Gunshop employee charged

[Patrick]

The bottom line is that the cop was prepared to kill the driver and he did not KNOW that he was armed.

Geez Lou... The cop KNEW he had a gun stolen in a Burglary, he KNEW he was a P head paranoid arsewipe.. he KNEW quite a bit about this skidmark, and he believed him to be armed.

He was prepared to arrest at gunpoint. He was assaulted with a weapon (the car) as a result and he fired a round at him, apparently.

Surely you don't expect him to walk up to him and say to the P head, "excuse me kind sir, are you armed and about to blow my head off today?" before taking action?

A bit like the arsehole who pulled out an unloaded sawn off shotgun on a cop and he received a lead injection the head as the cop ran back to his car firing... comments back then were "but the gun wasn't loaded...he shouldn't have been shot." Jeez there are some dumb feckers out there....but we are off topic...

[Lou Girardin]

Geez Lou... The cop KNEW he had a gun stolen in a Burglary, he KNEW he was a P head paranoid arsewipe.. he KNEW quite a bit about this skidmark, and he believed him to be armed.

He was prepared to arrest at gunpoint. He was assaulted with a weapon (the car) as a result and he fired a round at him, apparently.

.

So if he HAD hit the other cop, it would be OK because he KNEW all those things.
BTW How's the Bandit?

[Patrick]

So if he HAD hit the other cop, it would be OK because he KNEW all those things.
BTW How's the Bandit?

Shit no... but I seriously doubt he let rip knowing his mate was anywhere near harms way...

And the Bandit? Still goes fine, could go better... but still, at 200kmph, who needs more...

Did you find your missing ponies? I heard they might be at Bombay Pet Foods....

[scumdog]

Constable Allan Windrun was found not guilty in court.

The Judges comments were that it was one of the first times that he had unconditionally agreed with the Jury that a Defendant should not of been found guilty; only the second time in his career.

He further stated he could not understand why Police charged the Constable after only 2 out of the 15 witnesses said that the other officer was in the car at the time of the round being fired.

The Police officer who was in the rear of the vehicle himself did not know if he was in the car when the shot was being fired as he didnt realise a shot had been fired.

There was no way this charge should of been brought before the Court, its just Political Correctness gone mad. Put allan through a year of hell though for doing his job and bringing a known violent offender who preyed on the public into custody.

I notice there has been no media mention of the result.

Lou??

[Lou Girardin]

And the Bandit? Still goes fine, could go better... but still, at 200kmph, who needs more...

Closed road? Medical facilities at hand? Mine does 240.
Want a micron can? Cheap!

[Lou Girardin]

Judge yourself before you judge others.

I have. Found guilty.
But then I am a left footer. (Second only to Jews for guilt)

[Dai]

Back to Greg.

Anyone read the editorial in "Guns and Hunting" Jan/Feb issue.

In my opinon very well written and very explanatory.

I particularly like the quote they lead and finish with

"For justice to prevail the jury will have to see this charade for what it is-- a lawyers game in which, one way or another, the citizen always loses. The jury should reject the charge and award costs against the Crown"

Peter Maxwell has expressed my own feelings in this matter a lot more elequently than I am able.

The SSANZ newsletter on page 86-88 also is about the Carvell case and again is well written with some very interesting facts. I particulrly enjoyed the part about the turn around in the self defence law in the UK and Ireland.

Would appreciate input from other members

[davereid]

Sorry Dai - can you explain what the turn around in UK law is all about ?

[Dai]

Sorry Dai - can you explain what the turn around in UK law is all about ?

Its quite a long piece about the UK and Ireland 1 1/2 pages of the magazine but I will try to summarise the UK part.

A recent pamphlet entitled

"Householders and the Use of Force against Intruders"

was distributed to every household in the UK.

I have been to the UK Gov site and the following has been copied over. Bold and underlined statements are my addition. Which whilst not changing the wording seems to emphasise the document, to me at least.

=====================

"Householders and the use of force against intruders

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers

What is the purpose of this statement?

It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime.

Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events.
Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:

* having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
* you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?

In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:

* An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and
* If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.

It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders."

===================================

Sorry about the length of the article but I felt that publishing it in this thread was important.

This is the UK where a Cheif Constable when asked what someone should do when confronted with a violent intruder replied

"Shout Loudly"

Hence this document being released by the above mentioned parties.

[davereid]

Thanks Dai, interesting article.

[davereid]

I see how effective gun control is ! Graeme Burton released from jail on parole under "strict supervision." Now police looking for him find "military style weapons" including Glock pistol, rifles etc etc (The DOM Jan 6) And the police say he's still armed. This is just another example of how easy it is for crims to get firearms including pistols. The only barrier is the cost.

[jrandom]

I see how effective gun control is!

Oh well. Looks like they've got him now.

Someone at the Herald was obviously in a hurry to type that headline up, though; see attachment.

Can you link to info about what guns he had? I didn't see any pistols in the photo of seized firearms in the Herald a couple of days ago.

[parsley]

Blimey Fish, he looks like you. Without the earwig balanced on your chin, obviously.

[davereid]

No sorry, no link, Im reading the old paper version.. " Police uncovered an arsenal of military style weapons at his home, including a Glock pistol, sawn off rifles.."

And last week we had the arms dealer (accused of) flogging handguns, machine guns etc, and this week we have the aussies looking for lost RPGs. Not forgetting last month the local police showing a gang collection of guns including RPGs.

And in spite of the dozens of arrests recently, I still know exactly what pub to go to, and exactly who to see, to get a handgun etc if I want one.

[jrandom]

I still know exactly what pub to go to, and exactly who to see, to get a handgun...

Sweet! Any chance you could score me a discount on an STI TruBor?