Posted on 09/06/2012 4:39:07 AM PDT by marktwain
The couple arrested for opening fire on intruders who targeted their isolated cottage will not face charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced last night.
Andy and Tracey Ferrie had been held on suspicion of grievous bodily harm after dialling 999 to report that they had discharged a shotgun when a four-man gang broke in to their home in the middle of the night.
The couple spent almost three days and nights in custody until they were released on bail late on Tuesday night.
Yesterday, hours after two men appeared in court charged with burglary in connection with the raid on the Ferries’ 200-year-old cottage, prosecutors said it was ‘clear’ the couple ‘did what they believed was necessary to protect themselves, and their home, from intruders’.
The decision was greeted as a victory for common sense by friends and relatives.
Mrs Ferrie’s mother, Hazel Towell, and her husband, John, called for a change in the law to give greater protection to property owners who defended their homes from intruders.
Mr Towell, 62, said: ‘It is terrifying, what happened to them.
‘What else could they have done? I feel so overjoyed the charges have been dropped.
‘Her mother has the weight off her shoulders.
‘This is the way forward. Police should have common sense.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Great news!
basically, not one peep out of the government regarding this. telling. very telling.
If the charges were dropped why were they released on bail?
Probably for possessing a legally owned firearm. /s
Awesome! Hard to believe that this is from the U.K.
In a sane society, this wouldn’t even be an issue. But, we’re talking about an insane government that took away just about everybody’s guns...
“Today, the laws of Briton demand that we be willing victims of armed intruders!”
“The law DEMANDS that we should DIE and leave British citizens to hope the cops find the killers before they kill again!”
So, new strategy ... get the homeowner to fire a shotgun in defending their home - then you have 3 days in which to rob them of everything they own, without any rush at all.
This doesn’t seem like victory. Is anyone planning to compensate this couple for spending three days in jail? And why were both of them jailed? Did both of them pull the trigger? It sounds like a defacto sentence imposed to discourage people from defending themselves.
It’s all about the money. They’ll end up having to pay a hefty fine on some ridiculous charge and forfeit the bail.
The momentum of the downward spiral is unstoppable. The UK is over.
Actually very few guns were 'taken away'. Legally owned guns in Britain have always been predominantly shotguns and various categories of hunting rifle: and these have never been banned. The number of handguns etc was always very small in comparison, for all sorts of historical reasons. Given the increasing popularity of countryside shooting sports in Britain, it's quite possible indeed that there are now more legally-owned guns in Britain than at any time in the past.
As for this case, and others like it, if the police are called to the scene of a shooting in which B appears to have been shot by A, it's not unreasonable of them not immediately to accept A's version of events, however plausible it may seem, without thoroughly investigating the facts. Indeed it would be quite unprofessional of the police not to do so. As it turns out A's account appears to have been verified, and they will not face charges. Difficult to see anything wrong with this. This has been the procedure in a number of similar cases.
While the stories need to be sorted out, the homeowners should have any benefit of doubt over the burglars. They should not have been imprisoned like criminals for three days. Likewise, if a shopkeeper shoots an armed robber, keep in mind that criminals typically rob shopkeepers, not the other way around. A bit of common sense would do wonders for the legal system, but it is evidently lacking.
I would find that very hard to believe. The requirements for owning any gun have been racheted up quite a bit in the last few decades. My understanding is that you did not need any permit to own a shotgun a couple of decades ago, now you need one simply to own an airgun. I have also heard that you have to provide the police a reason to own the gun, and proof of secure storage.
I have heard that the fees for the permit need to be paid and the process gone through every few years.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood these requirements.
No permits needed for air rifles.
Firearms certificates have been needed since at least WWII, possibly before.
You do need proof of secure storage, and the police do check your weapon and storage on the renewal of the certificate which is once every 5 years or so, costs £40 and is very unobtrusive - pop round, have a cup of tea, look at the gun cupboard, finish the cup of tea, leave.
It’s not a perfect system but guns aren’t an important part of our national psyche and it works pretty well
It appears that no license was required for purchasing shotguns, and no records were required to be kept, until 1968. I could not do a very good job of cutting and pasting :
In the important Criminal Justice Act 1967, which brought about a
major overhaul of the criminal justice system, Mr Jenkins
introduced, in Part V, a system in which, for the first time,
persons had to obtain a licence before acquiring a shotgun.
I read that air guns that exceed a power level of 12 fpe (foot pounds of energy) require the same certificate as a firearm. Many common air rifles in the United States exceed this limit. This limit was imposed in 1968.
I own two .177 caliber air rifles. I believe that both of them exceed this limit. For comparison, a common .22 short rimfire cartridge, which is one of the lowest power firearm cartridges, has nearly 70 fpe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.