www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20547557
About time. Why wasn't/isn't this front page news?
The sentence though should have been scrubbed. Not lessened then suspended.
Grr. M.
|
>> The sentence though should have been scrubbed. Not lessened then suspended.
>>
>> Grr. M.
You failed to read the bit about "excessive ammunition" then? All in all its now about right.
|
|
Shut up. I failed nothing regarding this.
|
yeah why let facts spoil a good rant,
|
|
I believe in line with other cases, like I said on the other thread not really surprising outcome.
|
The Lord Chief gave him a telling off but reduced the sentence.
Given the guilty plea wiping the slate clean was never a possibility. And I don't think even a sympathetic a civilian jury would have acquitted him on the evidence given the ammunition under his bed.
|
Appealing the conviction would have left him open to a retrial.
Appealing the sentence gets him out of jail and allows an appeal against the conviction at a later date.
I would not use any of you lot as a legal rep.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 29 Nov 12 at 20:01
|
>> Appealing the conviction would have left him open to a retrial.
>>
>> Appealing the sentence gets him out of jail and allows an appeal against the conviction
>> at a later date.
>>
>> I would not use any of you lot as a legal rep.
I may be missing something ON, perhaps military justice is different. On the whole though it's difficult to appeal the verdict where you entered a plea of guilty.
|
|
I believe his defence about the guilty plea is that he was poorly advised, probably by a military lawyer. He seems to have a civilian legal team now, hopefully they will run rings around the court martial system.
|
So he has a brain injury sufficient for him to forget he had an improperly owned automatic pistol and 334 rounds of ammo.
But the Army still allow him to run around with a weapon.
Am I missing something out here?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 29 Nov 12 at 21:53
|
|
I had that thought too Lygonos.
|
I don't know his current military medical category, but that would determine his access to weapons. My guess would be that he has no need for that access at the moment.
I suspect that anyone involved in his court martial will be actively protecting their pension at the moment.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 29 Nov 12 at 22:14
|
>>I suspect that anyone involved in his court martial will be actively protecting their pension at the moment.
I doubt it, I can hear the conversation now...
"Look guys, I know he took the gun before he was injured knowing it was wrong, I know he left it lying around so that his mates had to pack it up, I know he forgot that he owned a live weapon, I know that he took loads of ammo and kept it when he shouldn't, and I know you think you were already lenient with him, but look, the media has got hold of it and a bunch of people who know half the story are up in arms stressing out the PR people; so we're going to have to inappropriately reduce his sentence just to shut them all up; However, we'd appreciate it if you kept your mouth shut for the team, eh?. Don't worry, we won't let the "forgetful" man with the "bad judgement" actually hold a gun again".
|
He took legal advice and chose the safe option over the gamble at a possible 5-stretch.
Not sure I'm seeing the legal fail in this one.
"Exceptional circumstances" to the automatic 5 year jailterm are hit/miss when it comes to the crunch.
Soldier has improperly owned weapon plus ammo (lots of it).
He shouldn't have them. It appears he was aware at some point previously as his defence relies on him having a brain injury.
ie. his defence insists he has a brain injury so severe he forgot he had the guns'n'ammo.
Why's he not flying a desk or pensioned out if it's that bad?
|
|
He's got a very good PR machine - even some of my less gullible friends have fallen for the story !
|
He fought for his country; he knows his weaponry; he kept a trophy and ammo (when he knew he shouldn't have done); he got caught through unfortunate circumstances when many do not;
Did he need to go to prison?...No.
There are pieces of crap on our estates who daily carry guns or other weapons and who do not in the slightest fear our judicial system..they are the ones we should be after.
|
>>they are the ones we should be after.
It is not an either/or.
|
Should he have gone to jail?
I'm not the judge.
Was he guilty of an offence.
You betcha.
He's a criminal.
Soldiers and cops never go mental and slaughter their families do they?
Who the hell wants either to have illegal guns at their disposal - cause celebre? Pfft.
Let me put it another way - imagine the Police found an ex-service pistol with a couple of hundred rounds in your attic WP - you think you'd get off?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 30 Nov 12 at 00:18
|
I'm glad he was let out, and perhaps it's appropriate that he wasn't let off. But I don't share the censorious majority view here.
The guy is a special forces soldier who not long ago was serving in a place where he and others lived daily amid a litter of weapons, used often in anger. He was given this Glock by an Iraqi as a keepsake. He left some of his kit behind on coming to Britain and it was sent on by his colleagues. It hadn't been unpacked. The Glock was in it. Another soldier got into a squabble with his girl friend who told the police the other soldier waved guns about and had a lot of ammo. The place was raided and the Glock found.
Whether the guy had really suffered memory loss one doesn't know for sure. But the story sounds perfectly all right even without the memory loss.
When I was young illegally held firearms were much commoner among respectable people than they are now. The law was more relaxed too. It has been tightened up progressively, and that may be a good thing although criminals seem to be more armed than they ever were in the past. It may be a good thing, but I don't like it particularly. I find firearms interesting and they don't scare me.
|
>>He was given this Glock by an Iraqi as a keepsake
And 344 rounds of ammo - which takes up the space of a small car battery.
Pull the other one.
|
I enjoyed reading the full transcript of the case that Bromp put up in the other thread, but since then it's amazed me how the ammunition has never been mentioned by the media in any of the reports or campaigns for his release.
Some of the ammunition was suitable for the pistol.
Another fact which has been ignored by many.
Brain injury, pistol, ammunition, stress.......Hungerford all over again.
Pat
|
>> And 344 rounds of ammo - which takes up the space of a small car battery.
The published information on the ammo is pretty vague, but it seems it wasn't all the same (there are different 9mm rounds for different weapons), and it isn't entirely clear whether it belonged to Nightingale or the other soldier. In any case it was separate from the pistol according to most reports. And the gun, according to reports, wasn't left 'lying around'. It was in the soldier's luggage.
If people like this soldier are trusted to use these weapons against people identified as enemies, why should everyone start screaming the place down if they still have them when they are off duty? Seems wimpish and silly to me.
|
>> Let me put it another way - imagine the Police found an ex-service pistol with
>> a couple of hundred rounds in your attic WP - you think you'd get off?
>>
Fair point.
I got rid of them one this case became newsworthy...;-)
|
|
Well said WP. BUT it ain't happening is it?
|
|
Glock is hardly asn exotic side-arm - Don't these get issued to Special Forces anyway - so a keepsake eh ? Right yeah whatever. I'm with the Dr on this one.
|
I agree with Lygonos and RP and Pat on this I'm afraid. Perhaps right to let him out but not left him off the charge.
As RP says a Glock is often used by special forces. And the ammo fitted the gun. So that's alright then?
And his defence of brain injury might be true - so why was he not medically discharged?
|
Not sure what you're all arguing about. Does anybody think he should be locked up? I don't. He isn't. Justice has been done, as far as it ever can be. Has anybody seen a victim, other than the accused?
Martin thinks the sentence should be scrubbed; it as good as has, since he pleaded guilty, and if he does nothing to invoke his suspended sentence.
I always think 'possession' offences are a bit strange anyway. It's OK presumably for Lygonos to have a cupboard full of drugs, or a police officer to carry a pepper spray, but probably not for me. Had there been any evidence or even suggestion of criminal intent, we would surely have heard about it (and the materials wouldn't have been in his wardrobe and under his bed, but better concealed).
Good luck to him.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 30 Nov 12 at 09:55
|
>>Had there been any evidence or even suggestion of criminal intent<<
No, but neither had there been in the other cases of multiple deaths and mental instability.
Carlisle, Hungerford, Dunblane.
The rules are in place to prevent this sort of thing happening again, surely there isn't a problem with that?
Pat
|
The rules on guns are ineffective or worse, the result of competitive claptrap and grandstanding by unctuous hypocritical politicians, and don't stop nutters.
>>The rules are in place to prevent this sort of thing happening again, surely there isn't a problem with that?
The straw man again - if I don't agree with preventing massacres, I must be wrong.
Irrelevant. He didn't perpetrate a massacre, and if he had been inclined to then the rules wouldn't have stopped him would they?
The rules didn't stop Derek Bird, who had a shotgun and a firearms licence. Proper criminals don't care about the rules anyway. The gun laws are like airport security - there to make people feel something is being done, so they'll be OK.
I hate guns BTW, and I haven't any, just in case you were wondering
|
>I always think 'possession' offences are a bit strange anyway
I think originally it was kind of a catch-all; As in I know you're up to no good and you're going to shoot someone, but rather than having to wait until you do, I'll just nick you for being in possession.
And I agree, there are problems with that law. Nonetheless, it is the law and should be applied to all, not with some special exemption if a group of people have some romantic idea of the type of person you are.
And again, we keep hearing about how expert this guy is, special forces, etc. etc. and yet even *I* know that leaving a gun lying around and keeping live ammo is bad.
I wouldn't have put him in jail since that solves nothing, but this bleeding heart campaign is quite inappropriate.
|
That's pretty much my position. I don't see the benefit in locking up this particular bloke, on the basis at least of what we've heard.
Equally, what he did was against the rules, he should have known, and in the same way as police officers are expected to know better, so should he as it was hi specialist subject. And he pleaded guilty (as he had to, the admitted facts spoke for themselves) so the offence can't be expunged.
About the right result I'd say; and creates no precedent at all for letting off a drug dealer with an illegally held gun, who can still be locked up (if only they were).
|
>> The rules on guns are ineffective or worse, the result of competitive claptrap and grandstanding
>> by unctuous hypocritical politicians, and don't stop nutters.
They don't stop nutters. Nothing will stop nutters. But there is a need for gun control and the rules seem to acheive that.
Look at the USA for examples of what happens when the state fails to apply controls. Not the nutter shootings in schools etc but the wives and kids who get shot in mistake for intruders.
|
Yes there need to be rules and restrictions. The Wild West constitutional rights in the USA are (for the time being at least) outdated and inappropriate.
I don't know the numbers, but don't a lot of children shoot themselves accidentally playing with guns they find lying around?
|
>> >> The rules on guns are ineffective or worse, the result of competitive claptrap and
>> grandstanding
>> >> by unctuous hypocritical politicians, and don't stop nutters.
>>
>> They don't stop nutters. Nothing will stop nutters. But there is a need for gun
>> control and the rules seem to acheive that.
The UK gun control laws are some of the best in the world, and for the most part - work. Most people on here, if they wanted to get a gun and go nuts, wouldn't know where to start or even be allowed to get one. Our "nutcase gun" toll is remarkably low by world standards.
Criminals? will get guns, they always did and always have. Considering how much weaponry was floating around during WW2, its amazing how much of it is still not in the hands of the public.
|
I was imprecise. I should have said the changes in response to Dunblane probably achieved nothing. Wouldn't really argue with the ban on pump action shotguns and automatic rifles after Hungerford.
I was surprised that the focus after Dunblane went the way it did, rather than more towards how to monitor and manage the licensing - Hamilton's guns were licensed, but IIRC there had been many complaints about him, and he had been in arguments with the police for some time. I recall thinking that was where the problem was, not with private individuals being able to have licensed handguns (when rifles and shotguns remain permitted).
I'm no expert. Wouldn't cause me any inconvenience if they were all banned; but one certain result would be that the authorities wouldn't know where any of the guns were, or who had them.
|
>> Glock is hardly asn exotic side-arm - Don't these get issued to Special Forces anyway
>> - so a keepsake eh ? Right yeah whatever. I'm with the Dr on this
>> one.
>>
I don't get the disbelieve that it would ultimately end up as a 'gizzet' because he's issued or it's not 'exotic'.
|
>> Glock is hardly asn exotic side-arm
It's an ugly damn thing too. It may hold 17 rounds instead of 7 but it lacks the solid, thuggish elegance of the Colt .45 1911 automatic beloved of Chicago gangsters...
|
The appeal judgement has now been published on bailii
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2734.html
|
According to Guardian news ticker ''SAS sniper Danny Nightingale has won his appeal against a conviction for illegally possessing a pistol and ammunition''.
More detail to follow.
|
Currently 'breaking news' on Beeb website as of 2.45pm
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22370943
"A judge ordered the retrial at a hearing at the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire."
|
|
Having some past experience of what is euphemistically called "The Military Justice System" I can say that, certainly in the 70s, a court martial was seen as a means of giving a defendant, pre-judged as guilty, a more serious sentence than the 28 days detention which could be handed out by his Commanding Officer. "Hats on Gentlemen, wheel the guilty bar steward in and let's get this over with"
Last edited by: Meldrew on Wed 1 May 13 at 18:58
|
There appears to be a case to answer, and the charge is a serious criminal charge that carries a (usually mandatory) penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
I wonder what defence will be offered now he is getting a second bite at the cherry.
Looks pretty brain damaged to me from the interviews I've seen...
|
Did he, or did he not break the rules covering the handling, storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition?
Well that'll be a Yes.
Then there's mitigation which involves why he, as a firearms aware person, did it when deciding the penalty.
So, we can argue about the sentence, but how is he not guilty?
|
Unless someone else did it and he didn't want to daub them in of course.
Would I be right that if found guilty at retrial he could only be given the suspended sentence as a maximum, or is it back to a blank slate (and thus 5yrs in on the table) since the original result was quashed?
If the latter then in his boots I'd take the 12 months suspended even if I thought I was innocent
|
Guilty perhaps, but a special case, someone used to living in a litter of weapons and using them in anger. Lots of psychic wear and tear and a brain injury. Bound to take a while to come down from all that and adopt the demeanour and lifestyle of a bank clerk.
He didn't shoot or threaten anyone as far as I can remember and no one was shot with his weapon. His dodgy flatmate's girl friend accused the flatmate of being a gun-waving nutter and plod came round and found the weapon and ammo. A bit tactless of the officer in charge not to do a creative double shuffle to minimise the criminal aspect I thought.
But what do I know about the real circumstances? Perhaps another mass murder has been averted.
Yes, he should take the 12 months suspended as the coolest option. I would.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 1 May 13 at 19:54
|
5-man jury considering verdict presently.
New defence, with psychology back-up, is that he made a false confession due to confabulation as the result of brain damage.
And that the Glock belonged to a guy he shared the flat with who himself got 2 yrs military dention for also having a Glock.
...
|
I believe that less than the last excuse.
Pat
|
current news: found guilty by a military court of possessing a pistol and ammunition.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23255890
|
|
A sound decisions. He's full of crap. Hero or not.
|
Agree with the Pug. Who wants a guy with psychological problems owning a Glock. Why did he have 300 rounds, for God's sake ?
Ted
|
The last-minute change of story didn't help much... wonder what's behind that. In any case the sentence won't be too harsh as the army seems to be sticking by its man. I hope he won't do any serious time (or indeed any time). No one was threatened or shot with the weapon and there's no suggestion he was going to sell it to criminals.
Active service career must have been over anyway, surely? But the guilty verdict may make a non-active job in (say) training more difficult for the army to arrange.
There are probably hundreds of these guys with machine pistols in their sock drawers. Some inevitably are extremely blasé with weapons and such people aren't scared of being burgled or mugged.
|
2 years, suspended sentence.
Don't see much in the way of mitigation: lucky in my eyes not to get a 5-stretch.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23450909
|
|
Not a surprising result. A suspended sentance was always on the cards.
|
>>A suspended sentance was always on the cards
The judge said he would have jailed Nightingale but felt constrained by the previous appeal court decisions.
|
>> >>A suspended sentance was always on the cards
>>
>>
>> The judge said he would have jailed Nightingale but felt constrained by the previous
>> appeal court decisions.
>>
Exactamondo.
|
Danny Nightingale again. - Zero
