Man faces jail for handing in a gun.

[kitchenjim]

But seriously, that's fucked up, the police could have said "please do not touch the firearm sir it's illegal, we will send a car to pick it up" instead of letting him.

From reading the article ... I dont think he mentioned the gun in the phone call, so how would the police know to tell him that...

Read the article again, he "He even phoned ahead to announce his intention to hand it in, so the police wouldn't gun him down in fear."

Actually, you are quoting the original post, Not the article, the article says he phoned and asked to see the superintendant, from the fact that it does not say he mentioned the gun, and that that is a very key point, i think it infers that he did not mention the gun on the phone.
It seems like the first time the police knew about the gun was when he brought it out of his bag in the police station.

 

[Nasti]

I can't believe that there are actually people here who don't see a damned thing wrong with this. The fact that firearms are illegal in the first place is pretty fucked up in itself, but the lack of literacy in the thread is even worse.

From the article:
"He even phoned ahead to announce his intention to hand it in, so the police wouldn't gun him down in fear."

So that would make this entrapment in any sane country.

The second thing is people saying that he deserves a "lesser sentence". Lesser doesn't mean much when the minimum is 5 years. It's nice to know that in your backwards country possession of a firearm by a soldier is worse than raping a 5 year old and a 7 year old. [link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.154974?page=1[/link]. How the hell does this deserve a higher minimum sentence.

The justice system in your country is fucked up, fix it. Hell, even in America bad lawsuits will still get thrown out. It's gotta take some seriously brainwashing on your government's part that a full jury of his peers found him guilty to a minimum 5 years in prison. Britain Justice system <<<<< American Justice system. Now that is fucked up.

Glad you made your bias clear right at the start. You think guns are good, fine, enjoy your country. But in Britain the whole system of a gun ban only works because no one other than on-duty firarms police can be in possession of a weapon (no one needs a weapon to defend themselves). As a soldier I would expect this guy to know that.

"He even phoned ahead to announce his intention to hand it in, so the police wouldn't gun him down in fear." It says this nowhere in the article. Presumably the OP just misread.

Even if you read the article you do not the know the story to the same extent as the jury. He kept the gun for a day before informing anyone that he had it. Then took it in public to a police station still while no one knew he had it. These are serious crimes, he endangered a whole bunch of people.

If you want to get all high and mighty about law over the pond. Tell me what would happen if a person decided to take a quantity of armed illegal explosives they found though public areas into a police station with no warning. It is the only parralel I can draw.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

What the fuck?

He should be given money.

 

[Otterpoet]

There is a distinct difference between the LAW and JUSTICE. Unfortunately, as in this case, some times the two do not meet. In this case, the jury followed the rule of law. What they did is technically correct. But was is /just/? Not so much.

Here in Texas, you could be arrested for talking in an elevator. It's the LAW. But would justice be served by arresting someone for doing it?

Although - having said that - considering the 'Tards that are always yapping on their cell-phones in my office building, maybe justice would be served...

... * goes off to make a few citizen's arrests *

 

[Eatbrainz]

Bollocks! they obviously didnt think about what COULD had happened hadnt he handed it in, for example, some kids find it and then discover that looking down the end that goes "Bang" and pulling the trigger isnt a good thing to do.

 

[Nasti]

They should have told him not to bring the gun when he phoned them up!

He didnt tell them he had a gun. This would have required them to guess what he was coming in about. Jesus people, read the article.

Bollocks! they obviously didnt think about what COULD had happened hadnt he handed it in, for example, some kids find it and then discover that looking down the end that goes "Bang" and pulling the trigger isnt a good thing to do.

Armed Police would have been there in 30 min with a phone call. Seeing as he has taken in it into his house the only kids that could get access to it would have to be ninjas and everyone knows ninjas dont use guns.

 

[Split Moon]

Just another reason i hate my contry's law system...

 

[Snotnarok]

But seriously, that's fucked up, the police could have said "please do not touch the firearm sir it's illegal, we will send a car to pick it up" instead of letting him.

From reading the article ... I dont think he mentioned the gun in the phone call, so how would the police know to tell him that...

Read the article again, he "He even phoned ahead to announce his intention to hand it in, so the police wouldn't gun him down in fear."

Actually, you are quoting the original post, Not the article, the article says he phoned and asked to see the superintendant, from the fact that it does not say he mentioned the gun, and that that is a very key point, i think it infers that he did not mention the gun on the phone.
It seems like the first time the police knew about the gun was when he brought it out of his bag in the police station.

Oh well, point being he got what he deserved for doing the right thing apparently. Yay law that makes little sense.

 

[kitchenjim]

Oh well, point being he got what he deserved for doing the right thing apparently. Yay law that makes little sense.

No, the point being, many of the americans getting enraged about this are misrepresenting the facts in order to make sweeping statements about the british legal system. As i have said in an earlier post, i think that he has been harshly treated, however, a minimum sentence of 5 years, means that he will be sentenced to 5 years and will be out well before then (im guessing probably a couple months maximum). I DO think it is unjust, his only real crime was stupidity and if that was a crime, there wouldnt be much of the NRA left free.