Man Arrested For Handing In Gun

[Paddy]

I wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.

Thant doesn’t work either. About 20 years ago a distant friend who was a resident landlord in a small block of flat s. He reported to the police about a package hidden in a tree in the back garden. The package contained drugs. Although he was not suspected in dealing he was charged on the technicality that the drugs were in possession on his property. He got six months for that.

[TinTrump]

I wonder if this is the whole story.

Quite. I can understand that, him being ex-army, he might have been at ease with the weapon, but why not mention it to the coppers instead of making an appointment?

2 other issues. The CPS can decide whether its in the public interest to pursue the case, which they did (making me more inclined to think that they'd performed a sanity check). Secondly the speed of the guilty verdict from the jury; 20 mins. Juries do go against the direction of the judge; Clive Ponting was cleared of breaking the Off. Secrets Act even though that's exactly what he did.

So, appears perverse, but I'd like to know more. I really hope something we're not aware of justifies this verdict and sentence. Otherwise its atrocious.

[mudskipper]

Maybe they forgot to mention he popped into the bank en route to the police station.

[The Dog Man]

On the way home from the pub last night I passed three police cars from the dog patrol parked outside one of the restaurants with the pigs inside collecting a take-away. The engines of all the cars outside were still running, but there was nobody in any of them and one of the cars had a dog barking as if it was in some distress.
I’ve seen them there before doing the same thing; it’s not an isolated incident. I think I’m going to start taking my camera out with me to take pictures. However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

First of all I am sure that the intelligent readers will have realised that this story is not true, it is reported by one side only and therefore doesn’t give a true picture.
Now back to my friend above.
Are police officers not allowed to eat? I find that a 12 hour shift with no food is a long time.
Are police officers not allowed to use a take-away is there some special place we should buy our food from?
The dog vans were left with the engines running through the use of a "run lock" device, this allows the driver to remove the keys and lock the doors while leaving the engine running to allow the air conditioning to keep the dogs cool. Any attempt to move the vehicle kills the engine.
If the police officer was using his phone while driving then he was totally wrong and deserves to be disciplined for it. If he was parked in the station car park with the engine running then this was no offence.
Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man

[Gonzo]

Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man

A word to the wise.

I wouldn't go taking so much interest in HAB's manhood if I were you.

[threaded]

First of all I am sure that the intelligent readers will have realised that this story is not true, it is reported by one side only and therefore doesn’t give a true picture.

I know it's out on the internet so maybe one should take it with a pinch of salt, but I think it is true.

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/n...l/article.html

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"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."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

- Comments on this story have been disabled for the weekend, they will be reinstated on Monday.

[BrilloPad]

Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/n...l/article.html

He should have used it to rob a bank instead.

[RichardCranium]

He should have used it to rob a bank instead.

Well there's no point trying to rob a Post Office - you'd never find one.

[HairyArsedBloke]

First .....

Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man

Go on own up. Who was this?

Whoever it is, they have got the self-righteous, self-entitled, above the law attitude of the police off to a tee.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

...However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.

Only if you're going to use it to help a terrorist.

Only if it "might be of use for terrorism".

And it might, who can deny it......