24 Hours in Police Custody

[1949threepence]

2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I Did consider that as I was writing and that would be a different set of circumstances which would depend on many factors but for the most part the difference is that high speed pursuit by trained officers would be the preferred option as they are less likely statistically to lose control 

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years. 

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

well I have been thinking about that quite a lot  and in their duty to act as a proxy for the victim of the crime they often seem to cause damage to the criminal in pursuits which has to be done in order to apprehend , if the person resists arrest or that person causes an accident they do so at their risk.  The warning is given the moment a blue light shows to expect someone to pull over it is a signal of intent.  And I am sure the rules governing such events is codified legally.  These days with body cams most footage is seen which helps clarify the process.   I very much hope they would not (the police) be charged if they were diligent in their duty....why would they they are paid by us to enforce the law., they are trained in the skills of interception.  Training to control adrenaline and to keep clarity of mind I am sure takes many years to master,  

Yes, which I suppose explains why Mr White got 2 years for perhaps trying hamfistedly to perform a citizen's arrest, or track the criminals to where they were going. 

Justice in your book perhaps, but not in mine, and I would strongly suggest not in the majority.

 

 

[Peckris 2]

12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

But I'd bet serious money you didn't consider that if the police had collided with the criminals, having lost control on a bend, they WOULDN'T end up inside for nearly 2 years. 

That's nothing to do with the police. If his defence barrister proposed that he "lost control on a bend" during the trial, it would be up to a jury whether they believed that or not - in this case they obviously didn't. Juries can make the wrong decision sometimes, but that's the justice system we have.

[1949threepence]

31 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I answer to myself in respect to my opinions .  I would guess most of the attitudes I have dont register with the majority but I have never really much felt the need to answer to my personal philosophy.  

You do that. I do the same. You're the one who took issue with me don't forget - so expect to be x examined/criticised on your personal philosophy.

I re-iterate, I'd lay odds your sentiments on this case are not reflected by the majority. I would reflect on that and consider that you may be wrong. 

[1949threepence]

28 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

the jurors must have had a lot more information given to them than a 20 minute show could present.  Either the jurors  all of them or the majority must have believed the contrary to your opinion.  If he gets to an appeal maybe that may change but to have grounds for an appeal some new evidence must need to be provided or the court of appeals will throw it out.  

Oh, I'm pretty sure the judiciary wrapped up the legal niceties so that White was stitched up like a kipper. He probably didn't have quality defence, and is a fairly young guy who no doubt lacks sophistication and experience. Of course he was going to lose.  

[Peckris 2]

4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Oh, I'm pretty sure the judiciary wrapped up the legal niceties so that White was stitched up like a kipper. He probably didn't have quality defence, and is a fairly young guy who no doubt lacks sophistication and experience. Of course he was going to lose.  

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.

[1949threepence]

14 hours 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.

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.   

[1949threepence]

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. 

[1949threepence]

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

[1949threepence]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.   

[1949threepence]

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. 

[1949threepence]

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 December 7, 2022 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.  

[1949threepence]

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. 

[1949threepence]

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.  

[1949threepence]

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.

  

[1949threepence]

3 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 

I don't agree and I'm sure the CPS would want to avoid what would obviously be public and media mayhem if they took the hypothetical old woman to trial. 

The public will consider that the dead man, who invaded the old woman's property, lost all rights the moment he did so.      

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

The facts are the facts. What is in question here is the interpretation of those facts. 

[1949threepence]

Just now, DrLarry said:

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

Evidence that it was being "misused"? 

[1949threepence]

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. 

 

1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

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

There are numerous cases. Take a read of this link.

I'd point you to one paragraph, which sums it up for me:-

Quote

As a result of the Matthew Seddon verdict, Thames Valley police told me it had “reviewed a number of our policies and our training and improved the way we respond to incidents”. The police force brought misconduct proceedings against five of its officers involved in the Seddon chase, clearing three. One was given management advice. Another was found to have breached the standards of duties and responsibilities, but received no sanction.

 

[1949threepence]

4 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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

Anybody can lose control of their vehicle. It happens with great regularity.

[1949threepence]

2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 police believe that the public want criminals to be pursued at high speed, despite the potential dangers to others. From the Guardian article I linked to above:- 

Quote

The Thames Valley officer who started the Matthew Seddon chase, and who kept on it till the end, said several times while under investigation: “I believe it’s what the public would have wanted me to do.” A spokesperson for the College of Policing, which helps train officers to chase, said: “The public expect their police service to catch criminals.” We want the chase – or that is what police have come to understand. After a novel form of street crime began to cause panic in 2016, the public declared this interest more explicitly.