Drunk garage boss shot three people at clay pigeon shoot

the_syco

4gun wrote: »

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.

If Graham Wheelers phone wasn't in front of his heart, David Richards may have faced manslaughter charges, rather than a 2 year suspended sentence.

Half-cocked

4gun wrote: »

I feel sorry for him

I feel sorry for the people he injured. Out to enjoy a days sport and getting blasted by a drunk who ignored the most basic of safety rules in shooting - never, ever point your gun at anyone.

Grizzly 45

So now we have a name to the gun ,a Breatta pump action..
Which makes the story even more odd. Breatta isnt exactly "cheap or shoddy",they haven't made a pump action since the early 1990s and those were mostly Milspec guns ,[might explain the nasty tactical shotgun pic in the article?]with a few of them civillianised with wood furniture.So not exactly built out in a garden shed in Bresica by some fly by night operation.
Their last major pump gun design was a late ish 1950's to 1980's model too.

So unless this gun was a right beater,somone is telling porkie pies in this article and court case.
Also if he knew it was defective,and that it fired before by chambering a round[IE slam firing] Then he is IMHO criminally responsible for not repairing the fault ASAP.Would be the same as if he flogged somone knowingly a BMW with dodgy brakes.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

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.

why dont you go back and read my original posts, In general no one takes the Daily mail seriously, But in this case the story, which has been hyped is completely taken as facts.
No evidence was given in the DM for him being drunk at the shoot...I dare anyone here to prove other wise.
what did the headline say
"Drunk garage boss shot three... "
My point was every other poster took that as fact with out any evidence given it the story,his drink driving happened hours later..not at the shoot.

My feeling sorry for him came after it was revealed in a separate story how his marriage had ended the day before, this was probable the catalyst that led to this series of unfortunate events in this mans life,

Two separate events merged into one for a sensationalist story by a trashy rag.
guess we now know where the reading level is on boards...obviously

Sparks

4gun, nobody's saying the Daily Mail is anything other than a criminal waste of perfectly good trees.

But as was said above, every local paper in the area has been covering this and they're all saying the same thing. And while I expect newspapers to not be as accurate and dispassionate as academic journals, they can't run around saying "Person X shot three other people while three times over the legal blood alcohol limit", or "Person X was convicted that day of drink driving", or any of the other things mentioned above if they're not true - that's what libel law is for.

guess we now know where the reading level is on boards

Y'know, we could go down the whole insult-each-other road, and frankly I don't think you'd fare well if we did, but I just don't see the point in it. You're flat-out wrong here, and why you're defending someone who broke not only the first rule of gun-handling but also a fairly common-sense rule of not mixing being drunk and handling a firearm; well, I don't know why you'd do that, but I suspect at this point you're just arguing because I disagreed with you, and when someone's thinking like that, there's just nothing you can do but ignore them.

4gun

the_syco wrote: »

If Graham Wheelers phone wasn't in front of his heart, David Richards may have faced manslaughter charges, rather than a 2 year suspended sentence.

I agree, it would have been worse for both,
More that likely have been Involuntary manslaughter which may not carry a custodial sentence either.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

4gun, nobody's saying the Daily Mail is anything other than a criminal waste of perfectly good trees.

But as was said above, every local paper in the area has been covering this and they're all saying the same thing. And while I expect newspapers to not be as accurate and dispassionate as academic journals, they can't run around saying "Person X shot three other people while three times over the legal blood alcohol limit", or "Person X was convicted that day of drink driving", or any of the other things mentioned above if they're not true - that's what libel law is for.


Y'know, we could go down the whole insult-each-other road, and frankly I don't think you'd fare well if we did, but I just don't see the point in it. You're flat-out wrong here, and why you're defending someone who broke not only the first rule of gun-handling but also a fairly common-sense rule of not mixing being drunk and handling a firearm; well, I don't know why you'd do that, but I suspect at this point you're just arguing because I disagreed with you, and when someone's thinking like that, there's just nothing you can do but ignore them.

Thats all he did Sparks was he pointed his gun in the direction of other people...Yes, we know its a big no no..was he drunk at the time, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GIVEN ....please show it to me and lets put this to bed

he was drunk later in the day, and was done for drink driving. I never condoned this.

Even a child knows the difference between "now" and "later"...ie they do not occur at the same time.
the two incidents are unrelated

You are choosing what you want to believe in this story because it suits your preconception of how every body should or should not behave.
Its great to be able to say "This would never happen to me because I would never do such things" God help us mere mortals

It is a series of bad decisions brought about by the ending of his marriage, The break up of a serious relationship has been recently equated to as traumatic an event as the death of a relation.


If you bother to read my original post I questioned the way the report was written, sensationalised and edited.
They tried to paint a picture of a Drunken man going on a rampage with a shot gun.
read the headline,

Where's your "caveat" now

Let me say again, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING OTHER THAT THE FACT THAT HE HAD BEEN DRINKING THE NIGHT BEFORE.

There is no insults intended in my quip about reading material
You look down on people who mix drinking with shooting...I look down on people who get their information from the daily mail

Apologies if you misinterpreted.

But now that brought the subject up, Is its ok for you to be condescending towards me in some of your posts

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

Thats all he did Sparks was he pointed his gun in the direction of other people...Yes, we know its a big no no..was he drunk at the time, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GIVEN ....please show it to me and lets put this to bed

The link is above to the local reporting of the police having arrested him later that day and him testing way above the legal limit, and in court he admitted to heavy drinking the night before and being drunk at the time. Not in the Daily Mail, in three seperate local papers. But frankly, I don't think you're interested.

You look down on people who mix drinking with shooting

Yes. I do. They're irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed have firearms.

Cass

I think this thread has tun it's course. Anyone feel differently is free to PM me to discuss it.