Got arrested this morning

[cjm1066]

Please read PACE Code G 2012 (accessible)

Get professional advice and implement it.

 

[NoIDeer]

Bit over the top handcuffing someone that wasn't doing anything wrong. To get the handcuffs on the situation has already been made safe.

 

[finbar]

Used to live in the northumbria force area had a txt msg no
Txt them reg ov vehicle where we are pigeon shooting txt wud come back crime no only in built up area’s
Now live in Durham 12 mile from old address & Durham have nothing like this they say ring 101 lost the will to live after hanging on for over an hour
Only ring if in a built up area’s out in the sticks never bother & touch wood have had no problems been pulled over friendly chat with police then of you go

 

[finnbear270]

Being arrested does not have to include being handcuffed, the mere verbal advice that you are being / have been arrested, is enough to constitute arrest, the handcuffs are to prevent the possible fleeing of a suspect, & handcuffing is normally made with an explanation for why, (To prevent an officer from being struck while carrying out a search on the person).
"The constable should outline the facts, information and other circumstances which provide the grounds for believing that their arrest is necessary and which the officer considers satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria"

 

[Tazz]

But surely the police should have asked whoever reported the 'incident' what was suspicious about the men and how were they dressed and doing what exactly, also if they had a vehicle number the police can get the details of the owners and find out if they are legitimate Firearms owners. Also before you arrest somebody they are obliged to tell you why they are arresting you and whether you understand giving you the chance to reply. You then have the chance to tell them what you are doing there and if legitimate then no further action should be taken.
Another way of finding out if the reported persons were legitimate would be to contact the land owner on whose land they were and ask if anybody has permission to shoot there.
The whole scenario sounds like a rooky cop on a training exercise.

You do have to wonder are these calls made by ‘ the general public” deliberately malicious and therefore looking for an over the top police reaction

 

[finnbear270]

You do have to wonder are these calls made by ‘ the general public” deliberately malicious and therefore looking for an over the top police reaction

I have been the unfortunate recipient of two or three such calls, resulting in some spectacular happenings.

 

[DavyG]

This morning my friend and I had loaded weapons pointed at us, were told to walk with our hands in the air, were handcuffed, were told "you are both under arrest under suspicion of possession of a firearm", our clothes were searched searched and my car was briefly examined visually inside before "Thank you for your cooperation, sorry for the trouble but you will understand we have to investigate reports" This is not on and I would like advice as to how to stop this happening to others.

I would like to say from the start that the officers involved were very polite and I thought them all nice guys but the protocol that allowed this to happen is not fair or proportionate and I think if it is allowed to be considered as OK, then we are on a slippery slope to being guilty until proven innocent, which is a bad position to be in with a gun in your hand.

Of course we had permission, of course we didn't point guns at or near anyone. If fact we didn't point a gun at all -no deer was even seen on the permission where I have shot for years. The policeman in charge told me that he didn't know till they arrived at the scene and he took my registration that I had a FAC. To that point if you want to bring 6 or 7 cars full of armed officers and a dog team to a report of "2 males with a long barrelled weapon seen going into (private) wood (in the countryside with no footpath, exiting car parked within woodland edge from woodland facing side and walking in)" then OK if you can justify the resource allocation but from that point on, when nothing suspicious had been done and I was clearly licensed this was surely heavy handed? Surely a quiet word with an unarmed officer when we emerged from the wood to check we had permission would have been enough? Even then whose business is it to check up on law abiding citizens hunting with a weapon held for only hunting unless there has been poaching in the area or suspicion of poaching? Why should hunting be itself a suspicious activity? Is taking cash out of a bank suspicious in itself? Is driving a car away suspicious in itself?

Did I need to be arrested by armed men? did I need to be handcuffed or searched? The officer in charge said "Sorry we can't be taking chances" but if that sort of thinking is allowed to take root we will all be pushed further and further into corners afraid to assert our rights do do what we have worked hard to be given lawful permission to do. What is suspicious about someone who holds a rifle only for deer stalking to be seen deer stalking? I said to the officer "There are thousands of people out on this Christmas holiday Saturday legally shooting. Would it be right to arrest anyone seen in a field carrying a gun on a sling on their shoulder?" He just said they couldn't take chances and I should phone the police to tell them I am going hunting in advance. This is the state going too far in my opinion.

I expect a number of replies to say "You must have done something suspicious" and "We must all just accept this sort of control and interference in the interests of public safety" but I feel this is going too far. Had it been a report of drug use or burglary the police would likely never have even turned up but more people die from drugs and criminal lifestyles than from guns in this country every year, a lot more. There is a witch hunt out for guns and country sports. If we accept this as OK because we are all too scared to risk going on the naughty list next time we want to renew, where does this end?

In the interests of my fellow sportsmen, I would ideally like someone in charge to simply accept that this was a heavy handed approach and to revise the protocol. I don't know if I really want to go through the misery of pushing for this but right now I feel I should. Can anyone advise me how I would best go about this please?

Thanks

The police can only respond to the initial report. Their actions will therefore depend on its content.
At which point were you “arrested”…?
DG

 

[charlie222]

I can see peoples frustration. However the police are in an almost impossible situation. How could they explain away not responding to a concern regarding firearms? Even if you've texted or got some number from them to acknowledge you are out,and they've rung you, how can they be sure you're the only one walking about with a gun? Its the same with the fireservice, you can tell them your having a burn, but if it gets called in they have to attend.
We just have to politely engage with them as many in this thread have. I drove down the m1 near Rotherham a while back, someone was clearly out pigeon decoying bang next to the motorway. Id guess they were a legal distance away but, they are asking for trouble, needs a bit of thought .
I agree the police were heavy handed in this instance, but I would deffo err on the side of caution in thier job.

 

[Silvius]

A bit OTT I think.
I think a phone call to whichever organisation you belong to would be a good start.
Who is your MP? Might be worth arranging an appointment to see them.
I was stopped whilst out foxing a couple of weeks ago at 00.30.I noticed a car following me and I turned into one of my perms which has a big passing place on the end of the long drive. The car pulled up alongside me . So I got out and went over.

Unmarked patrol car. The police officer could not have been any more charming and polite. We had a brief chat and he even had a look at some foxs with my thermal. He was obviously fire arms trained. He hadn't done a PNC check. Didn't request sight of of my weapon

Completely civil encounter.
D
D

I might contact my MP. This will be an interesting one for her. She is a newly elected Liberal Democrat.

 

[Cyres]

Worth a shout. Ask her to write to the PCC and CC. It may take a while to see her.
I bumped into my new elected LD MP a month or so ago and asked her to raise the Glos FAC licencing issue.
D

 

[Silvius]

The police I assume from what you've said were responding to the report of a firearm, as you have said they don't know until they arrive what they are dealing with, the chat with the unarmed officer sounds like a great scenario, what if it wasn't you? What if that unarmed officer was shot by a nutter with an unregistered firearm? The police can only act on the information given, they will have SOP's they will follow.
Sadly, I think what you are upset with, is public perception of hunting, of which I agree with you totally

Yes, I agree. What the police focus on is a good barometer of public sentiment. They just do their job. If we just accept that position as fine, then what next? Against us is a well funded lobby who feel they have the moral upper hand. If we stay silent, they will continue their advances into our lawful lives.

 

[Silvius]

The police can only respond to the initial report. Their actions will therefore depend on its content.
At which point were you “arrested”…?
DG

When I reached the road. I think after the handcuffs. I had long before called out "I have a rifle, may I take it off (my shoulder)" and on my second request been allowed to put it on the ground as it and the heavy clothing were making it hard to climb the very steep rocky hill with my hands in the air.

 

[Irish Bob]

Were you near something that could be of interest or considered sensitive? For example a wood next to a former prime minister’s home is likely to trigger a robust response. A wood near nothing of interest should not.

 

[Silvius]

Please read PACE Code G 2012 (accessible)

Get professional advice and implement it.

Good stuff. Thanks

 

[Silvius]

Were you near something that could be of interest or considered sensitive? For example a wood next to a former prime minister’s home is likely to trigger a robust response. A wood near nothing of interest should not.

Good question. I have shot that wood for years and not heard of anything of interest being near there. But one never knows.

 

[Irish Bob]

Unlikely then.

 

[Lateral]

This IS NOT the USA, and most ARE NOT used to seeing people walking around with a rifle, and scope on it !

In this day, and age, with the general public's fear of terrorism, and shootings in the news becoming more common, is it any surprise that when a member of the general public sees someone with a rifle, they think the worst, and call the police ? How many times have lives been saved, because someone has done just that ?

Chastise the person for making the call, have you got a screw loose ? I'm bloody glad they did, because I'd rather that, than what could be the alternative......................

However, IMPO, as soon as the police identified the car, and the people, within a couple of minutes of arriving, they would have known they were FC holders, and that should have been the end of it.

 

[finnbear270]

When I reached the road. I think after the handcuffs. I had long before called out "I have a rifle, may I take it off (my shoulder)" and on my second request been allowed to put it on the ground as it and the heavy clothing were making it hard to climb the very steep rocky hill with my hands in the air.

You were lucky?

 

[Rake Aboot]

This IS NOT the USA, and most ARE NOT used to seeing people walking around with a rifle, and scope on it !

In this day, and age, with the general public's fear of terrorism, and shootings in the news becoming more common, is it any surprise that when a member of the general public sees someone with a rifle, they think the worst, and call the police ? How many times have lives been saved, because someone has done just that ?

Chastise the person for making the call, have you got a screw loose ? I'm bloody glad they did, because I'd rather that, than what could be the alternative......................

However, IMPO, as soon as the police identified the car, and the people, within a couple of minutes of arriving, they would have known they were FC holders, and that should have been the end of it.

I disagree
Going out shooting is a perfectly normal thing to do.
The fact that the press have folk terrified of their own shadow should not reflect on us, basically what you are saying is that we are all criminals and terrorists until the police say otherwise.

It’s that kind of thinking that’s part of the problem

 

[sikamalc]

OK some of you have obviously overlooked my warning about abusive language towards other members on here.
One already banned on this thread by my colleague, and or two more that may well fall foul of the big red button.
Keep it civil and polite, otherwise your gone.