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

   Rotographic    

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.

Sign in to follow this  
secret santa

24 Hours in Police Custody

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

but in the end we still have to rely upon the servants of the law to seek redress.  As instinctive as it is, so are many crimes, he made the choice and he has been charged with an attempt to cause bodily harm.  If I were the magistrate I would have to direct the case up to the crown prosecution service.  Of course both are wrong scenarios and hence they must be looked at as two criminal actions.  We do have a right to protect property but the right has its limitations.  The handbook is that we all know that protecting oneself or family is to put up defence to hinder the assailants progress.  I am quite serious tiny incursions progress towards larger and more serious incursions until there is limited order.  I am sorry if you do not agree there is little I can do about that, hopefully if you feel strong enough you will contribute to is legal costs.  

He says he lost control on a bend - that is not a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm.

There is no handbook, as you full well know. 

I certainly think there are degrees of "reasonable force" which, of necessity, will vary from individual to indivdual. For example, as I said earlier, if a frail old lady in her 80's owned a gun and used it against an intruder, believing - quite reasonably - that her life was in danger, then I'm sure the CPS would not pursue the case as there would be hell to pay. No judge would want to rule on such a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

it is most unlikely that those on one side of this argument are likely to to agree with the counterargument.  Whilst I disagree with the actions of the burglars I also agree that the law had not other choice than to charge him with intent.  I assume it was a 30 minute show and hence difficult to know all the legal discourse , it was I assume made into a TV show for entertainment purposes edited in such a way to give part of a story.  

 

All those that believe so do have the final opportunity to add to the go fund me page.  Because £167, 000 doesn't buy much legally 

It'll probably all go to those two little scrotes who broke into his garage, as damages. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, secret santa said:

It's reached over £168K now and the comments of the donors reflect the views of so many people regarding the leniency shown to the career criminals. No doubt they had a difficult childhood and are beautiful boys at heart. In fact, one of them when being arrested and asked if there was anyone who should be informed of his arrest, nominated his pregnant girlfriend and, when asked her date of birth, replied that he had no idea. Compulsory sterilisation crosses my mind.

Sadly Richard there are too many criminal loving bleeding heart liberals, who will invariably be against the householder in almost every case. Which possibly explains the police enthusiasm to prosecute White.

Whilst I think it was a mistake for him to chase after them, he is, as I've already said, only human, and there is no handbook for householders on this matter.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the more the courts show undue leniency to criminals, the more an aggrieved householder is likely to overreact in the heat of the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

He says he lost control on a bend - that is not a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm.

There is no handbook, as you full well know. 

I certainly think there are degrees of "reasonable force" which, of necessity, will vary from individual to indivdual. For example, as I said earlier, if a frail old lady in her 80's owned a gun and used it against an intruder, believing - quite reasonably - that her life was in danger, then I'm sure the CPS would not pursue the case as there would be hell to pay. No judge would want to rule on such a case.

I would agree in the US that would be the case , I dont know the legality of the arms controls in the UK  if she had a licence I doubt very much there would be much of a reaction in her own home in the UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

He says he lost control on a bend - that is not a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm.

There is no handbook, as you full well know. 

I certainly think there are degrees of "reasonable force" which, of necessity, will vary from individual to indivdual. For example, as I said earlier, if a frail old lady in her 80's owned a gun and used it against an intruder, believing - quite reasonably - that her life was in danger, then I'm sure the CPS would not pursue the case as there would be hell to pay. No judge would want to rule on such a case.

it is I think nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism.  If he lost control how would it be if you had been driving your car innocently around that bend .  I think the ruling would have looked at the loss of control as a positive affirmation of the the issue.  He lost control over a skill that normally comes as second nature because he is not trained in fast pursuit.  The judgment will be based on the driving being out of control and a preemptive judgment based on irrational action that could have caused harm to life.  My "liberalism" is based on a premise that I wish all people walking down a road or driving on it should have the freedom to feel "reasonable" safety when they are going to pick up the children, or going to buy a paper,  or walking the dog.  I am not in any way agreeing with the actions of the criminals.  But he also is judged as a criminal in charge of a pretty deadly weapon that a car is.   My hope would be that the burglars would get additional charges laid on them by their actions of of "aggravated counter responses they were responsible for"  sadly I dont think the law exists in this cross over point it sees two events and has to judge the two .   I do not think it liberal to expect the penalty for theft to be any more than the law decides . I also do not think it right to decrease the penalty for dangerous driving and bodily harm.  Even if unintended in the "loss of control" on the bend ....he could have killed you or a child or an old lady (without a gun) because he simply is responding with adrenaline driving the primitive response.  Laws are made to subliminally impose on the primitive brain the need for cautious response and as society evolves over time laws eventually control our  actions to make us all safer . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, secret santa said:

And the more the courts show undue leniency to criminals, the more an aggrieved householder is likely to overreact in the heat of the incident.

Yes, the perception/reality is that the criminal has full rein to do exactly as they choose, including holding the element of surprise, whilst the householder can only fight back with one hand tied behind his back, and having to think through every move as a courtroom would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It'll probably all go to those two little scrotes who broke into his garage, as damages. 

 

 

well I would hope that they are not afforded damages and I am sure there is law of precedent that somehow makes their case invalid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

it is I think nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism.  If he lost control how would it be if you had been driving your car innocently around that bend .  I think the ruling would have looked at the loss of control as a positive affirmation of the the issue.  He lost control over a skill that normally comes as second nature because he is not trained in fast pursuit.  The judgment will be based on the driving being out of control and a preemptive judgment based on irrational action that could have caused harm to life.  My "liberalism" is based on a premise that I wish all people walking down a road or driving on it should have the freedom to feel "reasonable" safety when they are going to pick up the children, or going to buy a paper,  or walking the dog.  I am not in any way agreeing with the actions of the criminals.  But he also is judged as a criminal in charge of a pretty deadly weapon that a car is.   My hope would be that the burglars would get additional charges laid on them by their actions of of "aggravated counter responses they were responsible for"  sadly I dont think the law exists in this cross over point it sees two events and has to judge the two .   I do not think it liberal to expect the penalty for theft to be any more than the law decides . I also do not think it right to decrease the penalty for dangerous driving and bodily harm.  Even if unintended in the "loss of control" on the bend ....he could have killed you or a child or an old lady (without a gun) because he simply is responding with adrenaline driving the primitive response.  Laws are made to subliminally impose on the primitive brain the need for cautious response and as society evolves over time laws eventually control our  actions to make us all safer . 

Well precisely. That's what happens when people's lives and property are threatened - they get an adrenaline rush. It's a physiological imperative and the judiciary should take account of it as a strongly mitigating factor.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, the perception/reality is that the criminal has full rein to do exactly as they choose, including holding the element of surprise, whilst the householder can only fight back with one hand tied behind his back, and having to think through every move as a courtroom would.

I would hope not it is just that burglary warrants a lower penalty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Well precisely. That's what happens when people's lives and property are threatened - they get an adrenaline rush. It's a physiological imperative and the judiciary should take account of it as a strongly mitigating factor.  

 

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   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

it is I think nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism.  If he lost control how would it be if you had been driving your car innocently around that bend .  I think the ruling would have looked at the loss of control as a positive affirmation of the the issue.  He lost control over a skill that normally comes as second nature because he is not trained in fast pursuit.  The judgment will be based on the driving being out of control and a preemptive judgment based on irrational action that could have caused harm to life.  My "liberalism" is based on a premise that I wish all people walking down a road or driving on it should have the freedom to feel "reasonable" safety when they are going to pick up the children, or going to buy a paper,  or walking the dog.  I am not in any way agreeing with the actions of the criminals.  But he also is judged as a criminal in charge of a pretty deadly weapon that a car is.   My hope would be that the burglars would get additional charges laid on them by their actions of of "aggravated counter responses they were responsible for"  sadly I dont think the law exists in this cross over point it sees two events and has to judge the two .   I do not think it liberal to expect the penalty for theft to be any more than the law decides . I also do not think it right to decrease the penalty for dangerous driving and bodily harm.  Even if unintended in the "loss of control" on the bend ....he could have killed you or a child or an old lady (without a gun) because he simply is responding with adrenaline driving the primitive response.  Laws are made to subliminally impose on the primitive brain the need for cautious response and as society evolves over time laws eventually control our  actions to make us all safer . 

Tell that to the police who've knocked down and killed innocent passers by in hot pursuit of a criminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Tell that to the police who've knocked down and killed innocent passers by in hot pursuit of a criminal. 

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I would hope not it is just that burglary warrants a lower penalty 

Don't make the mistake of assuming an intruder's sole motivation is always or solely burglary. It could easily be something more sinister like abduction, rape, beatings, murder or arson. The householder has no idea why the intruder is there, which is why my sympathies are very strongly with them.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years. 

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,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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,  

Yes, which I suppose explains why Mr White got 2 years for perhaps trying hamfistedly to perform a citizen's arrest, or track the criminals to where they were going. 

Justice in your book perhaps, but not in mine, and I would strongly suggest not in the majority.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years. 

That's nothing to do with the police. If his defence barrister proposed that he "lost control on a bend" during the trial, it would be up to a jury whether they believed that or not - in this case they obviously didn't. Juries can make the wrong decision sometimes, but that's the justice system we have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, which I suppose explains why Mr White got 2 years for perhaps trying hamfistedly to perform a citizen's arrest, or track the criminals to where they were going. 

Justice in your book perhaps, but not in mine, and I would strongly suggest not in the majority.

 

 

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's nothing to do with the police. If his defence barrister proposed that he "lost control on a bend" during the trial, it would be up to a jury whether they believed that or not - in this case they obviously didn't. Juries can make the wrong decision sometimes, but that's the justice system we have.

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 ..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, the perception/reality is that the criminal has full rein to do exactly as they choose, including holding the element of surprise, whilst the householder can only fight back with one hand tied behind his back, and having to think through every move as a courtroom would.

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

You do that. I do the same. You're the one who took issue with me don't forget - so expect to be x examined/criticised on your personal philosophy.

I re-iterate, I'd lay odds your sentiments on this case are not reflected by the majority. I would reflect on that and consider that you may be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

Oh, I'm pretty sure the judiciary wrapped up the legal niceties so that White was stitched up like a kipper. He probably didn't have quality defence, and is a fairly young guy who no doubt lacks sophistication and experience. Of course he was going to lose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Oh, I'm pretty sure the judiciary wrapped up the legal niceties so that White was stitched up like a kipper. He probably didn't have quality defence, and is a fairly young guy who no doubt lacks sophistication and experience. Of course he was going to lose.  

If you believe that the judiciary take sides the way you are suggesting, that's extremely worrying. Worrying that you actually believe that, I mean. And you believing that's the majority view is even more worrying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, secret santa said:

And the more the courts show undue leniency to criminals, the more an aggrieved householder is likely to overreact in the heat of the incident.

One thing you can be utterly certain of. If you called the police and said there was an intruder in the house, they'd probably get there about an hour later. Regardless of how much you or your family were in potential danger.

Conversely, if you said there's a guy/s broken in, I've got a gun and I'm going to possibly blow them away by shooting randomly in the dark, they'd be round with several squad cars, and possibly a police chopper overhead in a matter of a few minutes.

That's the way to get police attention.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×