informing the police of shooting activity

[Rake Aboot]

If an accusation is made against you then the initial advice would be to say nothing without discussing it with legal representation
That includes discussing the fact you were even at the place an alleged occurrence happened .

Depends on how much you trust the law I suppose .

 

[Bowland blades]

Its a crime to interfere with a lawful activity. If it that regular and you have been a victim a number of times , then it needs reporting to the elected police commissionaire and a reasonable response to be made and officially recorded .

 

[cjm1066]

Used to call in as per contract when undertaking Great Crested Newt surveys at night.

Best question was what calibre was I using?

 

[baguio]

If an accusation is made against you then the initial advice would be to say nothing without discussing it with legal representation
That includes discussing the fact you were even at the place an alleged occurrence happened .

Depends on how much you trust the law I suppose .

Oh come on. Everyone has a camera in their pocket these days. Proving that you were there is the easiest bit for the police. If you actually committed a crime then you deserve everything you get. That's not what we're talking about here though!

 

[gixer1]

Oh come on. Everyone has a camera in their pocket these days. Proving that you were there is the easiest bit for the police. If you actually committed a crime then you deserve everything you get. That's not what we're talking about here though!

I think what he means is if you were in a specific woodland area, and had called in to say you were there, and some idiot came to the same woodland, fired a shot that hit say a passing car or a dog Walker….that you have put yourself at the scene and therefore may be an easy option to point the finger at.

I really am not sure there is any benefit to calling in - there have been a number of ex-police on this thread that are saying the police will still attend if something is called in - so what is it achieving?

 

[baguio]

I think what he means is if you were in a specific woodland area, and had called in to say you were there, and some idiot came to the same woodland, fired a shot that hit say a passing car or a dog Walker….that you have put yourself at the scene and therefore may be an easy option to point the finger at.

I really am not sure there is any benefit to calling in - there have been a number of ex-police on this thread that are saying the police will still attend if something is called in - so what is it achieving?

Ok. They will quickly prove that it wasn’t your bullet so thats not going to go far.
I phone up for one problem area and it does prevent them attending so for me it works.

 

[Erik Hamburger]

I live in an area which is on the edge of a green belt but also urban in places. Of all the places I go to shoot pigeons, I only feel the need to inform the police of my activities when I am in my own local area. On a number of occasions a complaint has been registered by someone and the police always come out to see me.
They have never admitted that they are aware that I have logged the activity.
They always say that they always attend if there is a notification from the public that there is "a man in a field with a gun".

I would be interested in your thoughts on the usefulness of continuing to inform the police of shooting activity as it doesn't appear to do the shooter any good, at least in my experience.

Why should we inform the Police of an activity they themselve have already given you permission for by issuing you with a FAC?

Saying that, I have had one landowner who insisted on a Police incident No.
Sadly it was often impossible to get through to 101 by phone , and/or an email to 101 would not be replied to.
In addition to that different officers from the same Force would give conflicting advice on whether we should or shouldn't report shooting activities to them. ( The FEO had a different view from the Rural Crime Officer, and the call handlers on 101 had a different view again! So I gave up calling in shooting activities)

 

[gixer1]

Ok. They will quickly prove that it wasn’t your bullet so thats not going to go far.
I phone up for one problem area and it does prevent them attending so for me it works.

How will they quickly prove it wasn’t your bullet?

And it won’t work if someone reports a “man with a gun”….there could be more than one man with a gun in an area, you think the police could risk the liability of they didn’t attend because they thought it was X person shooting a few pigeons and it turned out there was another person shooting at people? - never going to happen.

 

[baguio]

How will they quickly prove it wasn’t your bullet?

And it won’t work if someone reports a “man with a gun”….there could be more than one man with a gun in an area, you think the police could risk the liability of they didn’t attend because they thought it was X person shooting a few pigeons and it turned out there was another person shooting at people? - never going to happen.

I'm not talking about a 30,000 acre estate. If someone is shot they're obviously going to come out. If I was shooting a 308 150grain bullet and the person/item was shot with a .22 40 grain bullet I don't think it would be a long investigation, do you? I assume that you know they could even prove from the rifling marks if it was fired from your rifle too?
Regardless, this is all getting a bit far fetched.

 

[Stalker62]

If I was shooting a 308 150grain bullet and the person/item was shot with a .22 40 grain bullet I don't think it would be a long investigation, do you?

Weeks. If at all.

 

[gixer1]

I'm not talking about a 30,000 acre estate. If someone is shot they're obviously going to come out. If I was shooting a 308 150grain bullet and the person/item was shot with a .22 40 grain bullet I don't think it would be a long investigation, do you? I assume that you know they could even prove from the rifling marks if it was fired from your rifle too?
Regardless, this is all getting a bit far fetched.

I think it would be immensely long to track down a bullet, there are some pretty common chamberings and calibers in the U.K. so there is a high probability it could be the same.

Rifling marks work if you have a bullet to inspect…

And it’s not that far fetched as it happens, and has done here, I remember seeing an article on here where a bullet had gone through a window and they were trying to figure out where it came from…

I just can’t see much point in the phone call and it could lead to someone incorrectly being the focus of an investigation. Low hanging fruit and all that…

 

[sanibel686]

Ok. They will quickly prove that it wasn’t your bullet so thats not going to go far.
I phone up for one problem area and it does prevent them attending so for me it works.

hi I'm just trying to understand the second part of your post where you say you phone them and this prevents them attending?

In practise I assume the sequence of events would have to look something like this;

1 You call the police and tell them you are about to, or have already commenced shooting in field X.

2 At some point before your second call informing them you have stopped shooting, they subsequently get the "man with gun in field" call from a third party.

3 Specifically because of your first call you believe that the police, without even checking with you, make the assumption that the third party call is definitely you and they make the conscious decision not to attend, is that a correct analysis of your thinking?

 

[baguio]

hi I'm just trying to understand the second part of your post where you say you phone them and this prevents them attending?

In practise I assume the sequence of events would have to look something like this;

1 You call the police and tell them you are about to, or have already commenced shooting in field X.

2 At some point before your second call informing them you have stopped shooting, they subsequently get the "man with gun in field" call from a third party.

3 Specifically because of your first call you believe that the police, without even checking with you, make the assumption that the third party call is definitely you and they make the conscious decision not to attend, is that a correct analysis of your thinking?

This is getting very boring and No, that is not a correct analysis because it’s ridiculous and would suggest that you're not very bright. What possible person with half a brain cell would come up with that? I have highlighted the most ridiculous part.

 

[sanibel686]

then how would a person with a full brain cell accurately interpret your words, in detail.

 

[sanibel686]

analysis of your thinking?

This is getting very boring.

do you mean; this is getting harder and harder to defend my previous assertions?

No, that is not a correct analysis because it’s ridiculous and would suggest that you're not very bright.

In my opinion it is an extremely accurate review of your words, it maybe not what you intended to convey, but based on the content of your previous post it's accurate.

Also it's generally accepted that those who first resort to personal insults are those who are lost in defending an indefensible position.

What possible person with half a brain cell would come up with that? I have highlighted the most ridiculous part.

You never mentioned in your original post; that in every instance, as an alternative to deploying, the police would simply contact you and rely on your assessment as a credible witness on the ground.

Two things here;

1 The police wouldn't do this, it's simply not within their risk assessment protocols.

2 Learn to follow a debate from the printed word and what others will infer from it rather than saying " this is getting far fetched/boring"

 

[baguio]

do you mean; this is getting harder and harder to defend my previous assertions?

Nope, I'm mean that you're not very bright! Now run along.