Man arrested for FINDING gun in his backyard

[jasonk282]

The story itself does not really interest me that much - it's clear (at least it is to me) that we don't have all the information. What's more interesting to me is the fact that FOX News (where I'm sure Jason first read about this LINK) picked up on this story. A minor story in a local newspaper that has no major attention whatsoever over here at all. You have to ask yourself what is their reasoning behind this? Obviously to make a point of some sort, it is FOX after all – something about "the evils of socialism and how it's going to take away your guns and Obama is leading us down this path" I’m guessing. But to focus on such a non-story if I may call it that is puzzling.

Then again, I’msure their readers in the US won’t have this information unless they know the area. So it probably has bred enough anger at the bastard European socialistic governments from the gun loving crowd to warrant it being reported in the first place.

Actually BB the link that I provide is from www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk so unless it's a Fox affliate in England it's an english website. And I found out about this from a military forum..:wave2:

To be honest I had no idea Fox is covering this story. Why would anyother media org in this country cover a story about gun control gone wrong when thier constitutents want gun control.

 

[Kingfisher]

WTF?? There's so much worse things happening in the world. But what that is, is a lawyer or barrister over there, right?? Trying to make a name for himself at the expense of someone who doesn't have the means of a defense. And if every person who found a gun in their backyard was sent off to jail, most of south central LA would be empty.

 

[BlueBalls]

Actually BB the link that I provide is from www.thisissurrytoday.co.uk so unless it's a Fox affliate in England it's an english website. And I found out about the story on a military forum. From what I know about this story Fox is not involved at all.:wave2:

It's funny because when I googled the title of this thread earlier in the news section of google only This is Surrey Today and FOX news' website come up as links. And there's a link to This is Surrey is in the FOX news story. So while you might not have gotten it from there, someeone did.

Even so, it's still strange to me that FOX is covering this and no one else is.

 

[jasonk282]

Even so, it's still strange to me that FOX is covering this and no one else it.

Because liberals want gun control, why would the left leaning media stations cover a story about this huge screw up. That would be aganist what there viewers want.

 

[BlueBalls]

Because liberals want gun control, why would the left leaning media stations cover a story about this huge screw up. That would be aganist what there viewers want.

I didn't mean other US news stations. For an American news organisation to pick out a small incident that isn't a major news story or a story at all in fact in its country of origin just stinks of agenda pushing. Of course nothing less should be expected, this is FOX after all. But this story? The words desperation and exploitation springs to mind.

 

[Metallicus 156]

I don't think it was reasonable of the jury to find Mr. Clarke guilty for turning in the weapon the way that he did, but he should have been a little smarter about the situation. He definitely should have just called the police and had an officer take care of it. Just another example of how the justice system is far from perfect.

 

[georges]

people wanted gun control and wanted for those damn dems who approved that stupid clinton aw ban.

 

[BlueBalls]

people wanted gun control and wanted for those damn dems who approved that stupid clinton aw ban.

This was in the UK georges. Gun control was in place long before Clinton took office.

 

[georges]

This was in the UK georges. Gun control was in place long before Clinton took office.

my apologies I was thinking it was in the USA silly me :1orglaugh

 

[jasonk282]

people wanted gun control and wanted for those damn dems who approved that stupid clinton aw ban.

Thanks for reading the article.:georges:

 

[Spleen]

While he did do the right thing, he went the wrong way about it. If I had found the gun, I would of let it just sit there and phone the police to come pick it up.

 

[Friday on my mind]

We don't have laws like that in the US,in fact police depts routinely run programs here where people can turn in illegal guns with no questions asked in order to help get them off the streets.

I guess this guy by British law was suppose to not touch the gun and just call the police and let them deal with it.Hopefully at sentencing it will be taken into account he was not aware of the law and was trying to do the right thing.Hopefully the judge has some discretion in sentencing and there is not a mandatory sentence.

Guess my question would be is this a well known law in the UK that you are suppose to not touch the gun?

 

[marquis2]

Well they could have convicted him prima facie.....meaning on a strict interpretation of the law and the facts. But don't they have what's called "prosecutorial discretion" over there??? Meaning, even if certain facts amount to a prosecutable offense, mitigating circumstances are considered by the prosecuting authority and discretion against prosecution is favored.

Yes , the police wouldn't have brought a case had they not thought there had been a serious breach of the law. They aren't in the business of bringing cases to court without good reason (and the Crown Prosecution Service wouldn't allow it either) As I said in my post, everybody has taken the story at face value.I can't believe the police would have considered charging him had he just handed it in.There must be more than that to it.
The weapon in fact appears to have been a sawn off shotgun , a weapon only ever used for criminal purposes.It's possible to be found guilty because ............er.............you are guilty

 

[gotham123]

well i guess now i know how to frame my neighbor if his lawn mower wakes me up again, put a sawed off shotgun in his back yard

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes , the police wouldn't have brought a case had they not thought there had been a serious breach of the law. They aren't in the business of bringing cases to court without good reason (and the Crown Prosecution Service wouldn't allow it either) As I said in my post, everybody has taken the story at face value.I can't believe the police would have considered charging him had he just handed it in.There must be more than that to it.
The weapon in fact appears to have been a sawn off shotgun , a weapon only ever used for criminal purposes.It's possible to be found guilty because ............er.............you are guilty

Well that's not altogether true (at least not in US legal jurisdictions) in terms of the charging and prosecuting a case without good cause. Like I said before, the man could have just been charged, tried and convicted on prima facie fact. In other words, a strict interpretation of the law and facts...

Meaning the simple law may say you may not possess a firearm and he in fact possessed one in taking it to the police station...Does the law say that? Yes. Is it a fact he possessed a firearm (even if but to take it to the police station)? Yes. If those elements are true that is enough to turn a blind eye to circumstance and charge, try and convict someone.

You keep suggesting there may be more to it but the case has already been adjudicated and the facts aren't in legal dispute anymore.

It's not up to the cops to decide whether to prosecute or not. They look at evidence and based on the evidence they charge. The prosecutor get's the charges and looks at the evidence and determines whether to try the individual. At that point the fate of the case is up to the prosecutor's discretion.

While it's a little known fact here in the US there is a circumstance called jury nullification. Which is, it's completely legal for a jury look at all the facts and the facts be squarely against the accused but the jury vote not to convict based on some moral opposition to the law, consideration of the circumstances, etc. But the fate of the accused sits with the prosecutor.

But most of the time juries have their decisions confined to conviction or acquittal based solely on the facts determined in the trial.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Man arrested for FINDING gun in his backyard

Serves him right, for having a backyard.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well that's not altogether true (at least not in US legal jurisdictions) in terms of the charging and prosecuting a case without good cause. Like I said before, the man could have just been charged, tried and convicted on prima facie fact. In other words, a strict interpretation of the law and facts...

Meaning the simple law may say you may not possess a firearm and he in fact possessed one in taking it to the police station...Does the law say that? Yes. Is it a fact he possessed a firearm (even if but to take it to the police station)? Yes. If those elements are true that is enough to turn a blind eye to circumstance and charge, try and convict someone.

You keep suggesting there may be more to it but the case has already been adjudicated and the facts aren't in legal dispute anymore.

It's not up to the cops to decide whether to prosecute or not. They look at evidence and based on the evidence they charge. The prosecutor get's the charges and looks at the evidence and determines whether to try the individual. At that point the fate of the case is up to the prosecutor's discretion.

While it's a little known fact here in the US there is a circumstance called jury nullification. Which is, it's completely legal for a jury look at all the facts and the facts be squarely against the accused but the jury vote not to convict based on some moral opposition to the law, consideration of the circumstances, etc. But the fate of the accused sits with the prosecutor.

But most of the time juries have their decisions confined to conviction or acquittal based solely on the facts determined in the trial.

The prosecutor get's the charges and looks at the evidence and determines whether to try the individual.

The more accurate consideration would be whether the individual deserves punishment, are they upholding the law and does a prosecution serve the greater good of their jurisdiction.

I suspect (and could be wrong) the prosecuting authority is a paranoid, anti "gun" zealot.

 

[busenbust]

(gum?? )/

 

[Facetious]

Re: Man arrested for FINDING gun in his backyard

In two words... no, three.. excessively over reactionary.
I bet that if he was a moslem he would be heralded as a hero :bowdown:

I'm kidding... I think

 

[Facetious]

I guess this guy by British law was suppose to not touch the gun and just call the police and let them deal with it.Hopefully at sentencing it will be taken into account he was not aware of the law and was trying to do the right thing.Hopefully the judge has some discretion in sentencing and there is not a mandatory sentence.

Guess my question would be is this a well known law in the UK that you are suppose to not touch the gun?

This is where we're entering an atmosphere of a tyrannical police state where there are so many laws that every citizen becomes a lawbreaker and ignorance of the law is no exception.
Who exactly is being served by this injudiciousness ?

That's it Scotty Yard, fill those concrete blocks with perfectly good citizens. :hammer: :nono: