Gaz6002 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8421485.stm Now, do we think this is fair? It sounds to me a lot like the poor guy has been the victim of unfortunate circumstances, although that doesn't explain the wait before handing the gun in. What would you have done in the same situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Seems fair enough to me. For several days he was in possession of a swan-off, he surely didnt think it was legal to do so. He's only got a suspended sentence, so if he doesnt break the law again he's got nothing to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyT Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Well stitched if what he said about the female detective is true. Plus, how are his previous convictions relevant? At the end of the day he handed a weapon in. I didn't think there was a limit to the amnesty for getting weapons off the street. His conviction will mean others in that situation will now not hand them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think thats absolutely crap. As is said in the story there should be no obstacles for handing in a weapon, regardless of whether it is your own or whether you found it. This may even jeopardise getting weapons off the street in the future. Sounds like a setup to be honest. I dare say there are 2 sides to this coin and that the weapon may in fact have been his, regardless he should be allowed to hand it in. If it hasn't been used in a known investigation then that's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 His conviction will mean others in that situation will now not hand them in. Very true Andy, how do they expect other members of the public to come forward if they found a firearm? Imagine me... Asian decedent, didn't shave for a few days & then walk into a police station with a firearm which I found. I can see them arresting me & then searching my house & knocking down all the walls. If I found a gun, I'd just leave it... unless I was on my way to work where I'd be suited & booted so might not "look" so much as a suspect. Think this fella did not help himself with having the previous conviction's but the end fact is that he was bringing the gun in not getting caught/possession of a firearm so I have no idea how he could be tried him with this 5 year sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronttuk Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 police are just filth in my opion they just do what they like i hate them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 police are just filth in my opion they just do what they like i hate them Too general bud, police are just people. Some are wankers, it is the same in every walk of life. The problem is that most wankers like a sense of power, hence why the balance isn't so even with the police. The job tends to attract the wrong sort and they get through the filter using the same facade that the every day working wanker uses when the boss is around. The arrogance of some of the ones I have spoken to has been ridiculous, if you say one wrong thing all you get is threatened. I have also been fortunate to see the other side of the coin though, with a guy just doing his job and trying to keep the peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 He handed it four days later? Maybe he was just busy. Maybe he didn't want to get caught out in the snow. Or maybe he couldn't find a buyer down the local pub. I might've let it slide but given you enjoy doing it so much to others.... For several days he was in possession of a swan-off Didn't he realise they were the Queens birds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 police are just filth in my opion they just do what they like i hate them That's an incredibly well constructed argument and sentence. I'm persuaded by your line of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Too general bud, police are just people. Some are wankers, it is the same in every walk of life. The problem is that most wankers like a sense of power, hence why the balance isn't so even with the police. The job tends to attract the wrong sort and they get through the filter using the same facade that the every day working wanker uses when the boss is around. The arrogance of some of the ones I have spoken to has been ridiculous, if you say one wrong thing all you get is threatened. I have also been fortunate to see the other side of the coin though, with a guy just doing his job and trying to keep the peace. I've been stopped & searched enough times to confirm this. My next door neighbour is a police officer, including her boyfriend. You do get 2 completely different types, some which are purely doing their job but doing it in good spirit. The amount of times I've been chatting away with a officer after being searched about cars, some of them very car knowledgeable while others were more seeking knowledge. Some can be right wankers, though like you mention Scott it is normally due to having a sense of power. Normally if they get too shirty I let them know I am aware of my rights & produce my business card. This changes the situation mostly though it has had a reverse effect. The business card refers to me working for a law firm, though if they looked closely they would realise my title as Technical Analyst (That's right buddy, I work in IT!). Though well aware of my rights as you get into the lawyer mentality once you work for a law firm regardless of job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave17 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 i'm sure there is more to this than just what the BBC has published, sounds like he stitched himself up in interview, sentence seems fair to me on the grounds that you don't keep an item like that in you're possession for any amount of time If you find it, I wouldn't anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Very true Andy, how do they expect other members of the public to come forward if they found a firearm? By not keeping it for several days before handing it in. The public have nothing to fear if they hand in weapons they find rather than taking them home for a few days first. police are just filth in my opion they just do what they like i hate them Wow. You're retarded. Didn't he realise they were the Queens birds? Swans aren't generally the Queen's, by the way. It's a popular misconception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 i'm sure there is more to this than just what the BBC has published, sounds like he stitched himself up in interview, sentence seems fair to me on the grounds that you don't keep an item like that in you're possession for any amount of time If you find it, I wouldn't anyway! So everyone who has been in possesion of a firearm for any more than 4 days should be prosecuted? I think that will take account of just about everyone using the alleged amnesty for the past couple of years. He felt threatened by the police due to his involvemnt with one of them, and didn't want to go to just any one worrying he would be stitched up. He waits until he can speak to someone he thinks he can trust, which takes 4 days for whatever reason, when he meets with that person he gets stitched up regardless. I agree that we are probably not seeing the full picture here but based on the facts given in the story there is no way this guy should be getting this on his record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Swans aren't generally the Queen's, by the way. It's a popular misconception. Does that mean I can go and grab one for my Christmas lunch then? Anyone got a shotgun they can lend me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 By not keeping it for several days before handing it in. The public have nothing to fear if they hand in weapons they find rather than taking them home for a few days first. According to the amnesty that shouldn't make any difference, it is an amnesty afterall. He had his reasons for not handing it in, fear being the main contributer. Put yourself in his shoes. You know an officer is ready to screw you where he can, do you run down to the station with a shotgun in hand just hopeing he doesn't try to nail you to the wall? Don't you see the connection between being screwed regardless of an amnesty and the previous heat he has recieved from that particular station? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave17 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Well yes, I can't really think of any reason why you would keep a firearm for anything more than a couple of hours, he cites harassment by Police in the article, but my cynical side would lean toward saying he didn't like being convicted for having a stun gun and commuting affray previously. I'm just not sure how I could justify the time period. The positive is that he was treated fairly IMO and it was recognised in court that the case did not justify an immediate custodial sentence, and there is one less firearm on the streets. His local station is Reigate, and I honestly can't think of a more honest and decent bunch than them in Surrey, but we don't have all the facts so I'm not going to make sweeping judgements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 So everyone who has been in possesion of a firearm for any more than 4 days should be prosecuted? Yes. Why shouldn't they, if they're in possession of a firearm they aren't licensed to hold? If he thinks the local police have a grudge against him he could have taken it to another station or gotten somebody else to hand it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 According to the amnesty that shouldn't make any difference, it is an amnesty afterall. He had his reasons for not handing it in, fear being the main contributer. "The amnesty"? What amnesty? I see no mention of an amnesty in the BBC article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Yes. Why shouldn't they, if they're in possession of a firearm they aren't licensed to hold? If he thinks the local police have a grudge against him he could have taken it to another station or gotten somebody else to hand it in. Your a clever enough guy Jake, are you seriously standing by these comments or are you just pushing buttons? I know you like to go out on the windup but that has to be the most obtuse statement I have heard from you. You remember when the amnesty was announced? It was ALL over the news. Within the first week x amount of thousands of arms had been handed in. Now, unless every single one handed in just happened to be "found" a matter of hours before they were handed in, most of them had to have been in possesion by the person handing them in for any length of time. In some cases it was years, in gun cabinets etc. There were interviews with the owners of the guns (in some cases) as it was an amnesty afterall. The whole point of it is to encourage the public to get the guns off the street. There is no time constraint involved. I agree with the 2nd part of your statement. I know something doesn't smell right with the whole situation. I would go as far as to say it was probably his gun and he came up with a terrible story when handing it in. The point still stands though, he should not be prosecuted unless it had been used in an investigation. This is the whole reason for the story and the stink being created around it. Edit: He is being done with being caught in possession. This is their way round the amnesty. He was not caught, he was handing the weapon in to get it off the street. This is where I see the stitchup. If he was caught with it in his possession in the house then of course, throw the book at him. This is a completely different kettle of fish. I think I'll just throw my AK47 out on the street for the kids to play with, too much grief handing it in to the cops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 "The amnesty"? What amnesty? I see no mention of an amnesty in the BBC article. Been going on for about 3 years now IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 By not keeping it for several days before handing it in. The public have nothing to fear if they hand in weapons they find rather than taking them home for a few days first. The article states that he had "issues" with the local force as you can see they stitched him up when he handed it in, I guess they needed to improve stats. End of the day he "did" hand it in. Would you say the public are safer if he thought that he couldn't hand it in because he held onto it for 24 hours & then decided to throw it outside for some 15 year old chav to find? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave17 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Doesn't sound like the "meeting" was at the place in his home where it was allegedly stored, why would he have it in a bin liner in his trousers? In a public place would make it all entirely different from my point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Doesn't sound like the "meeting" was at the place in his home where it was allegedly stored, why would he have it in a bin liner in his trousers? In a public place would make it all entirely different from my point of view. Totally agree, it stinks. Can only judge on the facts presented though. Did he hand the gun in... yes. Is he getting screwed for it... yes. Does the home office policy regarding handing in firearms say he shouldn't be getting screwed.... yes. The way he has went about it is all wrong and raises suspiscion. You can't try and convict someone on suspiscion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think I'll just throw my AK47 out on the street for the kids to play with, too much grief handing it in to the cops. Damn, too slow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Damn, too slow! By a solid 5 mins too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.