Man fined for blowing his nose

[Great_Gig]

I do laugh sometimes when people take everything reported on the net as gospel! Journalists will always tell a story to make it sound good and as here on this forum, we all have our individual bias to add 'spin' to a story, to match our viewpoint. I think the telling thing in that report is that he was convicted by a jury, not dealt with by a single police officer. It also makes me laugh when people break the law, but hey it's not my fault, it's the police's fault..... go figure that one?

 

As in any job, you will get idiots and the police are no different, but it makes a great story when a cop acts like an arse. I work with plenty of arse's, but you never read about them in the paper! ..... fortunately I tend to try and abide by the law, so have never had a run in with the police. I don't agree with a lot of the laws, but without them what a cluster f... the world would be. I have only been dealt with by the police once, after an accident when I rolled a car. My fault entirely and on-one else was involved or damage caused, other than to my Honda. They were professional, helpful and went out of their way to sort out me and my car. They didn't have to do anything as technically it wasn't even an accident. They have a tough job and there are a lot of a...holes they have to deal with too.

 

Seems to be a common thing with people these days, everything is always somebody else's fault and no-one takes the blame for any wrong doing they may do - whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Great_Gig

[Kamikaze_Badger]

no need to be sorry, as it's you seeing this in black and white.

 

you guys act like this guy should have had the law bent to accommodate for his motive. that's not really acceptable in my book. i much prefer that he was given a fair trial, and was allowed to walk free.

Please, explain how I view the world in black and white.

 

it's illegal to possess an unlicensed firearm in the UK.

it's illegal to possess any firearm in a public place in the UK.

it's downright moronic to walk into a police station and produce a firearm in the UK.

 

First statement, you imply that because it's illegal to possess an unlicensed firearm, he was in the wrong, despite his temporary possession of it for the sake of handing it into the proper authorities.

 

Second statement, see the first one.

 

Third, straight up opinion. You're pretty much saying Given Condition A, Condition B. No wiggle room. That's awfully black and white in my mind. Now, I have a girlfriend to attend to. I'll be more than happy to continue later.

[IVIYTH0S]

Yeah like the guy was only trying to safely pass on the firearm to the proper authorities. You're saying he should have just handed it to a teenager since he shouldnt be allowed to do the right thing

[psycho_terror]

Please, explain how I view the world in black and white.

i said you were seeing this in black and white. the case wasn't as simple as a guy handing in a firearm as you seem to suggest. the investigation showed that he lied to police and to a court about his motives in a case involving a deadly weapon most likely used in a serious crime.

 

arresting someone for committing a crime is a black and white affair, and should be done to the letter of the law. what comes after is a detailed appraisal of the "shades of grey".

 

First statement, you imply that because it's illegal to possess an unlicensed firearm, he was in the wrong, despite his temporary possession of it for the sake of handing it into the proper authorities.

there's no such thing as "temporary possession". if you're in possession of something illegal, be it a gun or drugs, you're accountable for it. as i mentioned earlier, this is an intentional part of our law, and most likely yours too. i didn't say he was in the wrong, i said he'd broken the law, and there is a difference.

 

Second statement, see the first one.

likewise.

 

Third, straight up opinion. You're pretty much saying Given Condition A, Condition B. No wiggle room. That's awfully black and white in my mind.

andrew asked me to justify my opinion, so i did.

 

also, if he'd gone to the police station to hand in the gun because he didn't know any better i'd probably be less harsh. as it stands though, he did it because he was sleeping with the detective, and didn't want jealous, trigger happy police coming to collect it. he knew the correct procedure, and ignored it for ridiculous reasons, keeping an illegal weapon in his home for four days, and potentially hampering any police action to find out who put the gun there in the first place.

 

Yeah like the guy was only trying to safely pass on the firearm to the proper authorities. You're saying he should have just handed it to a teenager since he shouldnt be allowed to do the right thing

don't know what you're trying to say here. if you don't know, the correct procedure for submitting a found firearm to the police is to call them, and they will send officers to collect it.

 

otherwise, i'd be able to walk around 24/7 with a gun and claim i was on the way to the police station to hand it in if i got caught.

Edited January 31, 2010 by psycho_terror

[IVIYTH0S]

don't know what you're trying to say here. if you don't know, the correct procedure for submitting a found firearm to the police is to call them, and they will send officers to collect it.

 

otherwise, i'd be able to walk around 24/7 with a gun and claim i was on the way to the police station to hand it in if i got caught.

yeah but there's a difference between "on your way" to the police station and "at" the police station. They completely overreacted, I know there's a proper order of operations one must go through but the fact is that no one got hurt. The firearm was safely removed from the gentleman, and they should have just given him a verbal warning as well as reading through the proper way to hand in a functional firearm. Shortly following that, they could document that he got his warning and then for whatever reason if he did the same thing in the future than they're reprimand him a bit more seriously.

[MandoPatriot]

i said you were seeing this in black and white. the case wasn't as simple as a guy handing in a firearm as you seem to suggest. the investigation showed that he lied to police and to a court about his motives in a case involving a deadly weapon most likely used in a serious crime.

 

arresting someone for committing a crime is a black and white affair, and should be done to the letter of the law. what comes after is a detailed appraisal of the "shades of grey".

 

 

there's no such thing as "temporary possession". if you're in possession of something illegal, be it a gun or drugs, you're accountable for it. as i mentioned earlier, this is an intentional part of our law, and most likely yours too. i didn't say he was in the wrong, i said he'd broken the law, and there is a difference.

 

 

likewise.

 

 

andrew asked me to justify my opinion, so i did.

 

also, if he'd gone to the police station to hand in the gun because he didn't know any better i'd probably be less harsh. as it stands though, he did it because he was sleeping with the detective, and didn't want jealous, trigger happy police coming to collect it. he knew the correct procedure, and ignored it for ridiculous reasons, keeping an illegal weapon in his home for four days, and potentially hampering any police action to find out who put the gun there in the first place.

 

 

don't know what you're trying to say here. if you don't know, the correct procedure for submitting a found firearm to the police is to call them, and they will send officers to collect it.

 

otherwise, i'd be able to walk around 24/7 with a gun and claim i was on the way to the police station to hand it in if i got caught.

 

Honestly, are you retarded? Do you have ANY common sense, or are you just plain dumb?

 

The guy in the story was trying to do the right thing. He was in turning it in, because he FOUND it. He did not own it or have it for a couple weeks. A few days is just negligence, and therefore not applicable in this circumstance.

 

Him being arrested was a sign of police brutality and abuse. If I found a bag of drugs just laying on the ground, I'm not going to call my police department and have them send somebody over for that! For one, the police can be doing better things (catching thieves, tracking down criminals, etc). And two, it is our civil duty to turn in items of that regard.

 

You sound like the type of guy that does look at everything black and white. You sound like the type to say there is no right or wrong, there is just the law. Well then let me ask you what you would do in this situation - some guy is mugging and beating up an elderly woman. One, it is illegal to just hit somebody, as well as beating them up. So would you go and try to help the woman, thereby breaking the law by messing with that guy, or would you just sit back and call the police while the woman struggles and gets hurt? If you say you would call the police, you are a wimp, degrading to human kind, and have no sense of honor or right and wrong.

Edited January 31, 2010 by TraptPatriot

[Great_Gig]

Look what you started now Clay?

[psycho_terror]

Honestly, are you retarded? Do you have ANY common sense, or are you just plain dumb?

as soon as i saw your name on this thread, i was expecting a torrent of abuse with little substance. good job proving me right.

 

You sound like the type of guy that does look at everything black and white. You sound like the type to say there is no right or wrong, there is just the law.

that sounds like a contradiction.

 

Well then let me ask you what you would do in this situation - some guy is mugging and beating up an elderly woman. One, it is illegal to just hit somebody, as well as beating them up. So would you go and try to help the woman, thereby breaking the law by messing with that guy, or would you just sit back and call the police while the woman struggles and gets hurt? If you say you would call the police, you are a wimp, degrading to human kind, and have no sense of honor or right and wrong.

i'd step in and beat the guy up, and if the police were called i'd be prepared to be arrested for doing so. for all the police know i could have been robbing him. the actual matter we are debating bears little relation to your scenario, however let me ask you something. what if the guy that dumped the gun in this man's garden had used it to murder an elderly woman, and as a result of having kept the weapon in his home for four days, the murderer was able to leave the country, or worse kill again. would that have been "just negligence"?

 

also, did you not read the part in one of my previous posts when i said i felt there was a difference between something being morally right and legal? sometimes you have to read between the lines of what i post, but it mostly helps if you actually read what's on the lines in the first place.

Edited January 31, 2010 by psycho_terror

[MandoPatriot]

as soon as i saw your name on this thread, i was expecting a torrent of abuse with little substance. good job proving me right.

 

that sounds like a contradiction.

 

i'd step in and beat the guy up, and if the police were called i'd be prepared to be arrested for doing so. for all the police know i could have been robbing him. the actual matter we are debating bears little relation to your scenario, however let me ask you something. what if the guy that dumped the gun in this man's garden had used it to murder an elderly woman, and as a result of having kept the weapon in his home for four days, the murderer was able to leave the country, or worse kill again. would that have been "just negligence"?

 

also, did you not read the part in one of my previous posts when i said i felt there was a difference between something being morally right and legal? sometimes you have to read between the lines of what i post, but it mostly helps if you actually read what's on the lines in the first place.

 

Abuse with little substance? Well when you say some bull crap like you said earlier... everything is fair game.

 

A contradiction of what? The law is not always right and wrong. Some laws are wrongful, like the one noted in these stories. Well, clarification, the way the laws are interpreted is wrongful. But still not a contradiction.

 

That is too many variables for a made up story. That did not happen, nor would it likely happen. Many more variables could be added in, such as maybe he used gloves, etc. Having the weapon would not be sure-fire evidence to arrest someone. Crimes investigations take weeks, even months, before anything is done. CSI is not reality. And even if it was possible for the police to solve it all if he turned it in earlier, so what? The guy did not commit the crime. He was not an accomplice. He didn't do anything illegal. He tried to step up and be a good citizen, but apparently that is above and beyond you.

 

And you just contradicted yourself by saying you would step in and help the elderly woman regardless of the consequences, when you also say the guy with the shotgun should have been mindful of the consequences. Make some sense...

 

And I read everything you posted, and everything everybody else posted. Obviously you don't even know what you posted, because you still think the guy was in the wrong for trying to do a good deed.

Edited February 1, 2010 by TraptPatriot

[psycho_terror]

Some laws are wrongful, like the one noted in these stories. Well, clarification, the way the laws are interpreted is wrongful.

maybe in your opinion. we all have to live by the same laws, so personally i prefer that everyone is treated the same. if i had done the same thing i'd be happy to see the police follow procedure and arrest me, so i have no problem with the way that law is used at all.

 

And you just contradicted yourself by saying you would step in and help the elderly woman regardless of the consequences, when you also say the guy with the shotgun should have been mindful of the consequences. Make some sense...

i think everyone should be mindful of the implications of their actions at all times. makes perfect sense to me.

 

also i still don't see how this is relevant. helping the old lady requires immediate action and i'd be required to break the law to do it effectively. the guy from the article could have done his good deed without breaking the law quite easily.

 

And I read everything you posted, and everything everybody else posted. Obviously you don't even know what you posted, because you still think the guy was in the wrong for trying to do a good deed.

i never once said i thought his actions were morally wrong, i said they were stupid and unlawful. maybe you should try reading it twice next time?

[ClayMeow]

Look what you started now Clay?

I stopped reading long ago, once the subject was changed.

[Waco]

I stopped reading long ago, once the subject was changed.

Ditto.