GUNMAN WARNED HE WILL FACE CUSTODY (or: Brits are insane)

[2dogs]

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/d...layContent&sourceNode=65582&contentPK=4000941

GUNMAN WARNED HE WILL FACE CUSTODY


17:00 - 03 February 2003

A Gunman faces custody after he was found guilty of shooting a criminal in the leg in a terrifying daytime street conflict.

Mark Campbell told a jury at Nottingham Crown Court he acted in self-defence after his victim arrived at his home with a group of six-foot "henchmen".

The 20-year-old grabbed a loaded shotgun and fired two warning shots into the air before he deliberately fired at his victim, catching him on his thigh.

He was not seriously injured.

After a three-day trial, the jury convicted Campbell of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

He will be sentenced on February 21.

Mr Justice Gage remanded him in custody and warned he could be sentenced to a term in a young offenders" institution.

The jury had heard the defendant was allegedly robbed by the victim on April 4 last year, the day before the shooting in Sherborne Road, Aspley.

The victim telephoned Campbell the following day and said he was going to "blow up his house."

He arrived at the house with a gun, which was allegedly in the waistband of his trousers.

And his six minders were in two cars, one with blacked out windows.

He said Campbell, now of no fixed address, "owed him", the court had heard.

A key witness in the case was an 11-year-old schoolgirl.

But, the jury heard, she had been too upset to come to court to relive the incident.

Instead prosecutor James Hett read her witness statement to the jury. She described how there were two warning shots and a second "deliberate" shot at the complainant.

Wayne Jordash, defending, told the jury the case had echoes of farmer Tony Martin"s case, where he had armed himself with a gun to protect himself from burglars.

He said Campbell had been faced with a situation where his mother and girlfriend were inside the house and he had tried to defend them.

He had told the jury: "They (victim and henchmen) certainly hadn"t come round for afternoon tea with Mr Campbell.

"They didn"t wish to be seen and were after Mr Campbell for some reason or another.

"You call police, they don"t arrive. What should Mr Campbell have done? Waited?

"Make the wrong choice, you may be dead. Your family may be dead."

 

[Moondancer]

It amazes me that a government is so far gone as to charge someone when defending themself. Part of me says that there must be more to it than what we see in this report, because if it is actually true as written the government MUST be able to recognize they are giving criminals free rein to break the laws.

But.. it reminds me too much of our "zero tolerance" laws in the U.S.'s school system.

Am I only the only one who sees a very close parallel between our schools suspending both parties to a fight regarless of who starts it, and England charging both the criminal and defender? Is this where we will be when our now school-aged kids become old enough to be the law-makers? Will they be so ingrained with the zero-tolerance ideals that it seems to be normal?

Although I will be probably be gone before we reach that point in time, it worries me.

 

[jmbg29]

The brits aren't insane so much as they are pathetic.

Where is agricola? He could chime in and tell us that since this occured at the SHOOTER'S HOME, under british (they don't deserve capitalization) law, that the shooter (now defendant) would have been perfectly within his rights to defend himself, provided that he used a crochet hook, a rolled up newspaper, or harsh language. Instead, this savage shot one attacker, and frightened two car-loads of innocent thugs er, I mean bystanders. Yeah, that's it.

Pathetic losers!

 

[Bob Locke]

No wonder we whipped 'em twice, then had to bail them out a couple of times to boot.

Glad I live in America, and Colorado. The "Make My Day" law here really re-inforces the idea that a man's home is his castle. Only problem here would have been questions about the two warning shots, as in "Why did you do that instead of just taking him out"?

 

[Col. Mustard]

And black is white, up down, etc...

The jury had heard the defendant was allegedly robbed by the victim

HE'S NOT THE VICTIM! He's the perpetrator. He started it, and he suffered for it. :banghead:

 

[GhostShooter]

There has to be more to this story. I don't believe even England has fallen to the level where self-defense is treated as a criminal offense. Especially in one's own home.

 

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Sorry, Ghostshooter. Welcome to the real world, such as it exists in Great Britian. Sounds sorta surreal, right on the face of it.

Lest I sound facetious, go over to TFL and search up a few of the NUMEROUS threads on the degredation of conditions in England since the handgun ban. Place's getting downright UNSAFE.

The only saving grace is that their OVERALL crime rate has crept downward a smidgen lately.

This is countered by a large, easily documented shift in the TYPES of crime, from crimes against property to crimes of violence committed against now-defenseless British subjects. I find this a very ugly reality, indeed.

"Defenseless" is being charitable. Not only are they disallowed handguns, neatly removing the best means of self-defence, but the law-abiding crime victims are vigorously prosecuted for perpetrating ANY kind of violent act, even one performed in the context of protecting one's life, home and family. There are a few exceptions, but they are frighteningly narrow, and the police seem to be lacking in forgiveness. All victims are equal, no matter what side of the crime they're on. The zero-tolerance analogy is very appropriate.

Dunno why they set it up like that. Legislating against human nature always struck me as a good example of wishful thinking. Trying to deny that humans are prone to being violent in ALL cases because of the thin veneer of civilisation we've covered ourselves with during the past few thousand years is to deny that we used to be nomadic hunter-gatherers, a career choice that depends on a degree of violence just to survive. Dinner does not keel over and die just because you asked nicely, and evolution is a slow business.

That's presuming you give credence to evolution theory, mind you. This is just my opinion. YMMV

 

[Deadman]

GhostShooter - as a law abiding gun owner in Australia, in order to have a firearms licence I need a 'genuine reason' to own firearms. My particular reason is 'Target Shooting', ie basic target shooting and/or competition.

Police literature for firearms licences clearly states that self defence is NOT a legitamite reason. So if I were to employ my firearms for the purpose of self defence, and the police found out, I'd be up a certain creek without a paddle.