Drunk garage boss shot three people at clay pigeon shoot

fatcontroler

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236361/Drunk-garage-boss-shot-people-clay-pigeon-shoot-faulty-pump-action-shotgun.html#ixzz2K3FZXp1q

Sparks

a judge ruled Richards, of Longhope, Gloucestershire, will not be sent to prison for the incident as he had not pulled the trigger or intended any harm to his victims.

In other news, a drunk driver who killed four people will not be charged with any offence as his car was poorly made and allowed the user to drive it while drunk, and he had not intended any harm to his victims. :mad:

Grizzly 45

Guess they couldnt find a normal pump action,but had to borrow a police model tactical kitted out one for the photoshoot..:mad:
DM media whores!!:mad:

Larry60

It must have been a very sawnoff gun to hit three people at ten feet!!!!!

Cass

The shot spreads as soon as it leaves the barrel, and if the people where in a line (side on) to the man in question then it could easily have hit three people.

So "sawn off" has nothing to do with it, nor would it be allowed on a firing line.

Grizzly 45

Somthing definately wrong with the info of this story.
At ten feet even coming out of a cylinder bore the shot charge hasnt opened that much as still to be an almost solid mass. More so if it was a choked barrel. Even with clay loads that would be fatal at those distances.:eek:

Sounds more like badly maintained and neglected with a stuck firing pin/damaged firing pin recoil spring or worn hammer sear gun.Sounds like and speculating, here he racked the slide forward while pointing the gun in these peoples direction and it "slam fired" on the stuck firing pin.
Or round chamberd,saftey off for some reason, made some odd move or hit off the gun,and it was enough to release the hammer off the sear..
Wonder would he flog cars with major faults as well??:rolleyes:

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Something definitely wrong with the info of this story.
At ten feet even coming out of a cylinder bore the shot charge hasn't opened that much as still to be an almost solid mass.

Completely agree.

There is a reason why the traps are set at minimum distances from the shooter. To allow enough distance for the shot to open sufficiently to be effective. The average cartridge in 7.5 - 9 would have, what? 380 - 450 pellets in it. If 150 were taken out of various people i would imagine that the shot was "glancing".

As you said even such a shot at 10 feet would have caused serious wounds, and not just "peppered" people. There is definitely some sensationalism involved. As you rightly pointed out the only picture they could "find" was of a "tactical" gun.

However, and i must stress this, it in NO WAY excuses the man involved. I agree that such excuses are poor, and as Sparks pointed out would not be tolerated in other situations. Hungover/drunk/unfit. Whatever name you wish to attach he should not have been allowed to partake in the shoot nor handle a firearm.

I realise any gun can malfunction, but a careful firearm owner makes sure to check, and care for his firearms. Such a serious fault should have been picked up on before it came to this. I would say any person here would know immediately if their gun was showing any sign of improper function. Accidents with guns generally don't turn out well for someone. So irrespective of what the full details are the people involved are lucky to be able to be talking about it.

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

In other news, a drunk driver who killed four people will not be charged with any offence as his car was poorly made and allowed the user to drive it while drunk, and he had not intended any harm to his victims. :mad:

Sparks, although your comparison holds some water I feel your comment may be a bit flawed. The guy has been found guilty of a number of offences relating to his shocking levels of iresponsability if not complete stupidity but the judge could not detect any criminal intent in the evidence which is probably a correct analysis if one can believe the article.

Contrary to a drink driver causing an injury accident getting his licence back after a year or two I reckon this chap will be waiting a lot longer to get a firearms licence again if he ever does.

Also, I seriously doubt the 10 feet distance, even a light clay load out of a 12g will turn someone's arm and chest into a surgeon's nightmare of human mince, clothing fibre and cartridge wad. I'd even doubt if one has a decent chance of survival being hit with a shotgun cartridge in the chest at a distance about as far as the lenght of a 4 door saloon car.

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

the judge could not detect any criminal intent in the evidence

I know (with the caveat that we're trusting a Daily Mail article here). I just don't agree with his analysis; I have a slightly higher belief in personal responsibility. You get drunk and get into a car, well, what happens next is your fault. Get drunk and go shooting, same thing.
If you don't want to be responsible for what you do while drunk, don't drink.

Contrary to a drink driver causing an injury accident getting his licence back after a year or two I reckon this chap will be waiting a lot longer to get a firearms licence again if he ever does.

We can hope...
...but he should be punished more severely, people got hurt because of his actions (again, daily mail, yadda yadda...).

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

I know (with the caveat that we're trusting a Daily Mail article here). I just don't agree with his analysis; I have a slightly higher belief in personal responsibility. You get drunk and get into a car, well, what happens next is your fault. Get drunk and go shooting, same thing.
If you don't want to be responsible for what you do while drunk, don't drink.

We can hope...
...but he should be punished more severely, people got hurt because of his actions (again, daily mail, yadda yadda...).

If I read you correctly Sparks you're probably saying it should be treated more like dangerous driving causing injury - to use another motoring comparison - which often comes with a relatively short time inside.

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

If I read you correctly Sparks you're probably saying it should be treated more like dangerous driving causing injury - to use another motoring comparison - which often comes with a relatively short time inside.

No, I think it should be treated as if no alcohol was involved.
If someone had physically held him down, injected ethanol into his veins with a hypodermic, superglued a shotgun to his hands and thrown him onto the range, then yeah, you could say it wasn't his fault.
But I don't think that was the case here...

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

No, I think it should be treated as if no alcohol was involved.
If someone had physically held him down, injected ethanol into his veins with a hypodermic, superglued a shotgun to his hands and thrown him onto the range, then yeah, you could say it wasn't his fault.
But I don't think that was the case here...

The drink can never be an excuse; it's a well established fact that drink and guns don't mix and if you're that badly hung over you should have an idea that you're still half cut.

Drink should never be accepted as a defence for any offending behaviour, on the contrary it should be seen as an aggravating factor.

It's the same crap all over in any district court every day of the week; "If it wasn't for the amount of drink involved judge my client would have never....." complete the dots as you see fit.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

In other news, a drunk driver who killed four people will not be charged with any offence as his car was poorly made and allowed the user to drive it while drunk, and he had not intended any harm to his victims. :mad:

A drunk driver still has intent, buy the very act of just sitting in and putting the keys in the ignition, there is no real comparison here between the two.

What has drink driving got to do with it three times over the limit these days is a pint and a half.

this chap never intended to hurt anyone, media are making a meal out of it
how many times has the Daily mail been slated for its poor reporting of firearms related stories.
his only "crime" was to break safety rules....what are probabilities on a gun spontaneously firing ever again.
This could have happened while he was stone cold sober,
I wonder how many lads here have gone shooting after a night out
this "holier that thou" sh**e is so pervasive half of you must be saints

Cass

4gun wrote: »

What has drink driving got to do with it ...........

Pretty sure it's just used as a metaphor.

this chap never intended to hurt anyone, media are making a meal out of it

There is the issue. If, and sticking with the drink driving metaphor, a drunk driver kills someone it's news for less than a day and its gone. The minute guns are involved it's week long news, and usually involves some sort of backlash.

how many times has the Daily mail been slated for its poor reporting of firearms related stories.

Not going to argue that the story seems somewhat sensationalist.

his only "crime" was to break safety rules

Refer to above about the problems with "incidents" with guns, and the fallout from it.

This could have happened while he was stone cold sober

Very true. However while hungover or drunk a person's ability is slowed, impaired, and usually not what it is when sober.

I wonder how many lads here have gone shooting after a night out..........

Not me. Don't drink. So there is one of the list.

this "holier that thou" sh**e is so pervasive half of you must be saints

The opposite is also pure sh*te. The blind defence of someone's actions simply because they are a firearm owner. Some people should not have firearms. I am in no way saying this applies to the man featured in the article, but am saying it in a broad sweeping statement about our attitude in general. IOW if you are a gun owner then you must be right.

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

I wonder how many lads here have gone shooting after a night out
this "holier that thou" sh**e is so pervasive half of you must be saints

I've not. You drink after the match, not before, and not if you're driving home. It's not rocket science, it's not holier than thou, it's personal responsibility. And if you can't tell that at your age...

4gun

The opposite is also pure sh*te. The blind defence of someone's actions simply because they are a firearm owner. Some people should not have firearms. I am in no way saying this applies to the man featured in the article, but am saying it in a broad sweeping statement about our attitude in general. IOW if you are a gun owner then you must be right.

My point exactly, If it was down to the opinions of some of the posters here
they would dictate that only people like themselves would get a licence,
We constantly bitch about how those that legislate mistreat us ie the ban on centerfire hand guns, but at least they try to remain unbiased in their dealings.

This was an unfortunate ACCIDENT and that is all it was, I am not defending him for his actions just because he is a firearms owner, but simply because others are so quick to judge the man based upon the say so of a rag.
How do we know for certain that this chap was even drunk....All we know is he was on a binge the night before, a binge according to experts is 4 pints in one sitting, was he breathalysed... why? there was no traffic violations mentioned, the judge only assumed he was hungover simply because he drank the night before.
The people that were injured were glad he wasn't going to jail says it all to me, we dont know whether there are civil cases pending but its irrelevant anyway.


I totally agree that some are unfit to hold a firearm, But its not up to me or any one else who is not a Firearms officer to decide that, and thats a good thing.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

I've not. You drink after the match, not before, and not if you're driving home. It's not rocket science, it's not holier than thou, it's personal responsibility. And if you can't tell that at your age...

what are you on about ??



This is a case where the chap went shooting the next day after for all we know 4 pints the night before, four pints = binge according to HSE
he had none taken on the day
We only have the Daily mail opinion and headline, how many other papershad this story?

Read my previous post to see what I think on that matter.

No one mentioned driving after drinking

What I can tell at my age is dont be quick to judge, and that the whole headline stinks of sensationalism, that I can form my own opinion about something without the media telling me.what to think..

Do you even know what age I am....

You cant pick and choose which stories in which paper suits your beliefs,
I know you have debunked reports in the past purely on the source alone.

Go on, be your own man

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

We only have the Daily mail opinion

Hence all the caveats above, which you apparently didn't read.

Do you even know what age I am....

Over 13. Which is old enough to know the difference

meathstevie

4gun wrote: »

A drunk driver still has intent, buy the very act of just sitting in and putting the keys in the ignition, there is no real comparison here between the two.

Unless I have misread the article the chap still provided a positive breath sample as part of the investigation into the incident so it does look like there's some merit in the comparison. It's just a fact of life that machinery, vehicles and guns among other things don't mix with excess drink.

It's also a fact of life that most drink drivers get home safely without any mishap but that's no justification for it either.

Again, assuming that the article is truthful, it's just completely iresponsable to go shooting while you're still half cut and to not do a regular safety check on your gun.

It's not that hard to verify that the safety catch is working, and that trigger(s) and cocking mechanisms work as they're supposed to every once in a while. It takes all of 20 seconds and a set of snap caps after cleaning the gun.

I'm not one for claiming to be better than anyone else but it looks like the chap involved in the incident has paid a very high price for his negligence and has been very fortunate that the judge has accepted the argument that it was negligence and not malice.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

Hence all the caveats above, which you apparently didn't read.

Over 13. Which is old enough to know the difference

I read the article several times....thank you :P

meathstevie wrote: »

Unless I have misread the article the chap still provided a positive breath sample as part of the investigation into the incident so it does look like there's some merit in the comparison. It's just a fact of life that machinery, vehicles and guns among other things don't mix with excess drink.

It's also a fact of life that most drink drivers get home safely without any mishap but that's no justification for it either.

Again, assuming that the article is truthful, it's just completely iresponsable to go shooting while you're still half cut and to not do a regular safety check on your gun.

It's not that hard to verify that the safety catch is working, and that trigger(s) and cocking mechanisms work as they're supposed to every once in a while. It takes all of 20 seconds and a set of snap caps after cleaning the gun.

I'm not one for claiming to be better than anyone else but it looks like the chap involved in the incident has paid a very high price for his negligence and has been very fortunate that the judge has accepted the argument that it was negligence and not malice.

Again I read the article, unless I am getting a different edition there is no mention of any thing that absolutely proves he did a breath test after, The only indication to his drunken state or lack thereof was that the judge "assumed"he was hung over simply because he was drinking the night before


He was badly hungover from a drinking binge the night before following the 'lowest ebb of his life', the court heard.
The judge added: 'He hadn’t drunk that day, he had drunk the night before. He was more than likely suffering a hangover.


Richards had thought he was sober at the time of the incident was ‘not fully cognisant’ of his condition, Mr Siva added.

Mr Siva is his defence barrister.

These are the only parts of the article that mention drinking....apart from the headline.....I will say again it is the author who said he was drunk, who gave her the expertise to say this.

I reeks of the usual crap that comes from tabloids, Due to all the negative press that firearms are getting across the Atlantic, It just sound like this British rag wanted to add its own spin on a home grown shooting indecent,
they have done their best to beef up an unfortunate accident that does not even warrant a custodial sentence on the perpetrator,

This isnt a drunk driving indecent, and should not be taken in the same context

To use a more accurate metaphor
it would be loosing control of your car while driving in slippery conditions,

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

I read the article several times....thank you :P

The caveats weren't in the article...

the_syco

4gun wrote: »

The only indication to his drunken state or lack thereof was that the judge "assumed"he was hung over simply because he was drinking the night before

You must have read a totally different article than I read, as the one I read mentions it in the 2nd paragraph

David Richards, 45, was three times the drink driving limit while shooting with a 'cheap' and 'poorly made' pump action shotgun last year, Gloucester Crown Court heard.

Also, why the funk did the OP post an article from 21 November 2012??? The events happened November 27 2011...

4gun

the_syco wrote: »

You must have read a totally different article than I read, as the one I read mentions it in the 2nd paragraph


Also, why the funk did the OP post an article from 21 November 2012??? The events happened November 27 2011...

What I keep asking is where does the author get her proof that the chap was drunk....
just because she says so does not make it fact,
how his drunken state was ascertained is never mentioned, why would he even be breathalysed in the first place.
The judge established the fact that he had not even consumed alcohol on the day in question, He is assumed to be hung over purely on the fact that he was on a "binge" the night before.
According to medical opinion that can be as little as 4 pints in one sitting,
by his own testimony he did not consider him self to be drunk.

Richards had thought he was sober at the time of the incident was ‘not fully cognisant’ of his condition, Mr Siva added

this even looks like it has been poorly edited it contradicts its self,
If he was that bad, then the range officer has to bear some of the culpability for allowing him to shoot in the first place.
The whole story stinks of the sh1t that it is, and if some of you care to take yer heads out of yer asses ye might be able to smell it

Larry60

These articles are designed as most people agree to entertain primarly and fact is not of primary importance and as such I take these storys with "a pinch of salt". I can tell you from personal experience that editors will add in or deliberately re-arrange or misrepresent facts to sensationalise storys to increase sales. I only take page three seriously.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

The caveats weren't in the article...

caveat = let the reader beware (I have to admit I had to look it up)

and yet you take the authors side in calling this man drunk, when its never clearly established other than the authors assumption.


so maybe Sparks you should do the same

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

What I keep asking is where does the author get her proof that the chap was drunk.

The local papers all report that he was arrested after the incident and found to be two or three times over the drink driving limit (different papers report different amounts - some say over twice, some say nearly three times). Say it was over twice, that's over 160mg alcohol. If this was earlyish in the morning (say around 11am) and he was drinking the night before instead of that morning (as he says it was), he would have to have knocked back about ten pints, assuming he had an abnormally low elimination rate for alcohol (10mg/hr, which is very low, you'd normally see rates of between 13 and 18 mg/hr, which would require him to have drunk even more beer the night before).

Dunno about you, but my routine the night before I go to an organised shooting event is not to knock back -- at a minimum -- more beer than I have blood in my veins.

by his own testimony he did not consider him self to be drunk.

Indeed. Objective testimony, that.

take yer heads out of yer asses ye might be able to smell it

Reread rule one of the charter please.

Sparks

160mg is even too low it seems:
http://www.theforester.co.uk/news.cfm?id=179

After the shooting Richards apologised to the victims but then left the site and was later arrested at Highnam Woods, where he was found to have a blood-alcohol reading of between 187-330 mgs.

And:

Mr Kesner said experts had tested the Beretta pump action gun to see if the could make it go off without the trigger being pulled but they had failed. However, they did find that the firing pin sometimes made light contact with a cartridge when it was being loaded.

“Mr Richards said the gun had gone off before when loading a cartridge into the breach,” Mr Kesner said. “This means that he was effectively using a gun he knew was faulty.”

He was also convicted of drunk driving on that day seperately.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

The local papers all report that he was arrested after the incident and found to be two or three times over the drink driving limit (different papers report different amounts - some say over twice, some say nearly three times). Say it was over twice, that's over 160mg alcohol. If this was earlyish in the morning (say around 11am) and he was drinking the night before instead of that morning (as he says it was), he would have to have knocked back about ten pints, assuming he had an abnormally low elimination rate for alcohol (10mg/hr, which is very low, you'd normally see rates of between 13 and 18 mg/hr, which would require him to have drunk even more beer the night before).

Dunno about you, but my routine the night before I go to an organised shooting event is not to knock back -- at a minimum -- more beer than I have blood in my veins.


Indeed. Objective testimony, that.



Reread rule one of the charter please.

are you making more assumptions about me again, huh Sparks,
I dont go to organised shooting events

This is what I an talking about...making assumptions based on little evidence and personal biases
I made my comments based on the original post and the evidence we were given at the time,
As for his DUI for all we know he went back to the pub after the shooting grounds. Who would not be in shock after wounding 3 people unintentionally, would you not be in shock, I know I would, any normal person would
we're not all perfect after are we, even though some might like to think they are
was his mind on other things that day,with his marriage ending the day before....Let ye who have not sinned, cast the first stone ( of course your exempt, Sparks) :rolleyes:

There is absolutely no evidence to prove he was drunk at the time of the shooting.


And as for the forum rule one....my comments were never directed towards anyone in particular...it was kinda more like a general observation about the article in question

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

are you making more assumptions about me again, huh Sparks,
I dont go to organised shooting events

I was talking about him, because he was at a professionally run clay pigeon shoot. Over-identifying a bit there 4gun.

As for his DUI for all we know he went back to the pub after the shooting grounds.

Nowhere in any account of the day is there any suggestion of that - he admitted to heavy drinking the night before and being over the limit.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove he was drunk at the time of the shooting.

Except for his own admission to it and a blood alcohol test administered by the police that day after he was arrested for drink driving (which he was later convicted of).

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

I was talking about him, because he was at a professionally run clay pigeon shoot. Over-identifying a bit there 4gun.
Nowhere in any account of the day is there any suggestion of that - he admitted to heavy drinking the night before and being over the limit.

Except for his own admission to it and a blood alcohol test administered by the police that day after he was arrested for drink driving (which he was later convicted of).

Dunno about you, but my routine the night before I go to an organised shooting event is not to knock back -- at a minimum -- more beer than I have blood in my veins.

That is where you refer to me and its obvious your not referring to him in the above
He admitted to being convicted for DUI later that day...that could have been hours later and not on the way home from the shoot. he was initially arrested there at the scene
nothing in either article proves he was drunk when the incident happened
show me and I'll will admit I am wrong
what we have here is an unfortunate series of events that happened to this chap in the space of a few days
1 his marriage ends so he went out drinking to take his mind off things,
how many lads would do the same, most men tend to bottle their emotions in such cases
2 Shooting is his pastime so he goes clay shooting to try and take his mind off things, lets face it dusting clays is great stress relief, you should try it sometime, unfortunately he ends accidentally shoots some other people at the shoot

3 by now he must be thinking that his world is ending, his behaviour has become totally irrational, whose wouldn't. He goes and may be has a few more, culminating in getting done for drink driving.

that is how I read in this story, I feel sorry for him, he admitted being totally humbled by the fact that the injured were able to forgive him..He has become an advocate for not drinking and driving.

Does he get any empathy from his fell shooters, No. We're all so great, we'd never allow that to happen to us.
This is a human story, if you cant see it....well, I am truly sorry for you

There but for the grace of God...huh

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

I feel sorry for him

And that's the summation of it. You feel sorry for him, so you make excuses. Despite all the reported, and admitted, facts of the case, you cast around for any possible reason that isn't "he did something wrong".

That's a bad way to think.

You want to feel sorry, to feel empathy for his situation? Nothing wrong with that, it's human. But feel sorry for the people he shot and injured while drunk as well.