I'm very proud of my son

[Garry Edwards]

Part 2. Part 1 was posted some months ago but was deleted because it was still going on.

Anyway, back in August my 21 year old son and his mum went to a piece of land that he owns, and found 2 thieves there, loading their van with his property. As always, my son had a shotgun, complete with a sling, over his shoulder for use on vermin. One of the thieves promptly ran off, he was later arrested but the police took no action.

The other thief got into his van and seemed to be leaving, reversing out along our 140m long track.

He went some distance then appeared to have changed his mind and drove straight at the pair of them. My son jumped clear, His mum wasn’t quick enough and went down. She thinks that the van just caught her but isn’t sure. It must have done, as she found bruises and a graze when she was eventually able to go home.

My son rushed over to her, they had pretty well forgotten about the van by now, it had reversed away from them again. They then heard the noise of its engine roaring, and saw that it was bearing down on them again, at speed. She shouted out “He’s going to kill us, shoot his tyres” She was talking to the police on her mobile whilst all this was going on. According to the police, the phone call to them was lost soon after this point. She was so traumatised by the attack that she didn’t even hear any of the shots that our son subsequently fired, even though, at her close proximity, the noise must have been deafening.

Shooting tyres with a shotgun loaded with lightweight cartridges would have achieved nothing and would have been dangerous, so instead, my son quickly loaded his shotgun and fired a warning shot at the empty passenger side of the windscreen. The van kept coming, so he fired a second shot at the centre of the windscreen. This shot punched a hole in the windscreen and the pellets ended up in the headrest of the middle seat, a safe distance from the driver. The driver then stopped his attack and started reversing away again.

Then there was another attack, he again fired, taking out the passenger mirror assembly and passenger window. Another shot went through the passenger door and ended up on the inside of the windscreen. A 3rd shot was needed, this damaged the van further back, and the attack stopped.

After that there was yet another attack, this time both of them were able to get to a safe place so no shots were fired. The thief then rammed the farm gate and made his escape, with bits of van falling off as he drove along the bridleway at speed.

My son and his mum got into his car and a high speed chase followed, with a running commentary to the police throughout. The police eventually stopped the van, with some difficulty, after about 6 miles, and arrested the driver. He was later charged with a minor offence.

My son and his mother were also arrested on suspicion of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, and were detained for 24 hours before being released on police bail. During the night my son was further arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

Today, it was finally announced that the police are taking no further action against either my son or his mother. They seem to have finally accepted that he used an appropriate and proportionate level of force in self defence. It isn’t over yet as they are currently still refusing to return his guns etc., which they seized at the time.

As per the title, I am immensely proud of my son, he did what he absolutely had to do to save his mother’s life, I feel that most people would have just shot the attacker dead, as the law entitled him to do in that situation but he used the minimum possible level of force, his shooting skills and presence of mind to destroy the van, not the attacker.

I don’t want to turn this into a police-bashing thread, but there have been major problems with the police and their attitude towards the victims of this crime. So much so that their local MP has tried to take this matter up with the police and the Police & Crime Commissioner is now involved too.

 

[MWHCVT]

I'm glad that the charges have all been dropped Garry, it should never have got to the charge level in the first place, I hope that your son get's his firearms back without delay

Matt

 

[cjevans]

Sounds like he did all he could, horrible situation, glad his name is clear. All the best!

 

[Doog]

Part 2. Part 1 was posted some months ago but was deleted because it was still going on.

Anyway, back in August my 21 year old son and his mum went to a piece of land that he owns, and found 2 thieves there, loading their van with his property. As always, my son had a shotgun, complete with a sling, over his shoulder for use on vermin. One of the thieves promptly ran off, he was later arrested but the police took no action.

The other thief got into his van and seemed to be leaving, reversing out along our 140m long track.

He went some distance then appeared to have changed his mind and drove straight at the pair of them. My son jumped clear, His mum wasn’t quick enough and went down. She thinks that the van just caught her but isn’t sure. It must have done, as she found bruises and a graze when she was eventually able to go home.

My son rushed over to her, they had pretty well forgotten about the van by now, it had reversed away from them again. They then heard the noise of its engine roaring, and saw that it was bearing down on them again, at speed. She shouted out “He’s going to kill us, shoot his tyres” She was talking to the police on her mobile whilst all this was going on. According to the police, the phone call to them was lost soon after this point. She was so traumatised by the attack that she didn’t even hear any of the shots that our son subsequently fired, even though, at her close proximity, the noise must have been deafening.

Shooting tyres with a shotgun loaded with lightweight cartridges would have achieved nothing and would have been dangerous, so instead, my son quickly loaded his shotgun and fired a warning shot at the empty passenger side of the windscreen. The van kept coming, so he fired a second shot at the centre of the windscreen. This shot punched a hole in the windscreen and the pellets ended up in the headrest of the middle seat, a safe distance from the driver. The driver then stopped his attack and started reversing away again.

Then there was another attack, he again fired, taking out the passenger mirror assembly and passenger window. Another shot went through the passenger door and ended up on the inside of the windscreen. A 3rd shot was needed, this damaged the van further back, and the attack stopped.

After that there was yet another attack, this time both of them were able to get to a safe place so no shots were fired. The thief then rammed the farm gate and made his escape, with bits of van falling off as he drove along the bridleway at speed.

My son and his mum got into his car and a high speed chase followed, with a running commentary to the police throughout. The police eventually stopped the van, with some difficulty, after about 6 miles, and arrested the driver. He was later charged with a minor offence.

My son and his mother were also arrested on suspicion of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, and were detained for 24 hours before being released on police bail. During the night my son was further arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

Today, it was finally announced that the police are taking no further action against either my son or his mother. They seem to have finally accepted that he used an appropriate and proportionate level of force in self defence. It isn’t over yet as they are currently still refusing to return his guns etc., which they seized at the time.

As per the title, I am immensely proud of my son, he did what he absolutely had to do to save his mother’s life, I feel that most people would have just shot the attacker dead, as the law entitled him to do in that situation but he used the minimum possible level of force, his shooting skills and presence of mind to destroy the van, not the attacker.

I don’t want to turn this into a police-bashing thread, but there have been major problems with the police and their attitude towards the victims of this crime. So much so that their local MP has tried to take this matter up with the police and the Police & Crime Commissioner is now involved too.

Garry, the overriding factor here is that your son and wife are OK. Thankfully.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Sounds like he did all he could, horrible situation, glad his name is clear. All the best!

Except of course that if he ever needs to have an advanced CRB done, it will come back with the info that he was arrested for attempted murder with a firearm...

As it happens he's a farmer, and highly unlikely to ever need an advanced CRB. But other people in the same situation could be badly affected, even though completely innocent.

 

[DTS]

If you ask me your son showed increadible restraint and a head for stressful situations. Others would have shot at the driver in panic. Seems he should have been held a hero not detained!

 

[Ruffy]

Very happy that all charges have been dropped however are you sure it was not just a case of being a crap shot lol

Joking aside, fair play to him

 

[Just Dave]

Pleased the charges were dropped Gary and they are both OK, I read the original thread and looked for it once or twice no wonder I couldnt find it

 

[Garry Edwards]

Pleased the charges were dropped Gary and they are both OK, I read the original thread and looked for it once or twice no wonder I couldnt find it

Yes, well, it was deleted because a mod thought it best to do so and he was probably right. At the time, as far as I was concerned, the more publicity the better.

I owe thanks to the much maligned Daily Mail for publishing this article (which was very wrong in details but which got ITV, BBC and others involved) and to his constituency MP, who has been brilliant, and to a lot of people in the shooting community and the police.

 

[kevshore]

Glad this is coming to an end for you all Garry. He showed mature restraint as fas as I can see. It would have been so easy to end the attack with one or two shots.
Hopefully he will get his guns back. After all, he didn't choose to use them in this way. It was a survival instinct. Credit to him.
Have a good Christmas.

Kev.

 

[Bend The Light]

Remarkable restraint in what must have been a nightmare situation. Obviously, gun stuff is in the forefront of the media aand people's minds right now, and despite my views on gun ownership, it is good to know that not everyone out there with a gun is a madman or otherwise "unsuited" to have the responsibility to have a weapon.

In that situation, I would probably not exercised the same restraint - which is why I don't have anything to do with guns.

I hope all the details are ironed out for him, and that they (and you) can all get it out of your minds.

 

[arclight]

Good outcome, Garry, and your son did the right thing in minimising the force used.
I fail to see why the police cannot estabish the facts and reach the conclusion they finally did without going through the arrest and locking people in cells process.

 

[Iris]

How frightening for them both. I'm disgusted the driver wasn't charged with attempted murder.

You should be proud of him, I would be too

 

[cambsno]

Except of course that if he ever needs to have an advanced CRB done, it will come back with the info that he was arrested for attempted murder with a firearm...

As it happens he's a farmer, and highly unlikely to ever need an advanced CRB. But other people in the same situation could be badly affected, even though completely innocent.

Really? Surely if u are arrested over something but are innocent, why should that show on a crb? How fair is that? Well done, and what a great son you have Garry, you should be very proud.

 

[BruceMo]

Wow, what a story. sounds like a horrible situation for them both
Glad everyones ok mate

 

[Willid1]

How frightening for them both. I'm disgusted the driver wasn't charged with attempted murder.

Why did the Police not do this??

David

 

[TCR4x4]

Why did the Police not do this??

David

Because it would probably be too hard for them to prove. It would involve them actually doing some real police work and take up far too much of their time. After all, its only the son and mothers word against the thief that this actually happened. I'm sure the thief didn't mean to try and run her down, he was probably scared and panicked that he got caught. Maybe we should send him to the Caribbean to relax and get over his ordeal.

A load of shotgun pellets lodged into a van and a man with a legally registered firearm is easy...

Lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[cambsno]

Why did the Police not do this??

David

Simple. The police are too scared to prosecute caravan owning, tax dodging criminals. Is is very un pc, and instead it's better for taxpayers to fund sites.

 

[andrewc]

Wow, that's some story.

 

[wibbly]

An incredible story, and you should be very proud of your son for his restraint and for protecting his Mother in such a way.

 

[Iris]

Why did the Police not do this??

David

Exactly, why did the police not do this??? Maybe it's the perception that the man holding the gun was capable of causing more ha than the man driving straight for them in a van??? Maybe not. Maybe that's why G's son is receiving widespread support.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I can't comment on anything that the police did or didn't do, I don't understand it myself.

My thoughts, based on what both Bill and Louisa told me soon after they were eventually released, is that the investigating officer simply didn't believe that they had been attacked, and formed her own conclusions.

Forensic evidence, including tyre skid marks, and their own recording of the 999 call proved that it happened just as described but maybe by that time they had made up their mind.

The police eventually produced a draft statement for my son to sign. He refused to sign it for various reasons, including the fact that they got all the principle facts wrong, but even more importantly they left out all reference to the attacks. My son produced his own statement which they were eventually forced to accept, but they ignored everything in it other than the references to the theft. They didn't want a statement from his mother.

Maybe they only charged him with theft because they thought that there wasn't enough evidence for the obvious charge of aggravated burglary, despite the forensics. I don't know.

Maybe it was because it was easier, with far less paperwork, as several police friends have suggested. Again, I don't know.

Maybe it was because they knew that he would plead guilty to simple theft, as he was arrested with his van full of our stuff, and because apparently he always does plead guilty.

Or maybe they thought that they couldn't charge my son with attempted murder if they also charged the thief with assault.

As there has been absolutely nil communication from either the police or the CPS, none of us know what was in their minds.

But the police understanding of shotguns and what they are capable of is underwhelming to say the least. Maybe they really did feel that Bill was holding the aces, it seems that way from their questions.

 

[joebh123]

Well done to him for taking 'the moral high ground', rarely see it these days.

As for the police well, as usual, idiots.

 

[Cobra]

Just spotted this Garry.
I'm glad that it ended well for your son and his mum.
It must have been a worrying time for them both.

Let alone the actual circumstances, which led them being taken into custody !
The mind boggles at times it really does

 

[Byker28i]

Don't take this the wrong way, but a shotgun through the windscreen, he was lucky with the spread that the driver wasn't hit. That's probably the reason for the police action or perhaps the number of rounds and reloads.. Tyres, radiator etc he'd probably have got away with. Personally after the first attempt I'd have shot at the driver.

But it goes down as a firearm offence so they have to investigate thoroughly. Just a shame it took so long to resolve.
What happened to the offenders?

 

[Mikesphotaes]

Don't take this the wrong way, but a shotgun through the windscreen, he was lucky with the spread that the driver wasn't hit. That's probably the reason for the police action or perhaps the number of rounds and reloads.. Tyres, radiator etc he'd probably have got away with. Personally after the first attempt I'd have shot at the driver.

But it goes down as a firearm offence so they have to investigate thoroughly. Just a shame it took so long to resolve.
What happened to the offenders?

My thoughts as well, but very glad it ended correctly for you and your son.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Don't take this the wrong way, but a shotgun through the windscreen, he was lucky with the spread that the driver wasn't hit.

That's a misconception that the interviewing officer had too, after taking advice from their own firearms people...
The first shot was apparently from about 8m - what do you think the spread was at that distance, assuming a normal choke of about 1/2? Probably no more than 4 inches max.

Second shot was, according to police forensics, at 2m. At that distance there would be no spread whatever.

Tyres, radiator etc he'd probably have got away with. Personally after the first attempt I'd have shot at the driver.

The police asked about shooting at the tyres too. That would have been extremely dangerous, the pellets wouldn't have penetrated, they would have just bounced back. Don't believe what you see in films... And even if he had used a rifle to shoot out the tyres, it would have done nothing to save his mother until the van had travelled such a long distance that the tyres had come off the rims, so completely pointless.

Same goes for shooting the radiator, it would have achieved nothing until the engine had finally overheated and seized up.

It's easy to understand when the public doesn't understand what a shotgun can or can't do. More difficult though when it's the police.

 

[Iris]

That's a misconception that the interviewing officer had too, after taking advice from their own firearms people...
The first shot was apparently from about 8m - what do you think the spread was at that distance, assuming a normal choke of about 1/2? Probably no more than 4 inches max.

Second shot was, according to police forensics, at 2m. At that distance there would be no spread whatever.
....

but there wasn't enough evidence to support your sons claim that the van was heading towards them

 

[Garry Edwards]

but there wasn't enough evidence to support your sons claim that the van was heading towards them

I really don't know what's behind the police decisions, as I said, there has been zero communication from either the police or from the CPS, victim support seems to have been on holiday for the last few months...

Such info that we do have has all come from the press, who seem to have contacts.

 

[Willid1]

Simple. The police are too scared to prosecute caravan owning, tax dodging criminals. Is is very un pc, and instead it's better for taxpayers to fund sites.

Ah I see, that's rather sad, but predictable .

David

 

[medwaygreen]

I am very glad that the outcome is as it should be, this highlights a further reason why all owners of shotguns should be members of The BASC, their legal team would have been invaluable in this situation and his shotguns would be returned already.

 

[Buttkicker]

Garry very sorry to hear this all too familiar story of the victim ending up with all the problems and the scum bag crooks get away with it

I am a big fan of a chap called Norman Brennan who is a former police officer and Now helps victims of crime
he has been on TV and Radio for many years now and I wish that man would run as a politician as I would be at the head of the queue voting for him

Our whole system seems to revolve around the criminals rights - which in my opinion they lose when entering other peoples property to steal and maim

glad it all came through in the end to a pretty shocking set of decisions

all the best Chris

 

[Steep]

I think I would be writing to the Chief Constable asking for an explanation/clarification of the investigation. Seeing a solicitor also to find out if there is any way to force an explanation if one is not forthcoming.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think I would be writing to the Chief Constable asking for an explanation/clarification of the investigation. Seeing a solicitor also to find out if there is any way to force an explanation if one is not forthcoming.

My son wrote to the temporary Chief Constable, he didn't reply but instead passed it to their internal platitudes department, appropriately named (believe it or not) "Response and Reassurance Directorate"

His MP wrote to the Temporary Chief constable too, he pointed out that he had no wish to interfere but pointed out some of the things that had gone very wrong and asking him whether he felt that he should take a personal interest and satisfy himself that the victims of this crime were being treated properly. The reply? b****r off, in slightly more polite language.

It has now been handed to the newly elected Police & Crime Commissioner.

We sacked the 'duty solicitor' immediately, we didn't have much confidence in him, partly because the advice he gave was to answer no questions whatever, and partly because he isn't even qualified, and replaced him with a private criminal solicitor, who was expensive. There's a limit to what we can pay him to do.

I am very glad that the outcome is as it should be, this highlights a further reason why all owners of shotguns should be members of The BASC, their legal team would have been invaluable in this situation and his shotguns would be returned already.

It really doesn't work that way. BASC are advisers to the shooting community, the police, HMG etc and they are the number 1 experts on the complex shooting laws - but all that they can do is to advise, they don't have any powers.

Both of us are members, they have been involved since the start and they said on Friday that they don't think that there will be any problems in getting the guns etc returned - but there is a senior investigating officer involved who is clearly anti gun (and anti public from the look of it) so it may prove difficult.

If necessary, I will fund an appeal to the Crown Court. Meanwhile, my son has lost a lot of money because he has been unable to carry out any vermin control since August - livestock are paying the price for this and it will get much worse at lambing time.

 

[medwaygreen]

"It really doesn't work that way. BASC are advisers to the shooting community, the police, HMG etc and they are the number 1 experts on the complex shooting laws - but all that they can do is to advise, they don't have any powers".

No, but they do have solicitors. who could have helped as you are members, that is one of the major benefits of BASC membership. Anyway have a great Christmas and a happy new year.

 

[Byker28i]

That's a misconception that the interviewing officer had too, after taking advice from their own firearms people...
The first shot was apparently from about 8m - what do you think the spread was at that distance, assuming a normal choke of about 1/2? Probably no more than 4 inches max.

Second shot was, according to police forensics, at 2m. At that distance there would be no spread whatever.

The police asked about shooting at the tyres too. That would have been extremely dangerous, the pellets wouldn't have penetrated, they would have just bounced back. Don't believe what you see in films... And even if he had used a rifle to shoot out the tyres, it would have done nothing to save his mother until the van had travelled such a long distance that the tyres had come off the rims, so completely pointless.

Same goes for shooting the radiator, it would have achieved nothing until the engine had finally overheated and seized up.

It's easy to understand when the public doesn't understand what a shotgun can or can't do. More difficult though when it's the police.

Oh trust me I know what a shotgun can do

Standard thought for 1/2 choke is approx 1 inch per yard so actually at 8m it would be about 8-9" spread, although the majority of the pattern would still be central, never mind about any possible deflection properties on hitting the windscreen.

This does of course assume he was shooting something like no 7 shot. No 9 would spread further and have less penetration. Standard kill range for a shotgun is 25-40m, so 8m & 2m is certainly close enough to do damage to a car (and yes I've also seen this done, albeit with a static car). The rounds through a radiator would be a disabling yet warning shot as an initial round. As I said if the car kept coming I would have aimed at the driver in self defence.

Initially the interviewing officer probably doesnt know about shotguns, apart from the training (quite rightly) of guns are bad. Your son probably wasn't prosecuted after advice from the firearms officers.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Oh trust me I know what a shotgun can do

Standard thought for 1/2 choke is approx 1 inch per yard so actually at 8m it would be about 8-9" spread, although the majority of the pattern would still be central, never mind about any possible deflection properties on hitting the windscreen.

This does of course assume he was shooting something like no 7 shot. No 9 would spread further and have less penetration. Standard kill range for a shotgun is 25-40m, so 8m & 2m is certainly close enough to do damage to a car (and yes I've also seen this done, albeit with a static car). The rounds through a radiator would be a disabling yet warning shot as an initial round. As I said if the car kept coming I would have aimed at the driver in self defence.

Initially the interviewing officer probably doesnt know about shotguns, apart from the training (quite rightly) of guns are bad. Your son probably wasn't prosecuted after advice from the firearms officers.

He had No.5/32's with him, a lightweight general purpose vermin round but of course much more powerful than the clay rounds you mentioned. They were plaswads, so take further to start their spread than you say. Tests indicate a distance of about 4m before they even start to spread.

The interviews made it clear that the investigating officers have no understanding or shotguns whatever, although that resulted in some pretty silly questions I don't think that mattered, what the police needed to know was what his attitude and intentions were. It's a pity though that their own attitude was poor the first time the victims were interviewed, it could and should have been dropped months earlier.

I'm not sure that the police firearms people had any expertise to offer on the subject of shotguns, not their area of expertise.

The decision, as always, was taken by the CPS. They dropped it as soon as they got the file.

Guns aren't bad, except when they are used for bad purposes.

 

[Wail]

I just saw this thread, and what a horrific story.

Glad your son and his mum are both alright after such an ordeal, although I hasten to think there would be post traumatic stress?

You're right to be very proud of your son

 

[duggiebee]

It appears that I am a lone voice here. It appears to me that with regards to your son and the discharging of the firearm, the correct course of action seems to have been taken throughout. As your son discharged a firearm 'capable' of killing (as are most firearms incl. air weapons) in the general direction of an individual, then it seems reasonable for him to be arrested and interviewed, bearing in mind the possible consequences. A file of evidence was submitted to the CPS who then decided no further action should be taken. This is standard practice with regards to this type of matter. The fact that the CPS decided no further action should be taken was as a direct result of the evidence submitted by the officer in the case. I fail to see the issue?

 

[Garry Edwards]

It appears that I am a lone voice here. It appears to me that with regards to your son and the discharging of the firearm, the correct course of action seems to have been taken throughout. As your son discharged a firearm 'capable' of killing (as are most firearms incl. air weapons) in the general direction of an individual, then it seems reasonable for him to be arrested and interviewed, bearing in mind the possible consequences. A file of evidence was submitted to the CPS who then decided no further action should be taken. This is standard practice with regards to this type of matter. The fact that the CPS decided no further action should be taken was as a direct result of the evidence submitted by the officer in the case. I fail to see the issue?

And you're entitled to your opinion.

The problem isn't so much what the police did (although personally I can't see why they can't 'invite' people to attend the police station in this type of situation, rather than arrest them and have the arrest on record for all time) as the way that two people who had been through a horrific experience were then treated by the police, as criminals rather than victims.

And the length of time that the police took to carry out their enquiries - 4 months - and the fact that apart from bungling their own crime scene investigation by allowing a nosy neighbour to contaminate it, all that they appear to have actually done is to await their own forensic report - no local enquiries whatever.

Add in the lies told by a senior investigating officer, the total lack of support, an attempt to get my son to sign a false statement, unreasonable and very restrictive bail conditions that made it extremely difficult for my son to carry out his work as a farmer, seizing his car for examination when it wasn't even involved in the initial incident and then adding insult to injury by charging him £150 to get it back and returning it in a disgraceful state (and then lying about it) etc etc.

Of course the police need to investigate these things, that's their job. But they are supposed to be on the side of law and order and to treat people as innocent until proved guilty.

Edit: Yes Wail, they have both been affected by their experience. Louisa was clearly traumatised at the time that the police finally released her, she was in fact still shaking. She was so traumatised at the time that she didn't even here the shots.

Bill is very, very calm. He takes everything in his stride, but as the weeks have passed by the effects of his experience are becoming more and more apparent.