24 Hours In Police Custody

[domalino]

I'm not bragging about anything just stating facts. Personally I couldn't give a fuck about your opinions on me ballbag. It also wasn't "meting out vigilante justice' but defending my person and property. Vigilante justice' would be to then pursue the matter further, find out where they live or drink and injure them some more.

You're just an argumentative busy **** who doesn't live in the real world. God help you if you're walking home late at night and stumble upon a couple of vicious muggers. Hopefully you're lawful passive actions save you. Do the right thing and hand over your valuables and hope they don't decide to batter you into a coma or knife you anyway just for the laughs. Still I'm sure you wouldn't want some well meaning person seeing this happening to run to your aid and take them out with a bat and save your life. If they do I'm sure they'd be grateful when you give evidence against them in court."Yes your honour those poor misjudged youths were stamping on my head but there was no need for Mr Smith to hit them with a bat. I know it could have saved my life, particularly as one had also pulled out a knife and was about to stab me,but equally his actions could have ended theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right, justice must be served."

You were literally bragging about meting out your own justice 2 posts ago you cretin.

Yes, one day I might be the victim of a crime, and I'll have to rely on the criminal justice system to hold people to account because the alternative is complete lawlessness which despite half a dozen neaderthals on here begrufging, every society on the planet has evolved past.

Why does every society on the planet have limits on self defence, and outlaws vigilantism? It's because actually, we don't want people endangering the lives of civilians in a car chase because someone almost stole something from them. And if you beat the shit out of someone with a bat, then their mate might wrestle the bat off you to stop you killing their mate, and then they'll beat the shit out of you with a bat, but hey ho, alls fair, that's not a crime because it was "instinct".


It's always the same posters on threads like this. Despite the fact that in the real world, criminal sentences keep going up and up, it's always the same people who think the law's soft, or we should bring back the death penalty, and then the rest of us have to remind you that it doesn't actually solve anything and we stopped because innocent people kept getting executed.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'm not bragging about anything just stating facts. Personally I couldn't give a fuck about your opinions on me ballbag. It also wasn't "meting out vigilante justice' but defending my person and property. Vigilante justice' would be to then pursue the matter further, find out where they live or drink and injure them some more.

You're just an argumentative busy **** who doesn't live in the real world. God help you if you're walking home late at night and stumble upon a couple of vicious muggers. Hopefully you're lawful passive actions save you. Do the right thing and hand over your valuables and hope they don't decide to batter you into a coma or knife you anyway just for the laughs. Still I'm sure you wouldn't want some well meaning person seeing this happening to run to your aid and take them out with a bat and save your life. If they do I'm sure they'd be grateful when you give evidence against them in court."Yes your honour those poor misjudged youths were stamping on my head but there was no need for Mr Smith to hit them with a bat. I know it could have saved my life, particularly as one had also pulled out a knife and was about to stab me,but equally his actions could have ended theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right, justice must be served."

There has to be a line drawn somewhere though, Paul.

How many times have we seen brawls outside of pubs etc that have ended up with serious injury and/or deaths. That’s a similar issue when the red mist comes down.

Circumstances can be taken into account when you are tried, but they tend to make the judge give a more lenient sentence, rather than exonerating the defendant of the crime, should they have been found guilty.

 

[paulchapo]

He would never be convicted of that unless he overtly told the court that that was his reasoning.

We had two people on a jury we were on that simply wouldn’t change their minds and wouldn’t talk about it. The case had blatantly not been proven, but was pretty obvious that he’d done it.

Therefore, we sat in a room for 3 days chatting about other stuff until the judge would accept a 10-2 majority verdict.

That's it in a nutshell. There was a fairly recent case in America where a bloke killed someone who had abused his kid. There was no doubt he was guilty but the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

As you say nobody could prove I'd deliberately found him not guilty unless I openly admitted it and who would do that?

 

[mancityvstoke]

Probably why they stand about watching and filming fights etc for youtube likes instead of getting stuck in and actually helping.

City aways for example ...many times being attacked by nobs from other clubs and been glad of fellow blues diving in to even things up a bit.

 

[domalino]

He would never be convicted of that unless he overtly told the court that that was his reasoning.

We had two people on a jury we were on that simply wouldn’t change their minds and wouldn’t talk about it. The case had blatantly not been proven, but was pretty obvious that he’d done it.

Therefore, we sat in a room for 3 days chatting about other stuff until the judge would accept a 10-2 majority verdict.

I didn't say he'd be convicted of it did I? I said it was a criminal offence and it is.

Again, he's completely unaware of the irony of bragging about how he'd break the law and get away with it in a thread where he's railing against ciminals almost getting away with attempted burglary.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's it in a nutshell. There was a fairly recent case in America where a bloke killed someone who had abused his kid. There was no doubt he was guilty but the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

As you say nobody could prove I'd deliberately found him not guilty unless I openly admitted it and who would do that?

I can only assume that would be on a temporary insanity basis, but I’m no US legal expert.

Like with all cases in court, it all depends on the evidence heard in the trial. If you admitted to making a verdict that you didn’t believe was right, then the judge would act accordingly.

 

[domalino]

There was a fairly recent case in America where a bloke killed someone who had abused his kid. There was no doubt he was guilty but the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

You're probably thinking of the story that goes viral every few months, Gary Plauché who killed his son's abuser in 1984 and with the help of pychiatrists reports showing he was having a psychotic break and wasn't fully mentally competent at the time, plead guilty in return for a 7 year suspended sentence, 5 years on probation and 3,000 hours community service.

He wasn't found not guilty.

Sometimes there's other fringe cases where a state prosecutor decides not to prosecute (normally for political reasons) but when people who obviously commit crimes go in front of a jury, they get found guilty, because that's a juror's job, and giving a false verdict is a crime.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No it wouldn't. The charge is causing serious harm by dangerous driving and the only charge more serious is causing death by dangerous driving.

Repeating something upteen times doesn't make it true.

Attempted s18 and attempted murder/ s18/ manslaughter/murder, are all more serious and all carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. No reason they can’t be charged involving the use of a car if the evidence supports it. The alternative proposition could give rise to absurd consequences.

 

[paulchapo]

You were literally bragging about meting out your own justice 2 posts ago you cretin.

Yes, one day I might be the victim of a crime, and I'll have to rely on the criminal justice system to hold people to account because the alternative is complete lawlessness which despite half a dozen neaderthals on here begrufging, every society on the planet has evolved past.

Why does every society on the planet have limits on self defence, and outlaws vigilantism? It's because actually, we don't want people endangering the lives of civilians in a car chase because someone almost stole something from them. And if you beat the shit out of someone with a bat, then their mate might wrestle the bat off you to stop you killing their mate, and then they'll beat the shit out of you with a bat, but hey ho, alls fair, that's not a crime because it was "instinct".

Again Mr high and mighty I was staring facts not bragging. I called it instant justice but in the unlikely event the law would have been involved it would have legally been called self defence. Anybody I hurt in these instances put themselves into that situation if they'd have left me alone it wouldn't have happened. I hope it made them think twice from doing it again and maybe saved a nice law abiding perfect person like yourself from having to go through a similar traumatic experience.

Good luck with that one. By the way have you picked up a newspaper or watched the news lately? If so I think you'd see even through your liberal utopia spectacles that society has far from evolved from that, if anything society has got worse.

Somebody should tell the police that then. How many people have been killed in their pursuit of stolen vehicles? I'd hazard a guess it's more than any vigilante killed.

Being involved in a violent confrontation has no guarantees of success either way. Only an imbecile willingly puts themselves into one without very good reason It's a last resort either to save themselves or somebody else.If, as in your hypothetical situation that happened they'd rightly be charged with manslaughter or murder, as the only reason I would be using the bat would be to try and save the victim from serious injury or death. If that threat was nullified but I had continued to beat the passive attacker maliciously with the bat then yes even though they initiated the violence one would be justified in stopping me. It would be a very chicken or egg case in court though.

 

[domalino]

Attempted s18 and attempted murder/ s18/ manslaughter/murder, are all more serious and all carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. No reason they can’t be charged involving the use of a car if the evidence supports it. The alternative proposition could give rise to absurd consequences.

Those would rely on proving he intended to kill them, not simply that he intended to ram them off the road (which is what was suggested)