having it and just trying to get rid of it? This form of "justice" seems to be the type levied to school children, not adults whom are assumed to be free-thinking, responsible people. I guess I'm not confused anymore, UK and Australian law assume you're an idiot and need to be protected from yourself.

Upon further investigation, I have one more item I'm confused about. How are you supposed to "guard a firearm" without having access to a firearm? I mean if the guy that dropped there came back for it, chances are he's carrying something. I don't see any lack of common sense in immediately removing this item from the property whatsoever. A crime has already been committed, who knows what the story is. Staying there with the weapon could have been endangering his life.

Oh, an just for the record, I assume a Superintendent is like the Captain of a Precinct in the U.S.? It's pretty easy to get a Captain or even the Sheriff on the phone. In our country, they protect and serve us, not the other way around.

[knkavo]

What if he left it where it was, called police, but by the time they arrived some child picked it up and it went off in the child's face?

He'd get done for criminal negligence.

[Jefferson]

This is 'The Sun', the story you are reading is guaranteed to be half truths if not outright lies.

[August West]

The "strict liability offence" is one like speeding - if you were speeding, you were speeding, and that's that. But the judge has complete discretion in their sentencing, and indeed may order that no conviction be recorded after the suspended sentence or "good behaviour" period is up. "You were a bit stupid, behave yourself for a year and we'll forget the whole thing."


With regard to U.S. law (I know, you're not from here, but most of this audience is), this comparison is misleading. Here, each state has a criminal code that defines the class of offenses. Traffic offenses like speeding are commonly labelled "violations," which carry neither the severity of sentence nor the moral condemnation that a "crime" does. In the U.S., strict liability crimes are not so common. One example is statutory rape: we punish it regardless of intent or knowledge, because we think that it's an inherently bad thing that just shouldn't happen, no matter what the circumstances. Is there something so equally offensive, so unequivocally bad, about firearms that simple possession should be a strict liability offense?

I don't profess to know how U.K. law treats the mimimum/mandatory sentence distinction that you go to such lengths to explain. The article seemed written by and for a layman, so I don't know that their use of the term "minimum" referred to the legal magic words you mention, but maybe you're right. The point is it shouldn't have gotten this far; any law that requires that this man be convicted is a flawed and disproportionate response to the supposed threat.


I believe someone mentioned something about people using their common sense. This guy didn't.


Unbelievable. When a trained soldier handles a firearm, I expect there is in fact a great deal of common sense brought to bear. When he removes it from an uncontrolled situation and immediately resolves the issue (instead of waiting for the nanny state to come check up on things, as you incredibly suggest), I call that common sense. When the law treats such situations as beyond the capability of a free citizen to assess and respond to, that law has banned ordinary common sense by fiat, and replaced it with paternalism. And people wonder why "exceptionalism" persists among Americans - really, we do think differently about individual liberty than most (maybe any) other countries. At least for now.

[wiltx]

Isn't it illegal to possess a sawed-off shotgun in certain states or municipalities in the US too? Assuming so, technically it would be illegal to do the same thing here (bring a sawed-off shotgun + ammo into a police station). And yet I don't see this case being handled the same way here as it was in the UK. Not that we don't have our problems. But still, 5 years?

As far as federal law in the US, the barrel of a shotgun needs to be at least 18" long, it doesn't matter whether it's 'sawed' or not. Shorter than 18" and you need to file paperwork with the ATF and have it classified as a 'Short Barrel Shotgun' and pay a tax. For instance, I have a rifle with a 10.5" that's perfectly legal for me to own. It's similar to owning a silencer.

But correct, some states have more restrictive laws.

[Jon Nosferatu]

While the fact that he's actually getting any kind of penalty yet alone court hearing and prison sentence for this completely boggles my mind, particularly given that he's a ****ing police officer, I can't help but think that Kyle might have a (mild) point here.

The only part that really gives me the impression that the guy should probably have thought it through first was not mentioning the gun until he was in the office and then just taking it out and putting it on the desk. Doing that anywhere is likely to cause considerable alarm (albeit not usually the kind of legal alarm that gets you tried in court). He probably should at least have mentioned it first.

...but yeah, the fact that this sort of thing (and the rape one) actually happens is one of the reasons that I will only go back* to the U.K. for funerals, (possibly) internships, and (possibly) vacations that will involve very minimal contact with the populace.

*British, left when I was nine and like the U.S. a hell of a lot more.

[Kyle Aaron]

First, the thing was in a garbage bag. The minute he picked the bag up he was in possession of the weapon, thereby making him "guilty" in the eyes of the UK legal system. I'm confused, because I guess the RIGHT thing to do was put it down, call the police, and lie to them.
"Possession" is more than just holding it for a moment. "Possession" means holding it for some time, and/or transporting it across some significant distance - like walking across town with it, or keeping it on your dinner table overnight.

The right thing to do was to pick it up, say "wooah", take it inside, and call Mr Plod, who would send over a couple of coppers straight away.

I guess I'm not confused anymore, UK and Australian law assume you're an idiot and need to be protected from yourself.
Most legal systems do, yes. Otherwise we could just settle all disputes with duelling and all crime with lynch mobs.


I mean if the guy that dropped there came back for it, chances are he's carrying something.
It seems unlikely that some crim would drop one weapon and still be carrying another.


I don't see any lack of common sense in immediately removing this item from the property whatsoever.
He didn't remove it immediately, read the article.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent"

Waiting overnight hardly suggests he felt a sense of desperate and fearful urgency.


Oh, an just for the record, I assume a Superintendent is like the Captain of a Precinct in the U.S.? It's pretty easy to get a Captain or even the Sheriff on the phone.
I don't know about the ranks in the stupendous number of different law enforcement agencies the US has, but in the UK and Australia, a Chief Superintendent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Superintendent) is highly-placed, being in charge of a division - not merely one police office, but something like a borough in a big city, with upwards of 250,000 people in it. You don't just get to pop in for a chat, certainly not without telling them why first.

It's a bit like the difference between going to see your bank manager and seeing the CEO of that regional bank.

So either the guy had access without question to the Chief Super, which prompts the question, "why? was he a contact or a villain?" or else he somehow managed to get through the guy's secretary, and told him why he wanted to come down, "I want to hand in a firearm I found", in which case why didn't the Chief Super tell him to wait until coppers came to his place, and if he didn't tell him that, why didn't the guy's barrister argue entrapment?

It just doesn't make sense, there's something missing from the story.

This is 'The Sun', the story you are reading is guaranteed to be half truths if not outright lies.
Do they still have the Page 3 Girls?

A big pair of tits on page 3, as pleasant as that is, is hardly suggestive of high levels of journalistic integrity and attention to detail.

There's something missing from this story.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Unbelievable. When a trained soldier handles a firearm, I expect there is in fact a great deal of common sense brought to bear. When he removes it from an uncontrolled situation and immediately resolves the issue (instead of waiting for the nanny state to come check up on things, as you incredibly suggest), I call that common sense. When the law treats such situations as beyond the capability of a free citizen to assess and respond to, that law has banned ordinary common sense by fiat, and replaced it with paternalism. And people wonder why "exceptionalism" persists among Americans - really, we do think differently about individual liberty than most (maybe any) other countries. At least for now.

My favorite post so far.

[JM3]

Looks like Paul Clarke of Surrey England had a history- apparently he was acquitted a year ago after being charged with beating an inspector with a broom handle. Maybe he was already known to cops.

So maybe some context - keep on googling..

[OITW]

Looks like Paul Clarke of Surrey England had a history..

Yes, of being a soldier. Nothing scares Her Majesty's Government than the thought of her SUBJECTS (I have to correct all those who keep referring to him as a "free citizen") having the will and (God forbid! the vapors!) means to stand up it. A trained former soldier with a firearm.

And Kyle noted the judge's ability to exercise discrepancy and release those charged with a stern warning. He's right, it's done for the vast majority of violent criminals in the UK. The vast majority.

Nice country you've got there, shame what happened to it.

And as I said before, Rip, leave your shotguns at home and come start redeeming England one deadlift at a time.

[knkavo]

Looks like Paul Clarke of Surrey England had a history- apparently he was acquitted a year ago after being charged with beating an inspector with a broom handle. Maybe he was already known to cops.

So maybe some context - keep on googling..

So they didn't lock him up, or punish him in any way, for assaulting a police officer, but they are going to put him away for 5 years for handing in that shotgun at a police station...

If I was a policeman/traffic warden in Surrey, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I think an example should be made of him. He should get a slap on the wrist, (and nothing more), and the message should be put out by the authorities that they would prefer it if you called the police in such a situation rather than walking through town with the gun yourself. If they don't want people to take responsibility on themselves but to leave everything up to the State, that is fine, they were elected and put into power with a mandate to demand that. Who am I to stand against the desires of the majority?

BUT, they have not done the above. They have put out the message that if someone finds something dangerous like a weapon on their property, they should bury it, or keep it, but under no circumstances tell anyone, and then wait for the criminal who left it there to come back and take it by force.

[Glover14]

To JM3:
The key word to remeber is "intent". Did the man have the intent of tampering with evidence. This comes down to common sense, not training. If you find an infant child on the side of a road and have no phone, and drive to a phone to call for help with the child are you a kidnapper? Get it! The area where the gun was found can still be searched for evidence. Nothing in the police world is going to be perfect. I think people just have to do what they think a resonable person would do in their position. West Virginia is definitly different from any other part of the world. We all love our guns and the right to carry them. Most West Virginia homes have guns in them, and most citizens hunt or shoot for fun.

[fullpen]

Kyle, you just keep letting your "betters" do your thinking for you. You seem to like that way. We don't.

[knkavo]

Otherwise we could just settle all disputes with duelling and all crime with lynch mobs.

And herein lies the root of why people believe in the nanny-state.

The size and/or effectiveness of a police force or judicial system is not what maintains law and order anywhere. Law and order is maintained because the vast majority of people desire a peaceful existence, and have an innate sense of right and wrong, and are themselves willing to defend that.

If the people of any civilized country decided one day to go out on the streets and burn, rape and lynch, then all the police, plus the army, plus the UN/Nato, would not be able to stop them.

I am not saying we could/should do without a police force. They are sadly necessary in order to have some hope to combat the few social misfits who won't/can't function in society.

Lynching/duelling only happen if society at large permits or condones them, not because the police or the legal system won't stop them.

[JM3]

OITW- I dont think being a former soldier would justify beating a ticket inspector with a broom handle - do you? Sometimes actual circumstances dont fit into neatly worked out world views- this may be one of them.

And Glover- I think thats a good point you make- but again- youre a cop- you tell me - there are probably people in your jurisdiction that are known to you but not neccesarily "arrestable". Given that he had been in trouble before and also that he didnt tell the cops that he had a gun that he was bringing to the station- he just showed up with it- I can see that scene, probably scared the hell out of them - then pissed them off. Copping is a profession that tries the patience on an average day- much less when some yo yo rolls into the office and produces a shotgun without warning.

Whatever you think of gun issues- trying to make this guy a poster child for your ideas is baloney if you dont take the situation in the fullest context.

[Kyle Aaron]

So they didn't lock him up, or punish him in any way, for assaulting a police officer, but they are going to put him away for 5 years for handing in that shotgun at a police station...
As I understand it, it was a parking officer, he was charged, tried, and found not guilty, the Crown being unable to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had caused the victim's bruises.

I am in favour of people being tried by a jury of their peers, that the burden of proving guilty be placed on the prosecution, and if the person is found not guilty, they are released with no black mark on their record. You may believe in some other form of justice system.


BUT, they have not done the above. They have put out the message that if someone finds something dangerous like a weapon on their property, they should bury it, or keep it, but under no circumstances tell anyone, and then wait for the criminal who left it there to come back and take it by force.
I think there's a middle ground. Between plonking the thing on the cop shop's desk and burying it in your backyard, there's the middle ground of "take it inside, then ring up the cops and let them come and get it."

I don't think that's an insanely radical course of action, nor an intolerable burden upon the citizen's rights.

Kyle, you just keep letting your "betters" do your thinking for you. You seem to like that way. We don't.
Again, I like a sensible middle ground. What part of "he should not have been charged" did you not understand? The thing is that even when someone ought not to have been charged, this is why we have juries, judges, courts of appeal and so on - systems must be designed to deal with the simple fact that humans are imperfect and will fuck up. It's unlikely everyone will fuck up. If you leave everything up to just one guy, it gets nasty; if lots of people are involved, things balance out more or less.

We don't always get it right in the end, but we usually get it more or less right, and that is about the best we can hope for when millions of normal fallible human beings are involved.

JM3 speaks sensibly (http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showpost.php?p=80942&postcount=44) on this. Seems like this guy was what in the UK and Australia they call "known to police", meaning they know he's dodgy but haven't yet had anything they can do legally to lock him up. So they find some bollocks reason, even if the guy does not get a custodial sentence he takes it as a warning and pulls his head in.

Only problem with that is that villains tend to be a bit slow to learn from their experiences, if they were quick learners they wouldn't have to be villains ;)

Seriously guys, this is a typical internet debate with the rush to extremes.
"I believe in capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?!"
"I am against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?"

Just because I am against dehydration does not mean I am in favour of drowning.

[OITW]

OITW- I dont think being a former soldier would justify beating a ticket inspector with a broom handle - do you? Sometimes actual circumstances dont fit into neatly worked out world views- this may be one of them.

JM3, you're the one who alleged that he was acquitted of beating a ticket inspector (which is what, btw?) with a broom handle. Back it up with some evidence. I would add that you used the word "acquitted." By law, he was found not guilty of the charge. Not released with a warning, not charges dropped--not guilty.

Not guilty. You understand what that means?

So maybe the local cops had a reason to screw him over? A score to settle? Maybe he held the weapon for a day because he knew what weak dicks the local cops were, but then did the right thing. Maybe he called the Superintendent with the intent of avoiding the cops who had a hard on for him, and he still walked into it.

We can speculate all day, but it will do nothing to change the facts as reported, or my observation that petty tyrants fear free men (which, by definition, means one responsible for and capable of his own self-defense).

[knkavo]

I think there's a middle ground. Between plonking the thing on the cop shop's desk and burying it in your backyard, there's the middle ground of "take it inside, then ring up the cops and let them come and get it."

Kyle, most likely this should have been the most sensible thing for him to have done, but you have missed the point. If he had taken that gun inside, he would have been in possession. When the police arrived, they would have arrested him. 5 years.

Whether he was stupid to walk through town with it, or was previously known to the police to be a broomstick wielding asshole, or a soldier or a ballet dancer is all irrelevant here. From the moment he picked up that gun he was fucked. Shit, he was probably fucked from the moment whatever good Samaritan left the gun in his garden.

And this isn't a typical internet debate with a rush to extremes. A typical internet debate would be more along the lines of:

YOU BETTER WATCH OUT KYLE!! I'm going to cum over their 2 Aus-gay-lia 2 kick ur ass! U r going to be sooo pwned!!!! Aus-gay-lians all suck and us Greeks r da coolest eva! I think all English should be gassed for being pinko commie fags!!!!! R'nt English and Aus-gay-lians like the same anyway? Ur accent is the same. You all suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Please note I hold Aussie and UK citizenship so please appreciate that the above is a joke - more disclaimers).

See, not like what has been said here at all ;-)

[Randle McMurphy]

He carried the firearm with its ammunition through the town, concealed in that plastic bag. This was not a wise course of action; had he been mugged or had an accident, the firearm could have passed to someone less law-abiding.

You see something dodgy, you report it and wait for the cops to come to you. It's a bit like how when they pull you over in your car, you're not meant to get out of the car and say hello, you let them come to you.

For example, if you found a bin bag with 10kg of heroin in your yard, would you grab it, putting your fingerprints all over it, walk through the streets with it, then into the cop shop with it? You could, but it would not be a brilliant thing to do. Better to ring them up, wait next to the thing for them to show up, then let them deal with it.

That said, he ought not to have been charged at all. Before panicking about the results of this trial, best to note that he has not yet been sentenced; the judge may order an entirely suspended sentence, after which no conviction is recorded. Or he may be sentenced and appeal, and the conviction be quashed; that happens from time to time. We don't expect our justice system to be perfect at every level, just for them to get it more or less right in the end.

We have to wait and see. If we hear nothing more, it probably means justice was done. It's like when you hear about someone suing someone for something ridiculous, then never hear about it again... it's because in the end the judge said, "don't be stupid," and that was that.

As a brit, this pretty much sums up the conventional wisdom, that the general populus harbours.

I think there are a few things the guys in the usa/rest of world should remember:

-Their is a culture difference, easy to forget since we are both 'in the west' and have a similar/same language.

-Guns for the most part are very much banned/outlawed/illegal things (especially so if you under 30 years old, which is when the gun laws were tightened up). The general populous puts them in the same catagory as unexploded bombs from WW2, or large quantities of very illegal drugs, or even a dead body. The average person has not seen one or handled one, except when it is attached to a police officer who is present at a serious crime, and is very much scared with anything to do with guns in general. This is because.....

-Guns are associated with criminality almost exclusively in uk. UK is becomming increasingly less rural, and so the actual non-criminal uses of guns are very low. In usa I suspect that this is not the case.

-Although we do thank our ex/soldiers, unfortunately we don't give them the respect they deserve, and the help they deserve to integrate back into society. As a result, a lot of ex-soldiers end up involved in drug use, criminality, homelessness etc etc. Which is why he is not being given any 'special treatment'.

That said, as stated by Kyle, the judgement has not been passed, and I doubt he will go to prison for 5 years. Our media has a tendancy to make drama out of cases like this to make better sales of papers. More often then not, common sense prevails, and when it does, it goes unreported, because they are too busy creating drama with something else.

I think this poor bastards problem was that he took on too much responsibility, thinking that his 'ex-soldier status' give him a right to do a police officers job. It is a little naive, but he meant well, so i am sure he will get off.

[JM3]

OITW- Im not sure what your standard of "evidence" is. I didnt allege his beating up of a ticket inspector- I found it in an article on google and reported it here- if you were interested in fleshing out the details beyond one story you could probably find it as well- it was on the first page. The story I read was that some guy was giving him a parking ticket and he beat him- the original story was posted with as little "evidence" as that.
And, yes, I know what not guilty is- But do you know what guilty is? Also, lots of guilty people get aquitted- surely you agree. The cat broke the law. Possibly twice- but certainly once. Intent is an issue and will come into play in sentancing as it well should- but it's not a situation where everything is relative. If, as I intuit, your'e a fan of absolutes - then here is your case.
You can go on trying to build a dichotomy of free men vs 'unfree' but thats more about your own disposition on the larger issue and doesnt seem relevant to the facts around this particular case. Which is why making such grand analogys is sophistic and neither valid nor true.
In that country you dont carry around a loaded gun period- much less in a bag running around town- and think that your last job is going to get you off the hook- particularly if you already have a less than stellar relationship with johnny law. In THIS country running around town with a loaded gun in a bag isnt the boyscout thing to do either.
I get very sick of gun rights and abortion rights/gay marriage people on all sides- we decide elections in this country on hot button issues like this- and it's not good.
Most of us here in the great unwashed middle understand the difference between a hunter and a thug, and dont care much that sportsman have guns. But there is a difference between having a gun (Ive owned three- two shotguns and a glock)
and clinging to a gun out of some sense of self protection/freedom complex. A truly free person can take or leave a gun- because they arent walking around judging their capacity to do something based on the hardware they own. If someone took your barbell away-would you stop training?
So, in terms of bravery, freedom and all those other feel good values- Id say that non or even anti gun owners possess those in equal measure to guys who feel emasculated without their weapon. It's simply not a predicator of ones capacity to take care of oneself- if anything it's a predicator of how paranoid someone can be- on both sides of the issue.
In the place I live (DC) a senator from UTAH- Orin Hatch just pushed hard to reverse the ban on handguns- Orin Hatch doesnt live here, and the ban (now overturned) was supported by an overwhelming majority in DC including law enforcement. Is that Freedom? No- it's a prime example of someone pushing their beliefs on an unreceptive community in the name of some ephemeral idea of "freedom". And it is anti freedom- because people werent free to choose the values defining their own community- purely so he could win votes with NRA types back home. I dont care much- because you see, I am a free man and a law wouldnt stop me from getting a gun if I needed it. But, as much as gun opponents wont admit to constructive use of firearms- so do gun proponents refuse to look at the ease of access crazy people have to guns. there is a huge middle ground. And thats where the issue ought be sorted out- but thats a lot harder than slinging slogans about whatever group offends us emotionally.
Communities should decide what gun policy should be- they are the ones most affected by it. So, yeah, Clarke shouldnt get 5 years because he was a well intentioned wanna be hero idiot. He should simply get a clue to avoid cops whenever you have contraband- because the job of a cop is to arrest people with contraband. I dont think what he did was wrong- just painfully stupid and in no way indicative of the larger debate you try to attatch to it.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

"give him a right to do a police officers job"

ANd thats the problem. It wasn't a police officer's job, it was his job as a responsible citizen. It's not a a bomb that takes expert skill to disarm or handle. It's shotgun, something I could wield with care and presicion at age 12.

[JM3]

Sorry to overpost- here is a blog link which basically sums it up to me.



http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-paul_clarke_and_british_zero_tolerance.html

[Harry Munro]

This really sucks, I went to school in Guildford.. Reigate is only a 10min drive away too. Such a shame that there's so little common sense in some areas of the legal system, bloody bureaucracy for ya. Hopefully this will be appealed, but only if the media latch onto it.
And yeah rapists - castration is the only way forward imo.

[Kyle Aaron]

ANd thats the problem. It wasn't a police officer's job, it was his job as a responsible citizen. It's not a a bomb that takes expert skill to disarm or handle. It's shotgun, something I could wield with care and presicion at age 12.
I hope your precision was better than your spelling :p

But seriously, there is so much context to all this. Would we feel differently if it were Abdul Pashtun, devout Moslem and former member of the Pakistan Army, who'd previously been acquitted of a charge of violence and brought the firearm into the police station?

Or as I said, suppose he'd decided to go to the bank on the way to the cop shop?

Yes, it's his job as a responsible situation to deal with the problem before him. But as I said, there are different ways to deal with things. For example, a couple of weeks ago I came across a bloke who'd choked on his sushi roll. He was unconscious and arrested while I was waiting for the ambulance, I had to do CPR.

In applying first aid, there are times when it's appropriate to take the person directly to the hospital yourself - eg with a fractured wrist. And then there are times when it's appropriate to call the ambulance, and let them take the person to the hospital - eg when their heart has stopped.

It was my duty as a responsible citizen to help him. But there are different ways to help a person in physical distress. Had I bundled him into a car, he would have died. Different ways, some good, some not so good.

Likewise, there are different ways for a responsible citizen to deal with what may be evidence of a crime. Some good, some not so good.

This bloke chose a not so good way. Basically, he was an idiot.

In the armed forces, if you find an unattended firearm, you don't pick it up, put it on your table overnight, then wander off to the MP's office with it in the morning and plonk it on their desk. You make the area safe, immediately call a superior and let them deal with it. If you are that superior, you call the MPs and/or demos engineers as appropriate to the situation.

Just because you used to be in the Army does not mean you can't be an idiot. Believe me, I know :D

[knkavo]

Would we feel differently if it were Abdul Pashtun, devout Moslem and former member of the Pakistan Army, who'd previously been acquitted of a charge of violence and brought the firearm into the police station?

We probably would feel differently, because people are by nature prejudiced and fearful, however much we might try not to be.

But the point is that Abdul would be in the same kind of trouble as Paul Clark is; (the difference would be the depth of the shit he would be in, not the kind of shit itself). He would be at the mercy of a judicial and police system that has the potential and apparently the desire to convict blindly.

[Randle McMurphy]

"give him a right to do a police officers job"

ANd thats the problem. It wasn't a police officer's job, it was his job as a responsible citizen. It's not a a bomb that takes expert skill to disarm or handle. It's shotgun, something I could wield with care and presicion at age 12.

Pay attension to my post

I said in my post that guns here are expressely forbidden and taboo and illegal. The resposibility is given to a police officer in uk, this is our gun culture, everyone here knows this.

I used to work as a pharmacist - I know how drugs are taken/handled, and in some cases had to administer them.
If I were to find £10,000 worth of pharmacuetical grade heroin in my garden, I am MORE knowledgable then the average person of the fact that i am not allowed to walk around the streets with this. I am fully aware that this is a police officers job.
Part of being 'well trained' is knowing what you can and cannot do. aka not taking the law into your own hands - which we all know is dangerous.

He should have known the same about guns.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Wow. These people really are quite different.

[fullpen]

That's what happens when you swap teats from momma to the government.

[JB1981]

I had a thought today that maybe I shouldn't have had. I thought about calling the Thought Police but I tried really, really hard to just forget about this very dangerous thought. Yea, I probably should have called the Thought Police, they would have known what to do.

[OITW]

Wow. These people really are quite different.
Yeah, that's why I quit the discussion. It seems to me the bloke was screwed the moment the bag was dropped in his yard.

Yeah, I think I'll come see you in Melbourne if there's still an opening. I have to live with this last generation of Eloi Brits for the next few years, fortunately there's a gun club in my village, so I'll still get a whiff of the powder from time to time.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Plenty of room in Melbourne. I'll look forward to meeting you.