Jump to content
CaptainSwoop

Redcar teen fined after being caught heading to Middlesbrough College with imitation guns

Recommended Posts

I guess he had a defence for making his RIFS then since he didnt get charged with making them :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pistol is a springer.

Lol wharra noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shields, of Station Road, Redcar, had admitted modifying the imitation guns by spraying them black so as to make them look like realistic firearms.

Mrs Lish said Shields hadn’t realised he had committed a criminal offence by effectively modifying the guns.

The court heard he had no previous convictions and had never been in trouble before.

The magistrates told him: “What you did was very stupid. You have now got a criminal record.”

They fined him £70 with £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

He was charged. What we need to know was whether it was under the VCRA or the Firearms Act. How on earth did he manage to be found guilty though? I mean yeah, he is obviously a cock, but he did originally gain a place at college so we can assume at least that he can read and string a few thoughts together... and what kind of dipshit is this Mrs Lish his lawyer? How can she possibly have let him say anything in court that cast doubt on whether he had a defence? I was part of an amateur theatre group... yes, my mates and me... never did put the play on... no money to hire a venue... cough...

 

I smell something mendacious about this story. There must be more to it than what has been reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read he was only charged for carrying the knife and not for the RIFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the fact he was on his way to a college that had kicked him out.

If the Police stopped him on the eway there they were acting on information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read he was only charged for carrying the knife and not for the RIFS.

 

You need to try reading it again then.

 

 

The magistrates found him not guilty of the knife offence. They decided he had “good reason” to have the knife because it was part of his possessions while moving house.

Shields, of Station Road, Redcar, had admitted modifying the imitation guns by spraying them black so as to make them look like realistic firearms.

Mrs Lish said Shields hadn’t realised he had committed a criminal offence by effectively modifying the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he was charged with possession of an offensive weapon (knife) and the manufacturer of RIFs was a charge added after questioning as he wasn't charged originally with a firearms offence. You have to remember that the Police don't know every law and offence so I doubt even they knew about the manufacturing of RIFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he was charged with possession of an offensive weapon (knife) and the manufacturer of RIFs was a charge added after questioning as he wasn't charged originally with a firearms offence. You have to remember that the Police don't know every law and offence so I doubt even they knew about the manufacturing of RIFs

 

 

The magistrates found him not guilty of the knife offence. They decided he had “good reason” to have the knife because it was part of his possessions while moving house.

Shields, of Station Road, Redcar, had admitted modifying the imitation guns by spraying them black so as to make them look like realistic firearms.

Mrs Lish said Shields hadn’t realised he had committed a criminal offence by effectively modifying the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do subtle but I'm guessing what your trying to say is that he wasn't found guilty of carrying an offensive weapon - well done but also notice that was a magistrates decision not the Police, the Police's role in the criminal justice system is to record and present facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I cant read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says it was the spray painting that got him in trouble, the possession of a knife and the guns wasn't something he received a record for.

 

That does tell us at least that a magistrate might very well give you a conviction for painting over the bright coloured parts of an IF without a valid skirmishing defence. Thus it would seem its not a good idea to do that before UKARA is obtained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't specifically state what he was charged with other than this bit:

 

 

Shields was on trial after denying an offence of possessing a five-inch kitchen knife in Windward Way, Middlesbrough, without good reason or lawful authority.

 

Which would suggest he was charged with unlawful possession of an offensive weapon (or similar). The point is that he wasn't in court for the guns but somehow managed to get himself fined for them. The only way that could have happened as far as I am aware was that he must have been charged with modifying the guns which would only have been an offence if he had no defence against the VCRA.

 

The main thing he seems to actually be guilty of is being a dick by waving his guns about in public, which going on the fine levied on him he has pretty much got away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank the gods that stories like this a few and far between in the UK, seems to be every other week it happens in America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guns were in his bag along with the knife, if he had them out and waving them about there would of been two probable outcomes

 

A ) shot by Firearms Oficers

 

B ) arrested by Firearms officers and charged with S19 Firearms offence -

 

Offence: A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place

 

a loaded shot gun,

an air weapon (whether loaded or not),

any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or

an imitation firearm.

 

Now having it in your bag because you were moving house/going to a skirmish/ going to a friends to take it to bits would be seen (hopefully) as reasonable.

 

Having it exposed in public using those same excuses would most likely end up in arrest or 5.56 keyhole surgery.

 

Edit: Removed the smily , which was kind of undermining my point B)

Edited by Mike636

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had the guns out showing them to a support worker who expressed concerns about him taking them in to the college, Police were informed and they picked him up after seeing him on CCTV going to said college.

 

He was cleared of the knife related offensive weapons charge but the only other criminal offence mentioned was modifying the guns by spraying them black (which would suggest that he didn't have a defence against the VCRA)

 

There would have been no need to get ARU involved as they already knew they weren't real guns.

 

Bit of a non-story that seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the way it must have happened is that he turned up at the college with his bags, in which were his RIF's, a kitchen knife, and his dirty washing etc. and somehow ended up speaking to the Support Worker, to whom he showed the BB guns and, like a proper penis, fired one against a wall. At which point fearing for her*/his/somebody's safety she informed the college admin staff who called the old bill (*even though she denied that, who knows?). I think we can deduce that he was upset, or he wouldn't be talking to the support worker, or firing a BB gun... probably.

 

The old bill turned up and wanted to get him off the premises so, even though they knew full well that carrying a kitchen knife inside a bag, within a holdall type bag, is not an offence, used it as the excuse to either arrest him, or perhaps threaten to arrest him if he didn't come along with them quietly. Something about the situation, be it him, his behaviour, the old bill, or maybe the Custody Sergeant, meant they decided they wanted to actually nick him - it may have been simply to hold him overnight to keep him away from the college or somebody there until he calmed down. They settled on adding the Manufacturing an RIF to the hopeless knife charge (Carrying an Object with a Blade or Point Longer than 3 Inches which is an offence which can only be heard in Magistrate's Court [you cannot elect for jury trial] so it's a good one to get someone in front of the mages where a nod and a wink is as good as a blind bat, say no more, say no more).

 

But that still doesn't answer my central concern... how the fuck did he get found guilty? The VCRA has holes you could drive a double decker bus full of gun toting arabs through. His solicitor ought to have told the CPS that he would indeed elect for jury trial on that offence because he was going NG all the way and would be calling several witnesses, at which point the CPS would have caved and dropped all charges. Unless there is more to the story we haven't been told. Somebody else's testimony perhaps, or the threat of dragging someone else into it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×