24 Hours in Police Custody

[1949threepence]

3 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I am sorry I do not know the context 

So you're having difficulty following the article? It's about high speed police chases where innocent people get killed.  

[1949threepence]

Just now, DrLarry said:

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

They may well do, but they don't receive much sanction when innocent folk get killed as a result.

White got 22 months and no-one was killed. 

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, DrLarry said:

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

well read the article and then reply !

You don't need to make an interim statement.

 

[secret santa]

I originally posted this because of the disgust that I felt with the lack of punishment dealt out to the serial offenders. I also felt that Adam White's punishment was unduly harsh in the circumstances although it wasn't really feasible that he would have been completely exonerated. A much smaller punishment (suspended sentence perhaps) for him and a much harsher punishment for the burglars would have been more acceptable to the general public in my opinion.

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

ah, some meeting of minds at last. I too would agree with that.

and the intruders, do you agree they should have received harsher punishments?

[secret santa]

 

3 hours ago, DrLarry said:

The thing is the law can only deliver a sentence appropriate to the crime.

I would love to see a system that allocates punishment on an incremental basis, i.e. every successive crime acknowledges previous crimes and becomes more and more punitive, culminating in something truly dreadful. There seems very little deterrent in today's system. If every crime is simply judged on its standalone "merits", there is no recognition of the career criminal and the drain on society that he/she represents.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

 

I would love to see a system that allocates punishment on an incremental basis, i.e. every successive crime acknowledges previous crimes and becomes more and more punitive, culminating in something truly dreadful. There seems very little deterrent in today's system. If every crime is simply judged on its standalone "merits", there is no recognition of the career criminal and the drain on society that he/she represents.

Absolutely, sounds redolent of the "three strikes and you're out" principle used in parts of the USA.

Although it should only apply to violent crimes, not trivial stuff such as shoplifting.

[Peckris 2]

12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

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. 

The majority of Daily Mail readers certainly, and similar organs. But where is your evidence that the majority of the public believes this?

 

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

I would love to see a system that allocates punishment on an incremental basis, i.e. every successive crime acknowledges previous crimes and becomes more and more punitive, culminating in something truly dreadful. There seems very little deterrent in today's system. If every crime is simply judged on its standalone "merits", there is no recognition of the career criminal and the drain on society that he/she represents.

But this is already the case! All judges - when sentencing - have access to the perp's previous, and sentence accordingly. A first time offender (except for the most serious crimes like murder, kidnap, terrorism, etc) gets a lesser sentence than someone with a list of previous convictions. That's how sentencing guidelines work.

[1949threepence]

44 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

The majority of Daily Mail readers certainly, and similar organs. But where is your evidence that the majority of the public believes this?

 

 

Surely - take a look at this link

A couple of useful extracts for you:-

 

Quote

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 - Can the same be said of the recently-introduced s.43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013? This section was also enacted in the wake of 'overwhelming' public support32 following well-publicised cases involving self-defence and the home.33 The question is whether this new provision brings anything to the table or whether we are simply just seeing history repeat itself?

Quote

It is not surprising then that 85% of people polled in a subsequent television survey believed that the jury had been wrong to convict Martin. 27 Such strong public support for householders' rights to defend themselves and their premises helped to pave the way for the subsequent introduction of s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

I'd bet that the 85% are not all Daily Mail readers, in the time honoured fashion.

Here's another one which again indicates judiciary bias towards the criminal:-

 

Quote

More recently the current UK Prime Minister David Cameron alluded to the Castle Adage when he vehemently challenged a Crown Court Judge's comment that: 'it takes a huge amount of courage… to burgle somebody's house [and that he wouldn't] have the nerve'. 4 The Judge was attempting to rationalise passing a 12-months' suspended sentence for the burglary of 3 homes in 5 days. Critics have suggested that his statement that burglars are courageous is actually 'outrageous'; 5 that such comments only serve to highlight the failure of the criminal justice system and further fuel the perception that victims are not really at its 'heart'.

 

[1949threepence]

17 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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? 

It actually says exactly and precisely what I know it says in relation to Chris's question. 

No further debate necessary as you are now clutching at straws.   

[1949threepence]

39 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 

I've no idea of the underlying psychological/sociological reasons, and I couldn't definitively say it's a fact in being. But it's a very strong perception with many many people, especially when you get cases like this where the book is thrown at the householder and the intruders pretty much walk away laughing. Hence the point made with the link. I don't know how the poll was done, but I definitely wouldn't argue with the figure - ask the writers if you are in some doubt. 

Moreover with regard to this -  "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" you're forgetting three very relevant factors:-

a) There would have been zero incident without the original crime - that is very important in my view. The criminals themselves must surely know the extreme unpredictability of outcome and potential danger to them before they embark on their crime. Don't start a fight on the expectation that you won't get badly hurt in the process. As I see it the householder owes no duty of care to the criminal who invades his property, just not to carry on attacking once it's obvious the intruder is subdued enough to be controlled.

b) I'm quoting from the link:-

"In deciding whether householders have used an appropriate amount of force, both legal frameworks ask whether the use of that force was necessary. If so, the next question to be asked is whether such force was also reasonable in the circumstances. To pass both of these tests, the householder does not need to undertake a detailed risk assessment; 15 they just need to show that they did what they 'honestly and instinctively thought was necessary.' 16 On the face of it, these tests seem clear. But how well do they actually operate in practice?"

So in other words the householder acts honestly and instinctively, and being ordinary bods, can't be expected to be fully cognisant with the ins and outs of the law.  

c) White didn't set out to kill them as you imply. Had he done so, he could have killed them once brought down on the road, using his car as a body crushing device, in a few seconds.  

[secret santa]

18 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

But where is your evidence that the majority of the public believes this?

It's certainly not any evidence of a majority but the posted comments demonstrate an awful lot of support:

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

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Surely - take a look at this link

A couple of useful extracts for you:-

 

I'd bet that the 85% are not all Daily Mail readers, in the time honoured fashion.

Here's another one which again indicates judiciary bias towards the criminal:-

 

 

An interesting read. My initial remarks:

1. The judge who said it took courage to be a burglar was very foolish and rightly slapped down, not least by Cameron. However, he doesn't seem even remotely representative of his profession. If most judges said - or thought - as he did, the Mail would burst a blood vessel.

2. What was the TV programme 85% of whose viewers came out in support of Tony Martin? Not only "what", but "when"? That case was a cause celebre for a time until...

3. ...the facts about the rather unpleasant Martin came out - that he was lying in wait for burglars, that he'd laid a booby trap, and the one he killed was a 16-yr-old boy shot in the back as he was trying to flee. Ok, I do accept that his conviction was reduced to one of manslaughter but he still had to serve some years in prison.

White was sentenced to 22 months which does seem excessive in the circumstances, but suppose he'd killed one of the burglars as a result of the car chase - would you then say he still shouldn't do any time?

[Peckris 2]

13 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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. 

Not surprising as they are largely an invention of the right - especially the right wing press and a large % of their readers. The same press and readership who invented the myth that left wing councils had banned the word "black" in schools, in the 80s.

[1949threepence]

15 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

An interesting read. My initial remarks:

1. The judge who said it took courage to be a burglar was very foolish and rightly slapped down, not least by Cameron. However, he doesn't seem even remotely representative of his profession. If most judges said - or thought - as he did, the Mail would burst a blood vessel.

2. What was the TV programme 85% of whose viewers came out in support of Tony Martin? Not only "what", but "when"? That case was a cause celebre for a time until...

3. ...the facts about the rather unpleasant Martin came out - that he was lying in wait for burglars, that he'd laid a booby trap, and the one he killed was a 16-yr-old boy shot in the back as he was trying to flee. Ok, I do accept that his conviction was reduced to one of manslaughter but he still had to serve some years in prison.

White was sentenced to 22 months which does seem excessive in the circumstances, but suppose he'd killed one of the burglars as a result of the car chase - would you then say he still shouldn't do any time?

Given that Anne Sacoolas only got a (admittedly nominal in absentia) sentence today, of 8 months, suspended for one year, for killing Harry Dunn, then yes. 

No idea what the programme was. Contact the authors. 

[Peckris 2]

14 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Given that Anne Sacoolas only got a (admittedly nominal in absentia) sentence today, of 8 months, suspended for one year, for killing Harry Dunn, then yes. 

No idea what the programme was. Contact the authors. 

Yes, but hers was a case of dangerous driving - she'd strayed onto the wrong side of the road - she wasn't chasing burglars. The relatives all seem to think justice was done (I think there was too much politics in that case).

I don't have the energy to contact the authors, my life is a constant battle against fatigue. I'll leave this for another 24 hours, hopefully I'll be less tired then.

[1949threepence]

20 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not surprising as they are largely an invention of the right - especially the right wing press and a large % of their readers. The same press and readership who invented the myth that left wing councils had banned the word "black" in schools, in the 80s.

Quote

 

bleeding heart

noun

1.

DEROGATORY•INFORMAL

a person considered to be excessively soft-hearted or liberal.

"I've never been accused of being a soft touch or a bleeding heart"

 

Better than "tory scum", "never kissed a tory", "you tory piece of shit", "I wish Boris Johnson had died of covid" - charming people on the left. Always spitting venom, insults and hate, and never saying what they would do. 

Here's a few more "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe". That's just routine for daring to question the narrative.

[1949threepence]

30 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, but hers was a case of dangerous driving - she'd strayed onto the wrong side of the road - she wasn't chasing burglars. The relatives all seem to think justice was done (I think there was too much politics in that case).

I don't have the energy to contact the authors, my life is a constant battle against fatigue. I'll leave this for another 24 hours, hopefully I'll be less tired then.

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. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by 1949threepence

[secret santa]

I think I would prefer to be deliberately injured rather than accidentally killed. Should the sentence reflect that ?

[1949threepence]

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  

 

[1949threepence]

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. 

[1949threepence]

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. 

 

[1949threepence]

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". 

 

[1949threepence]

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.   

[1949threepence]

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.