Man faces jail for handing in a gun.

[Valksy]

Fucking judge has his wig on too tight. Moron. Fucked up world we live in - this blokes best chance is to have a major media source get into it, stir up such a stink that the Home Secretary has to step in and clean this shit up.

I read Law many years ago and figured pretty early on that it was a shitty game with no justice and never went in to practice. But I was always taught that the essence of a criminal act rested in the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilt mind (mens rea). This guy clearly had no intent to do harm, that should be evident to anyone but the worst knuckle-dragging drooling fuckwit - which means the guilty mind was absent. I guess shit really changed in this country in the last 15 years. Blows.

Outraged Brits - link this to your news source as something warranting attention so we can stop fucking wobbling on about how Gordon Brown has shitty handwriting.

 

[Captain Pancake]

well, over here we have very strict gun laws. But see, a teacher once told me that in America, where firearms are legal, almost every crime has a lower rate, except murder. Could it be because of guns? I guess we'll never know.

 

[Danpascooch]

Fucking judge has his wig on too tight. Moron. Fucked up world we live in - this blokes best chance is to have a major media source get into it, stir up such a stink that the Home Secretary has to step in and clean this shit up.

I read Law many years ago and figured pretty early on that it was a shitty game with no justice and never went in to practice. But I was always taught that the essence of a criminal act rested in the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilt mind (mens rea). This guy clearly had no intent to do harm, that should be evident to anyone but the worst knuckle-dragging drooling fuckwit - which means the guilty mind was absent. I guess shit really changed in this country in the last 15 years. Blows.

Outraged Brits - link this to your news source as something warranting attention so we can stop fucking wobbling on about how Gordon Brown has shitty handwriting.

Judges cannot let someone go who broke the law because of their intentions, that would give judges WAY too much power, I would rather this poor guy go to jail then judges gain the power to do what "They feel is right"

could you imagine what kind of damage a bad judge could do?

 

[Macgyvercas]

What. The. Fuck.

UK gun laws are severely messed up.

 

[DrScoobs]

Britain: No sunlight, no decent food, no justice... My heart goes out to all you people living in that sorrowful place.

thanks. tis a hard life when your country is way past its prime.

 

[DrScoobs]

And this is why i am not proud of my home country.

 

[Pendragon9]

Makes me wish someone would bomb the UK back into the stone ages.

 

[Valksy]

Judges cannot let someone go who broke the law because of their intentions, that would give judges WAY too much power, I would rather this poor guy go to jail then judges gain the power to do what "They feel is right"

could you imagine what kind of damage a bad judge could do?

Of course. But I always understood that intent was critical. I have never heard of the law being cited and as laws go, it sounds like an ill conceived one. The law seems to suggest that if - for example - I bought a piece of antique furniture which had someone's WW2 pistol stashed inside it then I would be guilty of possessing a firearm? How about if I discovered it in my home and called the cops to come take it away? At what point am I in possession of it or not? We used to use the "common law" that allowed for such distinctions. Over reliance on badly formatted statute can lead to fuck ups.

As far as I am concerned, the Crown Prosecution Service should have declined to bring this case to court - as they are permitted to do under their own code of conduct (something about public interest.)

 

[DrScoobs]

Typical brits, dumbasses

thank god there arent any british people on the escapist. nob -_-

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

That's just bullshit.
And I'm not surprised it happened in the UK.
I must now kill off most of a legal system and get it rebuilt correctly...

[sub]What do you mean, it's illegal to kill them?!!
I'm doing it for the good of the innocent people, you know, to get idiot laws and such off the street!
..Oh... so THAT'S how it is?!![/sub]

EDIT: AND it was an EX-SOLDIER. Way to show ingratitude, idiots.
Hmph. No ex-soldier, or indeed anyone with good intentions, should have to go through this.

[sub]They should give him a tank licence and let him drive a yellow tank around london..[/sub]

I do believe this is ingratitude, they should give him a chance. Or a warning at least.

 

[JimmerDunda]

Take a good hard look, my fellow Americans... This is what Obama's leading us towards...

Fail troll is fail...

OT: Wow that is some bullshit, because he was being a good person he is now going to get sent to prison.

Not a troll. This is what Obama is leading us towards. A more government ran nation. This is the kinda bullshit that happens when the government has more power over the people.

Gun control, government run health care, etc. All of it, he wants government ran.

 

[Danpascooch]

Judges cannot let someone go who broke the law because of their intentions, that would give judges WAY too much power, I would rather this poor guy go to jail then judges gain the power to do what "They feel is right"

could you imagine what kind of damage a bad judge could do?

Of course. But I always understood that intent was critical. I have never heard of the law being cited and as laws go, it sounds like an ill conceived one. The law seems to suggest that if - for example - I bought a piece of antique furniture which had someone's WW2 pistol stashed inside it then I would be guilty of possessing a firearm? How about if I discovered it in my home and called the cops to come take it away? At what point am I in possession of it or not? We used to use the "common law" that allowed for such distinctions. Over reliance on badly formatted statute can lead to fuck ups.

As far as I am concerned, the Crown Prosecution Service should have declined to bring this case to court - as they are permitted to do under their own code of conduct (something about public interest.)

I can't claim I know UK law that well, but if it is anything like US law, than the judge doesn't get to factor intent into the matter of whether a person is guilty (only in determining the sentence of the guilty person). Intent is something for the lawmakers to factor in when making the law, in order to minimize the number of well intending people who end up getting screwed.

It sucks that this happened to this guy, it is only partially his fault, but we cannot sacrifice the principles of the legal system for a single isolated case.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

[sub]They should give him a tank licence and let him drive a yellow tank around london..[/sub]

You can actually get a licence to drive a tank on the roads in the UK, provided the treads spread the weight across a certain area or larger, so as not to damage the roads...
Hooray for pointless knowledge of another country's crazy laws. you can drive a tank, but not hand a gun over to the police :|

 

[Valksy]

I can't claim I know UK law that well, but if it is anything like US law, than the judge doesn't get to factor intent into the matter of whether a person is guilty (only in determining the sentence of the guilty person). Intent is something for the lawmakers to factor in when making the law, in order to minimize the number of well intending people who end up getting screwed.

Should be a matter for the jury, not the judge. In this case, with such specific legislation, the Crown Prosecution Service could have determined that it was not in public interest to take it before a judge.

How about this for a scenario - you take your kid to the local playground, some other kids take you to see that there is a sawn off shotgun on the ground by the swings. What do you do? You can't pick it up as there is no wiggle room on possession of a fire arm. You probably could not restrain a kid who was intent on picking it up because it would be assault. You - John Q Ordinary - would be between a rock and a hard place because of a lousy bit of law enacted by lousy lawmakers.

 

[Infernai]

The guy should have just called the cops to pick it up. Then the cops would have been forced to arrest one of there own for possesion of a firearm. XD

In all seriousness.....Wow...i mean, i knew police could be fucking idiots but, this just takes the freaking cake. I mean, the guy even phoned ahead and told them he'd hand it in. Out of curiousity, is it manditory for cops and anyone who goes into law to have labotomies over there or something?

 

[Danpascooch]

I can't claim I know UK law that well, but if it is anything like US law, than the judge doesn't get to factor intent into the matter of whether a person is guilty (only in determining the sentence of the guilty person). Intent is something for the lawmakers to factor in when making the law, in order to minimize the number of well intending people who end up getting screwed.

Should be a matter for the jury, not the judge. In this case, with such specific legislation, the Crown Prosecution Service could have determined that it was not in public interest to take it before a judge.

How about this for a scenario - you take your kid to the local playground, some other kids take you to see that there is a sawn off shotgun on the ground by the swings. What do you do? You can't pick it up as there is no wiggle room on possession of a fire arm. You probably could not restrain a kid who was intent on picking it up because it would be assault. You - John Q Ordinary - would be between a rock and a hard place because of a lousy bit of law enacted by lousy lawmakers.

Actually you would be legally allowed to restrain a child reaching for it if it could be a life threatening situation, in the case of a child reaching for the shotgun, you could claim self defense in the fact that someone with no knowledge or legal right to own a firearm was about to brandish a firearm in your vicinity, possibly injuring or killing you and/or others in the playground.

 

[Skeleon]

Wow, that's just foolish.
He didn't "possess a firearm".

 

[DemonicVixen]

Hmm this is a tricky story. For me if i had found the gun i would have phoned the police there and then not waited. I also wouldn't touch it so that at least i could say i didn't have it in my possesion other then opening the bag to find the gun. I think its wrong he should be charged however, instead he should have been warned not to do it again (hopefully there would be no next time). I agree he should not have touched it however if he had phoned ahead, he should have been told to wait instead. Obviously he was told to go right ahead or else he had left a message for them which would have been the wrong thing to do.

Overall, don't think he should be charged... But the common sense rule is 'use your brains'. he should have phoned 999 instantly and left it where it was. Sorry but he was being stupid.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

And Americans have it hard with our gun laws? Silly UK citizens, not even being allowed guns...And here was I, thinking that the UK is a sensible place.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Really, this is just going to make people not want to do the right thing, i mean, he is an Ex- Soilder for crying out loud, he knows the difference between right and wrong, and he WAS trying ot do the right thing, and he gets bitched slaped for it (in a matter of speeking) its not like he was trying to be Batman or somthing and help the cops with it, he just turned it in.