Man jailed for ramming bicycle thief with 4x4
Discussion
Runes said:
Pesty said:
Revenge no. Stopping sombody committing a crime have at it. Why would you conflate the two?
If everybody rammed those moped thieves whenever they saw them during the crime and the mayor paid their repair bill and gave them a good citizen medal I wonder it would have ended by now.
Unreasonable? Committing crime is unreasonable. So how do I as old and knackered stop somebody who might be tooled up?
Suppose I should just wade in and get stabbed.
If he feared that the thief might have been "tooled up" and that what he was doing was reasonable, why didn't he put that to the jury, and if he did, why did they reject it? If everybody rammed those moped thieves whenever they saw them during the crime and the mayor paid their repair bill and gave them a good citizen medal I wonder it would have ended by now.
Unreasonable? Committing crime is unreasonable. So how do I as old and knackered stop somebody who might be tooled up?
Suppose I should just wade in and get stabbed.
Pesty said:
Revenge no. Stopping sombody committing a crime have at it. Why would you conflate the two?
Because that's what would be required to be allowed in law to allow this chap's actions to be legal. Pesty said:
If everybody rammed those moped thieves whenever they saw them during the crime and the mayor paid their repair bill and gave them a good citizen medal I wonder it would have ended by now.
Perhaps in different circumstances it'd lawful. Using force is circumstantial with so many variables. It's all good and well until someone makes an inevitable serious mistake e.g. chases one moped, loses it, believes another is the original moped and rams someone innocent.
Pesty said:
Unreasonable? Committing crime is unreasonable. So how do I as old and knackered stop somebody who might be tooled up? Suppose I should just wade in and get stabbed.
You use reasonable force. 4x4Tyke said:
Where is the evidence this was revenge, nowhere, it doesn't exist.
Because he used disproportionate force after a threat had gone. He continued to punch someone else involved. The prosecution presented it as such and he was convicted. As I wrote, in order for his actions to be clearly lawful it'd require the law to allow revenge.
4x4Tyke said:
It is a massive injustice, the jury are a bunch of scum taking the side of the thief.
You don't understanding the implications of a system which would allow him to do what he did. 4x4Tyke said:
When coppers do it, they are heroes; when the public do it they are treated as crooks, this is just part of the increasing levels of control being imposed by the authorities.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-mom...
When authorities make ordinary citizens into criminals, it is the system that is broken.
Clearly different circumstances, risks, probability of injury etc. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-mom...
When authorities make ordinary citizens into criminals, it is the system that is broken.
If you think they're comparable then that's a demonstration of your limited understanding.
La Liga said:
learly different circumstances, risks, probability of injury etc.
If you think they're comparable then that's a demonstration of your limited understanding.
Nonsense. If you think they're comparable then that's a demonstration of your limited understanding.
My sympathy is with the victim, not the thief because I've been in that situation, a violent confrontation with a burglar, have you? I doubt it, otherwise you would understand.
4x4Tyke said:
La Liga said:
Clearly different circumstances, risks, probability of injury etc.
If you think they're comparable then that's a demonstration of your limited understanding.
Nonsense. If you think they're comparable then that's a demonstration of your limited understanding.
My sympathy is with the victim, not the thief because I've been in that situation, a violent confrontation with a burglar, have you? I doubt it, otherwise you would understand.
The topic is about someone who drove his vehicle into someone 'at speed' with enough force to cause serious injuries.
The policing example you linked someone being struck by a door of a vehicle at low speed.
I'm all for victims and the general public fighting against crime and using force where necessary, but I'm for them doing it within the law. I dealt with lots of violent criminals for over a decade, and that doesn't change my view.
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
bigandclever said:
Coolbanana said:
I will and have killed to protect my Family in extreme circumstances.
Don't stop there ...Coolbanana in December said:
I hope that you are never in a situation where such a choice is forced upon you; I've been in 3 such situations. I killed the second time since I could see no other option. It didn't make me feel the same as if I had killed a rat. He was a human being - an intoxicated one, a drugged one, who otherwise I do not believe would have been that violent. The other two I was able to escape from without injury to either myself or my assailants - a result everyone should strive for.
La Liga said:
it's not nonsense, it's a false comparison.
It is nonsense to accuse me of not understanding this when I've been in that situation and you haven't. I'd say it is you that doesn't understand unless you've been there, had your home invaded and fought with a burglar and felt seriously in danger.
La Liga said:
I'm all for victims and the general public fighting against crime and using force where necessary, but I'm for them doing it within the law
One's options are seemingly rather limited in that case.The law always refers to "reasonable force".... which seems to conflict with the way things happen, because when one is under attack or in a situation of having criminal activity aimed at you in a fast changing situation, how is one suppose to balance up what is reasonable force?
By the time you've thought it through, the crime has either happened or you are sitting in a pool of your own blood.
And I'm guessing its not your own version of reasonable force you have to balance up....its what a judge or a panel of 12 peers may think is reasonable in a calm, controlled court situation after listening to your story told by a lawyer.
I don't know if it already happens, but the balance of 'reasonable force' should be very much on the victim's side rather than a middle ground between victim and criminal.
Atomic12C said:
I don't know if it already happens, but the balance of 'reasonable force' should be very much on the victim's side rather than a middle ground between victim and criminal.
Which it is. Totally and unequivocably. If you are in genuine fear for your physical wellbeing, the law is remarkably lenient in what you are allowed to do.Attempting to murder somebody who is posing no physical threat to you is however so far beyond any definition of 'reasonable force' that I'm faintly amazed that anybody would even consider it to be even vaguely appropriate. But then again I remember that I've strayed into the parallel universe of NP&E, where all the ex-SAS members gather and discuss how the self-administered death penalty is appropriate for the most minor of misdemeanors.
Atomic12C said:
La Liga said:
I'm all for victims and the general public fighting against crime and using force where necessary, but I'm for them doing it within the law
One's options are seemingly rather limited in that case.The law always refers to "reasonable force".... which seems to conflict with the way things happen, because when one is under attack or in a situation of having criminal activity aimed at you in a fast changing situation, how is one suppose to balance up what is reasonable force?
By the time you've thought it through, the crime has either happened or you are sitting in a pool of your own blood.
And I'm guessing its not your own version of reasonable force you have to balance up....its what a judge or a panel of 12 peers may think is reasonable in a calm, controlled court situation after listening to your story told by a lawyer.
I don't know if it already happens, but the balance of 'reasonable force' should be very much on the victim's side rather than a middle ground between victim and criminal.
The simple summary is the law gives a fairly wide berth when it comes to using force. I could go on but I'd be writing a less well written version of the CPS summaries: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence...
I will highlight Lord Morris's summary from some time ago which is contained within the above:
Lord Morris said:
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
I'll also add practically it helps to give a good account of the force used (due to the subjective nature) when speaking to the police (legal advice should always be sought). a few fails on this thread from people i wouldn't normally expect to post such stuff. i am fairly sure,though i may be wrong, la liga has been in more than a few situations where he has been required to defend himself for just doing his job.
quite a few people seem to have missed the fact the bloke doing the running over is a convicted drug dealer. there will be few, if any drug dealers in that part of the world that deal drugs without dishing out a fair bit of violence in their line of work.
if he had got out the car and given them both a shoeing while getting the bike back i strongly suspect this wouldn't have gone to court .
quite a few people seem to have missed the fact the bloke doing the running over is a convicted drug dealer. there will be few, if any drug dealers in that part of the world that deal drugs without dishing out a fair bit of violence in their line of work.
if he had got out the car and given them both a shoeing while getting the bike back i strongly suspect this wouldn't have gone to court .
I experienced a fair bit of confrontation whilst in the police. Most can be resolved verbally, some would be surprised to hear.
I've also sat both sides of the table i.e. as interviewer / investigator and also as a suspect when interviewed by professional standards and the IPCC, so I know what it's like to have to justify things.
I've also sat both sides of the table i.e. as interviewer / investigator and also as a suspect when interviewed by professional standards and the IPCC, so I know what it's like to have to justify things.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff