Should have reversed over him and finished off the job, instead gets 3 years in prison.
here
once again the legal systemfavours the scum.
For gods sake - what would hey prefer? Wait for the knife wielding scum to stab you in the face, then politely ring the police to ask for a crime reference number against which you can claim on your car insurance for the broken window?! Meanwhile Mr Chav continues to walk the streets with a knife, terrorising the locals. For crying out loud, why do we have to tolerate this behaviour?! I say good on him for making a stand - twice! Boooo to the judge for the sentance.
The law only entitles you to reasonable self defence. I think it should be more lenient in cases like this. I hope the attacker got properly
prosecuted for his attack but as usual, the BBC only print half the story.
I know the argument that says any attacker will claim the other guy started it first to get off, but I really think that someone involved in a crime
should lose all but the most basic of their rights, so that they cannot sue or prosecute those who fight back.
The law is an ASS. The man responded with the only weapon he had available at the time.
unbelievable!
You'd think that'd be thrown out. If he'd pleaded not guilty and I was on the jury I'd have done my best for him.
A while ago I spoke to a defence lawyer friend of mine about this sort of thing who said that the trouble is that if a judge just throws a case out of
court then the CPS can just bring the case again with a slightly different name to a different judge.
Cheers,
James
OMG WTF
Last week the prisons were overcrowded. Now a man has been locked up for 3 years for defending himself.
Seems to me the wrong person has been jailed here.
Somebody give me political party to vote for who'll reverse the rapid decline of this country and they've got my vote.
Lock up the scumbag with the knife, and put the judge in the next cell.
"...Armstrong mounted the pavement in his vehicle and drove it into him as he stood in nearby bushes."
If he ran over him as he was attempting to drive away then I'd agree with the sentiment - If he went after him after the event (as could be
inferred from the article) then he's taking the law into his own hands.
I hate the fact that I would never, ever let my three daughters have the same freedom that I had as a kid as the streets are just not safe but I
don't want a vigilante culture as a solution.
What I do want is (any) sodding government to properly tackle the issues and stop parents allowing their viscious offspring to make the lives of the
majority a misery, instead of just worrying how they are doing in the polls.
I'm retired with time on my hands. Anyone want scumbags run over, I'm available.
What am I saying ?? I'm building a locost !!
Oh well, when it's finished then.
the kid went in with the stake high, threatening violence and not expecting the old chap to outdo him. He lost his gamble. This is a risk you face
when bringing the voilence card out. The kid would've learnt an important lesson there, that you cant intimidate everyone. Some people up the
odds. Sadly, the law ruined this crucial lesson.
My simple view is that if you bring violence to the table, you risk being out done. Neither is the winner though, as the loser will simply ponder
greater violence next time in an attempt to have his way. We would end up barbarians, with savagery being counted a laudable trait. This is why
violence is the wrong path, but why do we all admire and respect 'hard' people?
At the end of the day, my view is; it's better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six!
He should have got a civic medal, not jail time.
[Edited on 12/2/08 by Confused but excited.]
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP but why do we all admire and respect 'hard' people?
VOTE CONSERVATIVE - X
You know you want to.......
s
This seems to have been a "fight or flight" situation to me. I dare say if he'd have "fought" he would have wound up in
hospital or a morgue. Self defence in my eyes!!
It could be that this decent bloke has ended up in jail becuase his case was a good prospect for a conviction. When the figures for successful
prosecutions are published the fact that he was a good bloke who gave a yob what he had coming wont be part of the figures.
If someone smashed my car window & came at me with a knife I might well respond in similar fashion.
I think he was extremely badly advised by his lawyer. If he had plead not guilty the Jury in Scotland can give a verdict of "not proven"
meaning we know damn well you did it but are not satisfied that you are really guilty in law, in which case the defendant walks, the ideal outcome in
this case. He should not have plead and should now seek appeal on grounds of bad legal advice, could be tricky to get him a re-trial though as he
plead guilty. Bloody lawyers!
Caber
This is all a bit serious,
I thought it was a thread about Mr T
... and to add fuel to the fire, what are the chance he will now be sued by the yob?
it seems the law in this country no longer protect the ones it is supposed to.
[Edited on 13/2/08 by 02GF74]
Lets hope there is an almighty public outcry about this. Same as for that farmer.
Its difficult to form an oppinion about such a case when all you have read is a bit of news. The judge was probs in reciept of more facts and wether
right or wrong its probs right that some form of sentence was called for as a deterrent to others. There is a fine line between seriously injuring and
killing. Whos to say the yob was just a bit misguided by his peers and may eventually be a decent person. Its funny how society works. I dont however
defnd his current actions. Scum.
3 years is too much. Suspended sentence and community service might have been more appropriate. That guy would probs be some good to a youth project
in Glasgow.
Hang on a minute here....
The bloke in the car WAS IN A CAR.
Someone in a car can travel much quicker than a bloke with a stick and a knife.
Therefore all he had to do was drive off.
Unless the person who got run over was stopping him from driving off it was excessive force. Therefore it was assault not self-defense.
As much as I have sympathy for the farmer (Mr Martin), he shot someone who was running AWAY from his home!! IE he was no longer in danger. I think he
was also quilty by the fact that he'd booby-trapped his house to severely maim intruders (even when he wasn't at home so the
"self-defense" option isn't an excuse).
I have sympathy for both Mr Martin and this new chappy. But their use of force was unreasonable, therefore they're quilty. Therefore it's
jail time....
Although in terms of the "booby traps" the law re: self defence does include a right to protect ones property, but obviously there are limits to what is reasonable.
I'm completely in favour of lethal booby traps to greet a burglar. I'd be happy to put a warning notice in front of the house to make it
legal.........
I disagree with the respondent who said the chap could have driven off:- the nutter in this case was being guided to his house, and had taken the
trouble to arm himself with baton & knife. Drive away & come home to a trashed house & an armed psycho? Sooner you than me mate!
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
I'm completely in favour of lethal booby traps to greet a burglar.
S' why there's a warning notice ;^)
The article said they the CPS were originally trying to have him prosecuted for attempted murder. I guess the lawyers plea bargened for assault as
reduced consequences compared to being sentenced for attempted murder.
You cant really comment as insufficient information in the article. It does sound like he persued and drove into the guy when he was trying to escape.
Personally i think he was justified, if someone has set out to purposely attack or wound you there should be very high limits on what you can do, i.e.
fully incpacitate but not kill.
The laws dont seem to work and city life seems to be massively going downhill