so they were his plants and someone was trying to rob him is it?
No.
He was, apparently, shooting at a fox but the pellets whizzed past the fox and seem to have struck a couple of people who were trying to gain entry to an outbuilding which was, obviously, somewhere behind the geese enclosure.
An ambulance must have been called and the cops attended as well and that's when, to everybody's surprise, they found that the outbuilding contained drug-making equipment.
Personally, I don't believe a word of it but, meh.
A disabled farmer trying to kill a fox accidentally shot and wounded two burglars who were tended to their cannabis farm they'd made on his farm without his knowledge.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Mr Tibbs, 62, fired his shotgun three times into the dark from the seat of his mobility scooter after being woken in the early hours.
He was aiming at a fox trying to steal geese from an enclosure on his 650-acre arable farm in Crays Hill, Billericay, Essex, but hidden in the darkness were two men trying to break into an outhouse he had rented out and which now contained a secret drugs factory.
He wont be facng charges but should this man still be allowed to carry a fire arms licence?
Should he have been prosecited like in the Tony Martin case?
What are your thoughts?
Cray's Hill ? ~ sounds familiar. That's where there's a huge traveller encampment. Pure co-incidence, I'm sure.
As to the farmer, well he shot at a fox in good faith and unfortunately bagged two burglars who would not have been shot had they not been on his land. I don't see why his shotgun licence should be revoked.
Whether or not you believe that the suspected burglars deserved to be shot (personally I don't, especially as there is no evidence that they were any threat to him), I think you have to be very naive to believe that this bloke was actually trying to shoot a fox, missed and accidentally hit them! A very convenient excuse when a potential attempted murder charge looms! I think both he and the burglars should be charged.
so they were his plants and someone was trying to rob him is it?
No, seems there were three parties involving in this story.
The farmer who rented out a building, not aware of what it was used for and who accidentally shot two men while aiming for a fox.
The people who rented the building and used it to grow cannabis.
The two men who were shot while near the building containing the cannabis.
The farmer was arrested while the police investigated the shootings, was realised without charged for that, but lost is shotgun licence as the police felt he wasn't responsible enough to have it.
The police are continuing investigations in to the cannabis.
The two men who were injured were not charged with anything as they had not actually committed any offence. Whether they were there to steal the cannabis is speculation.
An ambulance must have been called and the cops attended as well and that's when, to everybody's surprise, they found that the outbuilding contained drug-making equipment.
The two men made their own way to hospital and that's when the police called. When the police found out the location of the incident they arrested the farmer (who was subsequently released) and found the cannabis.
He was, apparently, shooting at a fox but the pellets whizzed past the fox and seem to have struck a couple of people who were trying to gain entry to an outbuilding which was, obviously, somewhere behind the geese enclosure.
An ambulance must have been called and the cops attended as well and that's when, to everybody's surprise, they found that the outbuilding contained drug-making equipment.
Personally, I don't believe a word of it but, meh.
If the building housing the cannabis plants was on his own land, how do we know they did not belong to the farmer?
Logically...if you are to argue that his license should not be taken away, you are arguing that he is therefore ok to use firearms responsibly, his eyesight is ok etc.
But yet he claims he shot in the dark at what he only BELIEVED was a fox.
Therefore, if he was not 100% sure of what he was shooting at, he should not have shot blindly, and we also have to consider the possibility he knew about the cannabis, which would actually make him shooting two people trying to steal it more credible.
I don't think that makes a difference - even in England, you're not committing a criminal offence merely by walking into a farmyard.
My point was that if you ask someone to leave an enclosed area they have to leave, I think even in England there are some rights to walk through open land, isn't there?
There's an other glaring inconsistency to this farmers story - even if he does claim he was convinced he could see the fox he was aiming at...then why could he also not see the two grown men?
As to the farmer, well he shot at a fox in good faith and unfortunately bagged two burglars who would not have been shot had they not been on his land.
But they were not burglars. No charges were brought against the men.
I don't see why his shotgun licence should be revoked.
Because he shot blindly without knowing who or what was in that direction.
If the building housing the cannabis plants was on his own land, how do we know they did not belong to the farmer?
He had rented out the building and claims he had no idea what was in it. I've never met a farmer who didn't know exactly what was going on on his land at all times though perhaps he couldn't access the shed. His licence was revoked for storing too many shells in his house. The burglars went to hospital for treatment and the police were called by the hospital as is normal for any gunshot wounds.
There's an other glaring inconsistency to this farmers story - even if he does claim he was convinced he could see the fox he was aiming at...then why could he also not see the two grown men?
They were further away/in the dark/ducked down when they heard him coming???
Individual shotgun pellets can travel 200+ yards and spread out in a V pattern so quite possible they were "off to the side" of where he was aiming the gun and got peppered.
But they were not burglars. No charges were brought against the men.
Course they weren't. They were honest, upright, pillar of the community types. My heart is already bleeding for the inconvenience they have been put through lol
Because he shot blindly without knowing who or what was in that direction.
Course they weren't. They were honest, upright, pillar of the community types. My heart is already bleeding for the inconvenience they have been put through lol
They may have been there to break in to the shed with the cannabis or they may have been there to steal some farm machinery.
Or they may have been just walking past with no intention of doing anything illegal.
If the police had evidence to prove they were there with the intention of committing a crime they would have been charged with that. But they weren't, as such they are legally innocent.
Oh dear. Better take more care next time then
I hope you are not passing somewhere when someone decides to shoot an animal without looking properly.
Cray's Hill ? ~ sounds familiar. That's where there's a huge traveller encampment. Pure co-incidence, I'm sure.
As to the farmer, well he shot at a fox in good faith and unfortunately bagged two burglars who would not have been shot had they not been on his land. I don't see why his shotgun licence should be revoked.
Oops indeed
This sounds a lot like "he shot some scummy gypsies, no need to give a damn" :eek:
I've not heard yet what the two men were doing there at 4am in the dark.
If we're to believe the farmer's story, it doesn't make a difference whether it was 4am in the dark or 4pm in the dark, he was firing his gun without being sure who might have been in the way.
They may have been there to break in to the shed with the cannabis or they may have been there to steal some farm machinery.
Or they may have been just walking past with no intention of doing anything illegal.
If the police had evidence to prove they were there with the intention of committing a crime they would have been charged with that. But they weren't, as such they are legally innocent. I hope you are not passing somewhere when someone decides to shoot an animal without looking properly.
I don't normally trespass on rural private property at 4 o' clock in the morning, in the dark. Not a habit of mine.
My point was that if you ask someone to leave an enclosed area they have to leave, I think even in England there are some rights to walk through open land, isn't there?
Comments
No.
He was, apparently, shooting at a fox but the pellets whizzed past the fox and seem to have struck a couple of people who were trying to gain entry to an outbuilding which was, obviously, somewhere behind the geese enclosure.
An ambulance must have been called and the cops attended as well and that's when, to everybody's surprise, they found that the outbuilding contained drug-making equipment.
Personally, I don't believe a word of it but, meh.
Cray's Hill ? ~ sounds familiar. That's where there's a huge traveller encampment. Pure co-incidence, I'm sure.
As to the farmer, well he shot at a fox in good faith and unfortunately bagged two burglars who would not have been shot had they not been on his land. I don't see why his shotgun licence should be revoked.
Oops indeed
I don't think that makes a difference - even in England, you're not committing a criminal offence merely by walking into a farmyard.
The farmer who rented out a building, not aware of what it was used for and who accidentally shot two men while aiming for a fox.
The people who rented the building and used it to grow cannabis.
The two men who were shot while near the building containing the cannabis.
The farmer was arrested while the police investigated the shootings, was realised without charged for that, but lost is shotgun licence as the police felt he wasn't responsible enough to have it.
The police are continuing investigations in to the cannabis.
The two men who were injured were not charged with anything as they had not actually committed any offence. Whether they were there to steal the cannabis is speculation.
The two men made their own way to hospital and that's when the police called. When the police found out the location of the incident they arrested the farmer (who was subsequently released) and found the cannabis.
If the building housing the cannabis plants was on his own land, how do we know they did not belong to the farmer?
Logically...if you are to argue that his license should not be taken away, you are arguing that he is therefore ok to use firearms responsibly, his eyesight is ok etc.
But yet he claims he shot in the dark at what he only BELIEVED was a fox.
Therefore, if he was not 100% sure of what he was shooting at, he should not have shot blindly, and we also have to consider the possibility he knew about the cannabis, which would actually make him shooting two people trying to steal it more credible.
Because he shot blindly without knowing who or what was in that direction.
He had rented out the building and claims he had no idea what was in it. I've never met a farmer who didn't know exactly what was going on on his land at all times though perhaps he couldn't access the shed. His licence was revoked for storing too many shells in his house. The burglars went to hospital for treatment and the police were called by the hospital as is normal for any gunshot wounds.
They were further away/in the dark/ducked down when they heard him coming???
Individual shotgun pellets can travel 200+ yards and spread out in a V pattern so quite possible they were "off to the side" of where he was aiming the gun and got peppered.
Course they weren't. They were honest, upright, pillar of the community types. My heart is already bleeding for the inconvenience they have been put through lol
Oh dear. Better take more care next time then
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Exactly.
I've heard why the farmer shot his gun. I've not heard yet what the two men were doing there at 4am in the dark.
A morning constitutional, or......?
50 plants found.
Or they may have been just walking past with no intention of doing anything illegal.
If the police had evidence to prove they were there with the intention of committing a crime they would have been charged with that. But they weren't, as such they are legally innocent. I hope you are not passing somewhere when someone decides to shoot an animal without looking properly.
quite.
i`d wager my last bong that it was his grow.
If we're to believe the farmer's story, it doesn't make a difference whether it was 4am in the dark or 4pm in the dark, he was firing his gun without being sure who might have been in the way.
At last Tony Martin knew what he was shooting at.
I don't normally trespass on rural private property at 4 o' clock in the morning, in the dark. Not a habit of mine.
Hey, each to their own though.
Nope. Just public rights of way.
Up to no good .No one is creeping a round farm building at that time .