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

8 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

yes whilst negligence in the extreme on her part I suppose the difference is that there was no intent to cause harm.  Intention plays a large part in many of these accidental bodily harm or death by dangerous driving cases I am sure.  It was a dreadfully sad case .  

Why do you keep saying that Adam White intended to cause injury or death, when the way that incident ended, was also an accident? 
 

Quote

 

Adam recalled the night in September 2019 when he saw Benford and Paul on his home CCTV trying to break into his home in Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire. He grabbed the keys to his Mercedes 4x4 and chased the pair.

He said: “They hit a Mercedes and I hit a truck. It all happened within three minutes. My engine was on fire, alarms were going off and the airbag was in my face. I couldn’t open the driver’s side door so I had to kick it open. I ran to a woman’s house and asked her to call the police and my wife.”

 

SOURCE  

 

Share this post


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

I  cannot say I am ever even sure these days what a tory or a labour , right , left newspaper is these days, I have never really added to the coffers of any of them.  There does however seem to be equality in terms of venom on both sides in people's political views.  As with so many of these "experiments" of human division they achieve little long lasting positive for anyone 

I'm not talking about newspapers. Even a high ranking member of the Labour Party, Front bencher Angela Rayner, referred to "Tory Scum" in a meeting where she didn't realise it was being recorded.

What do you mean "experiment of human division" as though some great mind is behind dishing out the playground insults? Explain with hard evidence to support your assertion. 

Share this post


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

Why do you keep saying that Adam White intended to cause injury or death, when the way that incident ended, was also an accident? 
 

SOURCE  

 

because the jury found that to be the case .  I am merely applying the decision of the courts.  At the moment there is not further evidence that was believed which might have led to another conclusion.    I know this is the very core of your belief that he had no intention to cause harm.  Even if this was not part of the decision his potential to cause harm would have registered in his thinking after a certain distance driving dangerous to cause others or himself harm. 

Share this post


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

because the jury found that to be the case .  I am merely applying the decision of the courts.  At the moment there is not further evidence that was believed which might have led to another conclusion.    I know this is the very core of your belief that he had no intention to cause harm.  Even if this was not part of the decision his potential to cause harm would have registered in his thinking after a certain distance driving dangerous to cause others or himself harm. 

No they didn't. He was convicted of dangerous driving, not a deliberate intention to cause injury or death. 

 

Share this post


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

I'm not talking about newspapers. Even a high ranking member of the Labour Party, Front bencher Angela Rayner, referred to "Tory Scum" in a meeting where she didn't realise it was being recorded.

What do you mean "experiment of human division" as though some great mind is behind dishing out the playground insults? Explain with hard evidence to support your assertion. 

I was thinking of wider political experiments , monitory or economic experiments, many of which have be tried and failed throughout history.  whether that be capitalism, globalism, socialism, communism or various forms of democracies.  There will be people that are driving one way and people that drive another way in terms of their political values.  All of which are based on philosophical concepts and ideologies..  Most of which have flaws which over time are expressed in real life.

Share this post


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

I was thinking of wider political experiments , monitory or economic experiments, many of which have be tried and failed throughout history.  whether that be capitalism, globalism, socialism, communism or various forms of democracies.  There will be people that are driving one way and people that drive another way in terms of their political values.  All of which are based on philosophical concepts and ideologies..  Most of which have flaws which over time are expressed in real life.

Not sure what direct or even indirect relevance that has to the nasty personal insults dished out by the left to anybody who questions their mantra. 

My point was in response to Peckris's about the term "bleeding heart liberal" being a "right wing invention". 

 

Share this post


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

No they didn't. He was convicted of dangerous driving, not a deliberate intention to cause injury or death. 

 

by choosing to drive dangerously is a person not making a choice to reckless endanger lives ?  whilst it may not be inherently obvious there is a degree to which intent could be part of each step on the throttle ....these are legal considerations and would have been made during arguments for and against the defendant.  The alternative would be he would have to prove he did not set out on his journey with any sense of malice or desire to catch and take his choice of punishment.  I am not saying if there is not some moral feeling of right to act just that he would have to have proved that in court  

Share this post


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

by choosing to drive dangerously is a person not making a choice to reckless endanger lives ?  whilst it may not be inherently obvious there is a degree to which intent could be part of each step on the throttle ....these are legal considerations and would have been made during arguments for and against the defendant.  The alternative would be he would have to prove he did not set out on his journey with any sense of malice or desire to catch and take his choice of punishment.  I am not saying if there is not some moral feeling of right to act just that he would have to have proved that in court  

To conflate that with a deliberate intention to cause injury or death is incorrect. As though he set out thinking "I'm going to do those two in", which is totally erroneous. You shouldn't make things up and repeat as though it's a hard fact 

The law takes account of instinctual actions made in the belief that they are the right thing to do - already enshrined in legislation.   

Share this post


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

Not sure what direct or even indirect relevance that has to the nasty personal insults dished out by the left to anybody who questions their mantra. 

My point was in response to Peckris's about the term "bleeding heart liberal" being a "right wing invention". 

 

I am simply pointing out that vitriol towards an opposite way of thinking is part of the many divisive systemes that have been established over the years.  More often than not reasoned arguments eventually fall into base use of language and personalised insults.  Debate is so limited these days that often the skills have been lost.  The purpose of the law is to try and disentangle emotions from a story to see along what actions a person can be judged.  In this regard you are correct a person is human  and ay react without thought or reflection.  The question is when is the cut off point when rational thinking would be expected to return.  " a person may not be allowed to give chase and stab someone when that person is fleeing" Mercer's point when highlighting that the bill he was proposing was not a freedom of a homeowner to commit murder. 

Share this post


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

To conflate that with a deliberate intention to cause injury or death is incorrect. As though he set out thinking "I'm going to do those two in", which is totally erroneous. You shouldn't make things up and repeat as though it's a hard fact 

The law takes account of instinctual actions made in the belief that they are the right thing to do - already enshrined in legislation.   

it would be a likely easier case to prove he did set out to "get em" than to prove the opposite.  By its very nature adrenaline control older parts of the brain hard wired towards violence and fight.  You are right it does allow for instinctual actions at the site of the property to act in ways abnormally.  In my understanding it does not allow the actions that were taken in this case 

Share this post


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

I am simply pointing out that vitriol towards an opposite way of thinking is part of the many divisive systemes that have been established over the years.  More often than not reasoned arguments eventually fall into base use of language and personalised insults.  Debate is so limited these days that often the skills have been lost.  The purpose of the law is to try and disentangle emotions from a story to see along what actions a person can be judged.  In this regard you are correct a person is human  and ay react without thought or reflection.  The question is when is the cut off point when rational thinking would be expected to return.  " a person may not be allowed to give chase and stab someone when that person is fleeing" Mercer's point when highlighting that the bill he was proposing was not a freedom of a homeowner to commit murder. 

I agree, but it in no way negates the point I made. Just offers a theoretical viewpoint as to why it occurs.

The second unemboldened part of you post drifts off into talking about the freedom of a homeowner to commit "murder", which nobody has suggested and which is not relevant to the post you were replying to. 

Share this post


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

To conflate that with a deliberate intention to cause injury or death is incorrect. As though he set out thinking "I'm going to do those two in", which is totally erroneous. You shouldn't make things up and repeat as though it's a hard fact 

The law takes account of instinctual actions made in the belief that they are the right thing to do - already enshrined in legislation.   

the opposite of conflation is deflation likely there is someone that sits central to both 

Share this post


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

I agree, but it in no way negates the point I made. Just offers a theoretical viewpoint as to why it occurs.

The second unemboldened part of you post drifts off into talking about the freedom of a homeowner to commit "murder", which nobody has suggested and which is not relevant to the post you were replying to. 

you referenced yourself the right to respond instinctively I was pointing out the passage in the reading of that bill which creates a boundary on what is meant by instinctual ....in the article your referenced this  was the legal argument raised politicised in order to ensure it was clear how far instinct is allowed to go  

Share this post


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

it would be a likely easier case to prove he did set out to "get em" than to prove the opposite.  By its very nature adrenaline control older parts of the brain hard wired towards violence and fight.  You are right it does allow for instinctual actions at the site of the property to act in ways abnormally.  In my understanding it does not allow the actions that were taken in this case 

I think if your property is attacked/invaded, you are going to feel a range of emotions which are quite reasonable. The cold logic of the law does not sit comfortably with natural human emotion, which is why these type of cases cause so much angst. The actions in this case led to a genuine accident, not a deliberate intention to kill or injure - do you get that, or are you so much on the side of the criminals in this case, that you are subconciously blocking it out? 

Share this post


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

you referenced yourself the right to respond instinctively I was pointing out the passage in the reading of that bill which creates a boundary on what is meant by instinctual ....in the article your referenced this  was the legal argument raised politicised in order to ensure it was clear how far instinct is allowed to go  

The post I made which you responded to was talking about right and left politics, not this case. 

Share this post


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

I think if your property is attacked/invaded, you are going to feel a range of emotions which are quite reasonable. The cold logic of the law does not sit comfortably with natural human emotion, which is why these type of cases cause so much angst. The actions in this case led to a genuine accident, not a deliberate intention to kill or injure - do you get that, or are you so much on the side of the criminals in this case, that you are subconciously blocking it out? 

I am not any any side ....or perhaps I am I am on the side of an innocent person (the public) who may have been (hypothetically) hurt or killed by an action of dangerous driving.  It is not an issue that either is correct it is an issue of the right given to a person to use a vehicle on the public highways.  I neither care or not care for any of the parties in this case.  

Share this post


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

I am not any any side ....or perhaps I am I am on the side of an innocent person (the public) who may have been (hypothetically) hurt or killed by an action of dangerous driving.  It is not an issue that either is correct it is an issue of the right given to a person to use a vehicle on the public highways.  I neither care or not care for any of the parties in this case.  

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end point of this case is that Mr white "could have" caused harm to others in his intention to catch the assailants.  His choice to drive dangerously put many at risk including himself once the burglars are fleeing the scene of the crime they pose no danger to his home or family.  The law has as much a duty towards him as the public to provide a penalty that illustrates that dangerous driving (under instinctive duress) will cause harm potentially fatal to anyone involved directly or innocently. 

Share this post


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

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

But my position I made very clear at the start property has no value worth causing self or others harm.  If property is insured then its monetary value can be regained.  The homeowner caused 10 times as much monetary loss by crashing his car, the bike and a van because he is out of control.  His life the life of the criminals and innocent people could have cost a vast amount more.  He also cost the life of the unborn child by his action and the law simply is saying to all others in the future.  Do NOT take the law into your own hands because these are the consequences. 

But again £175,000 was raised to replace their savings I have heard nothing of an appeal (legal costs) so the public have made these donations and a few thousand  or so people +/- have each donated between £10 and £15,000 so some of the public have made their choices.  What proportion think this is difficult to assess 

Share this post


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

The post I made which you responded to was talking about right and left politics, not this case. 

well yes divisive language and divided political beliefs that seemingly as you point out is becoming more vitriolic 

Share this post


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

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

But isn't the issue... whether the Mr White's position is more right than it is wrong the very essence of the discussion.  If not I doubt we would have continued with the debate.  Then you broadened out into other cases involving other homeowners and drew upon the legal article from Sheffield.  The issue really is  ...is the law accurate or distorted in favour or against the victim , you are arguing for favour  and a more lenient penalty.  If Mr white had just attempted to protect his property whilst on the property I might agree.  But the case goes further because the chase bought into the equation a broader "public" safety .  Those people who believe he had the "right" to act seem to be looking at the case as a simple piece of judgement.  he stole, I bashed, he ran case complete ....my position is just seeking duty beyond the two.  It is just potentially (legally) more likely to cause public harm in a 4 x4 mercedes than a motorbike   both are lethal weapons but one perhaps more so than the other one may be able to realise trauma but there is limited power 125 CC  verses 2.5 ltr . At 30 miles an hour a car can kill as much as anything from the surface area trauma on a bonnet of a car verses a bike  ( here I am just suggesting a reason behind the greater sentence ) this is if we are giving equal levels of dangerous driving.  

Share this post


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

So what? she killed someone, and gets no jail time. He doesn't and gets 2 years inside. That may be justice for you, but to me it stinks. 

Sorry to hear you're suffering from fatigue. Hopefully you'll feel more refreshed tomorrow. 

Better tonight, but we'll see...

My answer to your point is something I've thought about over the last 24 hours, though  I see that you and Larry have covered it already. However, let me say what I have been thinking: Anne Secoulas drove without due care and attention (not dangerously, on reflection, as she drove on the wrong side of the road for a stretch but obviously not deliberately); she intended no harm to anyone but due to her carelessness a motorcyclist was killed. I believe that the suspended prison sentence was in part because she effectively 'fled' back to the States, which was a terrible thing to do, she should have stayed and faced the music.

Contrast this with White's intent: he was driving dangerously in pursuit of the burglars, and could have caused more harm than he did; I'm not saying he didn't have a reason that was provoked by the original crime, but as everyone knows, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the issue I think we all agree on, is that the burglars didn't suffer a legislative punishment fitting the crime. That's the injustice here, not the punishment dished out to White.

But as you and Larry have discussed to the Nth degree : intent is everything under the law. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter to take the most extreme case.

Share this post


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

But my position I made very clear at the start property has no value worth causing self or others harm.  If property is insured then its monetary value can be regained.  The homeowner caused 10 times as much monetary loss by crashing his car, the bike and a van because he is out of control.  His life the life of the criminals and innocent people could have cost a vast amount more.  He also cost the life of the unborn child by his action and the law simply is saying to all others in the future.  Do NOT take the law into your own hands because these are the consequences. 

But again £175,000 was raised to replace their savings I have heard nothing of an appeal (legal costs) so the public have made these donations and a few thousand  or so people +/- have each donated between £10 and £15,000 so some of the public have made their choices.  What proportion think this is difficult to assess 

No, they did - again you're victim blaming. It's the equivalent of saying a woman wearing revealing clothes was "asking for it", if she's raped.

If they hadn't deliberately set out to commit a crime, the subsequent events, whatever their rights or wrongs, would never have happened.

I can't see how you don't get that as it's basic common logic - and informs why I say you are on the side of the criminals as you place every piece of blame on White and appear to absolve the criminals of all responsibility.

Share this post


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

Better tonight, but we'll see...

My answer to your point is something I've thought about over the last 24 hours, though  I see that you and Larry have covered it already. However, let me say what I have been thinking: Anne Secoulas drove without due care and attention (not dangerously, on reflection, as she drove on the wrong side of the road for a stretch but obviously not deliberately); she intended no harm to anyone but due to her carelessness a motorcyclist was killed. I believe that the suspended prison sentence was in part because she effectively 'fled' back to the States, which was a terrible thing to do, she should have stayed and faced the music.

Contrast this with White's intent: he was driving dangerously in pursuit of the burglars, and could have caused more harm than he did; I'm not saying he didn't have a reason that was provoked by the original crime, but as everyone knows, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the issue I think we all agree on, is that the burglars didn't suffer a legislative punishment fitting the crime. That's the injustice here, not the punishment dished out to White.

But as you and Larry have discussed to the Nth degree : intent is everything under the law. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter to take the most extreme case.

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't.

Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside.

Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, they did - again you're victim blaming. It's the equivalent of saying a woman wearing revealing clothes was "asking for it", if she's raped.

If they hadn't deliberately set out to commit a crime, the subsequent events, whatever their rights or wrongs, would never have happened.

I can't see how you don't get that as it's basic common logic - and informs why I say you are on the side of the criminals as you place every piece of blame on White and appear to absolve the criminals of all responsibility.

I suppose luckily in life there are those that think one way and those that think another my understanding and position is based on a set of experiences that are different to yours and that is as it is.  the Law of consequences in life would inevitably lead to untold issues in the world if we allowed them to control our lives.  In the majority of cases a cascade of events does not happen because there are rules , laws and social orders..  These keep the system in check some decide to break those rules and we have over centuries either by statutes or precedent established ways to codify this ...these things laws can be reformed , they can be modified.   If we the electorate feel strongly enough we can call upon elected individuals to raise these issues and if public opinion is strong enough and the argument well put then there is a chance for change.  There have been (as you point out) many such high profile cases summoning "85%" or "majority of the public"opinion in favour of reforms but when those figures are more considered they are not absolute numbers or else it is more than likely that the legal system would be overturned.  But whilst the law makers can make these changes the Judiciary and the politicians must be independent of each other or else the politicians might break the laws they create and if they cannot be called to justice well ....who knows what might happen they might lose the confidence of those who elect them.  

 

 

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  

×