Man faces jail for handing in a gun.

[US Crash Fire]

Damn! In the US he would have been given a medal.....a BIG one!

 

[dubious_wolf]

This is the one thing I hate about the UK. The gun policy sucks monkey scrotum. It's complete bullshit. This guy is being a good and proper citizen and hew gets thrown in jail? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!

 

[Ben Legend]

True... its a strict liability crime, but the judge should just give him the minimal charge, and make sure people are aware in this, therefore, making sure people will report the gun and not taking it into the local police station.

 

[Kimjira19]

The worst case is from a couple of years back, a father of seven got jailed for about six years. Why? For hitting, with his car, a yob who was part of a gang that had frequently terrorised the man's neighbourhood, had attempted to attack hiw wife, shouted obscenities at and threatened to attack his children and other residents. The father is still in jail and as far as I know, the yob is free. We are truly a broken society.

If people attempt to take the law into their own hands that is what happens. We don't need a bunch of vigilantes roaming the streets inflicting whatever forms of justice they deem suitable for the situation, like hitting someone with a car. Besides, in even the guy was an asshat and threatened the man, it's still a crime to plow into someone with a vehicle. I wish Ace_Of_Something was feeling well enough to participate in this thread.

Yes. Vigilantes are kind of different from this guy. Although his heart was in the right place, he probably should have just stood watch over the gun and called the police with the details on the gun's location.

 

[teisjm]

This is retarded. I can fully underatsnd that mr. imoprtant can't speed, cause theres waaay to many people out there who cinsider themselves waaay too important.

I'm supprised the police didn't tell him not to bring the shotgun in the first case, if he had called them.

When bureaucracy beats simple sanity, theres something very wrong with the world.
The law is made as a tool to help us, not as a new god we should worship, bow to and never question.

 

[Kimjira19]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense not to pick things that A)are Weapons and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

 

[Akai Shizuku]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

 

[TailsRodrigez]

Ahhhh, political incompetance at its finest.

 

[keybird]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME

 

[Kimjira19]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

Um. While the government should probably make such things more clear, I think that if a 19-year-old student who has never studied law (me) can figure this out then it probably does not take a genius to figure it out (regardless of the fact that I am technically "gifted"). plus the government does not want everyone behind bars. Who would pay the income and other taxes used to support the penitentiaries? Cats? Squirrels? Seriously. This guy, although he had good intentions, did a stupid thing. I live in the US (where gun laws are not nearly as strict) and I still would not touch a random weapon I found in the street.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

Um. While the government should probably make such things more clear, I think that if a 19-year-old student who has never studied law (me) can figure this out then it probably does not take a genius to figure it out (regardless of the fact that I am technically "gifted"). plus the government does not want everyone behind bars. Who would pay the income and other taxes used to support the penitentiaries? Cats? Squirrels? Seriously. This guy, although he had good intentions, did a stupid thing. I live in the US (where gun laws are not nearly as strict) and I still would not touch a random weapon I found in the street.

Not everyone is you.

Lots of people would. I sure as hell would. If I saw a gun on the ground I would shove it in my pocket, run the hell home and put it in my closet. I would never tell a soul.

 

[Kimjira19]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

Um. While the government should probably make such things more clear, I think that if a 19-year-old student who has never studied law (me) can figure this out then it probably does not take a genius to figure it out (regardless of the fact that I am technically "gifted"). plus the government does not want everyone behind bars. Who would pay the income and other taxes used to support the penitentiaries? Cats? Squirrels? Seriously. This guy, although he had good intentions, did a stupid thing. I live in the US (where gun laws are not nearly as strict) and I still would not touch a random weapon I found in the street.

Not everyone is you.

Lots of people would. I sure as hell would. If I saw a gun on the ground I would shove it in my pocket, run the hell home and put it in my closet. I would never tell a soul.

yeah not everyone is me. but if an impulsive 19 year old with ADHD knows better than to take a dangerous object of the damn street then shouldn't an adult know that too? And WHY for the love of God would you just take that weapon and keep it? that could have been a murder weapon and its discovery by the authorities could have put a murderer behind bars. how could you possibly hinder a criminal investigation like that and still sleep at night?

 

[cobra_ky]

well i know jack shit about UK law, but this seems like a clear case of entrapment. he called ahead, and no one told him what he was planning to do was illegal.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I don't like Strict Liability, this is one example why I don't. If you ask me, there are always exceptions, always, and they should be looked at. This is one of those examples.

 

[mooncalf]

The only thing that can be done is to release him immediately, apologise and ensure that no other citizen is put in such an appalling position again. Disgraceful conduct and a clear example of why police forces all over are feared and ridiculed by even law-abiding citizens.

 

[Explosm]

The british system previals once again

 

[slopeslider]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

Um. While the government should probably make such things more clear, I think that if a 19-year-old student who has never studied law (me) can figure this out then it probably does not take a genius to figure it out (regardless of the fact that I am technically "gifted"). plus the government does not want everyone behind bars. Who would pay the income and other taxes used to support the penitentiaries? Cats? Squirrels? Seriously. This guy, although he had good intentions, did a stupid thing. I live in the US (where gun laws are not nearly as strict) and I still would not touch a random weapon I found in the street.

So he should lose his house, career, possibly family, over THIS?
If you someone was driving along and saw a man in worn clothes and helped him out with a ride and shelter for the night and later the police arrest him for aiding a fugitive, should they go to jail? Surely YOU wouldn't stop to help him, after all your smart enough to know he might be a fugitive and you could go to prison. But should someone else's good intentions send them to prison? Should me taking a lost dog off the street until we find the owner be counted as stealing? I can understand speeding being a no-fault crime, as even if you have a good reason and you get a ticket, you still keep your job, car and criminal record clean. What lesson could you hope to teach a well-meaning man by sending him to prison? He even called the police! Im SURE someone who will call the police ahead to bring it in would listen to instructions to leave the weapon alone. But they probably didnt tell him that. If possible I wonder of they have a recording of the phonecall he made.

 

[lodo_bear]

Here's some food for thought: Paul Clarke did exactly what the police ordered John Leary to do in 2005.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760609-police-told-man-to-walk-two-miles-with-a-loaded-gun.do

John Leary wanted to leave the gun be and let the cops handle it, but the cops ordered him to pick up the gun and take it to the nearest police station. So, the disabled, 51-year-old John Leary has to take the gun across town all by himself. He was being threatened by gang members during this time, and he continued to be threatened by the gang for some time for taking their gun. The article suggests that UK's witness protection program has been less than accommodating to Mr. Leary.

So, in 2005, the police ordered one man to personally take a gun to the police station, and in 2009, they arrest a man for doing the same thing and a judge and jury award him a minimum 5 years' imprisonment.

Taken together, this all seems to imply that the cops are wildly inconsistent. Being lazy or paranoid is bad enough, but if sometimes they're lazy and other times they're paranoid, how are common citizens supposed to react?

 

[101194]

Well, This is surprising, The UK looks like the U.S I better leave before things get...weird.

 

[Kimjira19]

As a silly American girl, I'm shocked, disgusted, and a little amused. Maybe it's because my kids brother got to own his first gun when he was thirteen or the fact that my Dad carried one when he had to work in LA during the riots, but I don't understand what the big deal is.

This becomes one of those silly scenarios where the law encourages you to disobey it. He either should have left the gun where it lay, chancing that some cheeky school boys pick it up and blow their brains out, or taken it and simply never told anyone.

There should be far more flexibility in the legal system than that, otherwise people are discouraged from interacting on a friendly basis with their legal system and stop trusting it.

I understand how it may be a little difficult for an American to understand. I'm from Australia where the laws are similar to the UK so it makes perfect sense to me.

If you see an abandoned gun, you don't touch it - you're possibly interfering with evidence, including forensic evidence. Common sense tells you that gun has been abandoned for a reason. That gun might have just been used to kill ten people, or rob a service station, or it might not. Who knows. You ring the police, you follow their instructions. Simple. You don't do what this guy died, which is ring the police, say "I need to see you" and then cart the gun over to them without even telling them that you have a gun until it comes out of your bag, that's MORONIC. Imagine if, instead of a gun, it was a dead body or some other kind of possibly criminal evidence. Do you hand the dead body or the criminal evidence into the police station? No. You ring the police, and you do what they tell you.

It's still borderline retarded.

In any case, better to just hide the gun in your closet than to phone anyone.

That'll work fine unless the gun is inadvertently found by a law-abiding citizen or someone finds out you have it and rings the cops. Then police ballistics analyse the gun and link you to a crime that you didn't committ. Then you get a charge for a crime you had nothing to do with AND an illegal firearm possession charge.

In a country where guns are almost completely illegal, you don't just "abandon a gun" because you just bought a better one or you didn't like the colour of the barrel or whatever. People generally abandon guns because those guns could be linked to crimes that carry hefty penalties. If you pick that gun up and don't contact the authorities, you're at best, a fool.

What if there are zombies?

EDIT: On a more serious note, you couldn't know that without taking a law course. No matter how you look at it there's no justification for penalizing this man; all he tried to do was be a good citizen.

Not true. It's just common sense. If you see something criminal you ring the police. You don't need a law course to understand that.

Also, maybe the guy isn't a good citizen? Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose. We just don't know.

I sure as hell didn't get it, and obviously, neither did anyone else, with you being the sole exception.

If he did, they would have found out and put him on trial for it.

Make that me and at least 12 adults in a coutrroom.

A jury took only 20 minutes to convict him. That's incredibly short. If you've ever done jury duty, you will know that 20 minutes is an open-and-shut case. Juries usually take DAYS to decide if there's even the slightest ambiguity or uncertainty, or any room for debate about the crime whatsoever. 20 minutes is a sign of an absolute unanimous decision where everyone agreed that this guy was a tool and needed the book thrown at him.

This is still incredibly retarded.

It is not really retarded. This guy really should have thought this through. It is simply common sense to pick things that are A) Weapon and B)don't belong to you. I felt sympathy earlier but as I think about it, I realize that while the police should have warned him not to pick up the gun, he still should have had the common sense to not touch it in the first place. With evidence you call the authorities and you keep watch over the evidence, to make sure no one tampers with it (intentionally or accidently).

This is not common knowledge, and as is evident, it creates problems. It is the government's responsibility to let citizens know what to do in event of situations like this. But the government won't do that. They'll lock you behind bars because like most of the population you did not have the initiative to find out about it.

There is no justification for putting this man behind bars.

Um. While the government should probably make such things more clear, I think that if a 19-year-old student who has never studied law (me) can figure this out then it probably does not take a genius to figure it out (regardless of the fact that I am technically "gifted"). plus the government does not want everyone behind bars. Who would pay the income and other taxes used to support the penitentiaries? Cats? Squirrels? Seriously. This guy, although he had good intentions, did a stupid thing. I live in the US (where gun laws are not nearly as strict) and I still would not touch a random weapon I found in the street.

So he should lose his house, career, possibly family, over THIS?
If you someone was driving along and saw a man in worn clothes and helped him out with a ride and shelter for the night and later the police arrest him for aiding a fugitive, should they go to jail? Surely YOU wouldn't stop to help him, after all your smart enough to know he might be a fugitive and you could go to prison. But should someone else's good intentions send them to prison? Should me taking a lost dog off the street until we find the owner be counted as stealing? I can understand speeding being a no-fault crime, as even if you have a good reason and you get a ticket, you still keep your job, car and criminal record clean. What lesson could you hope to teach a well-meaning man by sending him to prison? He even called the police! Im SURE someone who will call the police ahead to bring it in would listen to instructions to leave the weapon alone. But they probably didnt tell him that. If possible I wonder of they have a recording of the phonecall he made.

Christ on a crutch. I am not saying he deserved to be totally effed over by the police. However, a dog, a stranger and a weapon are three different things. A weapon is clearly something you should not handle when it is just lying abandoned in the street. He should just get a warning though. he does not deserve jail time for what he did.