Farmer who used shotgun to chase off metal thief loses licence despite being cleared!

#2
Well at least he's got BASC on the case and a S44 appeal underway I presume.

Hope the guns were insured. I'd be pursuing the police for damage to them.

If you do shoot and you're not a member of BASC I'd urge you to join. I know Ugly will say they are useless and to join the NGO but there is no doubt in my mind that BASC have the best firearms department of any of the organisations.
 
#3
I am absolutely disgusted by this.

The Mail said:
But it was Mr Edwards who endured a horrendous ordeal at the hands of police who arrested him on suspicion of attempted murder and confiscated his guns.
What a shoddy piece of writing, everyone knows it should be "... endured an horrendous ordeal ...".
 
#4
He (probably) would have been ok if he had not fired. Discharging a 'firearm' in an unsafe manner is never going to go down well. Shame.

As for the crim the poor lamb was traumatised, bless.
 
#5
Still a bit vague on the details.

What time of day was this incident? Did he knowingly take a weapon to confront the thie(f)ves or was he co-incidentally carrying it at the time?

He always maintained he only turned his shotgun on the van because he feared for the life of his mother as Taylor sped towards her.
Clearly there wasn't enough evidence to support this, and the Police porbably thought it too otherwise it's likely the thief could have been charged with attempted murder too.

Was the van driving away from him towards her or was he side on? Not enough detail and I'll wager there's a lot more regarding this than the Mail care to print.

He discharged a weapon at someone who was potentially leaving the scene, it leaves little sympathy from this callsign

Edited to add.

The orginal story has him discharging, reloading and discharging again. So it appears it wasn't a quick shot to divert the van away from his mother but several shots aimed at the driver. And he only started firing after his mother fell down, ergo, the vehicle was past her and probably not a threat

Farmer shot at thieves' van to save his mother's life. Now he could face attempted murder trial | Mail Online

Maybe he thought Louisa was still trying to get through to the police. Bill got out the way but Louisa went down

Bill started shooting at the vehicle. The first shot destroyed half the window. The second took out the rest and the third took off the driver’s mirror and changed the shape of the door.
Oh dear.
 
#7
The orginal story has him discharging, reloading and discharging again.
And there's the kicker right there.
I was told by my FEO that while the initial shot(s) may be legally sound, reloading the weapon after you've emptied it and having another go will be a very sticky wicket to argue.
 
#8
And there's the kicker right there.
I was told by my FEO that while the initial shot(s) may be legally sound, reloading the weapon after you've emptied it and having another go will be a very sticky wicket to argue.
Just out of interest, did you instigate a conversation with him/her about using your guns for self defence of the home, or do you have a pretty close relationship and it just came up whilst chatting. Only reason I ask is that I only ever see mine on the five yearly renewal inspection, and wouldn't entertain bringing the subject up.
 
#10
Personally, I'd like to think that the gun cabinet would be the very last place I'd run to if my home were under attack. There is just too much can go wrong.

If you're creative and think in advance, your homes are full of everyday items that can be used as improvised weapons of self defence, Jarrod started a thread on this (IIRC) some time back, and lots of sensible (and a few zany) suggestions came up.

Bottom line: legally held guns are for sporting/hunting purposes, and nothing else.
 
#11
Personally, I'd like to think that the gun cabinet would be the very last place I'd run to if my home were under attack. There is just too much can go wrong.

If you're creative and think in advance, your homes are full of everyday items that can be used as improvised weapons of self defence, Jarrod started a thread on this (IIRC) some time back, and lots of sensible (and a few zany) suggestions came up.

Bottom line: legally held guns are for sporting/hunting purposes, and nothing else.
You seem to be returning to some sort of normality with your last two posts....Hope it continues, as you made valid points!
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#12
Personally, I'd like to think that the gun cabinet would be the very last place I'd run to if my home were under attack. There is just too much can go wrong.

If you're creative and think in advance, your homes are full of everyday items that can be used as improvised weapons of self defence, Jarrod started a thread on this (IIRC) some time back, and lots of sensible (and a few zany) suggestions came up.

Bottom line: legally held guns are for sporting/hunting purposes, and nothing else.
Indeed it was after my elderly boss and his wife were robbed at knife point.
 
#13
Personally, I'd like to think that the gun cabinet would be the very last place I'd run to if my home were under attack. There is just too much can go wrong.

If you're creative and think in advance, your homes are full of everyday items that can be used as improvised weapons of self defence, Jarrod started a thread on this (IIRC) some time back, and lots of sensible (and a few zany) suggestions came up.

Bottom line: legally held guns are for sporting/hunting purposes, and nothing else.
I would hope your gun cabinet is empty as you are a Prohibited person within the meaning of Section 21 of the 1968 firearms act.
 
#14
Bottom line was it wasn't a rabbit for his supper or a marauding fox, it was a human being even if it was a thieving scumbag human being.

Shooting one of them or at one of them is still a big no no! Surely he must have really known that?

Not a lot of sympathy to be honest from me. Now if he'd had a golf club or a cricket bat to hand, you know, something that wasn't a firearm and he was being taken to task, I'd say fair play to him.
 
#16
Bottom line was it wasn't a rabbit for his supper or a marauding fox, it was a human being even if it was a thieving scumbag human being.

Shooting one of them or at one of them is still a big no no! Surely he must have really known that?

Not a lot of sympathy to be honest from me. Now if he'd had a golf club or a cricket bat to hand, you know, something that wasn't a firearm and he was being taken to task, I'd say fair play to him.
Furthermore; the farmer chap claims he'll go out of business without access to firearms, as he'll be unable to perform pest control duties.

I think the reality is he'll be the most popular bloke in the pub, as others who enjoy shooting who aren't lucky enough to own land clamber to buy him a pint in return for a 'permission'.

The fact his guns were allegedly damaged is a shame, and a separate issue, but overall if he'd shown more restraint, they would be all shiny and safe in his cabinet now, not dinged up and rusty in his fathers gun safe.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#17
I would hope your gun cabinet is empty as you are a Prohibited person within the meaning of Section 21 of the 1968 firearms act.
Unless he is a petty crim and got less than 3 months.

Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#19
Dear mr plod whilst some mad twat tried to run my old dear down I fired my shoot gun to scare him off whilst doing this I saw several pheasants flying in the general area so I reloaded my shotgun and tried to pot them.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top