Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DrLarry

  1. but the fact is evidence shows he lost control and as such could have lost control at any point killing someone else.
  2. well obviously that is what the jury decided not me
  3. but I , like you, am a member of the public.....I would hope that no actions would be taken if reasonable force were used. if he were armed with something other than his arms (although they too can kill the old lady) anyways it is hypothetical , some rights are lost ( the right to freedom) but not 100% his right to life
  4. that was his legal argument I am assuming , but there is no doubt a car is a weapon in all circumstances if misused
  5. well you are "trying to get my head around it" and yet I am not convinced by it . It seems a little conspiratorial in its underlying nature that a randomly selected group of individuals listen and carefully decide on the facts....not on the emotions.
  6. it might not be in the public interest but the rights of the dead man still have to be considered ....even if he should not have been there. and it would very much depend on the nature of the killing in self defence
  7. But a car is a weapon in the hands of an out of control driver any number of people could be killed randomly
  8. that is a moot point...the issue of injustice hence in our own small way this debate . the law can consider duress as an emotional driving force. But the clear issue here is "reasonable"
  9. but you argued it would not go to trial. There would have to be a trial a crime has been committed . sure the judgment might be that the 85 year old lady would not likely be a threat to society but a trial would still take place
  10. defending oneself at the site of a breakin acknowledges that reasonable force can be taken against trespass and through accepted fear of ill intent towards the home owner. It is not vigilantism. But if you take the situation into a public domain ( lets say you start shooting and hit an innocent person) you are just as much a criminal towards that victim. The case would have been driven by his willingness to undertake a potentially harmful act using a weapon ( a car) in public will disregard to any other person on the streets. Nothing else . then in an attempt to "Ram " 9 or lose control on a bend0 to apprehend ( citizens arrest) read them their rights and take them to a police station . He simply lost control and did not utilise the legal authority to seek justice. in so doing the bike was trashed, his car trashed, he disregarded the safety of himesle and therefore by emotional attachment the family and unborn child. this is the argument the judge would have asked them to pass judgement on ....guilty or not of dangerous driving, reckless endangerment, clearly they did and the judge decided his action required a minimum penalty which was custodial sentence
  11. I think I really endorsed your argument of judicial bias if that was not clear then my apologies. But I cannot see in this case what the bias is ?
  12. true but it would have course go to trail. If she killed by one accidental stab you are likely right. if she went into a stabbing frenzy as sometimes people do with adrenaline then the law would likely say the force used was unreasonable. The only right to protect self is to show reasonable force if I am not mistaken. It illustrates that a top line headline "old lady kills burglar" is not all the evidence as in this case "homeowner convicted after causing GBH to burglars" it was a TV entertainment programme they will be searching through millions of treats on tritter or is it twitter? to rank their popularity value so they can make more money when selling advertising space
  13. this will wrangle on for a long time I am sure and it will divide opinion. Those who have no faith in the legal system will contribute to his legal fees those that believe that the facts are presented for entertainment recognise that we cannot have all the evidence will continue to acknowledge that trial but public has limited value. I hope that we get to hear the follow up and perhaps more evidence will be presented. Rather than being a case of liberalism verses conservatism it is a matter of public safety verses personal rights to take actions ( vigilantism) even if the provocation seems reasonable.
  14. I suppose there is something in the idea that if you see yourself as innocent it doesn't matter you will always be found to be guilty in that it reduces the likelihood of criminality. But I agree I am not sure what the instruction was to the Jury whether majority or unanimous but they would have been informed in advance ( I would imagine with a case potentially sensitive as this is ) it would be a unanimous advisory . I do not know even how long it took the jury to decide the decision. But if sufficient disagreed then a mistrial would have been called and the case heard again. I have never been called to be a juror as yet.
  15. that was a terrible case and I believe the offenders are both serving life?
  16. but he is not innocent he was found to be guilty presumable of reckless endangerment of life , his own included , dangerous driving with intent to cause harm, presumably speeding. The criminals did not get away with it on their part they have to serve 200 hours community service. I do not know the penalty for his crimes presumably as he got a custodial sentence this is the minimum he could be given decided by a judge. Judge in the lower court are unlikely to set legal precedent and change the law. We are lucky to have the right ot precedent in the appeals and supreme court and the European court of human rights. It may well be the case if the case goes to appeal that the custodial sentence will be overturned.
  17. institutionalised racism may be happening in many trials where there is subliminal bias and I agree there is an an issue , but Mr White is as his name suggests. But I see your point on bias as evidence of a failure of the jury system and is a separate but significant issue. perhaps that should be our next topic ?
  18. but you keep mentioning this old lady with a gun and this family man with a gun you fail to see that to obtain a licence to have a gun ( although some idiots have been given them ) you have to have had at least some training (many a lot of training) and some knowledge of the rules controlling the use of these weapons The legal duties of ownership at least ready someone to know how to use them effectively not to kill but to use to protect which might mean being shot in the leg but not shot in the head or heart. In other words a person with a gun (in this country at least) is taught the duty. Preparation is the main thrust of my argument here is that one can prepare to control adrenaline with appropriate training. In controlled experiments with those who are in extreme adrenaline situations illustrate how clarity of thinking in stress situations can be controlled I am certain the electrician had no such training and reacted as a "normal" person would. Reckless endangerment to himself and others and hence the Jury must have had better evidence than we have.
  19. the jurors must have had a lot more information given to them than a 20 minute show could present. Either the jurors all of them or the majority must have believed the contrary to your opinion. If he gets to an appeal maybe that may change but to have grounds for an appeal some new evidence must need to be provided or the court of appeals will throw it out.
  20. yes they must have done so with ALL the evidence and the majority verdict or all must have agreed so somewhere in this the MAJORITY of 12 at least did as they felt was correct ..
  21. I answer to myself in respect to my opinions . I would guess most of the attitudes I have dont register with the majority but I have never really much felt the need to answer to my personal philosophy.
  22. well I have been thinking about that quite a lot and in their duty to act as a proxy for the victim of the crime they often seem to cause damage to the criminal in pursuits which has to be done in order to apprehend , if the person resists arrest or that person causes an accident they do so at their risk. The warning is given the moment a blue light shows to expect someone to pull over it is a signal of intent. And I am sure the rules governing such events is codified legally. These days with body cams most footage is seen which helps clarify the process. I very much hope they would not (the police) be charged if they were diligent in their duty....why would they they are paid by us to enforce the law., they are trained in the skills of interception. Training to control adrenaline and to keep clarity of mind I am sure takes many years to master,
  23. I Did consider that as I was writing and that would be a different set of circumstances which would depend on many factors but for the most part the difference is that high speed pursuit by trained officers would be the preferred option as they are less likely statistically to lose control
  24. I dont know how long the pursuit lasted and the surroundings in which it took place or the time of the day all these things would be considered. Physiologically adrenaline at the scene of the crime is aggravated by the criminal. Adrenaline in the chase is initiated repeatedly by the driver as much as the the criminal directly so I assume they had expert witness in the trial to explain this to the jurors
  25. I would hope not it is just that burglary warrants a lower penalty