Re: "If I killed a burglar..." thread
Discussion
I found this leaflet at work the other day.
I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
The form is clear and informative. I'm not sure I agree with every bit of wording but there's nothing to really criticise.
The phrase 'rugby tackle' is rather odd as there is no definition of the phrase. I brought a bloke to the ground and used the phrase 'tackled him to the ground' in court. I was not questioned much on what I did although the next police witness was asked something like: And did you see your colleague use a rugby tackle to apprehend the defendant?
My mate said that he did not know what a rugby tackle was, not having played the game and certainly not regarding it as a sport, and would appreciate it being defined by the brief. The judge intervened at this stage and suggested to the PC that he could described what I did.
My mate said (and I was in the court to hear and in full view of the jury): He dived rather extravagantly at the offender and slid down him until he got to his waist and then hung on for dear life until the offender fell over.
The judge said that it described a rugby tackle perfectly. It lacked poetry in my opinion.
The phrase 'rugby tackle' is rather odd as there is no definition of the phrase. I brought a bloke to the ground and used the phrase 'tackled him to the ground' in court. I was not questioned much on what I did although the next police witness was asked something like: And did you see your colleague use a rugby tackle to apprehend the defendant?
My mate said that he did not know what a rugby tackle was, not having played the game and certainly not regarding it as a sport, and would appreciate it being defined by the brief. The judge intervened at this stage and suggested to the PC that he could described what I did.
My mate said (and I was in the court to hear and in full view of the jury): He dived rather extravagantly at the offender and slid down him until he got to his waist and then hung on for dear life until the offender fell over.
The judge said that it described a rugby tackle perfectly. It lacked poetry in my opinion.
Dibble said:
I found this leaflet at work the other day.
I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
I was the OP. Thanks very much for the info, it is reassuring and logical.I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
Dibble said:
I found this leaflet at work the other day.
I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
I looked through the document search on that site for similar leaflets for self defense if being mugged, for example, but found nothing relevant. I know the leaflet covers if they run off, but that's no longer self defense. Any suggestions where to look? I thought it may answer some of the questions asked in the previous thread.
Although it will probably raise many more...
Part of the reason I ask is that I do self defense training and the moves invariably end up with the attacker on the ground. Where is the line drawn between hoping I can run away before he gets up and a kick to the ribs/clavicle to make sure I have enough time?
Forgive me if this has all been done to death before - I've searched PH but not found the answer.
Dibble said:
in a little more depth: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...I've not often been forced into congratulating the CPS but I must admit to being impressed by the decision coming just one week after the incident, especially as the shopkeeper said he did not know how the chap came by his injury.
Derek Smith said:
Dibble said:
in a little more depth: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...I've not often been forced into congratulating the CPS but I must admit to being impressed by the decision coming just one week after the incident, especially as the shopkeeper said he did not know how the chap came by his injury.
My thoughts,
Friends help you move, Real friends help you bury bodies.
A good friend last week heard a noise on his roof so went to investigate, 2 lads lifting his lead, so he went in home called the BIB and then found his camera went back outside to take pic's. He got some great shots clearly showing their faces. When the police turned up the next day he showed them the pic's and they said "How can you proove it was them" I ask myself.
Just remember the law protects the criminals.
Friends help you move, Real friends help you bury bodies.
A good friend last week heard a noise on his roof so went to investigate, 2 lads lifting his lead, so he went in home called the BIB and then found his camera went back outside to take pic's. He got some great shots clearly showing their faces. When the police turned up the next day he showed them the pic's and they said "How can you proove it was them" I ask myself.
Just remember the law protects the criminals.
Y4MER said:
My thoughts,
Friends help you move, Real friends help you bury bodies.
A good friend last week heard a noise on his roof so went to investigate, 2 lads lifting his lead, so he went in home called the BIB and then found his camera went back outside to take pic's. He got some great shots clearly showing their faces. When the police turned up the next day he showed them the pic's and they said "How can you proove it was them" I ask myself.
Just remember the law protects the criminals.
As an ex identification officer I can say that if you have a cast iron case then defence solicitors will challenge the identification evidence every time. I was called to court 139 times in two years and in most cases it was where the evidence was ovewhelming. I'm proud to say, and I will tell anyone whenever I can get the convesation round to it, in the two years of being ID officer in my force, I never lost a case due to indentification evidence.Friends help you move, Real friends help you bury bodies.
A good friend last week heard a noise on his roof so went to investigate, 2 lads lifting his lead, so he went in home called the BIB and then found his camera went back outside to take pic's. He got some great shots clearly showing their faces. When the police turned up the next day he showed them the pic's and they said "How can you proove it was them" I ask myself.
Just remember the law protects the criminals.
Oddly enough, a photograph is virtually worthless as evidence as all the defendant has to say (or rather all he has to repeat after his brief has briefed him) is: That isn't me. The fact that video film identification, the first option nowadays as it has been proved fairer than parades, is nothing more than a series of photographs lined up one after the other. If there is no supporting evidence then the photographs might as well be of your dog.
However, if your friend would recognise the offenders again then there is nothing to stop him attending an identification procedure. Unfortunately, the fact he took photographs can be used to cast doubts on the identification. The court's reasoning (if that's the word) goes thus: the police saw the photographs and arrested someone who looks just like the person in the picture. Therefore, the witness was bound to identify the defendant as he's been picked for looking like the person in the photo and the witness has seen the photograph. There has to be some other form of evidence to support the identification. That's what the courts demand.
Please don't shoot the messanger.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff