Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BengalTiger on November 18, 2009, 11:27:13 am
-
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
For those who don't feel like reading the article:
A former British soldier found a discarded gun in his garden, brought it to the local police station and now faces jail for...
...handling the gun over to the cops.
-
FOR ****S SAKE. Sorry about that but this is what is killing our once great country. This is truly pathetic, the jury should all be shot. ARRRRGH FUUUUCK.
-
I greatly doubt that you've got the entire story from the paper, hence the 'Comments have been disabled for legal reasons' at the bottom. Makes me wonder what those 'legal reasons' are.
To quote Dickens, 'The Law is an Ass', but I can assure you, even if this is 100% accurate, the UK is most certainly not the only place that laws are enforced to the point of stupidity.
-
This is truly pathetic, the jury should all be shot.
The story quite clearly implied that the law itself was at fault. If according to the law the guy is without a question guilty then what the heck can the jury do when presented with such a case?
-
Sorry just got a bit carried away there. The point is that this is the kind of thing that really pisses me off, but ah well.
-
Can't the jury determine that the law is stupid?
-
They may well have decided that, but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict. The Judge would most likely have told them that they must find by the law, not by their own feelings on the matter.
That said, I see an unconditional discharge and a recommendation from the Judge that the Law be cleaned up as the most likely result of this case, 5 years is the maximum penalty, but the claim that he could be facing it is almost certainly sensationalism.
What I'd be more concerned about is why the Police and CPS chose to pursue the case to court in the first place, can't help feeling like this was an 'easy statistic booster' case.
-
Juries in the US can more or less do whatever they want - apparently that differs from the UK?
-
To certain degrees they are free to make any judgement they so wish, in extreme cases, the Judge has the right to over-rule, but that often leads to a re-trial rather than a change of judgement, they very rarely do that however.
At the conclusion of a UK trial, the Judge summarises the case for the Jury, and lays out the facts they are to consider, often it is there that the Judge will mention not what results are expected, but rather the points of law that they need to take into account, and what evidence is 'solid' for both sides, so the Prosecution mentioning that the accused is, for example, a Heroin addict might be considered a possible motive in some cases, whereas it may have no bearing on others. The Judge will, to certain degrees, try to clarify what the law expects of the Jury with regards to the decision process rather than the verdict itself.
-
The law in itself is fair enough until you hit the area where the weapon carrier's intent is irrelevant which makes me ask two questions
1) what do we do if we find a weapon (such as in this case it is wrapped and you have opened the bag or whatever to find out what it is there by "handling" the weapon?
2) I have to question the legality of amnesties for handing in weapons
-
That's why I'm suspecting an unconditional as a result, otherwise it basically sends a message that if you find a gun or something in a playground, you should leave it there, where other people might find it and contact the Police.
From the sounds of the Police round that area, you'd probably end up being charged for endangering the children in that case.
Had a similar incident near me, some teenagers were hanging around outside someone's house, throwing stones etc, were reported to the Police, who didn't show up for 4 days, and in that time he'd made a citizens arrest of one of the kids, and was charged for assault. Now, in truth, the charge of assault was actually accurate, he'd roughed the kid up pretty badly, but the real crime, to my mind, was that someone called to the Police for help and they couldn't be bothered to turn up for 4 days.
Edit: In fact, there's a pretty prominent case that highlights the apathy of the Police in areas of the UK, I'll see if I can track it down.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
-
Can't the jury determine that the law is stupid?
You forget. The person is smart. People together are stupid.
-
1) what do we do if we find a weapon (such as in this case it is wrapped and you have opened the bag or whatever to find out what it is there by "handling" the weapon?
You call the Cops and let them come and pick the weapon up.
However since you already touched the weapon while unpacking it, you're screwed either way in the UK I guess...
-
but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict.
:wtf: Then what's the point of having a jury in the first place?!
The jury is responsible for judging the law as well as the facts.
-
If I remember precedent correctly, juries HAVE found defendants guilty, but made the sentencing the absolute minimum.
-
but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict.
:wtf: Then what's the point of having a jury in the first place?!
The jury is responsible for judging the law as well as the facts.
The Judge cannot, iirc, sentence someone based on an over-ride, merely declare the trial invalid, and even then, there's a lot of red-tape involved and it makes an appeal all the more likely. It's kind of like it being declared a mis-trial in the US.
-
There is a point you're all missing: while the law is admittedly ridiculous, it's a strict-liability offense.
Most offenses require both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). Not only must you commit the crime, you must intend to do it or at least be able to reason out the consequences of your actions.
Strict liability offenses require only the act itself - mindset doesn't enter into it. So, by law, the man is guilty.
That said, any officer with half a $%#@ing brain and any Crown prosecutor with an ounce of common sense should have declined to lay the charge in the first place. It's called discretion, and "prosecution not in the public interest," and it's done all the time in Common Law nations. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that discretion was not exercised in this case. Sentence or no, this man should not have a criminal record.
Now... on the other hand... who picks up a firearm, calls the police, and takes it to a meeting at the police station without disclosing on the phone that they've found a firearm and are bringing it in? I would understand the guy's argument had he taken it straight in, but he phoned to book a meeting and failed to mention it was because he was bringing in a found firearm? Doesn't that strike anyone else as implausible? Methinks the media doth not report all the facts of this case.
-
Exactly, as I said earlier in the thread, my big question is why the Police and CPS pursued the matter in the first place. Especially in the current environment where they are under fire for issuing cautions for things like ABH, GBH and even sexual assault, it seems not only contradictory, but self-defeating.
-
So let me get this straight. He's facing jail time because he carried the gun to the cops to be disposed of instead of calling the cops and waiting for them to come pick it up for him?
And you call us on our sideways laws, at least we don't put people in jail for being honest.
-
It's a point of law, as I said earlier, the odds of him going to jail are, if the story is 100% factual, almost zero.
That said, we are assuming that he is telling the truth, based purely on a newspaper article, unless I am actually at the trial, I try not to do the Juries job for them, they know the details of the case far better than we, or the Newspaper do.
-
I found this case odd. So I did a little digging. And I found the following interesting things out. I can't say how legitimate they are but they put a whole new spin on the matter.
1) Mr Clarke didn't tell the police he had found a shotgun when he called. He merely called in saying that he had something for them and arranged a time he'd bring it in.
2) He didn't turn in the gun at the front desk. Instead he brought the gun into the presence of a senior officer and placed it on the table of an interview room without telling the policeman what was in the bag.
3) The case took 2 days of court time. Yet he never took the stand during that time. So what exactly took so long to present to the jury?
4) Mr Clarke was previously found in possession of a cattle prod with no explanation for what he was doing with it.
But most importantly of all, and this was covered in the original report.
5) Mr Clarke didn't turn the shotgun in until the day after he says he found it. In fact the reports actually seems to show that he booked an appointment to turn it in the day after he found it which means he didn't turn it in for two days.
If that last one is true, it's no bloody surprise he was found guilty.
So basically this is starting to sound less and less like a case of injustice and more and more like a legitimate prosecution of someone who probably owned the shotgun in the first place which is just starting to be hijacked by the right wing American media to try to make out that Britain has overly draconian gun laws (The ThisIsSurrey article is the only one in the British press because anyone present seems to think it's a non-story but it's starting to appear more and more over America).
-
There's no obligation to rush it in sameday as long as it's declared. He may have had personal reasons, childcare commitments, inability to travel or it could have been too late.
The other reasons (if accurate) make clark a twat.
I handed in my blankfiring chrome Walther PPK Police, during the amnesty it was boxed WITH boxed rounds just left it on the counter. Said amnesty, cheers mate and walked out. That was back in early 05.
-
I found this case odd. So I did a little digging. And I found the following interesting things out. I can't say how legitimate they are but they put a whole new spin on the matter.
1) Mr Clarke didn't tell the police he had found a shotgun when he called. He merely called in saying that he had something for them and arranged a time he'd bring it in.
2) He didn't turn in the gun at the front desk. Instead he brought the gun into the presence of a senior officer and placed it on the table of an interview room without telling the policeman what was in the bag.
3) The case took 2 days of court time. Yet he never took the stand during that time. So what exactly took so long to present to the jury?
4) Mr Clarke was previously found in possession of a cattle prod with no explanation for what he was doing with it.
But most importantly of all, and this was covered in the original report.
5) Mr Clarke didn't turn the shotgun in until the day after he says he found it. In fact the reports actually seems to show that he booked an appointment to turn it in the day after he found it which means he didn't turn it in for two days.
If that last one is true, it's no bloody surprise he was found guilty.
Huh? Of all of those, that sounds like the smallest offense/mistake in this case.
-
Hang on a sec, someone finds a gun in their garden. It may have been used in the commission of a murder or robbery. The guy takes it into his house and holds onto it for two days allowing further degradation of any evidence at the crime scene and you think that's a small offence? :p
What kind of person finds a dumped gun at their house and takes two days to hand it in? Add that to the other stuff about the cattle prod and the whole case practically reeks of fish.
-
someone who has a life.
a life other than doing the cop's jobs for them.
-
Hang on a sec, someone finds a gun in their garden. It may have been used in the commission of a murder or robbery. The guy takes it into his house and holds onto it for two days allowing further degradation of any evidence at the crime scene and you think that's a small offence? :p
No.
What kind of person finds a dumped gun at their house and takes two days to hand it in? Add that to the other stuff about the cattle prod and the whole case practically reeks of fish.
A person who's a dummy and didn't come to think that he could just have the police come and pick it up and that it might be something urgently important (such as used in a recent crime) and in addition to that lives far enough from the police station that he couldn't have comfortably went to drop it off sooner and was otherwise busy during the day?
To me that does sound somewhat less serious than not telling the police what it is that he was bringing in and then just digging it from a bag onto the desk of an interview room table. Not hurrying with it or getting the police to come and pick it up can just be attributed to being a dummy.
-
A couple of months ago, I spotted a knife jammed behind a fire hydrant sign in town. do you think I picked up the knife, no, I reported it to the police immediately. It could have been used in a crime and did not want to disturb any evidence. Common sense, would be not to touch it, this guy has been foolish, but I doubt that he should be given a criminal record maybe just a caution and a stern ticking off!
-
common sence would be to leave something out where some kid could find it?
-
common sence would be to leave something out where some kid could find it?
No, not to touch it but report it immediately and then keep an eye on it! This was his own garden, I think there's a chance that he could somehow secure it without actually disturbing it.
-
Well, in the article you can read that there were notices issued, that the citizens should NOT touch the weapons NOR bring them to the police station and, furthermore, going into the ps and putting shotgun on the desk... doesn't seem too smart.
-
Well, in the article you can read that there were notices issued, that the citizens should NOT touch the weapons NOR bring them to the police station and, furthermore, going into the ps and putting shotgun on the desk... doesn't seem too smart.
That's the part I don't understand, I live in the UK and I have never received such a notice from the police? Why would the police in his area be handing out such notices unless they are expecting numerous guns to suddenly turn up on the streets to be found by innocent passers-by?
-
This makes Britain totally less awesome then it is in a Guy Richie film. :P
-
Try visiting SE6 once in while on a friday night. :p
-
Common sense, would be not to touch it, this guy has been foolish, but I doubt that he should be given a criminal record maybe just a caution and a stern ticking off!
Unless the police believe that it's actually his gun, he's a little touched in the head and that putting him in jail now is better than being asked "Why didn't you do something? First there was the cattle prod thing then the one with the shotgun! There were signs that he was crazy!." when the inevitable shooting rampage happens.
Personally I suspect that's exactly what happened.
We only have the words of one newspaper report to suggest that he found the gun and he never actually took the stand to testify to having done that.
-
So basically this is starting to sound less and less like a case of injustice and more and more like a legitimate prosecution of someone who probably owned the shotgun in the first place which is just starting to be hijacked by the right wing American media to try to make out that Britain has overly draconian gun laws (The ThisIsSurrey article is the only one in the British press because anyone present seems to think it's a non-story but it's starting to appear more and more over America).
1) The link goes to a UK news site, not an American one.
2) This has nothing to do with gun laws, this is about the legal system not knowing the meaning of the word "discretion". Substitute a stick of dynamite, an unexpired WWII munition, or a bag of heroin in the story, all other facts being equal, and it would trigger the same reaction.
If you say that this news article is inaccurate, then let's see some other links covering the same story, and we can compare them.
-
Karajorma's the one who did some 'digging' he should have some more links for us. :yes:
-
So basically this is starting to sound less and less like a case of injustice and more and more like a legitimate prosecution of someone who probably owned the shotgun in the first place which is just starting to be hijacked by the right wing American media to try to make out that Britain has overly draconian gun laws (The ThisIsSurrey article is the only one in the British press because anyone present seems to think it's a non-story but it's starting to appear more and more over America).
1) The link goes to a UK news site, not an American one.
Which in case you didn't notice I mentioned as being the only British source that has picked up on the story. However American sources have begun to pick up and spread this story now. While I was digging around I heard several people mention seeing this in American blogs and news sources. No links though, at least none that didn't simply point back to the ThisIsSurrey report.
2) This has nothing to do with gun laws, this is about the legal system not knowing the meaning of the word "discretion". Substitute a stick of dynamite, an unexpired WWII munition, or a bag of heroin in the story, all other facts being equal, and it would trigger the same reaction.
Except that it's starting to appear in lots of right wing blogs in the America where it is being pointed at as a "Look at these crazy Brits and their gun control laws!" style story. Hell I don't want to make huge assumptions but I'd be willing to bet fairly large sums of cash that Bengal Tiger doesn't read ThisIsSurrey.com on a daily basis and instead found this story when it was forwarded to him or posted on a blog as a case of "Look at England and their draconian laws!"
If you say that this news article is inaccurate, then let's see some other links covering the same story, and we can compare them.
That was my entire point. There are no other sources covering the same story. All I managed to find were forum posts from other people who also said that they'd gone digging into the case and found out things that made them think that this is not the same ridiculous miscarriage of justice the ThisIsSurrey report says it is. ThisIsSurrey isn't the website of a national newspaper, it's belongs to a regional one. None of the national newspapers are carrying this story at all (I think The Sun may have published a paragraph about it on page 27).
This isn't a news story as far as the papers are concerned. And when this happens with something as newsworthy as the TheIsSurrey story sounds, when even the Daily ****ing Mail ignores the chance to protest about something like this, then the entire thing starts to smell fishy to me.
As I said, I don't think we've heard the full story on the ThisIsSurrey website and I suspect that the only reason anyone has heard of it is because people like Bengal Tiger are passing it around so they can post "Only in the UK" topics.
Let me put it this way. Look at the website for Liberty (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). **** all about this case. Now I can't imagine them ignoring this if it was as ridiculous a miscarriage of justice as is being claimed.
Oh and while I'm here, a couple of links for those interested in doing some spading.
The only other UK Media website to cover the story I've found (http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5546286/paul-clarke-update.thtml) (and all they're doing is commenting on blogs).
A blog post showing the coverage this is getting in the US (http://steveshark.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/paul-clarke-and-the-missing-uk-news-coverage/) (pay special attention to the third one).
EDIT : More fish, this time from the original news report.
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.
Okay, who the **** upon finding someone has dumped a black bin liner in their garden takes it into their house to open it?
-
So basically this is starting to sound less and less like a case of injustice and more and more like a legitimate prosecution of someone who probably owned the shotgun in the first place which is just starting to be hijacked by the right wing American media to try to make out that Britain has overly draconian gun laws (The ThisIsSurrey article is the only one in the British press because anyone present seems to think it's a non-story but it's starting to appear more and more over America).
1) The link goes to a UK news site, not an American one.
2) This has nothing to do with gun laws, this is about the legal system not knowing the meaning of the word "discretion". Substitute a stick of dynamite, an unexpired WWII munition, or a bag of heroin in the story, all other facts being equal, and it would trigger the same reaction.
If you say that this news article is inaccurate, then let's see some other links covering the same story, and we can compare them.
Aside from maybe the heroin, that's a bad analogy. Dynamite and especially an unexploded munition from WW2 are capable of exploding and killing people on they're own with no human intervention simply because they become more and more unstable chemically as they age. A gun is a hollow steel tube unless there's ammo loaded into it, the best it would be is a club.
Now as to the article:
Did he show colossal stupidity by what he did in apparent contravention to existing law? Seems to have, it may turn out he did have nefarious intent somehow. Don't know, don't care. ANY law like this, that doesn't have a "good faith" clause is a bad law. On the face of it, he was doing the right thing and handing the shotgun, loaded or unloaded(it doesn't matter, though anyone should have the good sense to unload it before carrying it very far :D ) and carrying it to the cops for proper handling/disposal. He shouldn't be punished for that, as it's his civic duty.
-
Hell I don't want to make huge assumptions but I'd be willing to bet fairly large sums of cash that Bengal Tiger doesn't read ThisIsSurrey.com on a daily basis and instead found this story when it was forwarded to him or posted on a blog as a case of "Look at England and their draconian laws!"
You are correct. I found it on one of the other forums I visit.
Okay, who the **** upon finding someone has dumped a black bin liner in their garden takes it into their house to open it?
I'll bet he picked it up to throw it into his trash can (possibly thinking about whoever throws garbage into his yard in a pretty negative way), and after picking it up he noticed there's a single long metalic object inside and not random stuff people throw away, got curious and opened it.
The rest made it into the newspapers.