According to testimony, it was his intention to have the gun de-commissioned and donate it to the regiment as some kind of war trophy.
I think a bag of powder would look ridiculous no matter if it were made harmless or not.
who are these people that can do this ?
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
I think a bag of powder would look ridiculous no matter if it were made harmless or not.
I was going to pour the meth down the sink, honest guv!
I think you miss my point.
Whilst i have a similar view to you regards gun and drug laws it is perfectly feasible to assume a bloke would be bringing a gun home to decommission and mount on the wall as a war trophy.
Similarly it would be ridiculous to assume that he was bringing home a bag of meth to do the same.
Your comparisons to drugs and guns in this scenario look silly.
However they do hold water elsewhere.
Rather you behind bars to be honest...this is a man who has made a difference, you're just Mr Joe Public!
Pointless question Joe really, apart from saving peoples lives, helping others, inventing a revolutionary field dressing that is used through out the world...hes done more in his career than you have in your life.
You never like anyone who has done better than you do you?
Part of being a member of the worlds most elite fighting force, he'll be home at christmas probably anyway.
Blimey took long enough before Joe decided to troll the party.
I've heard two of a situations.
In one, I know the guy was talking absolute boll-ox, he was caught driving without a licence on parole (for previous car related crimes), he said though that he took the car keys of his little brother, so as to stop him riding without a licence.
Another where a guy was caught with drugs on him, drugs that he confiscated from a friend who had addiction problems, he was going to dispose of them when he go home. I know this one was genuine, but of course, the police officer and courts thought it was a load of cobblers.
The point is you can come up with hundreds of "what ifs", but judges DO NOT LOOK AT WHAT IFS, they apply the law.
Their only discretion is with sentencing, NOT with the verdict.
And as someone pointed out, the sentence was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay below the maximum penalty.
The fact he is a "war hero" or "forgetful" is not relevant to the law.
But surely in this case the 'law' governing guns seems a little murky.
The glock was boxed up and shipped over by colleagues, not himself.
Did he request them to do so? Dunno, can't remember if the news story said he did or not.
Surely then to punish him under that law they'd have to prove he instructed it to be sent to him?
Otherwise, you could see how crazy life could get; send a gun in the post to someone you don't like, inform the rozzers someone has an illegal firearm....BOOM.... "you're nicked.....take him daaan!"
The glock was boxed up and shipped over by colleagues, not himself.
Did he request them to do so? Dunno, can't remember if the news story said he did or not.
Surely then to punish him under that law they'd have to prove he instructed it to be sent to him?
Otherwise, you could see how crazy life could get; send a gun in the post to someone you don't like, inform the rozzers someone has an illegal firearm....BOOM.... "you're nicked.....take him daaan!"
And he claimed he kept in in a box, unopened, for 3 years, and so didn't know it was in the box, really, what else was in the box, he just stashed the box, not knowing what was in it?
Now that may be true, but "may be" is not good enough for a judge.
Whichever way you twist this, this is the gun law being applied.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,831
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/secure-the-release-of-an-unfairly-jailed-war-hero
posted elsewhere put on here
posted elsewhere put on here
