Thread: Police called out for Duck shooting

Originally Posted by Cigar

I think I would be responding to the letter (when it arrives) with one of my own, stating pretty much what you have said here.
Get your family member's response on record with the police as soon as practical before any issues occur (e.g. don't wait until license renewal time).

Thanks for your valued opinion, certainly where my thought process is at the moment.

https://www.shotgunsportsmagazine.co...statistics.pdf

Less than 400 yards.

It would be nice to see a false complaint charge laid if this is simply a malicious callout.

This was my first instinct to want to follow up on, but will the police even be interested in or take seriously a false complaint allegation.
And should that matter be raised with the local area police?

Originally Posted by PestNightshooter

This was my first instinct to want to follow up on, but will the police even be interested in or take seriously a false complaint allegation.
And should that matter be raised with the local area police?

I would

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

https://www.shotgunsportsmagazine.co...statistics.pdf

Less than 400 yards.

It would be nice to see a false complaint charge laid if this is simply a malicious callout.

Ooops my last reply was supposed to qoute this

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

https://www.shotgunsportsmagazine.co...statistics.pdf

Less than 400 yards.

It would be nice to see a false complaint charge laid if this is simply a malicious callout.

push for a false complaint and wasting police time

push reeeeeely hard as physics are on your side

better yet ask someone smart to do the math and check the wind conditions of the day ie wind speed and direction

draw and quater them for trying to weaponise the police and do not let them escape punisment

write a letter to the local paper

but first get your facts straight with MV and BC of said projectiles

Originally Posted by Bill999

push for a false complaint and wasting police time

push reeeeeely hard as physics are on your side

better yet ask someone smart to do the math and check the wind conditions of the day ie wind speed and direction

draw and quater them for trying to weaponise the police and do not let them escape punisment

write a letter to the local paper

but first get your facts straight with MV and BC of said projectiles

AND don't stop going to that shooting spot.

#4 steel shot would not exceed 300 metres, more likely about 250.

Originally Posted by gundoc

#4 steel shot would not exceed 300 metres, more likely about 250.

I agree, I was prepared to allow for tail wind to cover that scenario even though conditions were calm.
If 250mts is used then it is almost 3 times that to the house.

Section 48 Arms Act

Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
(a)
endanger property; or
(b)
endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

This is the legislation, the burden of proof is on the Police to prove that an offence has been committed.

In this case they need to prove the following.
- Without reasonable excuse
-An intent to endanger property, endanger, annoy or frighten any person. The intent is cover by the words "so as to"

The shooter had a reasonable excuse, proven by DOC permit and duck hunting licence.
If there was no intent to endanger, annoy or frighten anyone, there is no offence.

There is no such offence as discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction.

If they do send you a letter I would challenge it as if the circumstances are as you describe (not questioning you at all), then it is clear there is no offence. If you do receive a letter I would dispute it. To be honest it sounds like the Police in this case are not fully aware of the requirements of the legislation and you should have no problems.
Be interested to see how this goes.
All the best

Originally Posted by gmm

Section 48 Arms Act

Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
(a)
endanger property; or
(b)
endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

This is the legislation, the burden of proof is on the Police to prove that an offence has been committed.

In this case they need to prove the following.
- Without reasonable excuse
-An intent to endanger property, endanger, annoy or frighten any person. The intent is cover by the words "so as to"

The shooter had a reasonable excuse, proven by DOC permit and duck hunting licence.
If there was no intent to endanger, annoy or frighten anyone, there is no offence.

There is no such offence as discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction.

If they do send you a letter I would challenge it as if the circumstances are as you describe (not questioning you at all), then it is clear there is no offence. If you do receive a letter I would dispute it. To be honest it sounds like the Police in this case are not fully aware of the requirements of the legislation and you should have no problems.
Be interested to see how this goes.
All the best

Thanks for that.

Another thought, what would the pattern spread be at 736mts....How many pellets would even hit the roof from a shot even if they got there. One or maybe two.

Originally Posted by gmm

Section 48 Arms Act

Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
(a)
endanger property; or
(b)
endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

This is the legislation, the burden of proof is on the Police to prove that an offence has been committed.

In this case they need to prove the following.
- Without reasonable excuse
-An intent to endanger property, endanger, annoy or frighten any person. The intent is cover by the words "so as to"

The shooter had a reasonable excuse, proven by DOC permit and duck hunting licence.
If there was no intent to endanger, annoy or frighten anyone, there is no offence.

There is no such offence as discharging a firearm in an unsafe direction.

If they do send you a letter I would challenge it as if the circumstances are as you describe (not questioning you at all), then it is clear there is no offence. If you do receive a letter I would dispute it. To be honest it sounds like the Police in this case are not fully aware of the requirements of the legislation and you should have no problems.
Be interested to see how this goes.
All the best

That’s interesting, the council or DOC I think, about twice a year, about 11 pm let strip at the ponds about 3-400 metres from my place. There’s two or three barrage’s, I’m guessing they are shooting on the ground. I can lay in bed and judge the distance and direction. We get no notice this is going to happen. 111 next time and a complaint me thinks.
On Sunday, after opening day, there was one solitary shot from the same place about midnight,
Maybe a pissed off shooter getting a few on the water?

Is there any actual evidence, pellets in the guttering ? I would ask Police ( by email ) to go with you to the complainants property and look for the pellets.

I am no lawyer, but there are serious procedural issues here, if events occurred as reported.

I would not be asking the police to look for any evidence so long after the fact. Indeed, if shot of any description is found, it just opens up a whole can of worms.

I would be contacting a lawyer, and, based on the fact that evidence was not collected at the time of the complaint, and based on the fact that a shotgun cannot throw shot that distance, and since your mobile phone can be forensically examined to determine your precise location on the day, that there is grounds to believe that the complaint is spurious and any subsequent sanction by police is groundless.

Any investigator worth their salt would have looked for evidence of shot in the gutter at the time of the complaint. Since the police inspected your weapons, they should have made a note of the exact type of ammunition you possessed at the time. That would be able to link you to any shot found in the gutter, if the shot matched the ammunition. It may be impossible to determine the weapon that discharged the shot, but the size of any shot found in the gutter, as well as metallic composition, degree of rust, etc. could have conclusively proved whether you could have been the origin of the shot or not.

Without a record of the ammunition in your possession at the time they spoke to you and inspected your firearms, it would be very difficult to sustain your guilt even if shot was found in the gutter.

The police could, however, simply point to the fact that the person was simply annoyed - the legal test for this is so wide open it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, and the fact that they made a call to police probably means that they were. However, that is not why they called on you, and they never mentioned the person being annoyed - only that the complainant alleged that shot had struck their roof.

Irrespective of the above, I would be very careful of shooting at that site again. If I were to do so, I would make sure that every member of the party had a GoPro recording everything that was said and done, every shot taken, and every word spoken to or by police, if that eventuated. Just like a dash cam, the footage could save your bacon, and serve as grounds for dismissal of the complaint against you.