4 ms·

This seems to be just another story about the UK's dystopian legal system. Unless some major details are being left out of this story the evidence behind his c

by J-dawg 7y ago

This seems to be just another story about the UK's dystopian legal system. Unless some major details are being left out of this story the evidence behind his conviction seems ludicrously flimsy. Firstly the assertion that the "gun" belonged to him, just because it was found near his shelter and had his DNA on it. That thing looks so unlike a gun that he could have easily brushed against it or picked it up and not even remembered, leaving some skin cells behind in the process. The fact that a person's DNA is found on objects in the vicinity of where they have been living doesn't seem particularly surprising. Secondly, who gets to decide what a "firearm" is? All kinds of objects could potentially contain an explosion and fire a projectile. I fail to see how a jury could possibly reach the standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt" in this case (unless, as I mentioned, some very important details have been left out).

mjlee 7y ago
> Secondly, who gets to decide what a "firearm" is? All kinds of objects could potentially contain an explosion and fire a projectile. The Firearms Act does: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57 Whether or not the firearm is offence worthy: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5
- anfilt 7y ago
  Look at pictures the pipe has 43mm for diameter stamped on it. It' way too large even for a shotgun shell. This is the police just being idiots or saving face. This guy really needs a better lawyer. I am honestly amazed a judge would not even question it. I bet it was just a container to keep stuff dry from the moisture in the dirt since it sounds like this guy hid stuff in the ground in caches.
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
>I fail to see how a jury could possibly reach the standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt" in this case Affluent, middle class jury vs a homeless man they detest and want gone.
- pirate_dev 7y ago
  This completely.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
I agree, it does seem like flimsy evidence against him. Was he dangerous in other ways? If the mayor of a town had something like that found around his farm where his dna was all around the farm, would he be given this sentence? Probably not. I think the us legal system is no better, by the way.

by J-dawg 7y ago

mjlee 7y ago

> Secondly, who gets to decide what a "firearm" is? All kinds of objects could potentially contain an explosion and fire a projectile. The Firearms Act does: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57 Whether or not the firearm is offence worthy: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5

anfilt 7y ago
Look at pictures the pipe has 43mm for diameter stamped on it. It' way too large even for a shotgun shell. This is the police just being idiots or saving face. This guy really needs a better lawyer. I am honestly amazed a judge would not even question it. I bet it was just a container to keep stuff dry from the moisture in the dirt since it sounds like this guy hid stuff in the ground in caches.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

>I fail to see how a jury could possibly reach the standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt" in this case Affluent, middle class jury vs a homeless man they detest and want gone.

pirate_dev 7y ago
This completely.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

I agree, it does seem like flimsy evidence against him. Was he dangerous in other ways? If the mayor of a town had something like that found around his farm where his dna was all around the farm, would he be given this sentence? Probably not. I think the us legal system is no better, by the way.