Man faces jail for handing in a gun.
- Thread starter T-Bone24
- Start date
Intellectual response:
In the article it never specifies whether, during the phone conversation, Mr. Clarke actually told the police he had found a weapon. All it says on the matter is that he ask if he could come over and see the Cheif Superintendent. Therefore the police may never have had the oppurtunity to tell Mr. Clarke to leave the gun there and wait for police to come pick it up. However by the time he phone he had already grabbed the gun, so technically had already broken the law.
The arresting police officer was unaware of any information regarding citizens phone and waiting for police, and not doing exactly what Mr. Clarke did. Either the officer missed that notice, does not fully know the law or the rule does not exist. The first two are neglegent on the part of the officer, while the third invalidated the entire case.
From a paranoid point of view their is no way to tell whether he is just a criminal trying to get rid of a gun or telling the truth, therefore he should be charged just in case and to prevent future criminals from trying to get rid of guns by "finding" them. From a commen sense point of view he was doing the right thing with the right intentions and therefore should a worst be given a small fine.
This case, and "strict liability" in general, illustrate the possibilities of following the letter of the law rather then the spirit of the law. Intent and circumstances must always be considered in assessing guilt. An angry husband shoots his wife because he had a bad day. A cop shoots a hostage taker. Both people killed someone, but the intent and circumstances mean that the cop is not charged.
Emotional response:
Complete and udder BULLSHIT. He needs to appeal not only his own case, but the entire law. All this case does is encourage people to do nothing when confronted by similar situations, for fear of breaking the law themselves. The judge is morally questionable, the jury are a bunch of morons and the prosecuter is an idoit who thinks he god.
In the article it never specifies whether, during the phone conversation, Mr. Clarke actually told the police he had found a weapon. All it says on the matter is that he ask if he could come over and see the Cheif Superintendent. Therefore the police may never have had the oppurtunity to tell Mr. Clarke to leave the gun there and wait for police to come pick it up. However by the time he phone he had already grabbed the gun, so technically had already broken the law.
The arresting police officer was unaware of any information regarding citizens phone and waiting for police, and not doing exactly what Mr. Clarke did. Either the officer missed that notice, does not fully know the law or the rule does not exist. The first two are neglegent on the part of the officer, while the third invalidated the entire case.
From a paranoid point of view their is no way to tell whether he is just a criminal trying to get rid of a gun or telling the truth, therefore he should be charged just in case and to prevent future criminals from trying to get rid of guns by "finding" them. From a commen sense point of view he was doing the right thing with the right intentions and therefore should a worst be given a small fine.
This case, and "strict liability" in general, illustrate the possibilities of following the letter of the law rather then the spirit of the law. Intent and circumstances must always be considered in assessing guilt. An angry husband shoots his wife because he had a bad day. A cop shoots a hostage taker. Both people killed someone, but the intent and circumstances mean that the cop is not charged.
Emotional response:
Complete and udder BULLSHIT. He needs to appeal not only his own case, but the entire law. All this case does is encourage people to do nothing when confronted by similar situations, for fear of breaking the law themselves. The judge is morally questionable, the jury are a bunch of morons and the prosecuter is an idoit who thinks he god.
I can only imagine the massive facepalm he must have right now.
It's kinda like running into a burning house to save a child and then be charged with kidnapping. (Cookie?)
It's kinda like running into a burning house to save a child and then be charged with kidnapping. (Cookie?)
Thats what I think (and actually living in England, I think I'm entitled to that view), but no-one in power shares the same view. I'm genuinely surprised this country hasn't rioted against the government yet...The Maddest March Hare said:
I live in the UK and i say you go to far in making that statement even if its just a jokePendragon9 said:
You do that and I'm coming round to your house with a pointy rock on a stick and kicking your ass! >:[Pendragon9 said:
But no, really. Bombing citizens doesn't solve very much. Just look at the Blitz, we prevailed!
This is just irresponsible police work. Responsible, well-adjusted police in the true service of the public would recognize when someone is in the true right or wrong, and understand the difference between illegal and immoral.
A good police officer, judge, regional attorney, etc. should be able to spot this and recognize how charging the citizen in this case would be counterproductive.
A good police officer, judge, regional attorney, etc. should be able to spot this and recognize how charging the citizen in this case would be counterproductive.
Of course we're entitled to complain about our government. It's practically our National pastime!thejadefalcon said:
And we have rioted, many times. Cromwell for example. The trouble with revolutions is that we take out one imbecilic leader and replace him with another and it all goes round in one big circle. That's why they're called revolutions.
You don't get this kind of bullshit with Anarchy. It's the fairest system, because there is none.
99% of the worlds problems are not caused by terrorists. They're not caused by immorgrants or black people, nor crinimals or the working class, it's not the russians or the americans, hell, it's not even Fox.
99% of the worlds problems are causes by less that 1% of the population...leaders. Politians, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Dictators, Kings and Queens...They're the reason that a man can't do something for his fellow man without being prosicuted. They're the reason that people will never be truelly free, not while there's someone up there rubbing his fat belly and changing the lives of millions of people with a bit of writing on a bit of paper.
At least if the goverment went to shit we'd have a choice about our lives, be our own leaders.
99% of the worlds problems are not caused by terrorists. They're not caused by immorgrants or black people, nor crinimals or the working class, it's not the russians or the americans, hell, it's not even Fox.
99% of the worlds problems are causes by less that 1% of the population...leaders. Politians, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Dictators, Kings and Queens...They're the reason that a man can't do something for his fellow man without being prosicuted. They're the reason that people will never be truelly free, not while there's someone up there rubbing his fat belly and changing the lives of millions of people with a bit of writing on a bit of paper.
At least if the goverment went to shit we'd have a choice about our lives, be our own leaders.
From our position, there is an obvious loophole he could have used to turn it in...
Leave it on the sidewalk, call the police, and tell them that there is a gun on the sidewalk.
He could wear gloves while moving it, handle it inside a plastic bag, and be careful not to breath on the bag...
HOWEVER,
As a sincere and decent act of civic duty, one should not be put through a hassle of this caliber. That is to say, of course, that there should be a mechanism for turning in weapons with amnesty.
Leave it on the sidewalk, call the police, and tell them that there is a gun on the sidewalk.
He could wear gloves while moving it, handle it inside a plastic bag, and be careful not to breath on the bag...
HOWEVER,
As a sincere and decent act of civic duty, one should not be put through a hassle of this caliber. That is to say, of course, that there should be a mechanism for turning in weapons with amnesty.
Oh, and the 'criminals would use this to try and get rid of guns' argument is cack. If it's an unused gun, then there's no way any criminal would get rid of such a useful asset. If it was used, then they'd not go in, hand in said weapon and then watch as whatever crime was commited with popped up right in front of their faces.
Alright, let me fix that. I wish someone would bomb the UK justice system back to the stone ages.kinggingerman said:
Because those idiots deserve to die anyway.
