The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Roul Moat and other gun men
republic of me
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
what does everyone think of this Roul Moat situation, he has been hunted down and there is speculation he has been shot, (look up the BBC news website)
I want to know, after the last gun man in cumbria a few months back why is it part of the human condition for people to want to go and kill other people when the situation that has gone wrong isnt the fault of the people being shot?
Especialy when it works out worse in the end we are supposed to be logical creatures.
I just want to get peoples openion, im nutural im not Brittish, and any one willing to discuss it is british and have a slightly tainted view of the issue at hand because its so close to home
I dont agree with it on any level but i am not going to try and steer the conversation towoards my own views
I want to know, after the last gun man in cumbria a few months back why is it part of the human condition for people to want to go and kill other people when the situation that has gone wrong isnt the fault of the people being shot?
Especialy when it works out worse in the end we are supposed to be logical creatures.
I just want to get peoples openion, im nutural im not Brittish, and any one willing to discuss it is british and have a slightly tainted view of the issue at hand because its so close to home
I dont agree with it on any level but i am not going to try and steer the conversation towoards my own views
republic of me on
0
Posts
I think there is a mistake here.
1) you give us a link to the story in question. It's not getting much coverage outside of the Isles;
2) You use proper punctuation and spelling. It makes your posts a lot easier to read. I've read a bunch of them on here and they make my eyes bleed. You seem articulate otherwise so it makes it particularly maddening.
Fair enough people were helping him, but realy why were they helping him? in his state of mind was he not a danger to them too? what purpouse did it serve to prolong the ordeal by hiding him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/10/1-target-10-snipers-115875-22402255/
I don’t know why you assume he was being helped instead of just lying low and getting lucky, but if so presumably they were friends or family who didn’t feel they were in danger, or had been threatened.
I’m going to take a wild guess and say they were somewhat insane by normal standards.
And what the hell are your own views? You’re not exactly clear about them, except that you don’t believe in spellcheckers.
I thought the most interesting part of the story was that “gun police” are apparently a special group in the UK, as opposed to pretty much any on-duty officer in the US.
What is the big deal here?
Pretty much. UK police aren't armed, with a few exceptions (patrols at airports, around certain places in the City of London, etc). Only experienced officers who have gone through specific training and evaluation are authorised to carry firearms, and they're only called on to act in that role if specifically required.
The story is a big deal in the UK because this kind of thing really doesn't happen very often. It is possible to have guns legally in the UK (shotguns, usually), but it is really pretty difficult. You need to get various people to vouch for you, you need to be evaluated by a doctor, your reasons for applying will be investigated, and the final decision as to whether or not you will be permitted to have a firearms licence rests with the local Chief Constable and is pretty much completely discretionary. You don't get to appeal an application if it's rejected.
EDIT: There were about 150,000 active Firearms certificates (that permit people to own guns) in the UK in Dec '05 according to an unsourced wiki statistic. The UK population was probably about 60,000,000 at the time.
Here is a story from the Guardian, a local newspaper, which sets out how the gunman died
True, I suppose everyone would be a tad more comfortable had he somehow found a way to both beat his girlfriend, her boyfriend, and himself to death.
However I am going to concur with Aroused Bull here, what exactly are we supposed to be discussing?
I mean I can make some snarky remarks perhaps make a joke about how if the UK "marksmen" had seen Speed they would have known the obvious solution was to shoot the hostage. I could point out how new unbreakable beer steins were invented to cut down pub violence, or the epic shafting of Tony Martin or Paul Clarke as some social commentary on the sad state of UK affairs.
Seriously though, why is holding yourself hostage a viable tactic? I supposed we could discuss that at least.
The general rule is for the police to capture people alive if possible, so they make a bit of an effort to talk them into giving themselves up, but really its only a stalling tactic, so the guy can decide if he wants to go back to jail or kill himself. Kind of underlines how sad and pointless his actions were.
They've been parasitical. I was watching the Simpsons on Sky1 yesterday, and halfway through a little box came up with the phrase "GUNMAN MOAT IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC, TURN TO SKY NEWS" in bright red letters. I was 100 miles away from what was going on at any point. I worry that Murdoch would begin to kill people simply to have something for his organs to report.
I thought that was the Daily Mash.
It appears so.
I've seen it repeated so many times I didn't know what the source was. I'm vaguely disappointed that it isn't true.
That could be kind of interesting, but sadly the OP doesn't really mention any media scare tactics, or really anything at all. Could someone possible give us a comprehensive run down of what we can have debate and discourse over on this case?
I'm not the most patriotic person, but these are two pretty terrible examples here. Tony Martin got sentenced with manslaughter for shooting a fleeing thief in the back. As he was shot in the back it was not self-defence, and as he was an intruder, it was not murder. This is pretty much how the law is supposed to work.
Paul Clarke found a firearm buried on his property, and rather than phoning the police to report it immediately, he took it into his possession for several days, hence the charge of possessing an unlicensed firearm. It is a strict liability charge, so intent is irrelevant. In addition, rather than simply taking the gun to a station, Clarke rang a superintendent to arrange a meeting, without mentioning that he had found a firearm. Clarke then took the weapon into a police station and handed it to the superintendent in question, again without warning him he had a firearm on his person. Paul Clarke received a 12-month suspended sentence.
He took it into his possession for 4 days which was the earliest he could meet with the superintendent, and he had previously had issues of police harassment due to his dating of a detective. His only real crime was being familiar enough with guns to not immediately panic and call the police who would have then immediately arrested him for the same charges. My personal favorite quote on the entire thing however is
He was guilty the moment he picked up the sack, and had no legal defense whatsoever against the charge. How is that for fucked up laws?
Regarding the second point, it sounds like you have more of an issue with the concept of strict liability than with the application of the law in this particular case.
If he'd made the jury clear of his mental problems in the first place, he would have been found guilty of manslaughter, I guess that's how the appeal process works. Who would have thought?
Seriously?
Firstly, you don't phone up a specific police officer to report a firearm, and secondly you don't wait until you can see that specific officer to report a firearm. Thirdly, he wouldn't have been charged with possession if he had immediately phoned the police, because that isn't how possession charges work. Fourthly, it wasn't picking up the sack, but the fact that he knowingly had had an unlicensed firearm on his property and on his person in a country where it is required to have a license to have a firearm on your property or person.
What Clarke should have done is left the firearm where it was, and called the police to report it there and then.
EDIT: In case I'm not being clear, he should have avoided taking it into his possession at all.
Moreover he stated he had a history of being harassed by police due to his personal life, and I fail to see the problem with phoning someone he trusted in the police department so he could resolve the issue. The fact that person was unavailable for 4 days should not be an incriminating factor.
He had a history of police harassment, feared further harassment, especially considering just by possessing the firearm he is guilty of a crime with no defense under the law, and rather than call up the police and pray he did not end up getting further harassed he chose to contact someone he trusted, which took 4 days to make an appointment. Now unless most people in the UK are on a first name basis with their police superintendent I fail to see the problem with trying to resolve the issue with an officer he trusted.
I fail to see why he should have been arrested or charged with anything, but at least we found something of note to discuss in this thread. Personally I was hoping to go with the unbreakable beer pints because your government is not happy trusting people with anything that could be used as a weapon.
As such, he got a twelve month suspended sentence, rather than a five year prison term as the sentencing guidelines suggest.
I am pretty much going to go with it is real shame Roul Moat didn't beat his girlfriend, her boyfriend, and himself to death. Would have made people a lot more comfortable.
I don't know what this:
is supposed to mean.
It means I shudder to think just what the potential outcry is going to be in a country that as opposed to acknowledging yes we have a problem with violent crime and working to address the root causes of said problem would rather see its populace chop its food with the equivalent of the safety scissors we give our small children because knives with points can only lead to more violence.
It means in a country where you have such a problem with people breaking beer glasses and cutting each other, you even have a term for it "glassing" reported happens 87.000 times per year and costs your national health service 4 billion dollars annually, that the invention of unbreakable beer glasses is hailed as a colossal cultural achievement.
It means that if I live long enough I will likely end up seeing your entire population confined to tiny little safety bubbles, in a world of no sharp edges, where you eat a food paste that can best be described as a tea flavored slurry of nutrients through an inoffensive tube not even strong enough to hang yourself with were you to desire an end to the nightmarish existence you find yourself trapped in.
USA! USA! USA!
seriously though, there are proper channels for handing guns to the police calling your friend isn't it. The police, like all government arms have official channels that have to be used to avoid corruption (or just the appearance of corruption) its very bureaucratic, but its the way it has to be considering corruption is such a problem with law enforcement.
People in glass houses etc etc
Clarke didn't get a 12 month suspended sentence for merely finding the gun. He got the sentence for failing to report it properly and having it unlicensed, about his person. He broke the law. The fact that he wanted to hand the gun in to someone he trusted is irrelevant, knowing a police officer does not make you immune from prosecution, if you have broken the law. It's called "the rule of law" and it is not laughable. More so, it makes a very good reason to prosecute, otherwise the superintendent would not be an impartial officer of the law.
You don't have to be terrified and you do not have to urinate over yourself. Calling the police does not mean you are not handling the matter calmly and reasonably, and you don't even have to use the emergency number. To reiterate, Clarke had not broken the law when he found the gun, only when he had taken it into his possession and failed to inform the police for several days.
Right, I'm off to get glassed and drink tea slurry. Pip pip cheerio and all that rot, old sausage.