24 Hours in Police Custody

[secret santa]

Did anyone watch this programme last Monday ?

It featured a man who chased 2 burglars from his house in his car before colliding with them on their stolen motorbike causing them injuries. They were career criminals who were merely given suspended sentences (because it would be difficult for them in jail) whilst he was given a 22 month prison sentence. That caused his wife to terminate her pregnancy and they've had to move away. His defence costs were over £50K but a GoFundMe page has now raised almost £150K.

Oh yes, and the scumbags are now sueing him for damages.

It certainly pays to be a criminal in Britain these days.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/24-hours-police-custody-outraged-184428067.html

https://www.gofundme.com/f/give-adam-white-justice

[1949threepence]

6 hours ago, secret santa said:

Did anyone watch this programme last Monday ?

It featured a man who chased 2 burglars from his house in his car before colliding with them on their stolen motorbike causing them injuries. They were career criminals who were merely given suspended sentences (because it would be difficult for them in jail) whilst he was given a 22 month prison sentence. That caused his wife to terminate her pregnancy and they've had to move away. His defence costs were over £50K but a GoFundMe page has now raised almost £150K.

Oh yes, and the scumbags are now sueing him for damages.

It certainly pays to be a criminal in Britain these days.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/24-hours-police-custody-outraged-184428067.html

https://www.gofundme.com/f/give-adam-white-justice

Missed it, but it was raised by Michelle Dewberry on GB News, who felt much as you do Richard.

I appreciate it's a fine balance between self defence and overkill (forgive the unintended pun), but generally the law should be more on the side of the homeowner in my opinion. Probably the homeowner was over enthusiastic in his pursuit of the criminals, but the way he's been subsequently humiliated by the law is in my view, unforgivable and will outrage the public sense of fair play.

Personally speaking I think I'd have the presence of mind not to go after the criminals if I'd succeeded in driving them out of the property. But inside, for me, they are fair game.

The problems for the householder are four fold:

a) They have absolutely no idea what the intentions of the intruder are. 

b) They have milliseconds to determine their response, not the months and years those in the legal profession have to pass judgement.

c) They will most likely have been woken in bed, not able too think straight for a minute or two, as well as undressed and completely unprepared.

d) It's dark.   

If someone, or more than one, broke into my house, then, as single guy living alone, I'd logically assume they'd come to burgle, and I wouldn't put my life at risk by interfering - BUT: if I was married with a young family, my immediate thought would be for their protection, and I would take action. Most probably I'd come off worst, but I would use any weapon at my disposal and not hesitate to use lethal force. Although if the intruder was some weak druggie, or whatever, then once subdued, I'd tie him up and call the police.  

I think there are also degrees of force which may be acceptable in different cases. For example a frail 85 year old woman shooting dead some lowlife POS in her house, is going to be treated with far more consideration (ie: there is no way on God's green Earth that any judge would dare pass any sentence on her, given the pubic and media storm which would follow), than if it were a 6' 5" bloke built like a brick outhouse breaking the intruder's neck.   

Of course an opportunist criminal is far more likely to target the former than the latter.  

ETA: Read the link. Personally I wouldn't bother getting physically involved if I noticed someone breaking into my separate garage. Just call the police, and hope that doorbell cam caught an image of them. The outside light should come on anyway. It's now sophisticated enough not to be triggered by a cat passing by.   

    

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by 1949threepence

[secret santa]

I find the most enraging aspect is that the culprits suffered no legal punishment and even worse, that they may make financial gain from the episode.

[Peckris 2]

It's not the sentence passed on the homeowner that's the awful thing here (after all, there are laws governing "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" and the police cannot ignore that). No, it's the lenient treatment handed out to the perps, who were not only burgling but had also stolen the bike they got away on.

[secret santa]

I think there's a growing feeling that justice is not being seen to be done in many cases in this country, and that we are soft on serial offenders. The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

[1949threepence]

Our prisons are overcrowded. Perhaps there's a case for non violent offenders such as serial shoplifters, benefit fraudsters and tax evaders, for example, to serve any penalty outside prison, maybe using tags and curfews, as well as community service. We might even consider "house arrest" or "house sentence" as a potential way forward, where practicable.

I'd consider any housebreaker as a violent offender, even if nobody was hurt. Moreover, rather than letting them off on parole if they appear to be "rehabilitated", the criteria should surely be how much of a threat they remain to the public. The likelihood is that they do still represent a threat in many cases. The recent case of Colin Pitchfork, who was sentenced to life in 1987 after raping and strangling two young girls when he was in his 20's, then released on parole in 2020 aged 60, is notable. He was again soon pestering young girls !!! - so found himself back inside very quickly for breaching the terms of his parole. 

Conversely, Harry Roberts who shot dead a poilice officer in 1966, was released on parole in 2014, aged 78. In his case, despite the dreadful nature of his crime, I'd say it's highly unlikely he's going to be a threat to anybody in future - except, perhaps ironically, someone who breaks into his property.          

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's not  a complete picture. The "half term" does not apply

• to prisoners serving life, for which judges hand down minimum tariffs
• to prisoners considered a danger to the public, e.g. some sex offenders, terrorists, etc
• to prisoners who haven't exhibited 'good behaviour' while inside
• to prisoners (whether guilty or innocent) who assert their innocence while in jail

Also, prisons are full of individuals with mental health problems. And they're overcrowded. Mike's suggestion that some kinds of offence could be treated effectively outside prison has a lot of merit.

[copper123]

He should have phoned the police first not being a policeman himself it does not even cost anything , easy to say now but the only course of action really

[Peckris 2]

14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's not  a complete picture. The "half term" does not apply

• to prisoners serving life, for which judges hand down minimum tariffs
• to prisoners considered a danger to the public, e.g. some sex offenders, terrorists, etc
• to prisoners who haven't exhibited 'good behaviour' while inside
• to prisoners (whether guilty or innocent) who assert their innocence while in jail

Also, prisons are full of individuals with mental health problems. And they're overcrowded. Mike's suggestion that some kinds of offence could be treated effectively outside prison has a lot of merit.

I should have added: any prisoner released halfway isn't truly 'free' - they're on licence, and one single blot on their behaviour (anything) and they're back inside to serve out the full term.

[secret santa]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:51 PM, Peckris 2 said:

No, it's the lenient treatment handed out to the perps, who were not only burgling but had also stolen the bike they got away on.

Precisely !!!!!!!!!!

[1949threepence]

Another aspect of this issue which should be considered is the "heat of the moment" one of normal human reaction to attack - and an invasion of one's property is an attack. We are not automatons able to switch on and switch off at a second's notice. As I've alluded to earlier, it's great for those in the legal profession who have quite literally, all the time in the world to think up what should and shouldn't be done in such situations. But the one overarching point is that they weren't the ones in that real life situation.

I remember from years ago, the police, when criticised for their actions, saying "we are only human". Well, just so, we are only human and expecting the average bod trying to protect his property to think and behave in the middle of the night in such a traumatic event, with the cold detachment of a lawyer, is incredibly stupid.

So yes, in theory, Mr. White shouldn't have chased after the intruders in his car. But we don't all think the same, and the main fact we should bear in mind is that if they hadn't tried to break in, it would never have happened. So in modern parlance, going after him and not the criminals, is a form of "victim blaming".  

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

So yes, in theory, Mr. White shouldn't have chased after the intruders in his car. But we don't all think the same, and the main fact we should bear in mind is that if they hadn't tried to break in, it would never have happened. So in modern parlance, going after him and not the criminals, is a form of "victim blaming".  

They should have gone after both. (I'm not sure I see the point of the "victim blaming" remark).

[1949threepence]

22 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

They should have gone after both. (I'm not sure I see the point of the "victim blaming" remark).

As far as I'm concerned he's the victim, and he's been jailed and got a criminal record for a completely human and understandable reaction - there's the blame. While the two thieving toerags who started the entire incident get away with a slap on the wrist, and are now able to sue him - further blame.

 

 

[1949threepence]

50 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

but you're advocating anarchy, the freedom of the individual to respond outside the law.  We don't live in a theocracy an eye for an eye and even in those systems there still has to be due process (no matter how skewed).  if each person is allowed to take such action for things that rightly or wrongly they feel the right to pass judgement on then no one would be able to live with a sense of freedom.  In this case there is , of course, condemnation of the thieves but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.  The Law stamps on such cases in order to keep a check on behaviours that can easily spill in to general life.  I dont think it is a case that the thieves deserve any less harsh a treatment under the law.  But the home owner is also a criminal in his actions.  Property is just not valued and neither should it be beyond a defense in the house to protect.  To think where' s  my keys? where's my car? let's run them down..... is three thinking steps forethought with malicious intent.  sadly or otherwise to prevent anarchy that is how law works.  

 

I know I personally would not feel very safe in a system that works allowing someone that freedom. 

definition of anarchy: 

"1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."

No, I'm not advocating that, and you seem to have arrived at such a conclusion without properly reading what I've written.

There has to be legal sanction if an individual deliberately goes too far in the defence of their property. But currently - and certainly in this case - we have a situation where the householder has been sucked into a very nasty situation, which in every sense was not of his making. We should always have uppermost in our minds the fact that if Benford and Paul had not committed a crime in the first place, there would have been absolutely no incident. 

We then surely have to realise that White is a human being with normal emotions, that everybody reacts differently under threat and that there is no useful little handbook for householders on what to do in such situations. He was jailed for 22 months and now faces being sued by the criminals, whilst they got off very lightly. Sorry, but the balance is not right.

Also, you're jumping to unproven conclusions by assuming that he went after them to deliberately knock them down, as opposed to just giving chase and maybe trapping them, or following them to wherever they were going. This is what he actually said:  "Mr White, who told police at the accident scene that he had lost control of the vehicle when going around a bend, was arrested on the spot on suspicion of GBH." SOURCE.

When you say this:  "but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.", I think you're falsely conflating two totally separate issues. The two are so wide apart that I doubt you can truly be serious. The incident in question is totally unprovoked by the victim, whereas attacks based on lifestyle, race or philosophy have an aggressor and a victim. Both White and your hypothetical target of racism etc, are BOTH victims. 

The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. 

In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

[copper123]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

d

The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. 

In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

Ahhh but did it get him a lenient sentence?

The answer is no

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, copper123 said:

Ahhh but did it get him a lenient sentence?

The answer is no

thank goodness for crowdfunding.

[secret santa]

21 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

thank goodness for crowdfunding.

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.

Edited December 5, 2022 by secret santa
addition

[1949threepence]

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.

[1949threepence]

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. 

 

 

[1949threepence]

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.    

[secret santa]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.  

 

[1949threepence]

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. 

[1949threepence]

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.