SAS Hero Betrayed by British Legal System over War Trophy

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


Hmmmmm, if that is true, that makes the story way less plausible. Sounds like he was looking to make a quick buck selling that to a criminal, rather than a trophy like the claim says. You don't need live ammo for a trophy weapon.




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 




Sounds like he was looking to make a quick buck selling that to a criminal, rather than a trophy like the claim says

How have you reached this conclusion, he is a career Special Forces solider, why would he want to sell 300 rounds of assorted ammunition to criminals. While yes I do think it is somewhat curious that he had so many rounds I think your assumption that he was going to sell them to criminals is quite the overstatement. I would encourage you to go and read up some more on this case, the circumstances surrounding it are unique and it is those circumstances that have led to his appeal being upheld.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Just my thoughts on this case, and they are going to make me unpopular or at least get me flamed.

1) Just because you are a soldier of x years service, with y injuries, does not mean you are incapable of knowingly comitting criminal acts nor should it mean you get special consideration when you have been found to have comitted a criminal act.

2) If the story and comments here is correct, he recieved the package which then remained unopened, and he forgot it contained a firearm as a trophy.. The term 'forgot' stands out to me here, it suggests that when he originally accepted delivery of the package, he knew it contained a firearm, and by the act of not turning it over to the relevant authorities immediately on reciept of it...

3) The BBC repored that he claimed he intended to have it decomissioned and mounted as a trophy. So why did he also have the ammunition for it as well? Sad to say, thats exactly what I'd claim too, and since you can neither prove nor disprove someones stated intent. with our current level of technology.. As I stated to someone in a RL argument recently. "I don't care what your itent was. Only you know what your itent was, I can only judge your actions."

On a personal level, this is not a case I'd like to make a judgement on, not having access to all the relevant facts, and legal arguments. I just wanted to make those 3 comments.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
At the end of the day if you have committed a crime you deserve to go to prison no matter what profession you are in, whether you are an SAS soldier or you work in McDonalds the law applies to everyone. I can fully understand the arguments for and against this soldiers release and as I understand it he has been released now however, this was only after substantial pressure from former senior military officials. I don't think anyone should have influence over our justice system because it will appear as if they are being discriminatory to a particular sector of society.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Well, you don't need 300 rounds of ammo for a trophy gun. So either he was planning to make a quick buck, or he was planning on keeping it for himself, making himself a criminal. Either way, the gun is in the hands of a criminal.





new topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join