He'll only serve half the sentence - if that, so he'll be out in 1 year or less.
The gun wasn't in the boot, it was exposed and on the back seat by all accounts - so it was a loaded gun in a truly public place. I mean, anything could have happened.
He should have taken more care. If you own a gun, the onus is on you to keep it properly stored and not loaded.
His age and the fact he was allegedly afraid of some youths is no defence. Why should it be? Should I be allowed to drive around with a loaded gun if I feel threatened? Absolutely not. You can't make exceptions like that. Guns are severely restricted in this country, for bloody good reasons.
Fear for his safety is not a point I would have made during the trial (or even in mitigation), but I wonder how his mental capacity is?
That can 'excuse' lots of weird behaviour. Don't forget that, even if dementia is not an issue, age-related reduced blood-flow to the brain can cause confusion, from time to time.
I hope he gets fully checked out if he even has the chance of driving again.
But I stand by my thought that he should not be in prison.
Fear for his safety is not a point I would have made during the trial (or even in mitigation), but I wonder how his mental capacity is?
That can 'excuse' lots of weird behaviour. Don't forget that, even if dementia is not an issue, age-related reduced blood-flow to the brain can cause confusion, from time to time.
I hope he gets fully checked out if he even has the chance of driving again.
But I stand by my thought that he should not be in prison.
In my opinion he should be assessed as suitable for a Cat D (open) prison - which is probably what will happen anyway. You can't make an exception and let him off completely or it makes a mockery of our restrictions on guns.
He drove about with a loaded gun on the back seat when he had no reason to have it there. It's just stupid, to put it lightly.
As somebody with a gun licence he should have known better. He would have been aware about restrictions on the storage and transportation of firearms, but clearly chose to ignore them. Even if it wasn't loaded he would have still broken such fundamental conditions of gun ownership.
In my opinion he should be assessed as suitable for a Cat D (open) prison - which is probably what will happen anyway. You can't make an exception and let him off completely or it makes a mockery of our restrictions on guns.
He drove about with a loaded gun on the back seat when he had no reason to have it there. It's just stupid, to put it lightly.
As somebody with a gun licence he should have known better. He would have been aware about restrictions on the storage and transportation of firearms, but clearly chose to ignore them. Even if it wasn't loaded he would have still broken such fundamental conditions of gun ownership.
The Judge could have deferred sentencing for further reports. Prison is a scary place and transfer might take some time. Even Hospital Wings aren't very pleasant.
Of course he might come out an expert on X-box GTA V
The Judge could have deferred sentencing for further reports. Prison is a scary place and transfer might take some time. Even Hospital Wings aren't very pleasant.
Of course he might come out an expert on X-box GTA V
Cat D's aren't scary, and at least that way he could go out in the day and see his family.
He'll probably be moved from C to D very quickly anyway. People like him simply aren't kept in Cat A-C because of overcrowding.
I get what you are saying, but people die from the upheaval of downsizing or simply going into a Home. We shouldn't be treating people this way.
I'm not sure why you consider his age so relevant though.
There shouldn't be exceptions based on such arbitrary things. The exceptions should be based on intent and the circumstances, which mean his sentence has already been dramatically reduced from the proscribed minimum (5 years).
If it turns out he has dementia or something then fine, I'd agree with you, but on the assumption he is of sound mind and perfectly culpable for his actions then age is no excuse.
To flip the situation should we go easy on an 18 year old with a loaded gun, just because he's so young and immature? Of course not. Age doesn't come into it. It's all about their intent. Heck, forget guns, think about if it was another crime? Fraud? Sex crimes? Drugs?
It's sociologically dangerous to assume elderly people can do no wrong and treat them leniently. It harms the dynamic of justice.
It's not about age exactly. It's about his health.
The Judge sent him to Prison and doesn't care if it's Guantanamo or Butlins.
That's for the Prison Service to sort out.
An assessment is better before the event, not after.
And I'm not generally arguing that old people should be let off any crime. But 88 years old is pushing Custodoal Sentences, by any sort of compassionate grounds measure.
We can't have diffrent laws one for the young and one for the old.
If we did what age would it kick in
60-70-80.
His age makes no diffrence in the eyes of the law and rightfully so mistake or not he broke the law.
But who has said he should escape justice? The argument is whether the sentence is appropriate. Why does there have to be a blanket cut-off point? It's better that each case be judged on its own merit, surely?
But who has said he should escape justice? The argument is whether the sentence is appropriate. Why does there have to be a blanket cut-off point? It's better that each case be judged on its own merit, surely?
Avoiding prison would be escaping justice, that's what half the people in this thread are arguing for.
I'm not sure why you consider his age so relevant though.
There shouldn't be exceptions based on such arbitrary things. The exceptions should be based on intent and the circumstances, which mean his sentence has already been dramatically reduced from the proscribed minimum (5 years).
If it turns out he has dementia or something then fine, I'd agree with you, but on the assumption he is of sound mind and perfectly culpable for his actions then age is no excuse.
To flip the situation should we go easy on an 18 year old with a loaded gun, just because he's so young and immature? Of course not. Age doesn't come into it. It's all about their intent. Heck, forget guns, think about if it was another crime? Fraud? Sex crimes? Drugs?
It's sociologically dangerous to assume elderly people can do no wrong and treat them leniently. It harms the dynamic of justice.
It's sociologically dangerous for the Police and cps to be jobsworth in all respects and for the lack of common sense shown in this case.
It's sociologically dangerous for the Police and cps to be jobsworth in all respects and for the lack of common sense shown in this case.
You want to walk me through your reasoning on that one?
You think somebody who is mentally capable and should know better should go unpunished for having a loaded gun, exposed on the back seat of his car when he had no reasonable explanation as to why it was there?
You want to walk me through your reasoning on that one?
You think somebody who is mentally capable and should know better should go unpunished for having a loaded gun, exposed on the back seat of his car when he had no reasonable explanation as to why it was there?
Not really as it seems you are not capable of understanding what 'common sense' means.
Riiiight... so what you're saying is he should be let off just because.... he's old?
How is that 'common sense'?
Should we let off Rolf Harris? He is old after all...
A lot of people on here can see by applying common sense in this case that a prison sentence is not appropriate. Removing his gun licence and weapons and a caution would have been appropriate.
It's laughable to compare this the the horrible crimes that Rolf Harris committed who fully deserves to be behind bars.
A lot of people on here can see by applying common sense in this case that a prison sentence is not appropriate. Removing his gun licence and weapons and a caution would have been appropriate.
It's laughable to compare this the the horrible crimes that Rolf Harris committed who fully deserves to be behind bars.
It's not really a direct comparison, more a thought experiment to help you understand that age is by and large, irrelevant.
Would you think differently if it was an 18 year old? 40 year old? 50 year old?
Where's your cut off for him being 'too old'?
At what point do you believe somebody should be able to escape scot free for putting others in danger?
and yes, having a gun like that put other people in danger. What if somebody walked by the car when it was parked and took it? What if he was in a car accident and it went off when it hit the seat in front?
It's not really a direct comparison, more a thought experiment to help you understand that age is by and large, irrelevant.
Would you think differently if it was an 18 year old? 40 year old? 50 year old?
Where's your cut off for him being 'too old'?
At what point do you believe somebody should be able to escape scot free for putting others in danger?
and yes, having a gun like that put other people in danger. What if somebody walked by the car when it was parked and took it? What if he was in a car accident and it went off when it hit the seat in front?
There are no hard and fast rules for applying 'common sense' it's entirely dependent on the individual case.
The last argument about being in a hypothetical accident is ludicrous as it's much more likely that any injuries would be incurred from the hypothetical accident then the gun going off.
The fact he was going on about kids harassing him wouldn't have gone to well as it will have looked like that's why he had a loaded gun and that will have being taken into account.
As he did mention it I think that was part of the reason he had it I don't think he was going to shoot them but wanted to scare them.
Can't say for absolute certain, but it might be because that case comes under Scottish law, where it's not a strict liability offence, and they can therefore use their intellect in reaching a decision on sentencing. Under English law, that's not possible.
Comments
I agree and his intentions were clear.
That can 'excuse' lots of weird behaviour. Don't forget that, even if dementia is not an issue, age-related reduced blood-flow to the brain can cause confusion, from time to time.
I hope he gets fully checked out if he even has the chance of driving again.
But I stand by my thought that he should not be in prison.
In my opinion he should be assessed as suitable for a Cat D (open) prison - which is probably what will happen anyway. You can't make an exception and let him off completely or it makes a mockery of our restrictions on guns.
He drove about with a loaded gun on the back seat when he had no reason to have it there. It's just stupid, to put it lightly.
As somebody with a gun licence he should have known better. He would have been aware about restrictions on the storage and transportation of firearms, but clearly chose to ignore them. Even if it wasn't loaded he would have still broken such fundamental conditions of gun ownership.
The Judge could have deferred sentencing for further reports. Prison is a scary place and transfer might take some time. Even Hospital Wings aren't very pleasant.
Of course he might come out an expert on X-box GTA V
Cat D's aren't scary, and at least that way he could go out in the day and see his family.
He'll probably be moved from C to D very quickly anyway. People like him simply aren't kept in Cat A-C because of overcrowding.
I'm not sure why you consider his age so relevant though.
There shouldn't be exceptions based on such arbitrary things. The exceptions should be based on intent and the circumstances, which mean his sentence has already been dramatically reduced from the proscribed minimum (5 years).
If it turns out he has dementia or something then fine, I'd agree with you, but on the assumption he is of sound mind and perfectly culpable for his actions then age is no excuse.
To flip the situation should we go easy on an 18 year old with a loaded gun, just because he's so young and immature? Of course not. Age doesn't come into it. It's all about their intent. Heck, forget guns, think about if it was another crime? Fraud? Sex crimes? Drugs?
It's sociologically dangerous to assume elderly people can do no wrong and treat them leniently. It harms the dynamic of justice.
If we did what age would it kick in
60-70-80.
His age makes no diffrence in the eyes of the law and rightfully so mistake or not he broke the law.
The Judge sent him to Prison and doesn't care if it's Guantanamo or Butlins.
That's for the Prison Service to sort out.
An assessment is better before the event, not after.
And I'm not generally arguing that old people should be let off any crime. But 88 years old is pushing Custodoal Sentences, by any sort of compassionate grounds measure.
But who has said he should escape justice? The argument is whether the sentence is appropriate. Why does there have to be a blanket cut-off point? It's better that each case be judged on its own merit, surely?
Avoiding prison would be escaping justice, that's what half the people in this thread are arguing for.
And using his age as the only reason.
He's guilty even he admits he did it.
Given the fact he could have been given 5 years min and they only gave 2 is going very easy on him.
Plus out of that he will only do 1 year anyway and could be out in 6 months on good behaviour.
It's sociologically dangerous for the Police and cps to be jobsworth in all respects and for the lack of common sense shown in this case.
You want to walk me through your reasoning on that one?
You think somebody who is mentally capable and should know better should go unpunished for having a loaded gun, exposed on the back seat of his car when he had no reasonable explanation as to why it was there?
Not really as it seems you are not capable of understanding what 'common sense' means.
Man sentenced to 2 years in prision for having a loaded gun on the back seat of his car while going shopping.
What would you think.
Riiiight... so what you're saying is he should be let off just because.... he's old?
How is that 'common sense'?
Should we let off Rolf Harris? He is old after all...
A lot of people on here can see by applying common sense in this case that a prison sentence is not appropriate. Removing his gun licence and weapons and a caution would have been appropriate.
It's laughable to compare this the the horrible crimes that Rolf Harris committed who fully deserves to be behind bars.
It's not really a direct comparison, more a thought experiment to help you understand that age is by and large, irrelevant.
Would you think differently if it was an 18 year old? 40 year old? 50 year old?
Where's your cut off for him being 'too old'?
At what point do you believe somebody should be able to escape scot free for putting others in danger?
and yes, having a gun like that put other people in danger. What if somebody walked by the car when it was parked and took it? What if he was in a car accident and it went off when it hit the seat in front?
There are no hard and fast rules for applying 'common sense' it's entirely dependent on the individual case.
The last argument about being in a hypothetical accident is ludicrous as it's much more likely that any injuries would be incurred from the hypothetical accident then the gun going off.
As he did mention it I think that was part of the reason he had it I don't think he was going to shoot them but wanted to scare them.
Man fined for carrying gun ( 21-year-old £300 fine)
'They found a vehicle with the engine running and Graham seated in the car with a loaded rifle lying on the ground next to the car.'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/man-fined-for-carrying-gun-2623067
You mean the unthinking, arbitrary justice of strict liability?
Posters here are simply using commonsense.
Can't say for absolute certain, but it might be because that case comes under Scottish law, where it's not a strict liability offence, and they can therefore use their intellect in reaching a decision on sentencing. Under English law, that's not possible.