24 Hours in Police Custody

[1949threepence]

2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 think if your property is attacked/invaded, you are going to feel a range of emotions which are quite reasonable. The cold logic of the law does not sit comfortably with natural human emotion, which is why these type of cases cause so much angst. The actions in this case led to a genuine accident, not a deliberate intention to kill or injure - do you get that, or are you so much on the side of the criminals in this case, that you are subconciously blocking it out? 

[1949threepence]

3 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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 post I made which you responded to was talking about right and left politics, not this case. 

[1949threepence]

2 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

Given that every single one of your posts has been to decry what White did, and offer no real understanding of how householders feel in these situations, I find that extremely difficult to accept. But whatever.

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

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. 

Better tonight, but we'll see...

My answer to your point is something I've thought about over the last 24 hours, though  I see that you and Larry have covered it already. However, let me say what I have been thinking: Anne Secoulas drove without due care and attention (not dangerously, on reflection, as she drove on the wrong side of the road for a stretch but obviously not deliberately); she intended no harm to anyone but due to her carelessness a motorcyclist was killed. I believe that the suspended prison sentence was in part because she effectively 'fled' back to the States, which was a terrible thing to do, she should have stayed and faced the music.

Contrast this with White's intent: he was driving dangerously in pursuit of the burglars, and could have caused more harm than he did; I'm not saying he didn't have a reason that was provoked by the original crime, but as everyone knows, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the issue I think we all agree on, is that the burglars didn't suffer a legislative punishment fitting the crime. That's the injustice here, not the punishment dished out to White.

But as you and Larry have discussed to the Nth degree : intent is everything under the law. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter to take the most extreme case.

[1949threepence]

11 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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 

No, they did - again you're victim blaming. It's the equivalent of saying a woman wearing revealing clothes was "asking for it", if she's raped.

If they hadn't deliberately set out to commit a crime, the subsequent events, whatever their rights or wrongs, would never have happened.

I can't see how you don't get that as it's basic common logic - and informs why I say you are on the side of the criminals as you place every piece of blame on White and appear to absolve the criminals of all responsibility.

[1949threepence]

42 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Better tonight, but we'll see...

My answer to your point is something I've thought about over the last 24 hours, though  I see that you and Larry have covered it already. However, let me say what I have been thinking: Anne Secoulas drove without due care and attention (not dangerously, on reflection, as she drove on the wrong side of the road for a stretch but obviously not deliberately); she intended no harm to anyone but due to her carelessness a motorcyclist was killed. I believe that the suspended prison sentence was in part because she effectively 'fled' back to the States, which was a terrible thing to do, she should have stayed and faced the music.

Contrast this with White's intent: he was driving dangerously in pursuit of the burglars, and could have caused more harm than he did; I'm not saying he didn't have a reason that was provoked by the original crime, but as everyone knows, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the issue I think we all agree on, is that the burglars didn't suffer a legislative punishment fitting the crime. That's the injustice here, not the punishment dished out to White.

But as you and Larry have discussed to the Nth degree : intent is everything under the law. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter to take the most extreme case.

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't.

Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside.

Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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 watched the summing up which can now be shown televised. The maximum is 3 years imprisonment, and the minimum 6 months. We heard a lot of mitigating factors, and no reference to the fact that she absconded the country in such a cowardly way. Obviously any sentence is in absentia.

I think it's very odd you use the word "sadly" in highlighting the fact that she was not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity in the same way as her husband.    

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

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.  

 

 

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority.  

Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand  - sorry, sorry.)

[Peckris 2]

23 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't.

Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside.

Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

Saccoulas drove negligently, carelessly,and caused a death. I personally believe her punishment should have  been more severe, but the whole diplomacy/immunity issue stinks. As to White, he didn't have intent to kill, but the jury decided he had intent to cause harm  by driving dangerously.

Sorry, but that's the law whether you like it or not.

6 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority.  

Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand  - sorry, sorry.)

"you can rest assured it will be a majority" - I have no doubt that within the community in which you move and have your being, that is the case. But I move in a different community that thinks different.