Motorist ran down knife attacker
Discussion
I found this article very strange, somethings not right about it surely ?
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Turbo5 said:
I found this article very strange, somethings not right about it surely ?
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Did he intentionally run him over ?Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Could he not have simply driven away rather than running him over ?
vonhosen said:
Turbo5 said:
I found this article very strange, somethings not right about it surely ?
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Did he intentionally run him over ?Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Could he not have simply driven away rather than running him over ?
VH, you do have some interesting views but if someone smashed my window and was waving a knife, i'd run the oxygen thieving scumbag over!!
Are you telling me, you would have quietly reversed away? And what would stop him coming at you again?
The general rule is that if you have an avenue of escape you should take it. He was in a vehicle and able to drive it (rather obviously, I suppose) and he should have driven far enough away to negate the threat. The theory is that the only time he would have been allowed to use the vehicle as a weapon was if he had no other escape route and was in fear of bodily injury. It would appear from the report that he drove at the chap whilst he was on the footway. Not a lot of excuse there.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 18th February 18:32
paoloh said:
vonhosen said:
Turbo5 said:
I found this article very strange, somethings not right about it surely ?
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Did he intentionally run him over ?Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Could he not have simply driven away rather than running him over ?
VH, you do have some interesting views but if someone smashed my window and was waving a knife, i'd run the oxygen thieving scumbag over!!
Are you telling me, you would have quietly reversed away? And what would stop him coming at you again?
Judge Lady Smith said:
"You were entitled to be angry. You were entitled to be affronted. But you were not entitled to respond by wielding your vehicle as a weapon at him in the way you did."
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 18th February 18:33
paoloh said:
vonhosen said:
Turbo5 said:
I found this article very strange, somethings not right about it surely ?
Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Did he intentionally run him over ?Feral chav armed with knife and baton attacks car owner and breaks car window, then car owner runs chav over and gets 3 years 8 months in jail. (I think I would do the same)
I thought a medal would be more appropriate. If the car owner had let the chav stab him etc the chav would have got less time in jail.
full story Here
Could he not have simply driven away rather than running him over ?
VH, you do have some interesting views but if someone smashed my window and was waving a knife, i'd run the oxygen thieving scumbag over!!
Are you telling me, you would have quietly reversed away? And what would stop him coming at you again?
I knocked a guy over that had mugged my neighbour. It was deliberate - I had no idea if he had a knife or gun on his person so bumped him off his feet. No charges were laid, and his defence was to deny everything, even that I had driven into him. I was very concerned that I would have been sown up for assault though, very lucky I wasn't.
No, I wouldn't do it again.
No, I wouldn't do it again.
The procedure is.
1.Run Chav over.
2 Stop car
3 open boot
4 lift body into boot (insuringthat head bumps as many things as possible on way in)
5 slam boot down
6 lift boot and place chavs hands in boot
7 drive to very remote location
8 remove body from boot.
9 take car to professional valeters for full detailing and removal of any evidence.
HTH
1.Run Chav over.
2 Stop car
3 open boot
4 lift body into boot (insuringthat head bumps as many things as possible on way in)
5 slam boot down
6 lift boot and place chavs hands in boot
7 drive to very remote location
8 remove body from boot.
9 take car to professional valeters for full detailing and removal of any evidence.
HTH
I thought the law was as long as the force was equal. Is a car any more dangerous than a knife?
IMO, the guy with knife was showing intent, car driver was defending himself.
As stated earlier in this thread, one minute, we are being told to stand up to this sort of behaviour, the next, we get locked up for doing it. God, this country really is in the s
t!
IMO, the guy with knife was showing intent, car driver was defending himself.
As stated earlier in this thread, one minute, we are being told to stand up to this sort of behaviour, the next, we get locked up for doing it. God, this country really is in the s
t!what a st fked up country.
You bk someone for vandalism
he returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a fked up criminal system we have here.
Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
t fked up country.You b
k someone for vandalismhe returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a f
ked up criminal system we have here.Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 18th February 19:05
mark69sheer said:
what a st fked up country.
You bk someone for vandalism
he returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a fked up criminal system we have here.
Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
You can use reasonable proportional force to avert an immediate threat, you can't use obviously disproportionate force or exact your own justice. The court were obviously of the opinion that the accused could avert this by other means & that his use of force was excessive (as Tony Martin did)t fked up country.You b
k someone for vandalismhe returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a f
ked up criminal system we have here.Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
vonhosen said:
mark69sheer said:
what a st fked up country.
You bk someone for vandalism
he returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a fked up criminal system we have here.
Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
You can use reasonable proportional force to avert an immediate threat, you can't use obviously disproportionate force or exact your own justice. The court were obviously of the opinion that the accused could avert this by other means & that his use of force was excessive (as Tony Martin did)t fked up country.You b
k someone for vandalismhe returns with a knife weilding maniac who smashes your van windows with the obvious intent of stabbing you
you are 47 looking a little worse for wear health wise and you can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat..
and the law sticks you in jail
its a f
ked up criminal system we have here.Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
so much for the latest police initiative to get neighbourhood watch schemes more proactive in their area..
Not so easy to deliberate when your life is on the line.
I went to my office one late sunday night which was in an old woolen mill.
I was well in the maze of alleys in the dark and when I got to my office two scroats were in my office breaking into my safe with crowbars..
They turned and saw me entering the building about 20ft from the office door they were just inside.
I threw the lights off to disorientate them and then pulled the outer door shut. I was hanging onto the door handle while they were both trying to get out. I couldn't hold them for long as they had started to use the crowbars on the door. I had to make a quick decision to make a run for it.
As soon as I let go of the handle I had about a 2 ft start as the door swung open. I ran and was chased by one of the full grown men with his crowbar his mate was screaming 'get him'
Would I have used my car as a weapon against them?..yes
Did I fear for my life? yes
Does the system stink?
yes...
mark69sheer said:
. . . can either let the two idiots kill you or use in the heat of the moment the only option you believe will save you at the time by neutralising the threat.. and the law sticks you in jail.
If that was indeed the case, that the chap felt his life under threat and took action only to save his life then he would not have been found guilty as it would have been a complete defence in law. However, as it wasn't used one must assume that it was not what happened.mark69sheer said:
Can just add that even if the driver did go looking for them after the event it was the so called victims choice to search him out with a baton and a knife and smash his car up..
Ah, good old anarchy. One thing that 47-year-olds who are the worse for wear dread.The criminal system has its faults, and major ones at that, but there does not appear to be a malfunction in this case. The chap pleaded guilty. This is often a pointer to whether the accused is guilty or not.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 18th February 19:44
odyssey2200 said:
The procedure is.
1.Run Chav over.
2 Stop car
3 open boot
4 lift body into boot (insuringthat head bumps as many things as possible on way in)
5 slam boot down
6 lift boot and place chavs hands in boot
7 drive to very remote location
8 remove body from boot.
9 take car to professional valeters for full detailing and removal of any evidence.
HTH
Hi 1.Run Chav over.
2 Stop car
3 open boot
4 lift body into boot (insuringthat head bumps as many things as possible on way in)
5 slam boot down
6 lift boot and place chavs hands in boot
7 drive to very remote location
8 remove body from boot.
9 take car to professional valeters for full detailing and removal of any evidence.
HTH
You missed out
2, Reverse over several times to make sure...
All the best Brett
Yeah, there's slightly more to it than BBC news made out.
I still think what he did was fantastic and if everyone mowed down just 1 thug a day then this would be a wonderful society to live in.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Jail-for-fedup-father-...
I still think what he did was fantastic and if everyone mowed down just 1 thug a day then this would be a wonderful society to live in.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Jail-for-fedup-father-...
other news article said:
A FATHER was jailed for three years and eight months yesterday after he "lost it" and drove a van at a knife-wielding thug.
A court heard 47-year-old Stephen Armstrong's life had been made a misery by vandals, and he was terrified when the drunk confronted him with a knife and a baton. He believed it was connected with the painting of gang slogans on a fence near his home.
He drove on to a pavement and hit the 22-year-old, who was seriously injured and spent six weeks in hospital.
A judge was urged to show mercy to Armstrong, a father of eight who had stopped working to care for his ill wife, and Lady Smith said she accepted there had been "serious provocation". But she went on: "However angry you were and however justified your anger, what you did was certainly not justified at all.
"You quite deliberately used your van as a weapon…and drove at bushes where he was seeking to take cover. He tried to jump out of your way, but you hit him at speed."
Armstrong's wife, Dorothy, 39, last night told how the family had been "shell-shocked" by the prison sentence.
She said: "It's ridiculous – he's treated like a criminal when he was just standing up for his family and his property.
"The kids are just devastated. We never thought he would be put in prison."
Armstrong admitted assaulting the man to the danger of his life on 12 April last year at Waulkglen Road, close to his home in Darnley, Glasgow. The victim is facing charges and cannot be identified.
Maurice Smyth, defending, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Armstrong, lived in a respectable residential area where people took a real interest in their families and property.
Unfortunately, steps at the bottom of the cul-de-sac had become a meeting point for "all sorts of ne'er-do-wells, hooligans, drug-takers and drunkards" from other areas. Mr Smyth said these people, mainly boys, had made life a misery for the residents, and there had been dozens of reports to the police about antisocial behaviour.
On 11 April, Armstrong learned that 6ft-high slogans, including "Welcome to Hell", had been painted on a fence, and he caught two boys, one of whom he knew. He went to that boy's father, and the father immediately ordered the boys to paint over the graffiti.
"We have an individual trying to deal with the vandalism and he does so in a perfectly sensible and civil manner. There's no bullying, ranting or raving. On the contrary, he seeks the assistance of the father of one of the boys," Mr Smyth said.
"It is quite clear that anyone in that situation is facing a risk…of violence, repercussions, retaliation and so forth."
The following evening, Armstrong was about to go shopping in his van when he saw the second boy with the 22-year-old man in his street. He heard a bang on his van. He got out to remonstrate, and the man took out a knife and an extendable baton from the back of his trousers and swung them at Armstrong.
Mr Smyth said it had been a reasonable inference that the pair, one of the vandals from the day before and somebody armed with lethal weapons, were there to cause trouble.
He said: "He was shocked and terrified. (The man] smashed a window of the van and moved off. The accused was shaking with nerves. He got into the van. He indicates he lost it for that moment…fear, rage, shock, all produced this momentary act of recklessness. This is a very human reaction to an event about which he had not the slightest warning. He was going about his lawful business. He did not seek trouble."
Lady Smith said the victim had suffered a broken leg and collar bone and a punctured lung, and had been
permanently disfigured.
She told Armstrong: "In the cold light of day, you realise the appalling nature of what you did and you have shown genuine remorse. I take account of the extent of the provocation…there seems no doubt he presented weapons at you and he deliberately broke the window in your van. You were entitled to be angry and affronted, but not entitled to respond by wielding your van as a weapon at him. You were not entitled to subject him to this terrible assault."
Mrs Armstrong last night questioned how the family would cope with her husband behind bars.
She said: "I have really bad arthritis and so Stephen takes care of everything – all the bills, the kids, taking them to and from school and to their football.
"He gave up his job – he had been an electrician and a publican – when my arthritis got really bad. He's just a great guy, and it's just not fair."
A court heard 47-year-old Stephen Armstrong's life had been made a misery by vandals, and he was terrified when the drunk confronted him with a knife and a baton. He believed it was connected with the painting of gang slogans on a fence near his home.
He drove on to a pavement and hit the 22-year-old, who was seriously injured and spent six weeks in hospital.
A judge was urged to show mercy to Armstrong, a father of eight who had stopped working to care for his ill wife, and Lady Smith said she accepted there had been "serious provocation". But she went on: "However angry you were and however justified your anger, what you did was certainly not justified at all.
"You quite deliberately used your van as a weapon…and drove at bushes where he was seeking to take cover. He tried to jump out of your way, but you hit him at speed."
Armstrong's wife, Dorothy, 39, last night told how the family had been "shell-shocked" by the prison sentence.
She said: "It's ridiculous – he's treated like a criminal when he was just standing up for his family and his property.
"The kids are just devastated. We never thought he would be put in prison."
Armstrong admitted assaulting the man to the danger of his life on 12 April last year at Waulkglen Road, close to his home in Darnley, Glasgow. The victim is facing charges and cannot be identified.
Maurice Smyth, defending, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Armstrong, lived in a respectable residential area where people took a real interest in their families and property.
Unfortunately, steps at the bottom of the cul-de-sac had become a meeting point for "all sorts of ne'er-do-wells, hooligans, drug-takers and drunkards" from other areas. Mr Smyth said these people, mainly boys, had made life a misery for the residents, and there had been dozens of reports to the police about antisocial behaviour.
On 11 April, Armstrong learned that 6ft-high slogans, including "Welcome to Hell", had been painted on a fence, and he caught two boys, one of whom he knew. He went to that boy's father, and the father immediately ordered the boys to paint over the graffiti.
"We have an individual trying to deal with the vandalism and he does so in a perfectly sensible and civil manner. There's no bullying, ranting or raving. On the contrary, he seeks the assistance of the father of one of the boys," Mr Smyth said.
"It is quite clear that anyone in that situation is facing a risk…of violence, repercussions, retaliation and so forth."
The following evening, Armstrong was about to go shopping in his van when he saw the second boy with the 22-year-old man in his street. He heard a bang on his van. He got out to remonstrate, and the man took out a knife and an extendable baton from the back of his trousers and swung them at Armstrong.
Mr Smyth said it had been a reasonable inference that the pair, one of the vandals from the day before and somebody armed with lethal weapons, were there to cause trouble.
He said: "He was shocked and terrified. (The man] smashed a window of the van and moved off. The accused was shaking with nerves. He got into the van. He indicates he lost it for that moment…fear, rage, shock, all produced this momentary act of recklessness. This is a very human reaction to an event about which he had not the slightest warning. He was going about his lawful business. He did not seek trouble."
Lady Smith said the victim had suffered a broken leg and collar bone and a punctured lung, and had been
permanently disfigured.
She told Armstrong: "In the cold light of day, you realise the appalling nature of what you did and you have shown genuine remorse. I take account of the extent of the provocation…there seems no doubt he presented weapons at you and he deliberately broke the window in your van. You were entitled to be angry and affronted, but not entitled to respond by wielding your van as a weapon at him. You were not entitled to subject him to this terrible assault."
Mrs Armstrong last night questioned how the family would cope with her husband behind bars.
She said: "I have really bad arthritis and so Stephen takes care of everything – all the bills, the kids, taking them to and from school and to their football.
"He gave up his job – he had been an electrician and a publican – when my arthritis got really bad. He's just a great guy, and it's just not fair."
Ok, interesting article, and it (as always) appears there's more to the story that the headline.
From what I am reading, it appears the guy snapped and is paying for a moment of madness. I pity him and his family, and also all us taxpayers that will no doubt end up shelling out compensation for the little scrote, but it's obvious there's a bit more to the story than someone trying to escape/defend themselves.
Festisio said:
Yeah, there's slightly more to it than BBC news made out.
I still think what he did was fantastic and if everyone mowed down just 1 thug a day then this would be a wonderful society to live in.
I on the other hand totally disagree. Defending yourself is one thing. Vigilante justice is another.I still think what he did was fantastic and if everyone mowed down just 1 thug a day then this would be a wonderful society to live in.
The rule of law allows us to prosper.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff