Yes. Why not? After all the thug thought its was ok to smash his window and possibly blind the man.
The thug that was was run over was not walking along the street whistling dixie after all.
He was a yob that deserved all he got and more.
Edited by bhoy wonder on 13/02/2008 at 13:29
|
|
Why not (chase your assailant with your car and ram them)? Well, there are very many parallels with other assaults on people. I am sure that you can think of them.
|
|
|
|
Why not ?
A little look at a dictionary will tell you the difference between self defence and retaliation
In short one is reasonable, the other however justifiable makes you guilty too.
|
|
But it is reasonable to kill someone who is threatning to kill you with a knife.
|
Someone who is threatening you yes, but when he turns and runs away having cut you on the arm you may not then chase him and kill him (assuming it's a he of course).
|
|
I think we agree to differ.
|
|
That should say "I think we must agree to differ".
|
|
|
I think we agree to differ.
The other poster is just telling you the law as it stands.
By law you cannot attempt to kill/attack/disable someone once they no longer offer a threat to your life, but the problem with this is that it assumes that we all act rationally in these situations and that we can determine what is a reasonable level of force and a reasonable way to act. In practice many of us might be scared witless by an attempted assault, which means that we are not thinking clearly, and we then end up going over the top in response. It is all very well sitting in a court, and calmly stating that someone went over the top, and had no need to do such and such. But I know from experience that when you are attacked, you do not think rationally, or see the whole situation. It is more a case of "Oh cripes, what the hell do I do now.".
IMO the balance should be in favour of the innocent victim who responds in an over the top manner. He should not have had such a harsh sentence. (A suspended sentence maybe.)
|
|
I do not dispute what the law says it says a lot of stupid things it needs changing.
|
It is a diffiucult area really. Most decent minded people, which in reality is by far the majority of ther population, are incensed with the increasing mindless thuggery we seem to get nowadays..so if a thug gets his come-uppance by a normally decent citizen we all cheer
however,
If you assault someone through anger and vengeance the law doesn't protect you. If you assault someone to protect yourself, another person or property in a reasonable fashion (and that can mean a fatal injury on occasions), then you have a defence available.
it can't really be any other way, otherwise the low life in society would be using it to their advantage as well...and there'd be a free for all
someone mentioned above the fact that Mr Average and Decent is just as likely to tell the truth and incriminate himself, whereas Mr Oik knows how and what to lie about, which means in reality being wise to the issues and getting decent legal advice early on ..
I can't see a law change benefiting the law abiding majority. I would however like to see the current laws and sentencing powers used fully and properly to scoop up the scum and lock them up, in which case they wouldn't be out to bother the rest of us. Dream on.
|
So in simplicity.....The good guy gets atttacked and the bad guy gets injured.
The good guy goes to prison and the bad guy gets medical treatment paid for by the good guy.
Somebody should be sued. Wonder who that will be ?... And perhaps even the criminal compensation scheme will help one of them.
wemyss
|
So in simplicity.....The good guy gets atttacked and the bad guy gets injured. The good guy goes to prison and the bad guy gets medical treatment paid for by the good guy.
Rubbish. The "good guy" should not have chased the "bad guy" across the pavement into the bushes. He was not a "good guy", he crossed the line (!) and became a "bad guy". FWIW I hope and expect that they will *both* "go to prison".
|
The reason our country is in the mess that it is in. Is because of all these do gooders. Who keep saying give him one more chance. He's repented and found god.
The good guy did not cross any line. He did the right thing. Good on him. It is just a terrible shame that he went to prison. He should have been given community service and a pat on the back.
|
And as Crocodile Dundee said......"That's not a knife...............THIS is a knife".
The sooner we rid ourselves of the dross that pervade our lives the better. We all know who they are. The police know who they are. The Magistrates the same etc etc etc.
They sign on and work for cash. They 'do' drugs. They steal. They are obnoxious and STILL we are to offer no resistance. Well chaps, I for one ain't going to lie down and take it.
Dinner beckons....................vbr............MD
|
It is not an offence to be a toerag or look like a toerag or be thought to be a toerag.
If a toerag or anyone else commits an offence against your person you are permitted appropriate measures of self defence up to and including inflicting deadly injury on your assailant, if you really believe your own life to be threatened. One must hope one never has to do this as the courts aren't always as wise or clement as they should be.
When a toerag or anyone else has committed an offence against your person or property you are not authorised to seek vengeance by violent or other criminal means. You are expected to seek redress through the courts. When such redress is not forthcoming it must be tempting to 'take the law into your own hands'. But that carries its own risks.
A moment's thought must show that this is right. Mediaeval semi-anarchy really has little to recommend it. Ask an Iraqi or Afghan or Sudanese or any of a whole slew of other groups that are still suffering it.
|
Here is the family and neighbours side of the story.
//tinyurl.com/2pudd8
Please use the TinyURL link to shorten addresses before posting. Its a lot of effort to edit these. Please also note the site policy about linking to other newspaper sites - link made non-clickable.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 17/02/2008 at 12:59
|
Can I also urge that all members to please sign this petition to get this innocent man freed.
petition.nogpl.net/
I assume you've asked HJ whether its ok to post this link ?
Yes, he asked before posting it. I copied my permission to the mods, but it could have got lost in your mailbasket. HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 18/02/2008 at 19:53
|
|
This is an even more appalling 'law is an ass' case than I first imagined. After the initial & rather sparse reports of the court procedings, this follow-up story fleshes-out the precursor situation more fully. Worth reading if you thought the driver got a just punishment - you might just change your mind. If this isn't a genuine case of self-defence 'in fear for your life', I don't know what would be.
|
|
I know that this subject provokes strong feelings, If you want to link to petition sites from here, you'll have to ask first and also please don't link clickable links to other publications. Any posts with long links, which haven;t taken advantage of the TinyURL may be deleted as tey are a real pain to edit.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 17/02/2008 at 13:47
|
the extra information doesn't change anything unfortunately....whilst i'm quite happy to state in my personal opinion the violent thug got his just rewards
the fact remains that any spin put out by the car driver's family doesn't change the fact that he drove over the violent thug in circumstances that the court found unacceptable and for which he pleaded guilty. I don't wear the line he 'temporaily lost control' of the car and ran the man down...for that read 'he got very angry at the threatened violence and damage to his car'.. and drove at the man in retribution causing a fair degree of injury
you cannot have drivers using their cars as personal battering rams on pedestrians, however much the provocation and however much of a thug that pedestrian is
the bottom line is the woeful lack of official effort to deal with violent thugs, which can tempt Mr Average over the edge....but it remains my view Mr Average was tipped over the edge and shouldn't have done what he did...however understandably some of us might consider it
what an awful country this place is becoming.....get your pens out, write to your MPs
|
i'm quite happy to state in my personal opinion the violent thug got his just rewards
I think so too Westpig. Pity he survived really, but then the poor motorist would have got life perhaps. If he'd got the knife off the guy and killed him in the melee though he might have got off. The thing the court seems worried about is the apparently deliberate use of the car as a bigger weapon. But an ordinary citizen who has just gone through an experience like the one described might well be in a more than flustered state, mingled with towering rage and deadly hatred.
If his brief knows how to play the last two down he might get the sentence reduced on appeal I would have thought.
|
I see its also been added to the News section to the right ---------->
|
I emailed HJ today regarding being allowed to post the URL for users to sign the petition.
I was not expecting or asking HJ to add the article to the news section.
Can I say a great big thank you to HJ and the moderators for doing an excellent job.
This is what makes this site one of the best if not the best for information and why I check the site on a daily basis.
|
If this had been a drunk driver and took out a pedestrian and that pedestrian ended up with a broken leg and a punctured lung. Then would have got 1 to 2 year ban and a £500 fine and maybe 6 months in jail. Never mind the poor guy that was terrified for his life.
That?s how mad the laws are in our country.
|
I see its also been added to the News section to the right ---------->
Yes, regrettably, since the "news" report seems simply to reiterate what Mr Armstrong would like you to think rather than what he admitted in court had actually happened.
I am disappointed HJ is not more careful about what appears in his name or on his website. You can't believe everything you read on the internet!
Edited by GroovyMucker on 18/02/2008 at 16:05
|
We all know you can't believe everything we read on the internet, newspapers, TV and Santa Claus for that matter.
The basic facts remain that some scumbag went out to attack someone. He finished up injured and his victim went to Prison for a long sentence.
Thats good enough for me and most right minded people. The law should protect us from these vermin by showing them they are on the side of the decent citizen.
I can assure you the Staff at the Prison he goes to will be on his side and helping him all they can. I've seen it...
wemyss
|
We all know you can't believe everything we read on the internet newspapers TV and Santa Claus for that matter.
I'd far rather believe the versions of events which were given in court, which were enough to secure - from "right minded people" - a conviction.
The law has to apply to everyone
|
>>I'd far rather believe the versions of events which were given in court<<
Someone carrying a metal baton, which he is prepared to use, and also a knife, which thankfully he didn't, is really going to worry about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he is on the witness stand, isn't he?
Or am I being cynical?
|
|
I honestly cannot believe what I am reading by some of the members on this site.
|
This one from a Johannesburg newspaper seems relevant:
tinyurl.com/222kkd
I like the idea of a Leatherman tool, with the blade unfolded, on the seat next to him. Shows forethought!
Out of interest, does anyone know the maximum length of blade before a similar tool is deemed an "offensive weapon"?
Just asking!
Edited by eProf on 18/02/2008 at 21:29
|
www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html
Tells you all you need to know.
|
Tells you all you need to know.
It's a bit short when it comes to knives with locking blades, though - such as my little 2 3/4" "Opinel" GP "penknife". Legislation generally on this subject seems rather a dog's dinner.
|
Many thanks, PU!
Fascinating reading! Cutting edge, one might say! (Sorry, couldn't resist that)
|
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he is on the witness stand isn't he?
That is for the court to ascertain at the time, not for after-the-fact shenannigans.
|
Is perhaps the problem here the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty? He probably went in feeling that yes, he was guilty of the charge of driving the car at the man but felt that all the other evidence would show that, in his opinion, he was "driven " to it (no pun intended).
However the outcome was different to what he expected?
|
I don't really get the full facts of the case from that BBC report. Did he mount the kerb because he thought they might throw something? If that was the case I would think he was justified in doing so.
I can honestly say that if I was cornered in my vehicle and an attacker was between me and getting away then I would drive as if they didn't exist. Unfortunately it's something I've had to think about, but I hope it would never happen.
|
I think Bobby G's post above fingers the nub here. The guy saw red mist and lost the plot. The law understandably will not allow itself to be taken in hand by others and due process rightly follows.
The sentence, compared with others and allowing for a guilty plea, might be thought excessive.
|
The sentence compared with others and allowing for a guilty plea might be thought excessive.
particularly when you consider the man telling the truth...was er...telling the truth, whereas the people at the other end of the social spectrum will say what they have to say to get off, or get as lenient a sentence as possible...that's the bit i have problems with our legal system, it's done on the presumption that when people swear on oath they are actually telling the truth...i wish...(there are some people from some cultures who do actually still revere their holy book, despite being a bit dodgy, so rather than swear on their holy book, they'll 'affirm' in court as an atheist would, so that they don't have to fall foul of their holy book...?)
|
"the man telling the truth ... was telling the truth whereas the people at the other end of the social spectrum will say what they have to say to get off or ..."
That's something of an assumption, too, isn't it? How many law-abiding citizens, having been attacked, would then seek revenge - which is effectively what our man admitted happened here? He (sorry, can't remember his name) could have pleaded guilty and then had the disputed parts of what the victim said decided on by the court.
But as to the rest of what you say about witnesses regularly lying, I wholeheartedly agree. I wish I knew what we could do about it.
|
But as to the rest of what you say about witnesses regularly lying I wholeheartedly agree. I wish I knew what we could do about it.
There are already considerable sanctions which may be applied to people found to be lying in court. Perhaps these should be applied more. Perhaps the penalty is not severe enough.
|
I think it's more a moral than a legal problem, FT.
As you say, perjury is a crime; it's proving it that's the (legal) problem - you know one of them's lying, but which one? If it weren't so widespread (the moral aspect), it would be less of a problem.
|
Another similar incident
tinyurl.com/2otnpk
|
As said in the article.
There is an old phrase those who live by the sword die by the sword and and that was the case here.
He deserved all he got. The shopkeeper should be given a medal.
|
As said in the article.
A Lancashire Police spokesman said:
"The CPS have asked us not to go into the exact details of what happened during the struggle as they must make a decision on what has occurred.
"A file will shortly be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for them to make a decision on finalising the case. Depending on their decision, there will either be a charge or no further criminal action and the incident will be passed to the coroner."
That is the relevant part of the article. We don't know. We will have to wait and see.
|
He deserved all he got. The shopkeeper should be given a medal.
Quite. One down, lots more to go.
I guess the police have to investigate properly, and the shopkeeper has witnesses on his side, so should presumably be in the clear. But what if he had no witnesses, just a dead body, and his version of events. Scary.
|
|
This is not similar at all - no-one has even been charged. It looks like perfectly normal procedure to me.
|
Not entirely normal. More generally, and not commenting or referring to this case, murder requires evidence of premeditation & intent - not usually something you'd associate with being attacked , out of the the blue, with a knife, & defending oneself. As I say, I'm not commenting about this case, but just posing a question. Even if you kill someone, say you punch them, they fall down & die from a fractured skull - the usual charge would be manslaughter, since you couldn't intend or expect to kill somebody merely from a single punch (unless you're a professional fighter attacking a 'civvy' of course).
|
murder requires evidence of premeditation & intent
Does it, by Jove!
|
|
I am sorry for that last rather flippant remark.
|
No offence taken FT, I enjoy a bit of flippancy! Life can get too serious after all.
Edited by woodbines on 20/02/2008 at 16:45
|
The problem for the police is that they're seen as an easier and more obvious target than the CPS. Also, they can't be expected to make fine legal judgments. And the CPS is now responsible (as you may know) for all significant/weighty charging decisions.
So, the police pretty much have to arrest this chap so that the CPS can make the decision.
|
|
make that almost all charging decisions.
|
Police chief moves home because he is 'nervous of confronting youths sitting on his garden wall'
tinyurl.com/yrvw6q
I'm speechless! We should remove the words "law & order" from the dictionary!
|
I know this officer personally, having worked with him closely in the near past. He is a quality officer. He has lived well outside London for quite some years, so this is very much old news. All he is saying is what we all know already, that you dare not confront the yob because the law is backed up against you. If you are a police officer you have the double whammy of a robust complaints system..and let's face it who would want to confont the yob, then go to work to leave your wife to it...or endlessly have your car vandalised or bricks through the window...obviously the utlimate fear would be a knife in the guts.
I strongly suspect he was tailoring his speech to his audience at the time, to re-iterate how supportive Safer Neighbourhood Teams can be to people who are plagued with this sort of thing...and showing how he understands by having suffered it himself in the past.
Typical Daily Mail really.
|
|
|
|
|
