 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-14234759
Guy broke into a house, stole a cash box which unbeknown to him contained a gun. He panicked and buried the gun, police traced him for the burglary and prosecuted him for illegal possesion of a fire arm - 5yrs.
I think that it's pretty harsh. It was an unlicensed firearm so the person who it was stolen from should face the same sentence.
Original owner may have to answer some questions but if you steal dodgy gear then you are in possesion of it so liable to feel the long arm.
How can that be anything other than fair ?
He had possession of a gun and no permit. He could have handed the gun into the police. He didn't of course because he was the sort of scumbag who breaks into people's homes. 5 years well earned.
He should have thrown it in the sea. Would not have been in possession then.
Idiot.
He may have allowed a previous unlicensed and therefore illegal 'war booty' gun (many of them around from both World Wars I'm sure) that was in no danger of getting into unscrupulous hands (except by burglary) of being found by any member of the public.
If I somehow came by a gun and didn't want to hand it in and possibly answer awkward questions about where I had got it, I wouldn't bury it in my garden unless I intended to one day dig it up and use it.
he should get 5 years for breaking into a private house anyhow so i have no sympathy. 4months for that? that's the only injustice here that i can see.
Should have shot himself
KARMA
One of the better pieces of legislation in this country...
gravitysucks + 1
LOL at "karma" etc, well done Kings of the Stone-age!
You'd think the owner could/should have been done too.
It's arguable that you need to have knowledge of something to possess it, IMO, I thin kit's unfair.
[url= http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/story-12659234-detail/story.html ]this was harsh[/url]
looks like sense prevailed tho
Why unfair?
He was prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm. He was in possesion of a firearm. Where he got it from is irrelevant.
If you want to make how he obtained it relevant then that includes another illegal act. I fail to see why anyone should sympathise with this criminal.
The prosecution of the original owner should be decided on its own merit. There is little facts about the circumstance why she was in possesion but it obviously didn't warrant a conviction.
gravitysucks - Member
There is little facts about the circumstance why she was in possesion but it obviously didn't warrant a conviction.
Nice bias there 🙄
Take an angle grinder, reduce the thing tiny peices and put the pieces in a jiffi bag addressed to the local police with no stamps on. His mistake was keeping it. Why did he keep it? He perhaps thought it might be useful one day.
It's arguable that you need to have knowledge of something to possess it, IMO, I thin kit's unfair.
He buried it so he must have known he had it.
Why Bias?
The facts of his case are present, the previous owners arn't.
Bias would be assuming the guilt or innocence of the previous owner based on speculation and not facts. How are your conclusions drawn again?
doesn't say he was convicted of burglary. that would prove that she had the gun (although does say she identified the gun)
he was sent down for possession. of which he was guilty.
But so was that soldier?
And....if a friend gave you a box or something to deliver, you got stopped, it had a gun in it, would you be happy with 5 years?
Thought not 🙄
gravitysucks - Member
There is little facts about the circumstance why she was in possesion but it obviously didn't warrant a conviction.
How can you possibly know whether it didn't warrant a conviction? Cos she is a poor wee widow?
You don't have a clue - you've assumed she is innocent and/or that the Fiscal made the right decision even they would know more facts that you. That's your bias.
He should have gone down in a blaze of glory. It's what Big Vern would have done.
You don't have a clue - you've assumed she is innocent and/or that the Fiscal made the right decision even they would know more facts that you. That's your bias.
Please quote me were I have said the previous owner is innocent. I haven't passed any judgement on the previous owner at all.
There is little facts about the circumstance why she was in possesion but it obviously didn't warrant a conviction.
It obviously didn't warrant a conviction as she wasn't convicted.
You are assuming her guilt based on nothing factual.
I like the part where he " panicked and hid it in the garden". Still therefore in his possession and worth a few bob if and when he could find a buyer. No shortage of places to permanently dispose of a gun around Forres!
Re the soldier -
Why did he not just phone the Police and say "I've found a gun in my garden, come and get it" instead of making a big drama?"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him..."At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Apparently because he was shagging one fed and thought another jealous one might abuse the situation. Why he didn't put an angle grinder through the breach before handing it in I have no idea.
gravitysucks - Member
Please quote me were I have said the previous owner is innocent. I haven't passed any judgement on the previous owner at all.
Here - or this is close enough in my book in the context of this thread:
There is little facts about the circumstance why she was in possesion but it obviously didn't warrant a conviction.It obviously didn't warrant a conviction as she wasn't convicted.
You are assuming her guilt based on nothing factual.
Where have I assumed her guilt? I said she should have been "done" i.e. "prosecuted".
It is completely fair! He is scum who broke into someone's house, he later discovered he had ended up with this firearm, bricked it so buried it. Do not pass go, possession of a firearm minimum sentence of 5 years. Byeeeee don't go burgling again thief. No sympathy whatsoever.
Actually, after reading Munqe-chick's comment I tend to agree that he deserved the sentence.
This guy [b]is[/b] a piece of scum, who burgled a 63 year old widows house AND THEN tried to pass the blame onto her for not having a firearm permit. Was that his idea, or his solicitors I wonder?
Widow had an unlicensed firearm - why does she not get 5 years? Where is the line in the sand?
Because she's a nice fluffy victim and he is a nasty burglar. Mind you, what her deceased Husband had it for is anyones guess 😉Widow had an unlicensed firearm - why does she not get 5 years?
hes a thief and a stupid one too imho
if he hadnt led the police to the gun trying to set up the old lady he'd probably just got a slap on the wrist