OT: What would you do?
Michael
--
Darrett Computer Repair
mrdarrett [at] gmail [dot] com
Free estimates.
No charge if we can't fix it.
Tim Wescott
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-
gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Bury it where it lay, without touching it?
At least if I were living in GB!
Michael
And let all that lead dissolve and leach into the groundwater? Horror!
Jim Yanik
news:zp6dnWQwvqCzqp7W...@web-ster.com:
Such is "justice" in the United Kingdom.
Not much common sense there,evidently.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Artemus
"Michael" <mrda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7331c8e6-b221-4a2d...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
Given the actions of the police and prosecution it is only logical to
assume that if the gun were on your property they would charge you
with possession even if you knew nothing about it. If you call and tell
them about a gun (even if it was not on your property) they would
charge you with ownership as you knew it's location. Ergo the best
course of action would be to tell a local criminal and let them go get it.
Art
John Larkin
<mrda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Astonishing. There is no defense against the "crime" of handling a
gun, no matter what the circumstances. If someone hands you a bouquet
of flowers that has a handgun hidden inside, I suppose you go to
prison. If you take a gun away from a terrorist who is about to kill a
bus full of kids, ditto.
The UK is becoming a madhouse. No wonder so many Brits emigrate to the
USA.
John
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Fortunately, that's not Arizona. Here they'd probably put the gun in
"lost & found", and then give it to the ex-soldier after it went
unclaimed.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Nancy Pelosi is living proof that Botox causes mental illness.
Jim Thompson
Naaaah! Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Australia.
As Spehro pointed out, put company headquarters in Hong Kong,
manufacture in China.
The USA is entering the same brain-drain phase as GB did some years
ago.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
If you wanted a President with balls why didn't you elect Hillary?
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
The constable touched it--why wasn't he arrested?
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
David L. Jones
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically,
then they all should have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who
then also walk out in disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get
around to getting convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
_at_the_police_station_.
Same thing over here. I can carry my gun around or keep it in the drawer
at home. But carrying weapons into a police station (or courthouse,
school, or various other places) is strictly forbidden.
This guy should have secured it at his home and called the police for
further instructions on how to take care of it.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows tip #248: add BUGS=OFF to your registry.
John Larkin
<alt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
>What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
>If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically,
>then they all should have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who
>then also walk out in disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get
>around to getting convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
>
>Dave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
John
Phil Allison
"David L. Jones"
>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
** The accused opted for a jury trail by pleading not guilty at
an earlier stage. I suspect if he had pleaded guilty and explained
all the circumstances, he would have got small fine or similar.
> If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal
> technically,
** A jury is never forced to find an accused guilty - but they may be
directed to acquit for any number of reasons. While it is very rare for a
jury to ignore a judge's directions as to how they should deal with a
particular case - nevertheless they CAN and will never need to supply
their reasons.
> then they all should have walked out in disgust.
** They cannot do that - it would be contempt.
But they can decide to ignore the judge's advice and acquit an accused
because they believe the law itself is wrong.
The matter is then OVER because of the principle of "double jeopardy".
BTW:
I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided us.
.... Phil
mi...@sushi.com
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>
> --
<spam removed>
Last time I checked, the cops have guns. Why not call one and wait for
the cop to show up, and then point out the location of the gun.
I simply don't understand people that don't comprehend personal
responsibility. If you can't posses a gun, then maybe it's not a good
idea to posses a gun. Doh! But the right wing loons make up all sorts
of excuses for people that don't have personal responsibility.
Christ, look at how Cheney got off the hook for shooting someone in
the face. The USSS hid his drunk ass from the cops for 24 hours.
ChrisQ
>>
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Astonishing. There is no defense against the "crime" of handling a
> gun, no matter what the circumstances. If someone hands you a bouquet
> of flowers that has a handgun hidden inside, I suppose you go to
> prison. If you take a gun away from a terrorist who is about to kill a
> bus full of kids, ditto.
>
> The UK is becoming a madhouse. No wonder so many Brits emigrate to the
> USA.
>
> John
>
Perhaps now you understand why i'm so keen on getting this lot out at
the next election, before they do yet more damage.
I could write a book on the amount of kneejerk, ill considered
legislation introduced by Blair, Brown & Co. Far too dangerous to be
allowed to run a tea room, never mind a country :-(...
Regards,
Chris
David L. Jones
That must be the case, otherwise a (sensible) jury would have found him not
guilty of such a clearly ridiculous charge.
Not to mention the arresting cop who could have exercised judgement in the
first place.
Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
PeterD
wrote:
Sad thing is that he'd gotten less time had he killed someone with it.
Just look at the case of the Locerbie bomber...
What a total bunch of asses...
But before you think that GB is the only place where this can happen,
in Massa2shits say someone holds you up with a gun. You take the gun
away from him--guess what? A manditory 1 year for unlicensed
possession of a hand gun!
Hammy
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:52:14 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36:32 -0800, Michael wrote:
>>
>>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>>
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-
>>gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>>Bury it where it lay, without touching it?
>>
>>At least if I were living in GB!
>
>Sad thing is that he'd gotten less time had he killed someone with it.
>Just look at the case of the Locerbie bomber...
>
>What a total bunch of asses...
What do you expect? Laws are written by lawyers so obviously it's more
lucrative to be as obscure as possible. The more ways a law can be
interpreted the longer it can be drawn out in court resulting in a
cash for life bonanza for lawyers.
When your looking at years if not decades for cases to be resolved
something is wrong.
Some other prime examples in Canada is the vagueness surrounding the
level of force your allowed to use protecting self and property. A
current example; a man is being charged for holding a shoplifter for
police who repeatedly stole from his store. His initial charge was
kidnapping. Public outrage pressured the crown to levy less serious
charges but the man shouldn't be charged at all.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091103/091103_chen_shopkeeper/20091103/?hub=CP24Home
John Larkin
At least the US politicians have their priorities straight. All they
want is our money.
John
Jim Thompson
Same issue in the US. Perp was "chased down", seized, and locked in a
truck.
Tricky. In AZ it's considered simply a "citizen's arrest". In NY
you'd go away for life.
Thus I think trying KSM in NY is proper. NY needs population
"thinning and correction" ;-)
Joel Koltner
news:4B0376B7...@hovnanian.com...
> This guy should have secured it at his home and called the police for
> further instructions on how to take care of it.
It's still ridiculous that -- assuming the cops believe his story -- they'd
prosecute him anyway, even if strictly speaking he is breaking the law.
Where's that "prosecutorial discretion" in the UK? Oh, wait, that's a U.S.
concept, I guess...
Rich Grise
> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Ah, the joys of gun control!
Pfaugh! That's why we threw the king and princes out of the country in
1776 or so.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:23:42 +1100, "David L. Jones" <alt...@gmail.com>
>>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>>
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>>What on earth is the point of having a jury then? If the jury were forced
>>to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically, then they all should
>>have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who then also walk out in
>>disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get around to getting
>>convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
>
Yeah, in the US. But we have a Constitution instead of a king. (Or that's
the way it's _supposed_ to be.)
Thanks,
Rich
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
[snip]
>
> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided
> us.
Well, its in the UK. So everyone supposing about how courts and juries work
based on US law (or more likely watching Law and Order) is pretty useless.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Hammy
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>Same issue in the US. Perp was "chased down", seized, and locked in a
>truck.
Makes you wonder whatever happened to common sense! Wait I know
lawyers and politicians happened.
I worked in retail well in school and the police won't come or won't
be in any hurry for what they consider a trivial offence
"shoplifting".
I use to see people who would just walk in a grab things in plane
sight and leave knowing full well there's nothing you can do.
So you're not left with many options if you want to make a living in
retail. You have to use force to protect your lively hood or go
bankrupt.
mi...@sushi.com
> Hmm. The way I read it, the charge was for possesing the gun
> _at_the_police_station_.
>
> Same thing over here. I can carry my gun around or keep it in the drawer
> at home. But carrying weapons into a police station (or courthouse,
> school, or various other places) is strictly forbidden.
>
> This guy should have secured it at his home and called the police for
> further instructions on how to take care of it.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Windows tip #248: add BUGS=OFF to your registry.
Well, another person in the thread with a brain. With firearms, you
learn the laws and deal with it. Case in point is the definition of a
loaded gun.
Do these morons drive a car and not know the laws of the road? Again,
personal responsibility is the key.
David L. Jones
Which culminated in George W. Bush for 8 years...
We here in Oz tried to top your glory of GWB by having Little Jonny for
almost 12 years, but he's not in the same league of stupidness. You win :->
But I like the fact our head of state can just go missing and we don't give
a toss, that can be useful :-D
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> Rich Grise wrote:
>> Pfaugh! That's why we threw the king and princes out of the country in
>> 1776 or so.
>
> Which culminated in George W. Bush for 8 years...
>
Recently replaced by Barack Hussein Obama, who is not only embracing the
worst of Bush but TRIPLING the problem, while he bows to princes and
dictators.
Thanks,
Rich
David L. Jones
From what I can gather, he was legally elected by popular vote (no protests
and egg throwing this time!), hadn't started any uncessary wars, is actually
smart, doesn't have any direct family connections with your sworn enemy, and
at least looks like he's the one calling the shots without the puppet
strings. A definite step up the evolutionary chain, a hearty
congratulations. Your next step up is to elect an atheist.
He was left holding a really big smelly bag, he has my commiserations.
ChrisQ
>
> Well, another person in the thread with a brain. With firearms, you
> learn the laws and deal with it. Case in point is the definition of a
> loaded gun.
>
> Do these morons drive a car and not know the laws of the road? Again,
> personal responsibility is the key.
I like that. Whatever happens to you in life is your own fault, so don't
try to shift the blame. Be awake to your responsibilities at all times
:-)...
Regards,
Chris
Martin Brown
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
> news:4B0376B7...@hovnanian.com...
>> This guy should have secured it at his home and called the police for
>> further instructions on how to take care of it.
He would probably have been OK if he had warned the police that he was
bringing them a weapon he had found in his garden thrown over the fence.
Although they would have told him not to touch it, leave it exactly
where it was and come round within the hour to collect it for forensics.
His mistake was to turn up at a police station and produce the weapon
unexpectedly. I suspect a US police desk officer would also take a dim
view of a member of the public wandering in and pulling out a gun.
>
> It's still ridiculous that -- assuming the cops believe his story -- they'd
Why assume that? It seems from other reports that it is more complex.
> prosecute him anyway, even if strictly speaking he is breaking the law.
They have no choice once it was recorded. That is the very essence of
zero tolerance policing - there is *no* common sense at all. The sawn
off shotgun is the violent criminals weapon of choice. As such
possession or handling one in the UK is a strict liability offence.
>
> Where's that "prosecutorial discretion" in the UK? Oh, wait, that's a U.S.
> concept, I guess...
It is a zero tolerance rule brought in by the US Rambo style policing.
Zero tolerance gives no leeway for motive and they are often very badly
drafted knee-jerk pieces of legislation. Dangerous dogs act is another.
Reading other reports it seems that the guy gave the police officers
quite a shock. I wonder exactly how a US police station desk officer
would react if someone walked in from the street and pulled a sawn off
shotgun and ammo out of a bin bag at the front desk ?
A slightly more informed version of events is online at :
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3228476&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4#post368401949
There seems to be more to it than has been reported in the biassed
account that started this thread. If the story was exactly as reported
in the local rag then I doubt if the CPS would have prosecuted.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Nobody
> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided us.
That seems to be the opinion of anyone who has read the story and isn't
predisposed to believe it on the sole basis of it confirming their
prejudices.
The main issue which comes up is why no other media outlet seems to be
reporting this. Apparently it got half a column-inch in The Sun, which
would normally have a story like this on the front page for days if it had
legs.
The fact that it took the jury 20 minutes to convict suggests that this
was a unanimous verdict, and a fairly easy one for the jurors. In awkward
cases, juries will occasionally return "not guilty" verdicts in spite of
clear evidence that the accused is guilty as charged, or at least request
repeated clarifications from the judge to make it clear that they aren't
particularly eager to convict.
Based on the very limited information provided in the sole primary source,
my guess is that the jury simply didn't buy his "I found it" defence.
Spehro Pefhany
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B0376B7...@hovnanian.com...
>>> This guy should have secured it at his home and called the police for
>>> further instructions on how to take care of it.
>
>He would probably have been OK if he had warned the police that he was
>bringing them a weapon he had found in his garden thrown over the fence.
>Although they would have told him not to touch it, leave it exactly
>where it was and come round within the hour to collect it for forensics.
>
>His mistake was to turn up at a police station and produce the weapon
>unexpectedly. I suspect a US police desk officer would also take a dim
>view of a member of the public wandering in and pulling out a gun.
Don't they have bullet-proof glass windows and intercoms inside UK
police stations?
;-)
Phil Allison
"Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided
>> us.
>
> Well, its in the UK. So everyone supposing about how courts and juries
> work
> based on US law (or more likely watching Law and Order) is pretty useless.
** And you think I have done that ??
Jury nullification is allowed in all "common law" countries - the US, UK
and Australia are all examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_Kingdom
Jury decisions may also fly in the face of the weight of evidence, not
because the jurors believed the law to be wrong, but because they simply did
not trust the evidence given by police and police witnesses.
Many examples of a " hung jury " arise when one or two of the jury know just
how likely it is for police to produce perjuring witnesses and falsify
evidence themselves in order to get a conviction.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
"Nobody"
Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided
>> us.
>
> That seems to be the opinion of anyone who has read the story and isn't
> predisposed to believe it on the sole basis of it confirming their
> prejudices.
>
> The main issue which comes up is why no other media outlet seems to be
> reporting this. Apparently it got half a column-inch in The Sun, which
> would normally have a story like this on the front page for days if it had
> legs.
** And if it had a court reporter at the trail - which it obviously did not.
The man has not been sentenced yet, so wait for it.
> The fact that it took the jury 20 minutes to convict suggests that this
> was a unanimous verdict, and a fairly easy one for the jurors.
** Well, the jury were told this was a case where the accused had no
possible defence and the witnesses were all local police officers. Like
most juries, they simply did what the judge told them to and believed they
should do - instead of "rocking the boat".
> Based on the very limited information provided in the sole primary source,
> my guess is that the jury simply didn't buy his "I found it" defence.
** No evidence was produced to falsify the accused's claim of finding the
gun in his yard - so it would be a monstrous miscarriage of justice for a
jury to simply invent such evidence.
Where evidence from an accused is uncontradicted, it must not be assumed to
be a lie by the jury - cos that flies right in the face of the "
presumption of innocence " that is at the heart of all criminal cases in
the civilized world.
..... Phil
Bill Sloman
"Rich Grise" <rich...@example.net> schreef in bericht
news:pan.2009.11.18....@example.net...
Nonsense. You threw out the British tax collectors. All the pretentious talk
about liberty was just an after the fact justification for a straightforward
piece of tax evasion.
When you started taxing yourselves you immediately had another - less
susccessful - revolt, the Whiskey Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> "Rich Grise" <richgr...@example.net> schreef in berichtnews:pan.2009.11.18....@example.net...
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36:32 -0800, Michael wrote:
>
> >> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>
> > Ah, the joys of gun control!
>
> > Pfaugh! That's why we threw the king and princes out of the country in
> > 1776 or so.
>
> Nonsense. You threw out the British tax collectors. All the pretentious talk
> about liberty was just an after the fact justification for a straightforward
> piece of tax evasion.
>
> When you started taxing yourselves you immediately had another - less
> susccessful - revolt, the Whiskey Rebellion
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
All true, but we had a great 220-year run, didn't we? And we've got
fewer cameras than the UK, so far.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
mi...@sushi.com
Not everything that happens to you is your own fault. But this
situation certainly wasn't rocket science. It's like those nuts that
try to sneak weapons past the TSA just to prove the TSA can't do the
job, and then bitch when they get arrested.
Greegor
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:23:42 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>
> >Michael wrote:
> >> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
> >>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing...
>
> >If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically,
> >then they all should have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who
> >then also walk out in disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get
> >around to getting convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
>
> John
Judges and prosecutors HATE Jury Nullification
or Fully Informed Jury Association!
At Voi Dir they screen out anybody who has
ever known of a corrupt cop, court or government.
Anybody who was ever charged with anything, whether
found guilty or innocent, is excused.
Anybody who ever HEARD of FIJA is screened out.
FIJA was handing out pamphlets outside of court house.
Anybody who got one to read while waiting, screened out.
Juries are given a thick stack of Jury Instructions.
In a case with mandates like the Brit one above,
they would be instructed NOT to consider intent.
Judges at all levels tend to be attorneys and
are well aware of confirmation bias and
"risky shift".
Juries have to waste so much time waiting
that they are angry and basically just want
to convict the accused bastard and go eat lunch.
Prosecutors then brag about their ""success"" rate.
If even one FIJA person got into a jury then
instead of the automatic guilty to go to lunch,
more juries would be not guilty go to lunch.
If you're on trial for something your fate
rests with 12 people who were not smart
enough to get out of jury duty and who
just want to go to lunch.
If you've got a "public pretender" you are screwed.
Been there, done that.
I served 6 months in Jail for something I did NOT do.
The chance of anybody on the jury objecting
to the jury instructions that are like horse
blinders or cattle stanchions or giving a
rats ass? They just want lunch.
Greegor
> the jury simply didn't buy his "I found it" defence.
How would you explain him turning it in to Police?
Greegor
> "Nobody"
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has provided
> >> us.
>
> > That seems to be the opinion of anyone who has read the story and isn't
> > predisposed to believe it on the sole basis of it confirming their
> > prejudices.
>
> > The main issue which comes up is why no other media outlet seems to be
> > reporting this. Apparently it got half a column-inch in The Sun, which
> > would normally have a story like this on the front page for days if it had
> > legs.
>
> ** And if it had a court reporter at the trail - which it obviously did not.
PA > The man has not been sentenced yet, so wait for it.
The news coverage may make it just too
embarassing for the Judge to give him any prison time.
Judges are much more creatures of Public Opinion
than they are supposed to be.
PA > The fact that it took the jury 20 minutes to convict suggests
that this
PA > was a unanimous verdict, and a fairly easy one for the jurors.
PA > ** Well, the jury were told this was a case where
PA > the accused had no possible defence and the
PA > witnesses were all local police officers. Like
PA > most juries, they simply did what the judge told
PA > them to and believed they should do - instead
PA > of "rocking the boat".
That IS the big downfall of our "trial by a jury of our peers" system.
20 minutes and time for lunch!
> > Based on the very limited information provided in the sole primary source,
> > my guess is that the jury simply didn't buy his "I found it" defence.
>
> ** No evidence was produced to falsify the accused's claim of finding the
> gun in his yard - so it would be a monstrous miscarriage of justice for a
> jury to simply invent such evidence.
PA > Where evidence from an accused is uncontradicted,
PA > it must not be assumed to be a lie by the jury
PA > - cos that flies right in the face of the "
PA > presumption of innocence " that is at the heart
PA > of all criminal cases in the civilized world.
That's the theory, but in practice THAT would never
be in the jury instructions.
> ..... Phil
Greegor
education to be a school teacher and at the VERY
tail end, student teaching practicum, the person
was found to be unsuitable to be a school teacher.
She lacked that little bit of Hitler that every
school teacher needs to maintain order.
The point?
We've had very smart presidents that SUCKED.
And pretty dumb ones who did a FABULOUS job.
EQ can be vastly more important than IQ.
Right Sloman?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It all depends on choosing the right unelected people.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Phil Allison
"Greegor"
Nobody
> the jury simply didn't buy his "I found it" defence.
How would you explain him turning it in to Police?
** Some fanciful theory explaining *any damn thing you like* can be
invented by anyone who cares to use their imagination and will appear to fit
with the known circumstances to the uninformed.
It is impossible to prove such theories wrong - cos absolutely nothing
proves them right.
The " presumption of innocence" is derived from this blindingly obvious
fact.
..... Phil
Greegor
wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > I knew a person who got all the way through their college
> > education to be a school teacher and at the VERY
> > tail end, student teaching practicum, the person
> > was found to be unsuitable to be a school teacher.
>
> > She lacked that little bit of Hitler that every
> > school teacher needs to maintain order.
>
> > The point?
>
> > We've had very smart presidents that SUCKED.
> > And pretty dumb ones who did a FABULOUS job.
>
> > EQ can be vastly more important than IQ.
>
> > Right Sloman?
DB > It all depends on choosing the right unelected people.
Why unelected?
Phil Allison
"Greegor"
Judges and prosecutors HATE Jury Nullification
or Fully Informed Jury Association!
At Voi Dir they screen out anybody who has
ever known of a corrupt cop, court or government.
Anybody who was ever charged with anything, whether
found guilty or innocent, is excused.
** Is that automatic or do they have to ask for such excuse in the US ??
Anybody who ever HEARD of FIJA is screened out.
FIJA was handing out pamphlets outside of court house.
Anybody who got one to read while waiting, screened out.
** Must be a US thing where defence attorneys and prosecutors get to
question prospective jurors.
In Australia and the UK no questions are allowed, the very limited number of
objections are based solely on a jurors appearance.
Juries are given a thick stack of Jury Instructions.
** No so in Australia or the UK - AFAIK.
In a case with mandates like the Brit one above,
they would be instructed NOT to consider intent.
** But never told that crimes cannot ever be committed by accident.
Judges at all levels tend to be attorneys and
are well aware of confirmation bias and
"risky shift".
** Jargon for ????
Juries have to waste so much time waiting
that they are angry and basically just want
to convict the accused bastard and go eat lunch.
** The main problem is that nearly all jurors see themselves as part of the
legal system, brought in to " help out " with getting cases through the
courts. And, being the nice, respectable folk they falsely imagine
themselves to be - they are only too happy to oblige.
Prosecutors then brag about their ""success"" rate.
** As did government paid henchmen in the good old days.
If you've got a "public pretender" you are screwed.
** Never met one of them that did not recommend entering a plea of guilty.
And also refuse all help otherwise.
> Been there, done that.
> I served 6 months in Jail for something I did NOT do.
** Been there too - but luckily for me a smart magistrate saw right
through a police case based on witness collusion & perjury.
In his summing up, he gave the smug, slimy looking police persecutor a right
bollocking for bringing an obviously innocent person before his court.
Still cost me a bunch of money & 18 months of worry.
The chance of anybody on the jury objecting
to the jury instructions that are like horse
blinders or cattle stanchions or giving a
rats ass? They just want lunch.
** Ever see a 1957 movie called "12 Angry Men" ??
Should be compulsory viewing for all prospective jurors.
Then they must pass a test on what it is all about.
Only dreaming, I know.
..... Phil
Nobody
A desire to get rid of it?
If his fingerprints and/or DNA were all over it, or someone saw him
handling it (e.g. while trying to dispose of it), turning it in and
claiming to have found it might seem less of a risk than disposing of it
and hoping it's never found.
Tim Williams
news:59c07ef4-feb9-4b0c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > EQ can be vastly more important than IQ.
> >
> > > Right Sloman?
>
> DB > It all depends on choosing the right unelected people.
>
> Why unelected?
Because people like you and I would never run for political office?
Tim
--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
ehsjr
<snip>
>
>
> ** Ever see a 1957 movie called "12 Angry Men" ??
>
> Should be compulsory viewing for all prospective jurors.
>
> Then they must pass a test on what it is all about.
>
> Only dreaming, I know.
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
>
>
Well, maybe it's only dreaming, but it's a damn good idea.
Ed
>
Bill Sloman
Since I don't think much of the intelligence quotient as a way of
assessing people, and even less of the emotional quotient, I don't
find that your statement conveys any useful information.
Dubbya's problem wasn't that he was stupid - IIRR there was evidence
that his IQ was around 120 before he hit the bottle - but that he was
ignorant, and unwilling to listen to expert advice when it told him
something he didn't want to believe.
Clinton was almost certainly smarter, and - if Alan Greenspan's
autobiography is to be believed - he took the expert advice of his
economists when he was first elected despite not liking it at all,
which meant that he handed on the country to Dubbya in a much better
state that it was when Dubbya handed it on to Obama.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
> He was left holding a really big smelly bag, he has my commiserations.
Yes, and rather than take action to fix it, he immediately made the bag
bigger and smellier.
Thanks,
Rich
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Tripling? Nope, that's just the promotional literature.
You can't tell what the real deficit is because "the most transparent
administration ever" led by "the most honest Treasury Secretary ever"
Tim Geithner is, basically, lying about it.
For one thing, the Treasury's amassing (bad) mortgages. Direct bank
bailouts quietly continue, on a huge scale. And there's the FHA,
poised to collapse. All secured by the full faith and credit. This
is big stuff.
No, we can't tell what the deficit really is right now. But it's
waayyy bigger than $1.4T, guaranteed. Not less than ~$2T, AFAICT.
And you can take that to your local (government-owned) bank.
--
James Arthur
ChrisQ
>>>
>> Perhaps now you understand why i'm so keen on getting this lot out at
>> the next election, before they do yet more damage.
>>
>> I could write a book on the amount of kneejerk, ill considered
>> legislation introduced by Blair, Brown & Co. Far too dangerous to be
>> allowed to run a tea room, never mind a country :-(...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>
> At least the US politicians have their priorities straight. All they
> want is our money.
>
> John
>
At least it looks like Blair won't be eu president now. What with his
conversion to catholicism after leaving no 10, one could be excused for
thinking that as president of the eu, he would be directed from behind,
as it were, from the Vatican.
Not that i have any problem with religion taking care of the spiritual
needs of man, but definately not involved in management of the eu, even
by proxy :-)...
Regards,
Chris
JosephKK
<mrda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
With laws and courts like that, the UK still wonders why they are the
butt of "delusions of empire still intact" jokes.
JosephKK
<mrda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 3:52 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36:32 -0800, Michael wrote:
>> > Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>
>> >http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-
>>
>> gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> Bury it where it lay, without touching it?
>>
>> At least if I were living in GB!
>>
>> --www.wescottdesign.com
>
>
>
>And let all that lead dissolve and leach into the groundwater? Horror!
Last i heard of guns were made of strong steel, though often with wood
or plastic components (rifles stocks, handgrip parts, and similar).
Perhaps you were thinking of ammunition?
JosephKK
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:03:37 +0000, ChrisQ <me...@devnull.com> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Astonishing. There is no defense against the "crime" of handling a
>>> gun, no matter what the circumstances. If someone hands you a bouquet
>>> of flowers that has a handgun hidden inside, I suppose you go to
>>> prison. If you take a gun away from a terrorist who is about to kill a
>>> bus full of kids, ditto.
>>>
>>> The UK is becoming a madhouse. No wonder so many Brits emigrate to the
>>> USA.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps now you understand why i'm so keen on getting this lot out at
>>the next election, before they do yet more damage.
>>
>>I could write a book on the amount of kneejerk, ill considered
>>legislation introduced by Blair, Brown & Co. Far too dangerous to be
>>allowed to run a tea room, never mind a country :-(...
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Chris
>
>At least the US politicians have their priorities straight. All they
>want is our money.
>
>John
Crikey John, you just pegged my knucklehead meter again. You seem to
be doing a lot of that lately. Have you heard the Demoncrats or the
Repugnicans in unguarded speech recently?
JosephKK
>> It's still ridiculous that -- assuming the cops believe his story -- they'd
>
>Why assume that? It seems from other reports that it is more complex.
>
>> prosecute him anyway, even if strictly speaking he is breaking the law.
>
>They have no choice once it was recorded. That is the very essence of
>zero tolerance policing - there is *no* common sense at all. The sawn
>off shotgun is the violent criminals weapon of choice. As such
>possession or handling one in the UK is a strict liability offence.
>>
>> Where's that "prosecutorial discretion" in the UK? Oh, wait, that's a U.S.
>> concept, I guess...
>
>It is a zero tolerance rule brought in by the US Rambo style policing.
>Zero tolerance gives no leeway for motive and they are often very badly
>drafted knee-jerk pieces of legislation. Dangerous dogs act is another.
>
>Reading other reports it seems that the guy gave the police officers
>quite a shock. I wonder exactly how a US police station desk officer
>would react if someone walked in from the street and pulled a sawn off
>shotgun and ammo out of a bin bag at the front desk ?
>
>A slightly more informed version of events is online at :
>http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3228476&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4#post368401949
>
>There seems to be more to it than has been reported in the biassed
>account that started this thread. If the story was exactly as reported
>in the local rag then I doubt if the CPS would have prosecuted.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
I think unpredictable idiot sums it up the best.
Here in the US if i were the desk Sergeant and some unpredictable
idiot pulled a large gun out of a bag in front of me, that SOB would
get arrested, thrown in a holding cell, and a thorough search of their
residence, inside and out, conducted on a firearms warrant. The idiot
would stay in the holding cell as long at it took to try to verify the
story. Beyond that i likely would let the fool go if there were no
priors and no related evidence turned up in the warranted search.
Unfortunately, since the 1970s public schools have been programmed to
produce unpredictable idiots.
JosephKK
>Rich Grise wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36:32 -0800, Michael wrote:
>>
>>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>>
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> Ah, the joys of gun control!
>>
>> Pfaugh! That's why we threw the king and princes out of the country in
>> 1776 or so.
>
>Which culminated in George W. Bush for 8 years...
If you thought Bush the lesser was bad have a look at the Imperial
Grand Vizier Pelosi.
>
>We here in Oz tried to top your glory of GWB by having Little Jonny for
>almost 12 years, but he's not in the same league of stupidness. You win :->
>
>But I like the fact our head of state can just go missing and we don't give
>a toss, that can be useful :-D
>
>Dave.
Bill Sloman
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:13:43 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>
> >Rich Grise wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36:32 -0800, Michael wrote:
>
> >>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>
> >> Ah, the joys of gun control!
>
> >> Pfaugh! That's why we threw the king and princes out of the country in
> >> 1776 or so.
>
> >Which culminated in George W. Bush for 8 years...
>
> If you thought Bush the lesser was bad have a look at the Imperial
> Grand Vizier Pelosi.
She hasn't started any pointless wars recently. Dubbya still has loads
more badness points.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Nobody
>> The matter is then OVER because of the principle of "double jeopardy".
>
> Correct me if you know different, but AIUI, the Brits (Poms?) got rid of
> double jeopardy a while back,
The court of appeal can quash an acquital for certain offences[1] if new
evidence comes to light.
[1] Specifically, for offences in Schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5-pt1
[The offence in question, i.e. unlicensed possession of a firearm, isn't
in Schedule 5.]
> shortly after they effectively got rid of the right to silence.
The right to silence remains; the only change is that the court is allowed
to take account of whether a defence offered in court was mentioned in
interview. Failing to answer questions in an interview isn't evidence of
guilt, but it may weaken a defence should you choose to offer one.
> They've never had the right not to self-incriminate, either.
>
> "Cradle of democracy"? I think not.
I thought that was supposed to have been Greece?
Phil Allison
"Fred Abse"
Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> The matter is then OVER because of the principle of "double jeopardy".
>
> Correct me if you know different, but AIUI, the Brits (Poms?) got rid of
> double jeopardy a while back,
** The principle still applies and would apply in the case in question
absolutely.
Some jurisdictions allow a new prosecution in certain types of cases if
compelling new evidence comes to light.
> shortly after they effectively got rid of the right to silence.
** Nonsense.
... Phil
Phil Allison
"Nobody"
>> shortly after they effectively got rid of the right to silence.
>
> The right to silence remains; the only change is that the court is allowed
> to take account of whether a defence offered in court was mentioned in
> interview. Failing to answer questions in an interview isn't evidence of
> guilt, but it may weaken a defence should you choose to offer one.
** The thing about folk who are innocent of a crime is that they generally
have no bloody idea what the hell really happened or is supposed to have
happened at the time the police decide to interview them - ostensibly to
tell "their side of the story".
The fact the police are not obliged to show them any evidence from other
people means an innocent person would have to have a miraculous sixth sense
to come up with any kind of a defence a that time. Then they are penalised
for coming up with one in court !!!!
If the police proceed to laying charges, which is very likely when no
defence is forthcoming, then the accused but innocent person is legally
entitled to see all police evidence that is to be used against them. But
actually getting hold of that evidence may take months or years and involve
getting an order from the court.
Meantime, the police will have deleted any evidence that would help the
innocent but accused person, carefully reworded statements from witnesses,
removing any glaring inconsistencies to make them look far more credible
than when originally given. Any witness that comes forward at this stage
with evidence that would immediately acquit the accused is ignored and told
to go away.
Another nice touch is that the identities of witnesses is suppressed from
the accused as well, names are given but contact details are not. So the
accused may well have no clue who these witnesses against them are nor any
way of finding out anything about them - like their motives for lying.
Also, neither the accused nor their lawyers are allowed to approach police
witnesses - or do so only at great risk of being accused of the crime of
tampering.
Finally, any witness who has signed a perjured statement is told (
afterwards, by the police ) that if they try to withdraw the statement
before the case comes to court or fail to stick to their claims in court
they will be very likely charged with perjury themselves. Normally, words to
this effect appear in tiny print on witness statement forms.
.... Phil
JosephKK
<alt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>
>
>What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
>If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically,
>then they all should have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who
>then also walk out in disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get
>around to getting convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
>
>Dave.
I think you raise an interesting idea. In what little i have studied
historic English law (from which the US system is an adaptation), the
jury does have the power to disregard a clearly inappropriate
application of the law. Then again this may have disappeared
(recently) at the suasion of the Barristers lobby.
alie...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:23:42 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>
> >Michael wrote:
> >> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>
>
> >What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
> >If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal technically,
> >then they all should have walked out in disgust. Get the next lot in who
> >then also walk out in disgust, and so on... and so the guy will never get
> >around to getting convicted. Work the system that works against you :->
>
> >Dave.
>
> I think you raise an interesting idea. In what little i have studied
> historic English law (from which the US system is an adaptation), the
> jury does have the power to disregard a clearly inappropriate
> application of the law. Then again this may have disappeared
> (recently) at the suasion of the Barristers lobby.
That's called "jury nullification", and it worked in the U. K. in
1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_Kingdom
...and that involved a clear breach of the Official Secrets Act. Is
the relevant firearms law more important?
Mark L. Fergerson
JosephKK
<alt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Phil Allison wrote:
>> "David L. Jones"
>>
>>>> Ex-soldier faces a minimum of 5 years in jail for handing in gun
>>>>
>>>
>>> What on earth is the point of having a jury then?
>>
>>
>> ** The accused opted for a jury trail by pleading not guilty at
>> an earlier stage. I suspect if he had pleaded guilty and explained
>> all the circumstances, he would have got small fine or similar.
>>
>>
>>> If the jury were forced to find him guilty on some stupid legal
>>> technically,
>>
>>
>> ** A jury is never forced to find an accused guilty - but they may be
>> directed to acquit for any number of reasons. While it is very rare
>> for a jury to ignore a judge's directions as to how they should deal
>> with a particular case - nevertheless they CAN and will never need
>> to supply their reasons.
>>
>>
>>> then they all should have walked out in disgust.
>>
>> ** They cannot do that - it would be contempt.
>>
>> But they can decide to ignore the judge's advice and acquit an accused
>> because they believe the law itself is wrong.
>>
>> The matter is then OVER because of the principle of "double
>> jeopardy".
>> BTW:
>>
>> I think there is more to this case than the newspaper story has
>> provided us.
>
>That must be the case, otherwise a (sensible) jury would have found him not
>guilty of such a clearly ridiculous charge.
>Not to mention the arresting cop who could have exercised judgement in the
>first place.
>
>Dave.
I suggest you read the news write-ups again.
Nobody
>> I think you raise an interesting idea. In what little i have studied
>> historic English law (from which the US system is an adaptation), the
>> jury does have the power to disregard a clearly inappropriate
>> application of the law. Then again this may have disappeared
>> (recently) at the suasion of the Barristers lobby.
>
> That's called "jury nullification", and it worked in the U. K. in
> 1982:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_Kingdom
>
> ...and that involved a clear breach of the Official Secrets Act. Is
> the relevant firearms law more important?
One important thing to bear in mind: the Jury has the *power* to disregard
the law; it doesn't have the *right* to do so. Jury nullification is a
side-effect of the jury being the sole arbiter of its verdict. Any
obligation to apply the the law is purely theoretical, as there is no
mechanism by which (non-)compliance with such obligations can be tested or
sanctioned.
There was nothing which could have prevented the jury from acquiting in
this case, had they chose to do so. Nor was there anything stopping
individual jurors from arguing for acquital, resulting in lengthy
deliberations ending in either a hung jury or at least a majority verdict.
However, the article says: "The jury took 20 minutes to make its
conviction ...", which suggests that this wasn't such a case.
krw
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:31:47 -0800, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>>> I think you raise an interesting idea. �In what little i have studied
>>> historic English law (from which the US system is an adaptation), the
>>> jury does have the power to disregard a clearly inappropriate
>>> application of the law. �Then again this may have disappeared
>>> (recently) at the suasion of the Barristers lobby.
>>
>> That's called "jury nullification", and it worked in the U. K. in
>> 1982:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#United_Kingdom
>>
>> ...and that involved a clear breach of the Official Secrets Act. Is
>> the relevant firearms law more important?
>
>One important thing to bear in mind: the Jury has the *power* to disregard
>the law; it doesn't have the *right* to do so. Jury nullification is a
>side-effect of the jury being the sole arbiter of its verdict. Any
>obligation to apply the the law is purely theoretical, as there is no
>mechanism by which (non-)compliance with such obligations can be tested or
>sanctioned.
Absolutely correct. Note that the jury is *never* given instructions
regarding nullification, rather to the contrary. As you said, it's a
side-effect. The perfect juror would only regard evidence presented
in the courtroom, minus any grandstanding by either lawyer. Well,
that's what the law thinks the perfect juror is, anyway.