DrLarry

Two factors are at play here Criminal law and Civil Law. The judge had to arrive in the criminal law courts as to whether she set out to carry out a criminal act. She was negligent and sadly because of some silly loop hole in the diplomatic immunity she was not covered in her journey to and from the base in the same way her husband was who had full immunity. Spousal diplomatic immunity as I understand it neglected this element of travel. Now in Civil law she acted negligently gross negligence in fact and the case is yet to be heard in the civil case. As I said it is a terribly sad case but whilst negligent there is no malice involved so in her absence I have to presume the judge simply had to prove criminal negligence. That must have a fixed term associated with with it. My apologies if I have misread this case but what it does is give her a criminal record for careless driving which I think was the thrust of what the case wanted to achieve. Whilst it seems a contradiction careless driving even if is causes death is different to dangerous driving to the degree to which a single careless act compares with repeatedly acting in a way that falls far below the expected of a competent driver.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

I would prefer a situation when neither existed, but human frailty creates weakness of decision making and thoughtless actions which sadly have consequences.

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

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 .

yes I just bought one arrived yesterday or today I think

yes I certainly didn't it was in with some other stuff I think ....it is surprising though even in the last 5 years the prices have been creeping up on rare issues

is the money raised going to be used in legal fees? It just does not seem very much for an appeal?

Oh dear what can one say ? in 30 pages it outlines that such cases may get some public response and I can remember all the cases in question other than the old man that camped out in his shed to protect some old tools who fired through a hole a 3 feet off the ground without knowing who and what he fired at. the question is a road statement if 85 % of the poll represents 85% of a poll or broadly 85 % of the whole population. Mr white had no duty to protect anything other than his home and his family neither were at threat .... why on earth would anyone think that the judiciary favour the criminal ....it just makes no sense. They may acknowledge that two crimes are not equal, to remove the right to life simply because a burglar is removing the right of ownership of a bike is a bizarre and archaic notion

in describing "courage" perhaps the definition based on overcoming fear . I have no insight into the mind of a burglar from a psychological point of view but I can surely bet a judge might have a better overview of the psychology of crime than many would. it does take quite a lot of time to become a judge. Sure they a maybe clumsy in wording at times but usually context is everything and point scoring by David Cameron is likely a distraction from the austerity that resulted in underpolicing. Politicians say whatever they need to say to appeal to that proportion of the public they require at any one time.

I have just read through all 30 pages of the link you added and I am not sure what you think it says. As I read it it outlines the complications between criminal and civil law and the confusions that arise from the human rights issues of the two parties the homeowner and the Burglar. It looks at a number of key cases that have received disproportionate newspaper headlines and campaigns to increase the rights of homeowners to no avail. In all such cases the law remained constant in its approach examining each case on its individual merits. In each case the legal issue under debate is the one of "proportionality" did the homeowner take proportional or disproportional actions to "keep safe" his home. In each case it mentions it found that disproportionate force was applied. At one point a judge quite clearly states that the homeowner has no right to chase the perpetrator down the street and then stab them as he is no longer protecting his home or family against the trespass . In this case (Mr White) several intermittent steps were realised in the action. A decision to get out of his safety of his home. A decision to consider the chase, a decision to start the car, a decision to speed chase with the car, a decision to "ram" or a failure of control"lose control on a bend" a decision to attempt to cause bodily harm. The moment the police arrived he himself remarked something along the lines of "i think I may have done wrong" I am sure you will correct this . Other than to outline the difficulties in such cases the article or paper does nothing other than to equally recognise the actions taken by the homeowner and the intent of the burglar. By breaking into a garage with bolt cutters and stealing the bike the burglars entered into a space not intending to cause harm to the homeowner and the family but to attempt what they saw as a simple act of stealing within common law. Surely just one step up from the "trivial crime of shoplifting" . I may have the story wrong so correct me if I have PLEASE, but I have heard nothing of confrontation and attempt to cause harm. Mr white reacted (as many might ) by disproportionate actions to get back his property. In the face of these cases a poll might well initially have a high popularity rating but in time once the "excitement" has gone ...I am not sure these stats would stack up. Statistics are terrible indicators of reality in polls. We are extrapolating out from a poll of how many? where are the statistics collected? how are they analysed? in other words they are , if ever , an accurate reflection of the general public. 100% of 12 listened to the evidence and decided a verdict of guilt or in the worst scenario 7 out of 12 a majority verdict decided his action was disproportionate. these figures do not illustrate 85% in favour. They are after all just the general public randomly selected. The only question here is then passed to the judge to determine sentence. The court of appeal if it goes there will focus on the judges verdict they may , as mentioned in the article decide to reduce the sentence and suspended for 2 years. One other factor is that the go fund me page was closed down by the administrators who said they had enough and would donate the rest to charity.. Does that mean that they do not intend to appeal the case?

I am maybe not quite "clued in" but thus far apart from Channel 4 ( which I respect greatly for news) I have not heard anything about this case on Radio 4 . Ok that might suggest I am of a certain demographic maybe just a boring old fart but it has served me reasonably well since a child (perhaps old before my time). Of course that does not mean that it is not important just that the debate as yet has little editing and content value. But I grew up around violence and working class ethos ( which certainly does not make me proud) so it isn't totally detached from my background thinking how certain newspapers generally react , in the end their purpose is to their own significance in the world and to sell after all they are a business. I am almost 60 now so I dont come from the post war generation, I am not a child of the 60's although born into them. I have good tertiary education . Hence I would not say I fit into any definition. I dont think I am a "bleeding heart liberal " or left wing socialist and certainly not conservative. Sure I am at heart European as well as enjoying a sub label of English. I DON'T find any reason why I would be only part of 15% who think the sentencing reflected the circumstances (as they have been presented) but then again I rarely use social media so perhaps herein lies the schism.

career criminals start some place ....maybe with shop lifting