DrLarry

I am not sure there is much more to add. I am not sure what out is , we dont have a continent available to dump prisoners on unless we build space prisons or make use of old oil rigs...having been on a few of them they feel a little prison like at times. I suppose we work on a principle that once a person serves their "time" they have paid for that particular crime...the hope is that it rehabilitates but sadly wholesale cuts to prison rehabilitation has been pretty destroyed by increasing numbers and increased time spent locked in cells and cuts. All these ideas of custodial sentences rarely get us to a better point. Tagged and on licence saves the system hundreds of millions a year I am sure....I am unsure what the answer is all the things that people complain about eg like a TV in each cell all are the result of cost cutting exercises and an attempt to keep prisons under control. There are simply not enough staff to provide for all these sectors of society that require the staffing whether that is prisons , police, nurses , Drs , care staff , education or service and hospitality there are many reasons why all of which I am sure we all know. The quality of services in all these now is so poor. The answer in the public sector is to increase taxes dramatically and pay for them. I am fine with that but many wont be.

I assume , not knowing the laws penalty on stealing a bike this was all the legal system allows. Was it aggravated are armed burglary? harm done only to property , chargeable in that instance as a minor crime and as has been suggested 200 hours of community service may have been based on a consideration of the state the prisons are in in terms of being able to house two criminals. I can only assume their past criminality that judgment was based on the evidence. I think the interest in this case has been driven by headlines. I do not think that the evidence of the wife aborting the baby because she feared the cost implication with the husband away was an after trial event and really had no role to play in anything other than the story line it is a very sad aspect of the case but legally not relevant. That is not to reflame the discussion just a point playing a role in the back story. The thing is the law can only deliver a sentence appropriate to the crime. The events after i.e the car chase and the Mr White aspect would not have been admissible in their trial.

on this I would agree a suspended sentence would have been a better resolution from an outside point of view it is hard to know why this was not the case . a suspended sentence usually is made if it is a first offence and the emotional forces driving the crime are not part of a repeated experience. We are led to assume he had no prior convictions or points for traffic or driving offences.

it is most likely easier to agree to disagree. For you to contribute to is legal fees. I acknowledge your arguments and appreciate your position. It is good to have such debates and I have enjoyed the discussion. We don't have to agree either way there are lessons to learn from the topic and the incident itself. It will detach me even further from any desire to protect property and it acts as a warning not to act in anyway that causes harm. So it has taught me valuable additions to my own experiences in life. I work often in high stress threatening situations at work in the Townships in Sub Saharan Africa and often we see violence and for the sake of property. I would only ever intervene to protect those children I work with I would forcefully inhibit anyones "desire" to cause harm with a big stick or place my body in between the perpetrator and those in my care. I would be upset for the kids in the projects and those in the future involved if someone stole my collection as it does provide a legacy to the charity. But would I protect it beyond a certain limit ...no certainly not if it caused me harm or my dogs. in the end it is just bits of flattened metal with pretty pictures on it, bought with other bits of paper versions of the same. Karma will sort it out at some point when she feels fit.

it would seem that you are strongly of the belief that Mr White should not have been given a custodial sentence. Of course you have right to believe that as will many others. Some may feel that the legal system did its duty with the evidence presented. We are unlikely to agree on this issue and on the other issue of police deaths those are cases aside which presumably are investigated and if in the end a policy of non chase becomes practiced then no doubt that will also be seen as yet another bias in favour of the criminal But it will be based on the weighing up he risks posed by that action verses value to the public to apprehend. I cannot say which will win out . I brought up police chase simply as a way of comparing Mr Whites skills verses Police pursuit skills . He is likely to have done it once in his life and is judged on that basis.

well it is my prerogative to type a couple of lines as I choose fit.... interim or otherwise .

no at the time I had not read the article I ws simply informing you of that

sadly yes I think chase is a complex issue ...if the police consider anything I am sure they weight up if the chase is warranted i.e the criminals may do more harm if not apprehended . Listen I dont agree with many things the police do but those in cars do at least have some training

yes sadly it does but there is often driver error and sadly some people die as a result and in the case of error such cases may go to trial

I am sorry I do not know the context

but he was not on a journey to Lidl to buy croissants he was in a high speed chase which he could "not control" lose control at a bend. It is just a fact in this case that he was not trained in high speed pursuit. Over what distance did this chase occur? What speeds were registered? the collision would have provided factual evidence along with witness and other evidence

but the fact is evidence shows he lost control and as such could have lost control at any point killing someone else.

well obviously that is what the jury decided not me

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

that was his legal argument I am assuming , but there is no doubt a car is a weapon in all circumstances if misused

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.

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

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

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"

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

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

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 ?

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

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.

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.