Find a gun. Turn it in. Go to jail.

[BABronco]

Does anyone not find this disturbing?

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."


The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

[Garcia Bronco]

Unreal.

[Dukes]

Disgusting

[Beantown Bronco]

Obviously this is a law that needs to be changed.

The jury was put in a really tough spot with this one. Technically, they came back with the only ruling they could. Hopefully the judge comes back with time served and nothing more.

I blame the police on this one. Seems obvious he was told it was ok to bring it in, was never told that he should just leave it there and let them come and pick it up. They had ample opportunity to ignore the law themselves and let him leave the station, but they went out of their way to lock him up and then charge him. I'm guessing most places with such antiquated laws would ignore them in cases like this, if they even knew about them to begin with.

[Garcia Bronco]

Obviously this is a law that needs to be changed.

The jury was put in a really tough spot with this one. Technically, they came back with the only ruling they could. Hopefully the judge comes back with time served and nothing more.

I blame the police on this one. Seems obvious he was told it was ok to bring it in, was never told that he should just leave it there and let them come and pick it up. They had ample opportunity to ignore the law themselves and let him leave the station, but they went out of their way to lock him up and then charge him. I'm guessing most places with such antiquated laws would ignore them in cases like this, if they even knew about them to begin with.

The jury doesn't have to listen to the law. If that jury decided he was not guilty then there isn't a thing a judge can do about it. This happened in the UK though.

[Rohirrim]

This reminds me of Scalia's argument that it doesn't matter if the state executes the wrong man as long as he had a fair trial.

[Garcia Bronco]

Here's some other awesome stuff from this judge

Judge describes child abuser as a good father
Full Article: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/febuary/28/01.htm

A man convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter of nine has been described by a judge as a "good father".
Judge Christopher Critchlow gave the pervert, who also has convictions for assaulting her siblings, just two years in jail from a maximum of 14 - and said he could return home on release.
The court heard the girl was alone with him last October while her mum was bathing her brother and sister. He pulled down her pyjamas and performed a sex act but the girl's mum walked in and called the police. The man, who cannot be named, fled the country but was arrested on his return in November. He also had convictions for drunkenly beating the other children.

[peacepipe]

LOL,Damn, I was getting all worked up reading this,thinking, How the hell can this be possible?! I read it a 2nd time & thought where hell is merstham. I feel bad for the guy but England has it's own laws/constitution if that's what they call it.

[Rohirrim]

England is circling the drain.

[gyldenlove]

The jury doesn't have to listen to the law. If that jury decided he was not guilty then there isn't a thing a judge can do about it. This happened in the UK though.

I believe the judge in most countries can overrule the jury if the jury is found to be in gross disagreement with the letter and intend of the law they should apply and call a retrial, I know not in the States.

[Florida_Bronco]

The jury was put in a really tough spot with this one. Technically, they came back with the only ruling they could. Hopefully the judge comes back with time served and nothing more. Yeah, that's the sad part. I'm sure they would have loved to come back with "not guilty" but they didn't have any choice obviously.

I blame the police on this one. Seems obvious he was told it was ok to bring it in, was never told that he should just leave it there and let them come and pick it up. They had ample opportunity to ignore the law themselves and let him leave the station, but they went out of their way to lock him up and then charge him. I'm guessing most places with such antiquated laws would ignore them in cases like this, if they even knew about them to begin with. Apparently, this is a serious crime, like the equivalent of a felony. Police discretion doesn't extend to that, like a traffic ticket.

Man, I feel bad for this guy. His heart was truly in the right place but he sure ****ed up at the same time. Why not call the police and let them come get the gun? Or at least tell the Chief why you want to see him when you call him?

Telling the Chief you want to meet with him and then laying a shotgun on his desk is not very bright.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yeah, that's the sad part. I'm sure they would have loved to come back with "not guilty" but they didn't have any choice obviously.

Apparently, this is a serious crime, like the equivalent of a felony. Police discretion doesn't extend to that, like a traffic ticket.

Man, I feel bad for this guy. His heart was truly in the right place but he sure ****ed up at the same time. Why not call the police and let them come get the gun? Or at least tell the Chief why you want to see him when you call him?

Telling the Chief you want to meet with him and then laying a shotgun on his desk is not very bright.

Because a kid can pick it up out of the trash and then god knows what happens. It could be evidence to a crime and needs to be secured. You could come up with a billion different reasons.

[Garcia Bronco]

I believe the judge in most countries can overrule the jury if the jury is found to be in gross disagreement with the letter and intend of the law they should apply and call a retrial, I know not in the States.

It depends on the jurisdiction, but I don't care what the law says when I am on a jury. I do what I think is right, that's the point of being judged by one's peers. In this case, his peers totally let them down. Typically in a criminal trial the Judge cannot overrule a jury in the US.

[Florida_Bronco]

Because a kid can pick it up out of the trash and then god knows what happens. It could be evidence to a crime and needs to be secured. You could come up with a billion different reasons.

Simple solution. Stay there and watch it until the police arrive.

That could be a crime scene for all he knows. Call the cops and let them deal with it. Everyone else should keep their hands off it unless absolutely necessary.

[Florida_Bronco]

It depends, but I don't care what the law says when I am on a jury. I do what I think is right, that's the point of being judged by one's peers. In this case, his peers totally let them down.

Then you should never serve on a jury.

[Rohirrim]

Of course, some times the gun is handled properly by a citizen and then this happens:

Another critical piece of evidence was finally "found:" the unusual .22 caliber Hi Standard Longhorn revolver with the broken gun grip which had been found by Bernard Weiss' son and turned over to the police three and a half months earlier. Bernard Weiss after reading about the indictments in the newspaper called LAPD Homicide to see if the revolver he had turned in was the murder weapon.

After being passed around to several people, an officer told Weiss "We don't keep guns that long. We throw them in the ocean after a while."

Weiss said, "I can't believe that you'd throw away what could be the single most important piece of evidence in the Tate case."

"Listen, mister," was the official answer. "We can't check out every citizen report on every gun we find."

Weiss called a newscaster, who in turn, called the LAPD. The gun was "found" where it had been "lost" in the Van Nuys police station. After the tests had been run, there was no doubt that it was the murder weapon. One thing remained to be done — linking Manson to that particular revolver. Eventually Randy Starr provided that link. He once owned the revolver and had given it to Manson.

[Garcia Bronco]

Then you should never serve on a jury.

Not at all. Would you in good conscience put this man jail? I couldn't live with myself. The law is not absolute. Good judgement must be made.

[Garcia Bronco]

Simple solution. Stay there and watch it until the police arrive.

That could be a crime scene for all he knows. Call the cops and let them deal with it. Everyone else should keep their hands off it unless absolutely necessary.

So in this case you would put a man away for 5 years for making a simple mistake? If laws like this put people in jail then we have no need for the law at all. It's tyranny.

[Florida_Bronco]

Not at all. Would you in good conscience put this man jail despite what the law says? I couldn't live with myself. The law is not absolute. Good judgement must be made.

Oh no doubt it's a **** situation. I would NEVER want to be involved with it. But what are you supposed to do? As a juror it's your job to decide if the defendant is guilty of the crime with which he's been charged, not to decide if the law is fair or not.

Again, just a **** situation all around.

[elsid13]

Obviously this is a law that needs to be changed.

The jury was put in a really tough spot with this one. Technically, they came back with the only ruling they could. Hopefully the judge comes back with time served and nothing more.

I blame the police on this one. Seems obvious he was told it was ok to bring it in, was never told that he should just leave it there and let them come and pick it up. They had ample opportunity to ignore the law themselves and let him leave the station, but they went out of their way to lock him up and then charge him. I'm guessing most places with such antiquated laws would ignore them in cases like this, if they even knew about them to begin with.

Actually that not true. No jury is bound by the law, they can if they see fit throw the law out and act independently to ensure justice. Judges and Lawyers hate that, and the forget to mention that fact or use legalese when instructions are given to the jury, but the America Judaical System recognize the power of jury over all laws.

[Rohirrim]

Nullification.

[elsid13]

It depends on the jurisdiction, but I don't care what the law says when I am on a jury. I do what I think is right, that's the point of being judged by one's peers. In this case, his peers totally let them down. Typically in a criminal trial the Judge cannot overrule a jury in the US.

The judge can not do anything, it all dependent on the jury. The verdict is final and there is nothing that can done.

[Florida_Bronco]

Actually that not true. No jury is bound by the law, they can if they see fit throw the law out and act independently to ensure justice. Judges and Lawyers hate that, and the forget to mention that fact or use legalese when instructions are given to the jury, but the America Judaical System recognize the power of jury over all laws.

Interesting take. Wonder if it's the same in the UK.

[Beantown Bronco]

Actually that not true. No jury is bound by the law, they can if they see fit throw the law out and act independently to ensure justice. Judges and Lawyers hate that, and the forget to mention that fact or use legalese when instructions are given to the jury, but the America Judaical System recognize the power of jury over all laws.

False. From the official jury instruction manual (US though, not UK law):

Your specific job as a juror is to sit through the trial and to decide what the facts are based upon the evidence. Then you must make a final decision based on those facts and your application of the law, which the judge explains. The judge will tell you what is and what is not evidence in each case. The judge will also instruct you as to the law that applies in the case. After you decide the facts, based on the evidence, you apply those facts to the law that the judge gives you to determine whether the party who has the burden of proving the case (generally, the State in a criminal case and the plaintiff in a civil case) has met that burden.

[elsid13]

Interesting take. Wonder if it's the same in the UK.

Since British Common law which both system on found on yes.

[Garcia Bronco]

Oh no doubt it's a **** situation. I would NEVER want to be involved with it. But what are you supposed to do? As a juror it's your job to decide if the defendant is guilty of the crime with which he's been charged, not to decide if the law is fair or not.

Again, just a **** situation all around.

I am not saying I would disregard the law as a default action, but in this case I would have no problem, based on the information here, with declaring him not guilty.

[gyldenlove]

So in this case you would put a man away for 5 years for making a simple mistake? If laws like this put people in jail then we have no need for the law at all. It's tyranny.

It is actually easier than that, if they jury can't agree then there is a mistrial.

[Garcia Bronco]

False. From the official jury instruction manual (US though, not UK law):

Your specific job as a juror is to sit through the trial and to decide what the facts are based upon the evidence. Then you must make a final decision based on those facts and your application of the law, which the judge explains. The judge will tell you what is and what is not evidence in each case. The judge will also instruct you as to the law that applies in the case. After you decide the facts, based on the evidence, you apply those facts to the law that the judge gives you to determine whether the party who has the burden of proving the case (generally, the State in a criminal case and the plaintiff in a civil case) has met that burden.

Those are guidelines. :)

[elsid13]

False. From the official jury instruction manual (US though, not UK law):

Your specific job as a juror is to sit through the trial and to decide what the facts are based upon the evidence. Then you must make a final decision based on those facts and your application of the law, which the judge explains. The judge will tell you what is and what is not evidence in each case. The judge will also instruct you as to the law that applies in the case. After you decide the facts, based on the evidence, you apply those facts to the law that the judge gives you to determine whether the party who has the burden of proving the case (generally, the State in a criminal case and the plaintiff in a civil case) has met that burden.

You're reading it wrong. The underline and words " your application"are the key. (Cite United States v. Dougherty, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 473 F.2d 1113).

Also this should help

"A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification



There are other precedents that allow the judge to remove a jury member before hand, if they are appear to be judging the law, vs the case. But once it goes to judgment, the ultimate power rest with your peers.

[Fedaykin]

Obviously this is a law that needs to be changed.

Also reason why it should be law that every jury be informed of their right (and in my opinion, duty) to engage in jury nullification.

[Fedaykin]

Oh no doubt it's a **** situation. I would NEVER want to be involved with it. But what are you supposed to do? As a juror it's your job to decide if the defendant is guilty of the crime with which he's been charged, not to decide if the law is fair or not.

Again, just a **** situation all around.

Not, thankfully, according to the Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_%281794%29

Jury nullification is a crucial protection against tyranny.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Something's not right with his story.

It doesnt make sense.

[watermock]

Jesus. Did they even dust the guin?

[orinjkrush]

i had a similar situation happen to me. i was out jogging on vacation in Annapolis MD. I stopped by an open school yard to do some push ups and pull ups on the "monkey bars". The bars were wet and I reached down to use a paper bag on the ground to wipe them off. Yep. out falls a 9mm with a busted handgrip. i had no cell phone and no pockets. so i carefully got the gun back in the bag without touching it. then i took the bag with me to find a cop. i ran around looking until i came to a drawbridge operator who, it occurred to me, had a phone. i asked to use the phone and he told me no way. so i told him i found a gun and wanted to turn it over to the cops. he then said he would call them for me. so when he got them on the phone, he gave the phone to me and i talked to the desk sargeant who said "bring it to us". i then found out it was about 5 miles away. i asked him if he could please come to the drawbridge since i was out jogging and had nothing else with me (car, ID you name it). He said no. Then I (stupidly) said, ok, i guess i'll just toss this thing in the river. Then he said "wait there someone will come to you!" So about 5 min later a cruiser comes by and parks in the middle of the bridge stopping traffic both ways. I came out of the control booth and gave him the bag, which he then reached in with his hands and pulled the gun out, threw the bag on the ground and cocked the gun with his hands all over it and accidentally jammed it. i then saw about 30 cars stacking up on both sides of the bridge and asked the officer if we could move to the end of the bridge and let the cars get by. he said " i don't care, I'm the police." He took my name and other info and then that was it, he left with the gun. I went back to jogging.
I felt like I met the real Mayberry and Barny Fife with that whole episode.

[watermock]

I've had 2 incidents similar.

[epicSocialism4tw]

i had a similar situation happen to me. i was out jogging on vacation in Annapolis MD. I stopped by an open school yard to do some push ups and pull ups on the "monkey bars". The bars were wet and I reached down to use a paper bag on the ground to wipe them off. Yep. out falls a 9mm with a busted handgrip. i had no cell phone and no pockets. so i carefully got the gun back in the bag without touching it. then i took the bag with me to find a cop. i ran around looking until i came to a drawbridge operator who, it occurred to me, had a phone. i asked to use the phone and he told me no way. so i told him i found a gun and wanted to turn it over to the cops. he then said he would call them for me. so when he got them on the phone, he gave the phone to me and i talked to the desk sargeant who said "bring it to us". i then found out it was about 5 miles away. i asked him if he could please come to the drawbridge since i was out jogging and had nothing else with me (car, ID you name it). He said no. Then I (stupidly) said, ok, i guess i'll just toss this thing in the river. Then he said "wait there someone will come to you!" So about 5 min later a cruiser comes by and parks in the middle of the bridge stopping traffic both ways. I came out of the control booth and gave him the bag, which he then reached in with his hands and pulled the gun out, threw the bag on the ground and cocked the gun with his hands all over it and accidentally jammed it. i then saw about 30 cars stacking up on both sides of the bridge and asked the officer if we could move to the end of the bridge and let the cars get by. he said " i don't care, I'm the police." He took my name and other info and then that was it, he left with the gun. I went back to jogging.
I felt like I met the real Mayberry and Barny Fife with that whole episode.

It sounds like a job done right by "Florida Bronco"!