Harassee Gets Time

[OnyxCougar]

Pellet gun teacher sent to prison

A special needs teacher who fired a pellet gun at youths she claimed had vandalised her house has been jailed for six months. Linda Walker, 48, was "ranting and raving like a lunatic" when she fired the gun, a court had heard.

Walker, of Hollyhouse Drive, Urmston, Gtr Manchester, was convicted of affray and possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence. She said she was under stress at the time of the incident on 14 August 2004.

Walker claimed a campaign of vandalism by "yobbos" had driven her to fire the gun at the feet of a gang of teenagers she confronted near her home.

The teacher of children with behavioural difficulties at New Park School, Salford, had kept the gun in her underwear drawer for four months since her shed was burgled.

She had also received nuisance phone calls abusing her 17-year-old son James while her other son Craig's car had been vandalised. Fish had been stolen from her pond and her garden ornaments were thrown over a wall, her trial heard. The final straw came when a washing-up liquid bottle full of water was emptied over her son's car, she said.

She went outside to confront the youths and, in a phone call to police, said: "I'm going over to that field over the road, I've got an air rifle and a pistol and I'm going to shoot the vandals that come around here."

Walker fired the pistol at the road near the feet of Robert McKiernan, 18.

Walker was sentenced at Manchester's Minshull St Crown Court on Tuesday to six months for possessing the firearm and one month for affray. The sentences will run concurrently. Her 56-year-old partner, John Cavanagh, was cleared of affray last month.

Walker's defence barrister, Farrhat Ashad, said she admitted she had acted in a "very unfortunate" manner but had been under stress through work at the time. "She thought her family, which was supposed to be safe, was being attacked," she added.

Her employer, Salford City Council, said she was suspended from her teaching job and would now face disciplinary action.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said there was no "particular problem" with anti-social behaviour in the Urmston area and insisted there was "no evidence" to suggest the Walkers had been targeted for abuse by youths.

"While we support homeowners protecting themselves in line with the recent ACPO and CPS guidelines, Mrs Walker overstepped the line and attacked a group in an unprovoked, disproportionate manner," said Det Sgt Frank Hayley, of Trafford CID.

"The use of a firearm was an extreme reaction and Greater Manchester Police will not tolerate the use of such a weapon on the street, irrespective of the offender's justification."

So it doesn't matter if you're getting vandalized or not, point a gun, serve the time.

[Troubleshooter]

It's in England right?

They've lost any sense where it relates to individual rights over there.

There's a guy in jail for shooting a burglar that was in his own home, so yeah, I'm not surprised.

If it was in England.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

So it doesn't matter if you're getting vandalized or not, point a gun, serve the time.

Point? She shot the gun. Besides, this is Britain.

[jaguar]

There's a guy in jail for shooting a burglar that was in his own home, so yeah, I'm not surprised.

While largely I agree, this statement is shit. Pure and utter shit. You can defend yourself against home invasion and attack with deadly force in the UK and be protect by the law. End of story. What you cannot do is use unreasonable force(shoot them lots of times or beat someone's head in with a shovel) or shoot people who are running away. The guy that got jailed shot the guy while he was running away after getting out of the house when he was discovered, in the back with a shotgun. In assult situations you are able to do what is necessary to defend yourself until the attacker backs off or is down, I have personally been told by an officer in a public meeting that the best advice they can give for the area i live in is to carry a sharp object and aim for once in the eye, you'll be fine in the eyes of the law. England has serious civil rights and liberties issues but this is FUD from the NRA and the tories.

Judging by the terminology used inthe article it was in the UK. Thanks to another questionable piece of UK law if she'd used a camera instead they could have had an Anti-social Behaviour Order placed on them which could have stopped them being near her house, talking to her kids or pratically anything else on threat of imprisonment.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by jaguar

While largely I agree, this statement is shit. Pure and utter shit. You can defend yourself against home invasion and attack with deadly force in the UK and be protect by the law. End of story.

Supposedly that's the case here as well, but we've had numerous cases of the perpetrator winning lawsuits against property owners who fucked them up during the course of defending themselves and their homes/businesses.

What you cannot do is use unreasonable force(shoot them lots of times or beat someone's head in with a shovel) or shoot people who are running away. The guy that got jailed shot the guy while he was running away after getting out of the house when he was discovered, in the back with a shotgun.

and it's a shame. Suddenly, during the course of being victimized by a criminal, you have to start minding your P's and Q's or you might somehow violate the civil rights of the asshole that just attacked you. Dead people don't sue. Shoot till you hear clickclickclickclick.

In assult situations you are able to do what is necessary to defend yourself until the attacker backs off or is down, I have personally been told by an officer in a public meeting that the best advice they can give for the area i live in is to carry a sharp object and aim for once in the eye, you'll be fine in the eyes of the law. England has serious civil rights and liberties issues but this is FUD from the NRA and the tories.

Get something sharp and aim for the eye? In a high-stress situation, your fine motor skills go to pot, even if you're trained to respond to it. That's why cops don't try to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand - they can't aim that finely under stress. That's also why trying to poke out the eye of your attacker will just put you in his reach, and the reach of whatever weapon he's carrying. Cop or no, that guy gave tactically unsound advice. I guess when your right of self-protection has been so severely eroded, you must resort to desperate measures. At least get a can of OC-10, which can be reasonably effective in allowing you to escape an attacker until you get far enough away not to be a threat to his rights.

Judging by the terminology used inthe article it was in the UK. Thanks to another questionable piece of UK law if she'd used a camera instead they could have had an Anti-social Behaviour Order placed on them which could have stopped them being near her house, talking to her kids or pratically anything else on threat of imprisonment.

Yes, that's always an effective deterrent to crooks. Make something against the law, and they'll be too scared of prison to try it.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

At least get a can of OC-10, which can be reasonably effective in allowing you to escape an attacker until you get far enough away not to be a threat to his rights.

Except that I've had several people brought to me after being sprayed where the cop (and 8 of his cohorts) were spraying the dude and they comment, "I would have been better off throwing the can at him."

Lots of our local departments have tazers now ... and we've had people charge through the tazing. Doesn't always bring the guy down. The most recent one, who was okay until he was being transported in the police car and freaked out, kicking out the window of the car and bending the doorframe, had to be tazered three times to drop him. And yes, the hooks set right each time.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by jaguar

You can defend yourself against home invasion and attack with deadly force in the UK...

With what? A dead parrot maybe?

Originally Posted by jaguar

Thanks to another questionable piece of UK law if she'd used a camera instead they could have had an Anti-social Behaviour Order placed on them which could have stopped them being near her house, talking to her kids or pratically anything else on threat of imprisonment.

You're kidding right? That sounds about as effective as the restraining orders issued in domestic violence cases here in the colonies.

[Troubleshooter]

And what is "FUD"?

[Beestie]

You can own shotguns in the UK? That comes as a bit of a surprise.

[jaguar]

I should qualify - sharp object that is not a weapon as such and you have a legitimate reason to be carrying. His examples for the girls was a comb.

Yes beestie.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I should qualify - sharp object that is not a weapon as such and you have a legitimate reason to be carrying. His examples for the girls was a comb.

So, you can kill someone with a sharp object, as long as it's not a weapon?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I should qualify - sharp object that is not a weapon as such and you have a legitimate reason to be carrying. His examples for the girls was a comb.

Yes beestie.

I've seen very nice combs as well as hairbrushes and ice scrapers that are made of especially strong polymers ...

(The item I was looking for that I couldn't find was an actual hairbrush that rather than having a concealed knife just had a very pointy handle ...)

[Happy Monkey]

Misinformation spread for the purposes of creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Misinformation spread for the purposes of creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

That's the advantage of everyone bing armed. There is no fear and doubt because of the uncertainty of whether the other guy is going heeled.

[Beestie]

This, ladies and gentlemens, is what the anti-gun lobby + the spleen-dripping liberals would like to see happen in the good ole US of A. I don't own a gun and don't plan on owning one... unless the government tells me I can't.

Fortunately, the Constitutional definition of "arms" still includes guns. For now.

But, thanks to this thread, I now know to carry an afro pic with me if I ever tour the UK. Oh, and a digital camera so I can take a snapshot or two of the guy while he's pistol whipping me into the next life.