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

5 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

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.

You must be incredibly naive if you don't believe the judiciary are biased at best. 

With regard to the crowdfunding I think the public are fed up with seeing the criminals get away with it, and the essentially innocent party get nailed. It's topsy turvey, and I'm astounded that a man of your intelligence can't see that, Chris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very recent report on race bias within the judiciary - that's just one aspect of course - link

Share this post


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

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.   

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.    

Share this post


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

Here's a very recent report on race bias within the judiciary - that's just one aspect of course - link

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 ?

Share this post


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

You must be incredibly naive if you don't believe the judiciary are biased at best. 

With regard to the crowdfunding I think the public are fed up with seeing the criminals get away with it, and the essentially innocent party get nailed. It's topsy turvey, and I'm astounded that a man of your intelligence can't see that, Chris. 

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2022 at 9:30 AM, 1949threepence said:

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

that was a terrible case and I believe the offenders are both serving life?  

Share this post


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

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.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.    

I think you've completely missed the point with that. It could easily be a knife or an iron bar. Either way, the CPS is not going to send an 85 year old woman to trial for killing an intruder in her own house.

Share this post


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

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 ?

Again you've missed the point, which is that bias exists in the judiciary. The fact that this report happens to be about race bias is incidental. There are other biases as well.

Share this post


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

I think you've completely missed the point with that. It could easily be a knife or an iron bar. Either way, the CPS is not going to send an 85 year old woman to trial for killing an intruder in her own house.

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 

Share this post


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

Again you've missed the point, which is that bias exists in the judiciary. The fact that this report happens to be about race bias is incidental. There are other biases as well.

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 ?

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


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

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. 

It's far from the only case of this type, as you know, and the principle will wrangle on as long as cases like this continue - where the judiciary makes it abundantly clear that it favours the criminal and comes down like a ton of bricks on the guy who hasn't thought like a lawyer in the middle of the night, but has protected his property the best way he knows how.

The majority of the public, quite rightly in my view, hold the strong perception that the entire legal system favours the attacker criminal rather than the innocent defender of his or her own property.  

Incidentally, what makes you believe the programme was produced for "entertainment"?

Moreover, defending oneself from direct attack as with a break in, is not "vigilantism". I think you're getting "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.", confused with self defence.   

Share this post


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

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 ?

Bias towards the criminal and away from the victim. That's self evident from the entire thread topic and posts. 

Sorry you're still having issues getting your head round it. 

Share this post


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

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 

I am sure you know as well as I do the extreme furore which would follow such an old lady being sent to trial for killing an intruder. The "reasonable force" argument would be treated as the farce that it would be in such an event. 

Did the 8 stone, 5' odd 85 year old lady use reasonable force against the 22 year old,  hooded 15 stone 6' 2" intruder? I mean c'mon, get real.

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

It's far from the only case of this type, as you know, and the principle will wrangle on as long as cases like this continue - where the judiciary makes it abundantly clear that it favours the criminal and comes down like a ton of bricks on the guy who hasn't thought like a lawyer in the middle of the night, but has protected his property the best way he knows how.

The majority of the public, quite rightly in my view, hold the strong perception that the entire legal system favours the attacker criminal rather than the innocent defender of his or her own property.  

Incidentally, what makes you believe the programme was produced for "entertainment"?

Moreover, defending oneself from direct attack as with a break in, is not "vigilantism". I think you're getting "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.", confused with self defence.   

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

Well hopefully it will go to appeal - even the ECHR if necessary - as there is a clear injustice.

Share this post


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

I am sure you know as well as I do the extreme furore which would follow such an old lady being sent to trial for killing an intruder. The "reasonable force" argument would be treated as the farce that it would be in such an event. 

Did the 8 stone, 5' odd 85 year old lady use reasonable force against the 22 year old,  hooded 15 stone 6' 2" intruder? I mean c'mon, get real.

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 

Share this post


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

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 

If you start shooting in public, then I agree that is a step too far as it clearly endangers the lives of innocent passers by. But that is not the same as chasing after someone in a car and losing control on a bend.  

Share this post


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

Well hopefully it will go to appeal - even the ECHR if necessary - as there is a clear injustice.

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" 

Share this post


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

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 

I still argue that. The CPS would deem it not in the public interest for such a case to go to trial. 

Share this post


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

If you start shooting in public, then I agree that is a step too far as it clearly endangers the lives of innocent passers by. But that is not the same as chasing after someone in a car and losing control on a bend.  

But a car is a weapon in the hands of an out of control driver any number of people could be killed randomly 

Share this post


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

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" 

"Reasonable" is a subjective word open to many degrees of interpretation.

What's "unreasonable" in the eyes of what I would consder the majority, is treating the offender with more respect than the victim.  

Share this post


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

I still argue that. The CPS would deem it not in the public interest for such a case to go to trial. 

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 

Share this post


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

But a car is a weapon in the hands of an out of control driver any number of people could be killed randomly 

That's an absurd argument as he was not an out of control driver. he merely lost control at one point on the journey.

  

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  

×