An SAS Soldier who kept a pistol from Falklands War as a trophy gets 15 months in prison - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50145968]Yeah fuck all Americans because this one guy thought grandfathering was allowed in the UK. Get off your high horse, bro.[/QUOTE] Because he's keeps posting demanding this soldier be railed because [I]in the U.S. ...; If it's like the U.S. ...[/i]. Anyway the Sentence will be suspended on appeal based on the precedent set by this guy who brought back a pistol [i]after[/i] the handgun ban and had twice the ammo as him. [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20547557[/url]

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146028]Because he's keeps posting demanding this soldier be railed because [I]in the U.S. ...; If it's like the U.S. ...[/i]. Anyway the Sentence will be suspended on appeal based on the precedent set by this guy who brought back a pistol [i]after[/i] the handgun ban and had twice the ammo as him. [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20547557[/url][/QUOTE] You guys do that all the time lmao, every time a mass shooting happens you guys say 'WELL IN AUSTRALIA.... WELL IN THE UK....." Don't act like Americans are the only ones who do it.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50146015]I'm still kinda stunned how people are acting like this guy is a mass murderer for having a revolver with what could be considered one and half boxes of ammo. Not to mention people flipping shit because the ammo was hollow points... Ya know something which can legally still be bought in the United Kingdom.[/QUOTE] Not without explicit permission from the police or home secretary you can't buy it legally. He had neither. Even if you had a firearms licence you still need to ask the police specifically for a condition to be added to your licence to use such ammo.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50146051]Not without explicit permission from the police or home secretary you can't buy it legally. He had neither. Even if you had a firearms licence you still need to ask the police specifically for a condition to be added to your licence to use such ammo.[/QUOTE] Which is sorta ridiculous. I mean the point of hollow point is to hit, and not go through the walls behind the person. You'd figure that the government would prefer that type of ammo being legal over normal ball.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50146062]Which is sorta ridiculous. I mean the point of hollow point is to hit, and not go through the walls behind the person. You'd figure that the government would prefer that type of ammo being legal over normal ball.[/QUOTE] Yeah but in the UK they really don't believe that you should be able to harm someone else in the name of self defense, absurd in my opinion, but that's what they usually think. IIRC people over in the UK have gotten sued over using bats against home invaders.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50145993]Not in the eyes of the ATF. Any form of criminal record in the United States of America is pretty much a death sentence in terms of owning weapons of any kind. You physically would not be allowed to own, purchase, or even handle firearms as it would be considered as a felon owning weapons.[/QUOTE] ATF usually follows state law; For example in Texas even if you are convicted of Murder, you can own guns again 5 years after your sentence ends and the ATF allows it on the premise that if the state that convicted you allows you to own firearms, then there's no reason they shouldn't as well. But if you get convicted of an federal offense then you're fucked. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146044]You guys do that all the time lmao, every time a mass shooting happens you guys say 'WELL IN AUSTRALIA.... WELL IN THE UK....." Don't act like Americans are the only ones who do it.[/QUOTE] Why are you bitching at me? I'm an American calling and American out for interjecting American law into foreign matters; Not only that he's demanding that guy get fucked based on US law.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146081]ATF usually follows state law; For example in Texas even if you are convicted of Murder, you can own guns again 5 years after your sentence ends and the ATF allows it on the premise that if the state that convicted you allows you to own firearms, then there's no reason they shouldn't as well. But if you get convicted of an federal offense then you're fucked. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] Why are you bitching at me? I'm an American calling and American out for interjecting American law into foreign matters; Not only that he's demanding that guy get fucked based on US law.[/QUOTE] Sorry your flagdog is not showing up so I assumed you were from Australia/UK.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146070]Yeah but in the UK they really don't believe that you should be able to harm someone else in the name of self defense, absurd in my opinion, but that's what they usually think. IIRC people over in the UK have gotten sued over using bats against home invaders.[/QUOTE] You know what's funny? Here in Texas you pretty much are obligated to kill an intruder because even if you go out of the way to shoot to wound they still turn around and sue you. So yeah Texas decided to pass a law giving civil immunity to people who had their shootings declared legal by the courts so we aren't pretty much forced to summarily execute burglars; and guess what? Gun control advocates got the law thrown out by the federal courts so now we are pretty much forced under threat of financial ruin to unnecessarily kill burglars again. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146098]Sorry your flagdog is not showing up so I assumed you were from Australia/UK.[/QUOTE] My avatar is literally the flag of Texas.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50146062]Which is sorta ridiculous. I mean the point of hollow point is to hit, and not go through the walls behind the person. You'd figure that the government would prefer that type of ammo being legal over normal ball.[/QUOTE] The areas you are allowed to shoot your gun even with a licence are generally pretty restricted. You aren't going to be legally allowed to shoot it in an area where other people live, or the general public will probably be walking.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146138]You know what's funny? Here in Texas you pretty much are obligated to kill an intruder because even if you go out of the way to shoot to wound they still turn around and sue you. So yeah Texas decided to pass a law giving civil immunity to people who had their shootings declared legal by the courts so we aren't pretty much forced to summarily execute burglars; and guess what? Gun control advocates got the law thrown out by the federal courts so now we are pretty much forced under threat of financial ruin to unnecessarily kill burglars again. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] My avatar is literally the flag of Texas.[/QUOTE] I feel there is good reason for not allowing shoot to wound. If you are shooting just to wound then your life probably isn't in so much danger where you need to use the gun in the first place. Guns are a LAST resort and you should aim center mass shoot to kill and only when your life is in grave danger. Not to mention, sometimes shooting people in the knees/arms doesn't work and they will still start coming after you, especially if they are a large person/on drugs + adrenaline pumping. Also if you hit them in an artery they probably will bleed out and die anyway. Just aim center mass always.

Recommend reading through Chapter 4 and 13 of [URL="https://www.herts.police.uk/PDF/firearms_licensing_police_law_guide.pdf"]this[/URL].

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50146062]Which is sorta ridiculous. I mean the point of hollow point is to hit, and not go through the walls behind the person. You'd figure that the government would prefer that type of ammo being legal over normal ball.[/QUOTE] The reason holowpoints are frowned upon in the UK is because the British invented them and fucked up Africans so badly with them the Europeans made it a war crime to use Hollowpoints. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146150]I feel there is good reason for not allowing shoot to wound. If you are shooting just to wound then your life probably isn't in so much danger where you need to use the gun in the first place. Guns are a LAST resort and you should aim center mass shoot to kill and only when your life is in grave danger. Not to mention, sometimes shooting people in the knees/arms doesn't work and they will still start coming after you, especially if they are a large person/on drugs + adrenaline pumping. Also if you hit them in an artery they probably will bleed out and die anyway. Just aim center mass always.[/QUOTE] Yes but I mean after you clearly neutralize them if they're still breathing you pretty much have to execute them on the spot.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146163]The reason holowpoints are frowned upon in the UK is because the British invented them and fucked up Africans so badly with them the Europeans made it a war crime to use Hollowpoints.[/QUOTE] I find it odd that there are restrictions on Conventional weapons, why not use a hollow point in war, why not use a 3 sided bayonet? The point is to kill the enemy is it not? I understand that you probably don't want to use hollow points in wars against developed nations as they usually issue Kevlar or plate carriers, but for conflicts like afghanistan/iraq where most of the combatants don't have armor, why not use it? [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;50146163]The reason holowpoints are frowned upon in the UK is because the British invented them and fucked up Africans so badly with them the Europeans made it a war crime to use Hollowpoints. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] Yes but I mean after you clearly neutralize them if they're still breathing you pretty much have to execute them on the spot.[/QUOTE] Yeah that is a little fucked up, in a way though if they are on the ground bleeding out with 4 bullet holes in them, it probably is humane to execute them if it looks like they're definitely going to die.

It's completely bizarre that you guys are more worried about the expanding ammo than the gun.

[QUOTE=ThatSprite;50145551]what are gun licenses [editline]17th April 2016[/editline] it is legal to own pistols here iirc, you have to apply for it through a pretty strict process[/QUOTE] no, it's flat out not a civilian right. Muzzle loading is not a fucking workaround. that's ancient slow tech and it's pretty much useless as a pistol when you can easily get access to a shotgun anyways

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50145685]If the British do it anything like us Americans, captured weapons are supposed to be destroyed on the spot, not kept as souvenirs. [B]This guy's a shitbag.[/B] If he wanted something to remember his dead comrades by, he could have easily commissioned a plaque or something. This wasn't World War Two, when everyone and their Grandmother was coming home with captured Lugers and MP-40s. Lock his ass up.[/QUOTE] That appeal to authority though Who cares? Gun laws are only there so people don't commit other crimes with the guns, owning a gun doesn't make you a bad person. The only reason that it's illegal to own a gun is to prevent murder/other crimes.... Owning a gun makes you a criminal if you can't legally own one, but it DEFINITELY doesn't make you a bad person; also, why would it as long as you had no ill intent?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146163]Yes but I mean after you clearly neutralize them if they're still breathing you pretty much have to execute them on the spot.[/QUOTE] what you can't do that (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;  [b]and[/b] (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  [b]and[/b] (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[QUOTE=.Lain;50146207]no, it's flat out not a civilian right. Muzzle loading is not a fucking workaround. that's ancient slow tech and it's pretty much useless as a pistol when you can easily get access to a shotgun anyways[/QUOTE] The work around for pistols is to weld a piece of rebar to the grip and attach a joker tier barrel to it. [IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/92/Batman-JokerRevolver3.JPG/600px-Batman-JokerRevolver3.JPG[/IMG] In all honesty I think even this isn't long enough to be legal in the UK. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Perrine;50146244]what you can't do that (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;  [b]and[/b] (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.[/QUOTE] Texas Penal Code. Title 2. General Principles of Criminal Responsibility. Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility. Subchapter C. Protection of Persons. Section 31 [QUOTE]The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;[/quote] Basically if you catch someone in any property you own you are by default legally justified in killing them and it's nigh legally impossible for the state to convict you unless a witness or camera catches you or you're blatant about it like shooting them point blank.

I have no issue with this. why someone thinks it's ok to carry a gun and 200 bullets with no license is unacceptable. Some idiot could break in and that's another rampage waiting to happen.

[QUOTE=AK'z;50146307]I have no issue with this. why someone thinks it's ok to carry a gun and 200 bullets with no license is unacceptable. Some idiot could break in and that's another rampage waiting to happen.[/QUOTE] He didn't carry it, it was stashed in his attic; The only reason the police found it was because he was going through a divorce and his wife accused him of stealing jewlery from her.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50146070]Yeah but in the UK they really don't believe that you should be able to harm someone else in the name of self defense, absurd in my opinion, but that's what they usually think. IIRC people over in the UK have gotten sued over using bats against home invaders.[/QUOTE] Homeowners in the UK can legally use any reasonable force necessary to defend themselves or others (but not property, that's the main difference from US law) from an intruder, this includes disproportionate force. If I remember, there was a case of scrapyard owner + pal catching 3 intruders trying to steal quadbikes, they caught one and beat him half to death with a bat and a crowbar, which got them jailed as the intruder was trying to flee (not threat to selves) and UK laws don't allow disproportionate use of force to defend property. On the other hand there was a case where several intruders tried to break into a farmhouse, the farmer killed one of them with his shotgun and that was ruled justified self defense. So yeah, self-defense even with weapons is definitely legal in the UK (assuming the weapon is legally owned, you'd almost certainly get done for murder if an illegally owned firearm was used), the laws aren't too different from parts of the US.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146252]The work around for pistols is to weld a piece of rebar to the grip and attach a joker tier barrel to it. [IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/9/92/Batman-JokerRevolver3.JPG/600px-Batman-JokerRevolver3.JPG[/IMG] In all honesty I think even this isn't long enough to be legal in the UK. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] Texas Penal Code. Title 2. General Principles of Criminal Responsibility. Chapter 9. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility. Subchapter C. Protection of Persons. Section 31 Basically if you catch someone in any property you own you are by default legally justified in killing them and it's nigh legally impossible for the state to convict you unless a witness or camera catches you or you're blatant about it like shooting them point blank.[/QUOTE] [quote]if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;  [b]and[/b] [/quote] not legally justified also, important to note the distinction between force and deadly force. the general 'force' sections precede the specific 'deadly force' ones. Deadly force requires additional conditions

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146311]He didn't carry it, it was stashed in his attic; The only reason the police found it was because he was going through a divorce and his wife accused him of stealing jewlery from her.[/QUOTE] oh ok, that's cool. thieves don't look very hard these days, no biggie.

[QUOTE=Perrine;50146331]not legally justified also, important to note the distinction between force and deadly force. the general 'force' sections precede the specific 'deadly force' ones. Deadly force requires additional conditions[/QUOTE] Still unless you literally shoot a buglar point blank execution style it's impossible for the state to say you didn't do it during the heat of the moment. And it was established in court two years ago that under this law that even if you chase down and shoot a fleeing burglar to death, it is legally justified as long as you are in hot pursuit. [editline]16th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;50146332]oh ok, that's cool. thieves don't look very hard these days, no biggie.[/QUOTE] Moving goalposts.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50146028]Because he's keeps posting demanding this soldier be railed because [I]in the U.S. ...; If it's like the U.S. ...[/i]. Anyway the Sentence will be suspended on appeal based on the precedent set by this guy who brought back a pistol [i]after[/i] the handgun ban and had twice the ammo as him. [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20547557[/url][/QUOTE] Forgive me for having no clue how things work over in the UK. That's not my salient point though. He's a soldier. He disobeyed the law. For that, he deserves punishment to the full extent of whatever law applies, civil or military. Some people are saying he should be let off because he's a veteran, and a decorated one. I say fuck that. The simple fact that he's military means he should be held to far stricter standards of conduct. He broke the law, lock his ass up. The same goes for firearm owners. Complaining about laws and regulations and the like is one thing. In fact, I actively encourage it. Actively breaking the law, on the other hand, is something I have zero sympathy for. The moment you take possession of a firearm, you pick up a heap of responsibilities with it. One of those responsibilities is to follow the law. If you can't meet that standard, you do not deserve to own a firearm in the first place.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;50146007]Do you know the guy? do you know his reason for leaving the SAS? Do you know if he's got a job, do you know he's in a stable relationship, do you know ANYTHING about the guy and his mental stability? You know precisely the square root of fuck all about him other than he was in the SAS and you're just assuming 'dude must be alright because the SAS are cool' In fact fuck it just to prove the point [URL="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sas-man-who-killed-ex-970279"]here's a story about an Ex SAS soldier who murdered his Ex-Partner with an AK47 because she cheated on him[/URL] That AK was an Illegal, unregistered war trophy[/QUOTE] I didn't assume anything because he was in the SAS lol. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people that were tied to armed forces are sometimes the most hot headed kind of people around because they're either itching for a fight, or know they could easily fuck up someone without the training, or have some sort of disorder from combat or any messed up thing that happened to them. Dude, he could be Satan himself or Madre Theresa, he sure isn't gonna do much with a fucking pistol. I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't be caught if he was to do anything with it. But wait, are unregistered war trophies enchanted mojo items that make ex SAS soldiers kill people? Because you don't prove any points with one case either tbh.

I think he should be released not because he's above the law but because the law is unreasonable

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50146422]Forgive me for having no clue how things work over in the UK. That's not my salient point though. He's a soldier. He disobeyed the law. For that, he deserves punishment to the full extent of whatever law applies, civil or military. Some people are saying he should be let off because he's a veteran, and a decorated one. I say fuck that. The simple fact that he's military means he should be held to far stricter standards of conduct. He broke the law, lock his ass up. The same goes for firearm owners. Complaining about laws and regulations and the like is one thing. In fact, I actively encourage it. Actively breaking the law, on the other hand, is something I have zero sympathy for. The moment you take possession of a firearm, you pick up a heap of responsibilities with it. One of those responsibilities is to follow the law. If you can't meet that standard, you do not deserve to own a firearm in the first place.[/QUOTE] Actively breaking a law that one sees as unjust is called civil disobedience, and it can be a valid form of protest. Civil disobedience regarding the gun registry is the biggest reason why it was repealed in Canada, and the threat of more civil disobedience is why it won't be brought back, and why Quebec's is going to fail catastrophically and waste money. Another example is recent marijuana reforms, they come from civil disobedience on the drug laws surrounding marijuana.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50146563]Actively breaking a law that one sees as unjust is called civil disobedience, and it can be a valid form of protest. Civil disobedience regarding the gun registry is the biggest reason why it was repealed in Canada, and the threat of more civil disobedience is why it won't be brought back, and why Quebec's is going to fail catastrophically and waste money. Another example is recent marijuana reforms, they come from civil disobedience on the drug laws surrounding marijuana.[/QUOTE] no obviously the law should be regarded as objective truth and if you smoke weed in a country where it's illegal, fuck you, I hope you get in jail for disrespecting some bureaucrats

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;50146558]I think he should be released not because he's above the law but because the law is unreasonable[/QUOTE] Why is the law unseasonable in a country with heavily regulated firearms?