What would happen... gangster vs. terrorist
Discussion
Often wondered what the law's action would be on someone with an illegal firearm stopping a terrorist attrocity? Not that I am planning on procuring one, just wondering. Whilst I would like to think that it would not be in public's interest to prosecute, surely CPS would want to deter vigilantism etc?
Terrorist arrested for terrorism offences (if alive)
Shooter arrested for possession of firearm/murder
If the force used (shooting him/her) was reasonable to prevent a crime and/or self defence then this could be a defence for a murder charge. This would be for a court to decide.
Shooter arrested for possession of firearm/murder
If the force used (shooting him/her) was reasonable to prevent a crime and/or self defence then this could be a defence for a murder charge. This would be for a court to decide.
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 24th August 14:22
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 24th August 14:48
jakesmith said:
Often wondered what the law's action would be on someone with an illegal firearm stopping a terrorist attrocity? Not that I am planning on procuring one, just wondering. Whilst I would like to think that it would not be in public's interest to prosecute, surely CPS would want to deter vigilantism etc?
I would either agree with you or disagree with you based on the description of the firearm involved. If it's a can of pepper spray that someone happened to have in their handbag (which I believe would be classed as an illegal firearm) then I'd like to think the powers that be would turn a blind eye to it. If on the other hand it was some sort of gangster with a handgun then I would absolutely feel it was in the public interest to arrest, charge and prosecute given that this sort of firearm isn't exactly likely to be used for well-intentioned purposes.It's an interesting question but I suspect the chances of it happening are witheringly small.
jakesmith said:
Often wondered what the law's action would be on someone with an illegal firearm stopping a terrorist attrocity? Not that I am planning on procuring one, just wondering. Whilst I would like to think that it would not be in public's interest to prosecute, surely CPS would want to deter vigilantism etc?
Is there a big difference to a member of gang A shooting a member of gang B in order to prevent them committing a murder (which just happens to be of another member of gang A)?Whilst not a legal precedent, didn't something similar happen in an episode of One Foot In The Grave? Although not on the scale of stopping a terrorist attack, just Post Office robbery I think? Something about Victor getting hold of handgun from someone who found it in a field or something after some army maneuvers. Then finding some ammo at a car boot sale. Someone takes a photo of him stopping a robbery and his face ends up photoshoped on a Rambo type poster. I can't find which episode it is and it's bugging me now.
jakesmith said:
Often wondered what the law's action would be on someone with an illegal firearm stopping a terrorist attrocity? Not that I am planning on procuring one, just wondering. Whilst I would like to think that it would not be in public's interest to prosecute, surely CPS would want to deter vigilantism etc?
If it was Manchester, it would be a total shambles, I guess1. The state does not want citizens carrying weapons to defend themselves
2. Person with firearm would be prosecuted. AFAIK the mandatory minimum sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm is 5 years.
I'd expect the above to be the case even if the terrorist in OP was in the process of hacking some schoolkids, vicars, OAPs and pet dogs to death with an axe.
2. Person with firearm would be prosecuted. AFAIK the mandatory minimum sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm is 5 years.
I'd expect the above to be the case even if the terrorist in OP was in the process of hacking some schoolkids, vicars, OAPs and pet dogs to death with an axe.
What if the scenario was the same except that the person with the shootah wasn't a nice-to-his-ma gangster but a normal, law abiding citizen who got himself caught up in an attack and used a weapon dropped by one terrorist to kill another terrorist. They would have committed a number of crimes but done a good deed.
Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area said:
What if the scenario was the same except that the person with the shootah wasn't a nice-to-his-ma gangster but a normal, law abiding citizen who got himself caught up in an attack and used a weapon dropped by one terrorist to kill another terrorist. They would have committed a number of crimes but done a good deed.
You won't have commited any crime by shooting the terrorist. Reasonable self defence is lawful. You are not permitted to carry a weapon in anticipation of having to use it for self defence. You can use objects to hand for self defence. If the AK-47 of an expired jihadi happens to be at hand, then you could lawfully pick it up and use it for self defence, including shooting the remaining terrorists dead. You may be considered to be in possession of a Section 5 firearm (the one you picked up; Section 5 being a semi-automatic or fully automatic centerfire rifle which are the preferred rifle of jihadis). That is an offence, but I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to prosecute. Edited by creampuff on Thursday 24th August 21:14
As an aside, even if a firearm is lawfully held (ie the owner has a firearms certificate with that firearm on it) then it is still an offence to be in posession of that firearm together with ammunition for that firearm in public, without good reason. So even with an FAC you cannot go walking around the streets of London with it on the off change you get caught up in a terrorist event. You can only carry it with the ammo with a good reason, such as going to or from a shooting range. There is a shooting range in central London btw. But you would actually have to go there. Carrying it on the odd chance you get the urge to go won't cut it.
The laws for shotguns are less strict. You can walk around with a shotgun plus ammunition for the shotgun without having a reason if you have a shotgun certificate and it is not loaded. However you still cannot carry weapons for self-defence. And anything which even looks like a gun is going to cause you problems if you walk around with it in pubic in the UK.
The laws for shotguns are less strict. You can walk around with a shotgun plus ammunition for the shotgun without having a reason if you have a shotgun certificate and it is not loaded. However you still cannot carry weapons for self-defence. And anything which even looks like a gun is going to cause you problems if you walk around with it in pubic in the UK.
Edited by creampuff on Thursday 24th August 21:17
creampuff said:
Person with firearm would be prosecuted. AFAIK the mandatory minimum sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm is 5 years.
I'm familiar with a case that involved seven firearms offences (and two counts of assault). One of the weapons was semi automatic pistol with bullets. Others were unlicenced shotguns, one a pump action. One was a family heirloom WW2 pistol. Can't remember the others off the top of my head. The accused was sentenced to wearing a tag for 3 months with a 7pm curfew.
Tony Martin was a farmer who shot a burglar a few years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farme...
Similar-ish scenario but with significant differences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farme...
Similar-ish scenario but with significant differences.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff