Reply With Quotenot a prob obviously a sticky subject apols for any offence <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobo:
<img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_confused.gif" alt="Confused" width="15" height="22"><!--graemlin:--> <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_frown.gif" alt="Frown" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
--> <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_confused.gif" alt="Confused" width="15" height="22"><!--graemlin:
Some things we DON'T joke about on here. Shooting people with airguns is one of them.
Terry[/quote]
or any other kind of firearm ,
he should get life for this and i mean the full 15 years ,
you would not belive the damage that something like this can do to some one mentally ,
trust me on this , i know
not a prob obviously a sticky subject apols for any offence <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
It is an offence under the Firearms Acts (for this purpose an airgun IS a firearm!) to use an airgun to endanger life or to resist arrest and the punishment available is life imprisonment or a fine or both. Lesser offences under the Acts carry sentences UTAI fourteen years imprisonment but the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of these cases are dealt with under Common Law by charging the offender with relatively minor offences such as breach of the peace or common assault for which the available sentences are derisory. Just why the CPS (and the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland) should choose to treat these serious offences in this manner is open to question but there are those who suspect that they have no wish to reduce the incidence of these assaults since the resultant adverse publicity against airguns actually assists them in their campaign to have them banned! BNow just what kind of a cynic could think that........??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry D:
Pat - that moron used an airgun with intent to wound. The 'wounds' he inflicted could well have cost some innocent person their sight.
Anyone who does this, be it with brick, airgun or anything else - should get at least 3 years in nick.
All IMHO of course. <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->
Terry[/quote]
Terry - fully agree my point was just that we should be talking about him getting three years for intending to wound another person(regardless of how) not LIFE for putting our hobby in jeopardy - my point was that hysteria comes from two directions - the antis because they are scared of anything that looks like a gun and shooters who are terrified of further restrictions - niether of which are constructive, neither console victims or prevent further similar incidents.
Pat
In my view he shouldn't face any sort of prosecution at all, no fine, no jail term, nothing.
He should, however, be handed over to a selected few members of this BBS (Terry D, Fenman, Le Git, anybody else who is large, scary, ex-para/marine or just plain physically intimidating) and taken to a very secluded undislosed location for a quiet 'chat'. I would imagine they could change his way of thinking, given sufficient time and one or two fairly common DIY tools? What say you all?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pat..:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phuttmutter:
clear intent to kill.[/quote]
With an air rifle?? - more dangerous if he threw it at them...
Don't get me wrong - I think he should be heavily prosecuted but shooters themeselves are as guilty as everyone else for stirring up the hysteria surrounding these sorts of incidents - all be it for different reasons. Its rather selfish of us to insist upon particularly sever punishment just because he's endangered our passtime, rather than the actual danger his actions posed to the victims concerend. If he had thrown housebricks I doubt we would all be demanding life imprisonment and criticise the legal system for being too lenient, in fact if he'd have thrown housebricks at policemen as part of a 'political' statement I doubt the incident would even have been reported!
<img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_frown.gif" alt="Frown" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
I agree.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyone who does this, be it with brick, airgun or anything else - should get at least 3 years in nick.
[/quote]
In a proper nick mind you <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the question is what laws?
Assuming he was in a public place where he took the shots from he has:
a. Had a loaded weapon in a public place
So, for the legal experts, what are the worse charges that could be brought against him and what are the max penalties he could/should receive [/quote]
Here are a few i can see off:
http://www.airgunforum.net/articles/penalties.htm
Offensive weapon in a public place
Four years prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Wounding/Grievous bodily harm
Life prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Manslaughter (should any die i hope that none do)
Life prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Murder (should any die i hope that none do)
Life prison
n/a Fine
Actual bodily harm
Two years prison
£ Unlimited fine
Common assault
Ten years Prison
£ Unlimited fine
Carrying loaded firearm in a public place
Seven years Prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Discharging a firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway causing injury, interruption or danger
n/a prison
£ 1000 Fine
Discharging a firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway causing damage
n/a prison
£ 1000 fine
Wantonly discharging firearm in a street
14 days prison
£ 1000 fine
Matt <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_mad.gif" alt="Mad" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Browser:
In my view he shouldn't face any sort of prosecution at all, no fine, no jail term, nothing.
He should, however, be handed over to a selected few members of this BBS (Terry D, Fenman, Le Git, anybody else who is large, scary, ex-para/marine or just plain physically intimidating) and taken to a very secluded undislosed location for a quiet 'chat'. I would imagine they could change his way of thinking, given sufficient time and one or two fairly common DIY tools? What say you all?[/quote]
and insert the aforementioned tools up his bottom!
sideways!
We also have this kind of moron in RSA, last week a student targeted 5 female students on a local varsity campus (Stellenbosch). Had a thing for their backsides/abdomens apparently.
I am old school on this kind of thing, I feel that a 9mm round in the back of the head would not be out of place.
Gentlemen, please allow me to digress and to employ an analogy to explain myself.
The British Parachute Association administers the sport of parachuting in the UK and is soley concerned with legitimate descents from aircraft. All parachutists engaged in the sport must become members of the BPA and thereby enjoy appropriate third party insurance.
BASE jumpers use parachutes, but there the similarity stops. When a BASE jumper makes an illegal descent from a fixed object, the BPA can quite rightly hold up its hands and say to the press "nothing to do with us". Critisism of responsible sport parachuting is therefore deflected.
Is it perhaps time that responsible, law abiding air rifle shooters adopt a similar attitude? Clearly, a substancial number of us do not align ourselves with an umbrella organisation. When we all do so, the associations will have the best possible opportunity to create distance between the resposible and the irresponsible.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tim1:
Gentlemen, please allow me to digress and to employ an analogy to explain myself.
The British Parachute Association administers the sport of parachuting in the UK and is soley concerned with legitimate descents from aircraft. All parachutists engaged in the sport must become members of the BPA and thereby enjoy appropriate third party insurance.
BASE jumpers use parachutes, but there the similarity stops. When a BASE jumper makes an illegal descent from a fixed object, the BPA can quite rightly hold up its hands and say to the press "nothing to do with us". Critisism of responsible sport parachuting is therefore deflected.
Is it perhaps time that responsible, law abiding air rifle shooters adopt a similar attitude? Clearly, a substancial number of us do not align ourselves with an umbrella organisation. When we all do so, the associations will have the best possible opportunity to create distance between the resposible and the irresponsible.[/quote]
The point I was trying to make - thanks Tim, just because a criminal chooses to use an air rifle to commit a crime rather than a knife or baseball bat should have no bearing on our opinion.
Members of the shooting community calling for lynchings, shooting in the back of the head or sexual assault with a hand tool ( strange <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_eek.gif" alt="Eek" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->)is an admission of corporate guilt!
<img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt="Roll Eyes" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the question is what laws?
Assuming he was in a public place where he took the shots from he has:
a. Had a loaded weapon in a public place
So, for the legal experts, what are the worse charges that could be brought against him and what are the max penalties he could/should receive [/quote]
Here are a few i can see off:
http://www.airgunforum.net/articles/penalties.htm
Offensive weapon in a public place
Four years prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Wounding/Grievous bodily harm
Life prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Manslaughter (should any die i hope that none do)
Life prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Murder (should any die i hope that none do)
Life prison
n/a Fine
Actual bodily harm
Two years prison
£ Unlimited fine
Common assault
Ten years Prison
£ Unlimited fine
Carrying loaded firearm in a public place
Seven years Prison
£ Unlimited Fine
Discharging a firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway causing injury, interruption or danger
n/a prison
£ 1000 Fine
Discharging a firearm within fifty feet of the centre of a highway causing damage
n/a prison
£ 1000 fine
Wantonly discharging firearm in a street
14 days prison
£ 1000 fine
Matt <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_mad.gif" alt="Mad" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
Absolutely, BUT I don't see:
Upsetting airgunners and antagonising antis
Hysterics followed by a good beating
£0 fine but shot in the head.
so I assume the law has the above covered,no need for us to get all guilty about it, if the legal system is falling short remember - its letting victims and their families down, not legitimate shooting. Pulling our hair out and beating our foreheads with stones will NOT impress the anti-shooting lobby, merely further highlight such incidents for which legitimate shooters bear no responsibility whatsoever. We know the truth: That if these idiots couldn't get hold of air rifles they would probably use any other illegaly obtained firearms available with much worse consequences but you will never educate the anti-shooting lobby as they are not listening.
Pat
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Members of the shooting community calling for lynchings, shooting in the back of the head or sexual assault with a hand tool ( strange )is an admission of corporate guilt!
[/quote]
Hi Pat
I suspect my wild enthusiasm for law enforcement got the better of me after hearing that we have had our 20th cash heist (again with security guards killed) within the last month....good, old sunny SA, a true criminals paradise.
Now I won't give you the views of what I feel is acceptable for that little lot....but I reckon that the 9mm would be deemed preferable if they had a choice <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="Big Grin" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:-->
But I reckon that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that implying that because of this there is an admission of corporate guilt is a bit of a stretch......LOL
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jono888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Members of the shooting community calling for lynchings, shooting in the back of the head or sexual assault with a hand tool ( strange )is an admission of corporate guilt!
[/quote]
Hi Pat
I suspect my wild enthusiasm for law enforcement got the better of me after hearing that we have had our 20th cash heist (again with security guards killed) within the last month....good, old sunny SA, a true criminals paradise.
Now I won't give you the views of what I feel is acceptable for that little lot....but I reckon that the 9mm would be deemed preferable if they had a choice <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="Big Grin" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
But I reckon that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that implying that because of this there is an admission of corporate guilt is a bit of a stretch......LOL[/quote]
Of course its a bit of a stretch - notmuch point in typing 'I agree' to everything though is there? <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_wink.gif" alt="Wink" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
I do believe however that some idiot shooting an airgun from a Newquay flat window should be punished in accordance with the appropriate British laws ( not sure if they still use a 'whicker man' in Cornwall <img src="http://jsramsbottom.co.uk/bbs/e/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="Big Grin" width="15" height="15"><!--graemlin:
Pat
How things have changed. Here's a snippet I just chanced across from 1864.
"Some boys who were out shooting in the Plaistow Marshes on Tuesday found, partially hidden among the reeds, the headless body of a man. A subsequent examination showed that the head had been cut from the body. It was found buried close to the spot where the body was discovered. The remains were identified as those of a foreigner, named John Fuhrop. The police have arrested one Kohl on suspicion of being concerned in the murder".
Well done shooting boys, doubtless Kohl will get the drop. Unlike community service, it is unlikely he will re-offend.
But where are the do gooders who aren't being outraged by the shooting boys? Well, unlike now, do-gooders were rather needed back then. Here's the next piece.
"An inquest of both a singular and painful character was held at Stratford on Saturday. It appeared from the evidence that a boy of twelve years of age was employed in the manufacture of Vesuvian lights- articles which are made by a combination of such combustible substances as phosphorous, nitre, and the like. After the chemicals had been put into a vessel it was the business of this poor child to stir them with a stick. If he stirred them slowly there was no danger; if briskly, the chloride of potash would blow up. The boy did the latter, and the result was an explosion which inflicted upon him frightful injuries, from which he subsequently died. Fifteen children are employed in the establishment, the major potion of them being under ten years of age. The jury, in returninga verdict of "Accidental death", strongly condemned the practice of employing children of such tender years in so dangerous an occupation".
Posting Permissions