2 x thieves steal diesel from a Garden Contractor's yard - Fined £75 each
Owner stands trial for GBH whilst citizen's arrest of the thieves and restraining them - NOT GUILTY was the Jury verdict
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-25856722
|
And had he not fought violently, where might he be now?
There can be no half measures confronting burglars - you either knock them down so they stay down or keep out of the way and let them get on with it.
Perhaps the jury understood that.
I wonder if this chap
goo.gl/Bdh5Qp
is less likely to recidivate as a result of his experience. Probably more effective than a £75 fine which is still ludicrous.
|
£75 fine probably pointless as he will have no cash anyway. A few months inside would do it.
But really, it was one against two in a hand-to-hand fight and the CPS thought it worth prosecuting?
|
I suppose there has to be some sort of 'process' to make sure that the chap hadn't beaten up a couple of ramblers who'd lost their way BUT when the burglars are caught in the act, they deserve all they get. Well done to that jury.
My last job took me round many farms in East Anglia and the farmers live in dread of burglary. The police/law are absolutely useless in quelling it. I admit that I had a great deal of sympathy for Tony Martin.
Last edited by: Haywain on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 19:40
|
But surely there has to be a limit. In this case the jury decided that that limit had not been exceeded but it is possible to imagine a scenario where things go to far.
If I found someone breaking into my shed to steal garden tools but posing no personal threat and I hit him over the head with a spade and continued to beat him until he died I don't think it would be reasonable to say "he deserved what he got".
I am not saying that the decision in this case was wrong, far from it: the jury looked at the case and decided according to the evidence. It is however possible to go from robustly defending your property to going way over the top. Giving carte blanche to any act of violence on the grounds of defence of property would clearly be wrong.
|
There is nothing to argue here surely.
The defendant here got into a situation and used force to defend himself, police put the facts before a jury and he was acquitted.
Tony martin shot some fella in the back as he was fleeing the scene, so not actually defending himself, the police put the facts before a jury and he was sent down.
Seems to me this is a classic lesson in the Justice system working as it should.
|
>> There is nothing to argue here surely.
>>
>> The defendant here got into a situation and used force to defend himself, police put
>> the facts before a jury and he was acquitted.
>>
>> Tony martin shot some fella in the back as he was fleeing the scene, so
>> not actually defending himself, the police put the facts before a jury and he was
>> sent down.
>>
>> Seems to me this is a classic lesson in the Justice system working as it
>> should.
Spot on observation. You can trust a jury (even if the verdict occasionally looks perverse).
|
|
Absolutely. Each case on its merit. The best way to decide is a jury looking at the evidence in each case. That's why these cases need to go to court.
|
It should never have got to a jury..or even the CPS.
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself...if it's two against one, what level is 'reasonable force'... it is subjective. Reasonable force could in some circumstances be death.
The Police nowadays are too damned frightened to do anything over than cover their backs. What should have happened was a police officer in a management grade decided No Further Action and not even bother putting it to the CPS.
|
GBH is a crime that carries a sentence of several years potentially.
I don't want plod, no matter what rank they are at, choosing who gets prosecuted at that level.
|
>> GBH is a crime that carries a sentence of several years potentially.
>>
>> I don't want plod, no matter what rank they are at, choosing who gets prosecuted
>> at that level.
>>
If you get nicked and there's not a great deal of evidence...that's exactly what happens. There's a 'threshold test' to be reached, before it goes to the CPS.
Increasingly nowadays though the CPS are asked for advice.
If you get all parties all covering their backsides rather than looking at the facts and making a common sense decision..then you'll get cases like these at court.
|
>> There's a 'threshold test' to be reached, before it goes to the CPS.
And likewise the CPS have a threshold test before prosecuting - in this case it must have passed that threshold and it would have been wrong for the Police not to have forwarded it to the CPS.
The fact that there was an acquittal shows that, in this case, the evidence ultimately did not support a conviction.
|
>> The fact that there was an acquittal shows that, in this case, the evidence ultimately
>> did not support a conviction.
>>
There was never enough evidence. The law specifically allows you to defend yourself, someone else or your property with 'reasonable force'..
...that is subjective.
Two against one in the circs described, was never going to get the fellow convicted, so why bother putting an innocent, hard working man through all that stress unnecessarily.
As far as I'm concerned, it's people not doing their jobs properly and backside covering, rather than looking at the bigger picture and doing what they are paid to do..which is sort the wheat from the chaff.
|
>> ...that is subjective.
>>
>> Two against one in the circs described, was never going to get the fellow convicted,
>> so why bother putting an innocent, hard working man through all that stress unnecessarily.
As you say 'reasonable force' is subjective. Two unfit scrotes against a fit and stocky landscaper might be less unequal than it looks, particularly if one of them scarpers or is laid low quickly.
Bottom line here is that one of then had three limb bones broken. Subjectively that looks like it might be excessive force. Certainly to point that it should have gone to CPS rather than being NFA'd by a copper, even a senior one.
|
Its up to our peers on the Jury to decide the subjective surely. As they did in this case.
The jury system, and the publicity of the case and verdicts, acts as guidance to us with respect to whats allowable and whats not. Clearly you can get quite violent indeed if the circumstances call for it (three broken limbs from a fence post indicates a fair degree of 'defence' or fear) in the heat of the moment, but any pre meditation (having the gun ready and loaded) clearly is over the top.
Seem to recall there was a case where a kitchen knife grabbed and burglar stabbed was allowed. By throwing these cases at the jury we get regular updates on how far we can go. Good thing IMHO
|
|
Yes that's the whole point of a jury system. The system works.
|
|
Thief with 3 limbs fractured: down to weak bones as a result of opiate abuse?
|
To be fair I think they both scarpered and he chased them.
But to me that is reasonable. He could have had no expectation that the police would achieve anything when he reported a theft, he probably didn't even know what they had stolen, and he wanted it back. Then
"I was pushed over and then I grabbed something from one of their hands which felt like a wooden fence post."
which implies that he then laid into the individual with the weapon he had wrested from him.
Regardless, justice has been done but meanwhile the victim of the crime initiated by the two burglars, who had no need to be anywhere near the yard, has been arrested, fingerprinted, DNA swabbed, charged and possibly locked up. The underclass might shrug that sort of thing off but normal people don't.
Woodhouse admitted he got the red mist, and was remorseful about the consequences, but I don't imagine he is entirely happy with the way things went.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 10:41
|
>> Woodhouse admitted he got the red mist, and was remorseful about the consequences, but I
>> don't imagine he is entirely happy with the way things went.
Point is the Old bill and the CPS won't accept red mist as a defence, merely on points of law alone, the jury however understands that such stuff can happen (and lets face it most people who don't regularly and casually employ violence need the red mist to make a good attempt at defending yourself).
|
"Tony martin shot some fella in the back as he was fleeing the scene, so not actually defending himself, the police put the facts before a jury and he was sent down."
Tony Martin acted out of sheer frustration at having been burgled on many occasions previously whilst receiving no protection from the police. I suppose he could have approached them nicely and said "Excuse me, chaps, would you mind not nicking my stuff?". Whereupon they'd have hit him over the head and he would have been burgled again. A possible alternative would have been to lie in bed and listen to them rifling his gaff - knowing that the police would do toss-all about it.
The farmer I visited on my last project had just had his workshop broken into and his new welding gear stolen. The police gave him a crime number - not a lot of use when you're fixing machinery.
|
>> "Tony martin shot some fella in the back as he was fleeing the scene, so
>> not actually defending himself, the police put the facts before a jury and he was
>> sent down."
>>
>> Tony Martin acted out of sheer frustration at having been burgled on many occasions previously
>> whilst receiving no protection from the police.
Retaliation, Vigilante, call it what you will, he still rightly got sent down. Frustration is no defence for trying to murder someone.
|
>> Retaliation, Vigilante, call it what you will, he still rightly got sent down. Frustration is
>> no defence for trying to murder someone.
Exactly,
Murdering a retreating burglar is not justified by police inefficiency.
If the Police are not doing their job properly complain and/or sue.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 21:38
|
"Frustration is no defence for trying to murder someone."
I'm afraid my opinions are coloured by the fact that the raiders weren't two ramblers lost on a footpath - they were two scrotes who had driven over to Norfolk from Notts specifically to steal from that farm.
OK - the death penalty is a bit harsh - so what should we do to protect farmers and smallholders from REPEATED raids?
|
>>so what should we do to protect farmers and smallholders from REPEATED raids?
Shoot them when they are entering your property and then convince the Police you were frightened for your life.
|
>> But surely there has to be a limit. In this case the jury decided that
>> that limit had not been exceeded but it is possible to imagine a scenario where
>> things go to far.
>>
>> If I found someone breaking into my shed to steal garden tools but posing no
>> personal threat and I hit him over the head with a spade and continued to
>> beat him until he died I don't think it would be reasonable to say "he
>> deserved what he got".
At what point do you my learned Friend consider it is safe (or right) to stop your retaliation?
>>
>> I am not saying that the decision in this case was wrong, far from it:
>> the jury looked at the case and decided according to the evidence. It is however
>> possible to go from robustly defending your property to going way over the top. Giving
>> carte blanche to any act of violence on the grounds of defence of property would
>> clearly be wrong.
Do you find it acceptable then that any scroat can just wander in to your property, do as they like and then leave with, or without their spoils and you then have to measure (or should have measured) your response?
Stealing is wrong. If the Perp' gets hurt then so be it. How many times have you whacked a Spider 'dead' for it to get up and 'go again'?? If some scroat transgresses then nail them if you can until they cannot retaliate.
If your message (that you will jot be messed with) is not received then the scum bags will return.
|
Martin, that's exactly the logic that scroats use to justify stomping you into a pulp for "looking at them funny, innit"
Move to Texas.
|
>Move to Texas.
I can't see any problem with home invasion laws in Texas.
If someone breaks into your home you are entitled to use whatever force you feel necessary to defend yourself. If that is lethal so be it.
It just shifts responsibility for the outcome onto the perp, not the victim.
|
>>>If someone breaks into your home you are entitled to use whatever force you feel necessary to defend yourself. If that is lethal so be it.
Unfortunately it extends to people knocking on a door asking for directions or for help:
tinyurl.com/pjag4ke
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 00:44
|
"Unfortunately it extends to people knocking on a door asking for directions or for help:"
There can be no justification for shooting someone who's merely knocking on your door at night. However, if the gasman breaks in at 2 in the morning to read my meter, then he'd better have a good explanation.
Last edited by: Haywain on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 08:17
|
>Unfortunately it extends to people knocking on a door asking for directions or for help:
Not a good example Zippy.
The homeowner is charged with 2nd Deg. murder.
|
>> If some scroat transgresses then nail them if you can until they cannot retaliate.
That would seem to me to be necessary force, at least in some situations, and you are the one who has to make the judgement. I think you can make a strong argument for getting your retaliation in first if you are threatened in your own home.
|
>> >> If some scroat transgresses then nail them if you can until they cannot retaliate.
>>
>> That would seem to me to be necessary force, at least in some situations, and
>> you are the one who has to make the judgement. I think you can make
>> a strong argument for getting your retaliation in first if you are threatened in your
>> own home.
>>
I guess in the heat of the moment the decision is made for you by you. You aren't exactly going to have a meeting regarding whether to survive or not.
|
The issue for me is this:
Mr or Mrs Law Abiding doesn't want to be in the situation whereby they end up in the dock..just for having to deal with the consequences of some scum bag's criminal behaviour...and neither do they want to roll over and let the low life win the day.
I'm not talking vigilantism or utterly and incomprehensibly excessive force...but the natural inter-action between a householder and a burglar if they should meet.
I'll happily state that if I met a burglar in my house, as long as I retain the upper hand, they would very much wish we hadn't met...and of course I know what to say when the blue lights turn up.
Now why should my neighbour be in exactly the same situation and get lifted and taken to court, just because he stands there and is completely truthful?
Something is wrong with that.
We already have a system whereby the criminal justice system has checks in it to cater for the above, it's just that many/most don't do that any more, because they've got people looking over their shoulders all the time..and they're worried someone will pull them up for not doing something thoroughly enough or they haven't reached a 'target'.
A PC on the street has to have reasonable suspicion someone has committed an offence before they exercise an arrest power...then the Sergeant at the station has to agree before anyone is booked in...then at case disposal (before it goes to CPS) an Inspector or Det Sgt in a Criminal Justice Unit has to agree it is worthy or has enough evidence to go to the CPS...then the CPS have to agree it is either likely more than not to be a guilty verdict at court or there's a public interest element...then there's the court.
Did that lot REALLY think it was worth prosecuting this bloke...only for a jury to acquit in 20 minutes.... 20 minutes....hardly enough time to get to the room, sit down and someone start speaking..and they all agreed.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 14:50
|
As the Criminal Justice System spends most of its time on the rights of criminals, if two criminals are assaulted by their victim - self defence or not - it is eminently sensible to prosecute those who assault the criminals.
The system is run for criminals and their rights.
|
>> The system is run for criminals and their rights.
>>
Of course it is.
Cluck, cluck, gibber, gibber, my old man's a mushroom.
|
>>
>>
>> Did that lot REALLY think it was worth prosecuting this bloke...only for a jury to
>> acquit in 20 minutes.... 20 minutes....hardly enough time to get to the room, sit down
>> and someone start speaking..and they all agreed.
>>
I can picture that they were impressed by his obvious honesty in admitting even to a certain amount of "red mist". The situation is all-too imaginable, and the fact that he lashed out with the only available weapon must have counted in his favour. He was clearly a decent bloke just trying to run his business, and provoked beyond endurance.
If he had been an overbearing and arrogant gun collector say, and had jumped at the chance to let fly, one would not feel quite so sympathetic.
|
I think it is appropriate that it went to court. I am comfortable that 12 people will arrive at a reasonable opinion as to the right result.
Seems a valid use of a system intended to do exactly what happened - listen to the circumstances and decide the way forward.
|
>> 20 minutes....hardly enough time to get to the room, sit down and someone start speaking..and they all agreed.
The jury will have acquitted him days beforehand. I'd guess the trial took a week? They'll have made their decision (subject obviously to anything surprising crawling out of the woodwork) by lunchtime on the first day.
|
>> The jury will have acquitted him days beforehand. I'd guess the trial took a week?
>> They'll have made their decision (subject obviously to anything surprising crawling out of the woodwork)
>> by lunchtime on the first day.
If they acquitted before even prosecution evidence was complete then that would suggest prosecuting counsel wasn't up to snuff.
While I agree with Westpig that Joe Public should be allowed reasonable force to defend their property there has to be line. In this case that line might have been crossed and it was right it went to CPS and then to Crown Court.
If defendant was DNA tested and fingerprinted well that's a process approved by governments of both parties. We either relax it for all, in particular only taking or retaining DNA in case of conviction, or it's something folks have to live with.
|
I was on a jury a bit like that.
Ten minutes to settle down and select a foreman.
Five minutes to decide we were all in agreement, bar one.
It took the judge the rest of the day to decide he'd accept a majority verdict!
|
>> Five minutes to decide we were all in agreement, bar one.
>>
>> It took the judge the rest of the day to decide he'd accept a majority
>> verdict!
Ah, but, the dissenter might have been a Henry Fonda:)
|
Something like this is what I mean:
tinyurl.com/p7u56t6
|
Ah, but, the dissenter might have been a Henry Fonda:)
Or Tony Hancock.
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vane?"
|
BBC news North-West today revealed that the M21 postcode area is top of the national league for domestic burglaries.
3 guesses where I live !
Gonna have to upgrade my weaponry and fortifications.
HO
|
|
Clay pigeon shooting is a fine hobby. Preferably taken up in advance of adverse events. I hasten to mention I do not possess a gun. I just borrowed someone else's for my introduction to the sport.
|
>> have to upgrade my weaponry and fortifications.
I think it was some awful pirate chief who had a special pistol with about six barrels fanning out to teach a lesson to a crowd of mutinous dogs... or perhaps you could get one to special order in case of insurrection by the peasantry... Anyway I hoped to find an image of that for you Ted but failed.
So you will have to make do with your man-traps, spring-blunderbusses and carefully planted stashes of dynamite wired up to blow at the press of a button. It must be hell up there what with the Sheikh and his beer-guzzling mates.
|
>>BBC news North-West today revealed that the M21 postcode area is top of the national league for domestic burglaries.
3 guesses where I live !
Ted the cat burglar - means you don't have far to walk.
;>)
|
HaHa...I could walk to the drainpipe, Tommy. I've got Buckley's chance of getting up it and through a window, though !
HO
|
"Or Tony Hancock."
There was a classic episode of 'Minder' where Arfur D confronts each juror in the jury room one by one and convinces them of the defendant's (a friend) innocence until finally he comes to a little old lady (Dandy Nicholls) who has spent most of the day knitting. Ho, she says, the bloke is as guilty as sin - I've known him all my life. All of Arfur's work came to nothing.
|
|
Another jury might have considered three broken limbs verging on the excessive. But with two against one, if things had gone differently they might have kicked his head in. That and an honest demeanour did the trick for him. But the police were probably right to prosecute.
|
>>I think it was some awful pirate chief who had a special pistol with about six barrels fanning out to teach a lesson to a crowd of mutinous dogs...<<
There you go, AC
They've got a bit of a kick to them
(:
gajitz.com/bang-bang-bizarre-2-odd-multi-barreled-guns-of-the-past/
|
>> They've got a bit of a kick to them
Yeah, the duckfoot, or better still a pair of them, that's what Ted needs to deal with those awful Mancunians.
Thanks MJM. Well done.
|
>> How many times
>> have you whacked a Spider 'dead' for it to get up and 'go again'??
Never. Its a wash it off the lino with jiff if I have a go at it.
You must be some right kind of pussy if you need multiple goes to put a spider down.
|
|
Hmmm. Despite all of the violence I feel that for once you may be correct. The "right kind of Pussy" does indeed make the difference.
|
A Jury sometimes get it right! - Manatee
