Well at long last there are some people in the UK with some common sense.
|uk|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F% %2Ffather-who-attacked-intruder-freed%2Farticle%2F 409610339
How this guy was ever jailed in the first place, goes to show how far down the gutter the Judicial system has gone.
Imagine the scenario of finding your family had been tied up by some low life robber, where they must have seriously feared for their lives, then he got the opportunity of making him pay....and boy a cricket bat seems like a perfect object to use...which he did.
David Cameron is going to do a radical overhaul of the criminal system, whereby people CAN defend their homes and their property, and in this case his family. It cannot come a day too soon for me.
The mere fact this guy was jailed when in my book he should have been given a medal, shows what has gone wrong here.
As the thread title states...." common sense " has at long last happened, and let this be a lesson to the next scum bag, who thinks about robbing someone in their own home. It is about time the law was aimed at the victim and NOT at the criminal.
Three cheers for the Appeal Court Judges. Hip hip ....
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Common sense at last
Quote by kentswingers777
Who said that phrase...." catch me " ?
I can do nice to see you to see you nice, ooh you are awful, I'll give it 5, can you hear me mother, shut that door, another fine mess, hello playmates, hello my darlings, am I bovvered, I want that one, even what's occurring - but I don't know 'catch me' ...
Quote by Kaznkev
oh yes lets allow people to chase someone down the street and break a cricket bat over their defence is allowed in law,this mans actions went way beyond it.
This was done in another thread which became rather heated if I remember correctly. It's very easy to criticise but I wonder how any of us would react to our families being tied up by masked intruders? We wouldn't really know until it happened. The Appeal Judge said the case was one of "true exceptionality". I don't advocate vigilantism but at the same time have no sympathy for the injured burglar.
I have certain items concealed in certain places throughout my house, should anyone get in past my dog they will be in a world of trouble. The idea is simple, they could harm or even kill me or my family, and we will never know if they get away with it or not. OR I can take them down or out before they get to the foot of my stairs, my children will be safe, and I get to put my case before a jury.
Itz a no brainer really.
BG.
Itz a no brainer really.
BG.
Mr Camerons radical overhaul will never happen.
Quite simply...and he DOES know it, people would be using the excuse that they were breaking into their home/had threatened to the wife(kids etc)/had scratched the car/whatever...to beat the crap out of someone they didn't like.
So, it will never happen.
The law ALLOWS REASONABLE FORCE to be used to repel attacks etc....it does not allow you to nearly kill someone just to get your own back.
And while he was FREED FROM PRISON he was not freed from the sentence, which was suspended...ie: if he does anything in the next few years he will serve THIS sentence AND the other one (if one is awarded)
And he still has a criminal record.
I don't think that believing a politician seeking re-election, or election, is a good idea.
The law will not be changed, no matter who is elected...they will just set-up a commission which will report back that things are working ok, and then things will carry-on as before.
Quite simply...and he DOES know it, people would be using the excuse that they were breaking into their home/had threatened to the wife(kids etc)/had scratched the car/whatever...to beat the crap out of someone they didn't like.
So, it will never happen.
The law ALLOWS REASONABLE FORCE to be used to repel attacks etc....it does not allow you to nearly kill someone just to get your own back.
And while he was FREED FROM PRISON he was not freed from the sentence, which was suspended...ie: if he does anything in the next few years he will serve THIS sentence AND the other one (if one is awarded)
And he still has a criminal record.
I don't think that believing a politician seeking re-election, or election, is a good idea.
The law will not be changed, no matter who is elected...they will just set-up a commission which will report back that things are working ok, and then things will carry-on as before.
Since when did any government ever carry out all it's pre election promises. Vote for us and we wil, bla bla bla!
Trouble is that our three main political parties are both corrupt and skint. They will all be pushing soon for a system of proportional representation, this will of course include state funding for? Well them of course!
I will of course go right back and bump this message as an "I told you so" when this happens.
Trouble is that our three main political parties are both corrupt and skint. They will all be pushing soon for a system of proportional representation, this will of course include state funding for? Well them of course!
I will of course go right back and bump this message as an "I told you so" when this happens.
Interesting that his brother is still in prison though..
The Judge was quite clever in trying to maintain the distinction between the "victim" and the "vigilante" (his brother) in my view but releasing the "victim" was the right thing to do.
Can't make my mind up about the brother though. He was not a "victim" of the burglary but was brought in as reinforcements to beat the shit out of the burglar.
Some may say that James Whale got it about right on the paper review on Sky this morning though. The real mistake made by the "victim" is that the burglar is still alive.
Perhaps the willow being used by the British for making cricket bats these days leaves much to be desired. It shouldn't have splintered so...
The Judge was quite clever in trying to maintain the distinction between the "victim" and the "vigilante" (his brother) in my view but releasing the "victim" was the right thing to do.
Can't make my mind up about the brother though. He was not a "victim" of the burglary but was brought in as reinforcements to beat the shit out of the burglar.
Some may say that James Whale got it about right on the paper review on Sky this morning though. The real mistake made by the "victim" is that the burglar is still alive.
Perhaps the willow being used by the British for making cricket bats these days leaves much to be desired. It shouldn't have splintered so...
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
oh yes lets allow people to chase someone down the street and break a cricket bat over their defence is allowed in law,this mans actions went way beyond it.
Agreed.....Do what you need to do in defence of you and yours if attacked on the street or in your own home.....
Chasing someone down the street away from his home (the scene of the crime) is not reasonable force....
And who was tending to the family he cared so much about while he and his brother were chasing one of the intruders or were they left to fend for themselves untill he had had his fun....
Quote by Steve
oh yes lets allow people to chase someone down the street and break a cricket bat over their defence is allowed in law,this mans actions went way beyond it.
Agreed.....Do what you need to do in defence of you and yours if attacked on the street or in your own home.....
Chasing someone down the street away from his home (the scene of the crime) is not reasonable force....
And who was tending to the family he cared so much about while he and his brother were chasing one of the intruders or were they left to fend for themselves untill he had had his fun....
Let's hope that you never find yourself in that position Steve, then your restraint will never be put to the test.
Sex God
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
Quote by Steve
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
I agree that he acted outside of the law and obviously so did the appeal judge which is why the sentence was not overturned but reduced.
It's easy to sit back and take a detached view. I'm your average law abiding citizen and would hope that in similar circumstances I would act within the law.......but would I?
Quote by Max777
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
I agree that he acted outside of the law and obviously so did the appeal judge which is why the sentence was not overturned but reduced.
It's easy to sit back and take a detached view. I'm your average law abiding citizen and would hope that in similar circumstances I would act within the law.......but would I?
The sad fact, is that no-one can presently answer that question or give guidance as each case has to be judged on its own merits which can only be tested after it happens.
Quote by GnV
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
I agree that he acted outside of the law and obviously so did the appeal judge which is why the sentence was not overturned but reduced.
It's easy to sit back and take a detached view. I'm your average law abiding citizen and would hope that in similar circumstances I would act within the law.......but would I?
The sad fact, is that no-one can presently answer that question or give guidance as each case has to be judged on its own merits which can only be tested after it happens.
Exactly!
Quote by JTS
Mr Camerons radical overhaul will never happen.
Quite simply...and he DOES know it, people would be using the excuse that they were breaking into their home/had threatened to the wife(kids etc)/had scratched the car/whatever...to beat the crap out of someone they didn't like.
So, it will never happen.
The law ALLOWS REASONABLE FORCE to be used to repel attacks etc....it does not allow you to nearly kill someone just to get your own back.
And while he was FREED FROM PRISON he was not freed from the sentence, which was suspended...ie: if he does anything in the next few years he will serve THIS sentence AND the other one (if one is awarded)
And he still has a criminal record.
I don't think that believing a politician seeking re-election, or election, is a good idea.
The law will not be changed, no matter who is elected...they will just set-up a commission which will report back that things are working ok, and then things will carry-on as before.
Valid points JTS.
Yes it seems ludicrous that he can be freed after only a few weeks, yet the conviction still stands against him.
Did they just do this to appease public opinion or did they genuinly feel a miscarriage of justice was done? It can only be one or the other.
I really cannot see how this ever came to court myself. It is very easy to say whatever when someone is just reading a news report but....faced with that situation in my home and maybe out of fear I do not know, but I would have probably killed him.
Adrenalin or sheer fear we cannot possibly imagine what this guy was feeling at that precise time, but it seems that the " criminal " in this case was NOT charged with anything, and it seems he has now further charges pending against him...Obviously a lesson was not learnt by this thug.
Maybe ( with a bit of luck ) the next time someone confronts him they will finish the job a lot of people think should have been done the first time around.
Maybe we should adopt the laws the Americans use when " victims " are faced with this kind of terror. They would have awarded the " victim " with a medal, and the " criminal " would have had a 22 pumped into him.
Still even though it took appeal judges to let this guy free, the original judge in this case should hang his head in shame, or maybe he was told what sentence to pass by someone much higher up? I would not be suprised in the slightest, just like I would not be suprised IF the release of this guy was made by the very same people.
Quote by Kaznkev
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
I agree that he acted outside of the law and obviously so did the appeal judge which is why the sentence was not overturned but reduced.
It's easy to sit back and take a detached view. I'm your average law abiding citizen and would hope that in similar circumstances I would act within the law.......but would I?
The sad fact, is that no-one can presently answer that question or give guidance as each case has to be judged on its own merits which can only be tested after it happens.
:thumbup: God im agreeing with you GnV ,i may need to lie down!
This is why we have a legal system,to decide what is reasonable.
Ah! but with whom?
Quote by Kaznkev
Being put in that position and what I would/would not do is not the question is it ?
Its if the actions of the man were right or wrong.....
He may well of thought he was doing what he needed to do but it was not the right thing to do and now lets just sit back and see how many more times this happens and this case used as an indicator of emotional state at the time of the incident and clever defence lawyers using it to their advantage....
I agree that he acted outside of the law and obviously so did the appeal judge which is why the sentence was not overturned but reduced.
It's easy to sit back and take a detached view. I'm your average law abiding citizen and would hope that in similar circumstances I would act within the law.......but would I?
The sad fact, is that no-one can presently answer that question or give guidance as each case has to be judged on its own merits which can only be tested after it happens.
:thumbup: God im agreeing with you GnV ,i may need to lie down!
This is why we have a legal system,to decide what is reasonable.
Ah! but with whom?
I dont know,any suggestions? :twisted:
Brucie is always looking for a good shag...
I love threads like this.
I love the smell of cyber testosterone - it's so healthy and so edifying.
The judge decided, on balance, that the public interest would be served upholding the verdict but releasing the offender. That makes sense to me; like that poor woman who murdered her son in hospital, I don't think this offender poses much of a threat to the public safety in future.
Hang on though, that poor woman, driven mad by grief and fear for what might be happening to her son inside his comatose brain hasn't got the Daily Mail or the 'I've got a baseball bat and I'm gonna use it' brigade on her side. so she's got a nine year tariff when common sense screams that she should have been sectioned the first time she tried to kill her son.
So which is better? A weapon under the bed and a dog that might eat your children or some decent locks and good security? Which is better, a country where some people get convicted of over reacting or a country where it's OK to chase people down the streat and stove their heads in?
You decide; actually, no. Thank god judges decide.
I love the smell of cyber testosterone - it's so healthy and so edifying.
The judge decided, on balance, that the public interest would be served upholding the verdict but releasing the offender. That makes sense to me; like that poor woman who murdered her son in hospital, I don't think this offender poses much of a threat to the public safety in future.
Hang on though, that poor woman, driven mad by grief and fear for what might be happening to her son inside his comatose brain hasn't got the Daily Mail or the 'I've got a baseball bat and I'm gonna use it' brigade on her side. so she's got a nine year tariff when common sense screams that she should have been sectioned the first time she tried to kill her son.
So which is better? A weapon under the bed and a dog that might eat your children or some decent locks and good security? Which is better, a country where some people get convicted of over reacting or a country where it's OK to chase people down the streat and stove their heads in?
You decide; actually, no. Thank god judges decide.
