Author Topic: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:  (Read 1513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2020, 01:19:PM »
Do you not believe a fully fit Nevill would instantly reclaim the rifle if in either of these two situations -

Sheila had the rifle & looked to be a threat to his family, herself & him.

Sheila had the rifle but was not being threatening with it.


He had no other options & no obstacles.

By way of analogy and to help understand, let's imagine a young child has a rifle and is pointing it at a grown man.  As it happens, this grown man has military training.  Let's say he was in the Regular SAS and is a crack shot with a rifle, parachutes for fun and would kill you as good as look at you.

Now, is it a simple matter for this hardened SAS man to 'instantly reclaim' the rifle from the child?

Let's complexify the situation and say:

The child is having a violent tantrum.
The former SAS man is 61 and is tired after a day of manual work.
It's the early hours of the morning.
The child has her finger on the trigger.
The rifle is loaded.

What does our SAS hero do? 

I do accept that it is possible he does, as you say, instantly just take the rifle from the child.  But equally, you could argue that it's not that simple because if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot.

Remember also that a child is small and nimble and can run around, maybe quite quickly, and therefore avoid being caught or make herself difficult to catch.

Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.

You guilters try to over-simplify the situation - which is not an encouraging sign.  Don't misunderstand me: I am all for the simple approach, but if we're going to keep it simple, we could say, well, Sheila was found with the rifle and all the entry points to the house were secured from the inside. She was mentally-ill with a history of violence.  Etc., etc., etc.  Two can play at that game.

In my posts above, especially the first one, I've given you the alternative possibilities based on a presumption of innocence.  These should be weighed in and considered and we need to ask: Are these reasonable possibilities?  If they are, then potentially (subject to other considerations) the verdict could be Not Guilty.  Personally I think these other possibilities are reasonable, which means there is doubt, which means we don't know and we have no right to keep somebody in prison on that basis, just because we think it more likely he did it.  That's not good enough.  Sorry.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2020, 02:03:PM »
By way of analogy and to help understand, let's imagine a young child has a rifle and is pointing it at a grown man.  As it happens, this grown man has military training.  Let's say he was in the Regular SAS and is a crack shot with a rifle, parachutes for fun and would kill you as good as look at you.

Now, is it a simple matter for this hardened SAS man to 'instantly reclaim' the rifle from the child?

Let's complexify the situation and say:

The child is having a violent tantrum.
The former SAS man is 61 and is tired after a day of manual work.
It's the early hours of the morning.
The child has her finger on the trigger.
The rifle is loaded.

What does our SAS hero do? 

I do accept that it is possible he does, as you say, instantly just take the rifle from the child.  But equally, you could argue that it's not that simple because if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot.

Remember also that a child is small and nimble and can run around, maybe quite quickly, and therefore avoid being caught or make herself difficult to catch.

Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.

You guilters try to over-simplify the situation - which is not an encouraging sign.  Don't misunderstand me: I am all for the simple approach, but if we're going to keep it simple, we could say, well, Sheila was found with the rifle and all the entry points to the house were secured from the inside. She was mentally-ill with a history of violence.  Etc., etc., etc.  Two can play at that game.

In my posts above, especially the first one, I've given you the alternative possibilities based on a presumption of innocence.  These should be weighed in and considered and we need to ask: Are these reasonable possibilities?  If they are, then potentially (subject to other considerations) the verdict could be Not Guilty.  Personally I think these other possibilities are reasonable, which means there is doubt, which means we don't know and we have no right to keep somebody in prison on that basis, just because we think it more likely he did it.  That's not good enough.  Sorry.

'if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot'.

It was a rifle for shooting rabbits. So not sufficient to deter Nevill when his family is in danger. Besides which he may have no choice.

---------

'You guilters try to over-simplify the situation'.

It is a straight forward case.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2020, 02:07:PM »
'if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot'.

It was a rifle for shooting rabbits. So not sufficient to deter Nevill when his family is in danger. Besides which he may have no choice.

---------

'You guilters try to over-simplify the situation'.

It is a straight forward case.

Thanks Adam.

I wonder why the raid group officers needed guns?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2020, 02:15:PM »
Thanks Adam.

I wonder why the raid group officers needed guns?

There were lots of weapons inside WHF.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2020, 02:17:PM »
By way of analogy and to help understand, let's imagine a young child has a rifle and is pointing it at a grown man.  As it happens, this grown man has military training.  Let's say he was in the Regular SAS and is a crack shot with a rifle, parachutes for fun and would kill you as good as look at you.

Now, is it a simple matter for this hardened SAS man to 'instantly reclaim' the rifle from the child?

Let's complexify the situation and say:

The child is having a violent tantrum.
The former SAS man is 61 and is tired after a day of manual work.
It's the early hours of the morning.
The child has her finger on the trigger.
The rifle is loaded.

What does our SAS hero do? 

I do accept that it is possible he does, as you say, instantly just take the rifle from the child.  But equally, you could argue that it's not that simple because if he moves towards the child, there is a chance that the rifle could go off and he gets shot.

Remember also that a child is small and nimble and can run around, maybe quite quickly, and therefore avoid being caught or make herself difficult to catch.

Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.

You guilters try to over-simplify the situation - which is not an encouraging sign.  Don't misunderstand me: I am all for the simple approach, but if we're going to keep it simple, we could say, well, Sheila was found with the rifle and all the entry points to the house were secured from the inside. She was mentally-ill with a history of violence.  Etc., etc., etc.  Two can play at that game.

In my posts above, especially the first one, I've given you the alternative possibilities based on a presumption of innocence.  These should be weighed in and considered and we need to ask: Are these reasonable possibilities?  If they are, then potentially (subject to other considerations) the verdict could be Not Guilty.  Personally I think these other possibilities are reasonable, which means there is doubt, which means we don't know and we have no right to keep somebody in prison on that basis, just because we think it more likely he did it.  That's not good enough.  Sorry.

'Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.'

----------

So that's why he rang Jeremy.

Thanks QC.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2020, 02:18:PM »
There were lots of weapons inside WHF.

I know, but I just find it interesting that they would think to take that precaution when they could just 'instantly reclaim' the gun off her - or so you say.

Surely the point is that anybody with a gun is dangerous and Nevill, with his military training, would know this and might be cautious? 

I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, Adam, it's more - at least for me - a case of admitting that there is a reasonable alternative possibility, which is that Nevill was wary of her because she was armed, so he tried to talk her down and maybe used the call to Jeremy as a psychological ploy, etc., etc.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2020, 02:20:PM »
'Of course, the SAS man knows all about weapons and let's say this is a small calibre rifle, so he may weigh up the risk and decide he should rush her.  But a small calibre does not mean that the rifle is harmless.  It could inflict death or serious injury, if fired.  It could hit him in a vital area: a shot to the head, chest, groin or thigh could potentially kill him, or if not that, could do immense damage.  A shot to the eye could blind him.  That will be on the SAS man's mind too.'

----------

So that's why he rang Jeremy.

Thanks QC.

Not sure I follow you, Adam.  The point is that if he knows the rifle is dangerous, he may have tried to talk her down rather than rush her.  As I've explained, there are various reasons he may have rung Jeremy. 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 37668
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #52 on: August 28, 2020, 02:29:PM »
Not sure I follow you, Adam.  The point is that if he knows the rifle is dangerous, he may have tried to talk her down rather than rush her.  As I've explained, there are various reasons he may have rung Jeremy.

Agree a passive Sheila holding the rifle, there was no urgency to reclaim the rifle. Nevill may have talked a bit before reclaiming the rifle.

An aggressive Sheila with the rifle, Nevill only had one option.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: Why Nevill would instantly negate Sheila while fully fit:
« Reply #53 on: August 28, 2020, 02:37:PM »
Agree a passive Sheila holding the rifle, there was no urgency to reclaim the rifle. Nevill may have talked a bit before reclaiming the rifle.

An aggressive Sheila with the rifle, Nevill only had one option.

To be honest, I think there would have been great urgency in either situation, it's just that I don't exclude the possibility that Nevill made a misjudgement.  You are quite right, Adam, that the right course of action for Nevill was to rush her, maybe with the help of a chair or some such, but we are saying that with the benefit of hindsight.  Nevill may have decided differently.

Since neither of us were there, we have to ask ourselves this question: Is it reasonable to suppose that Nevill tried to talk her down, maybe used a call to Jeremy as a psychological ploy, and she then rushed upstairs and the shooting started? 

If something along those lines can be considered reasonable, then - potentially - the verdict can be Not Guilty.