24 Hours In Police Custody

[domalino]

It's a really hard call isn't it? Lots of people will often see stories like this and judge the person and say he shouldn't have done xy and z. Like the police and courts, sitting in a safe warm environment it's easy to make that call. In the heat of the moment it's not that easy. These people are out there and have often been offending and running wild from an early age. Many have countless offences to their name. When it's your face they are snarling at when you're out with your wife and kids, or girlfriend, or its your window and door they're trying to come through one dark night, that rational logic often goes out of the window.

I genuinely don't think it's that hard a call.

Burglary is a horrible crime, but it's obviously a lot less serious a crime than deliberately ramming someone off the road while speeding in a 4x4 miles away from your house.

He crashed into the blokes who stole his motorcyle, he could just have easily have crashed into a family of 5 and killed the lot of them.

 

[domalino]

Having read the details in that link I'm glad I didn't. Just another example of the criminal law doing more for the perpetrators of crime and not the victims. Instead of rather luxurious 'fact-finding' trips to far off sunny climes Westminster should be targeting the crime that destroys innocent people's lives.

It always blows my mind how many people on here fantasise about living in the wild west.

It's 2022 and we still have people who wish they lived in a world where an attempted burglary gives them the right to go on a high speed chase through the local area and attempt to kill people by ramming into them.

He's lucky he didn't kill anyone, he's lucky he didn't kill or seriously injure a bystander, and he's incredibly lucky that he only got sentenced to 22 weeks for a crime that could have put him in prison for 5 years.

Poor bloke was just protecting his wife and family from scumbags.

Poor bloke, just protecting his wife by leaving her alone in the house while he went on a high speed chase around town trying to get revenge while putting countless other local residents at risk of death.



That’s the problem the fantasists forget of course - you’re much more likely to be the innocent passer by taken out by some vigilante **** chasing down burglars than you are to be the hero giving the career criminals their just deserts.

 

[paulchapo]

People shoild not be given carte blanche in circumstances such as these. To suggest otherwise would mean it was ok to detain, imprison, rape, torture, murder and dismember a fifteen year old that was attempting to steal (not even rob or burgle) your property. Unless anyone agrees that is acceptable, then they must agree with that principle.

Once that is established, then what is left to determine is where that line is. A jury of twelve ordinary people, bringing their experience of life to bear felt he crossed it. Based on what I have read, I agree with them. He was no longer defending his home, was using his vehicle as a weapon in anger, caused serious injury, and his actions could have recklessly caused the deaths of innocent bystanders. Of course that should be punished.

Is anyone seriously suggesting it shouldn’t?

If people are freely allowed to take the law into their own hands it’s the start of a very slippery slope as a society and one where habitual criminality will increase, not decrease.

That's a bit of an extreme example. He wasn't doing any of that he dashed out to try and stop them getting away by pursuing them in his car. Whether he deliberately drove the car at them I don't think was proven but admittedly his actions were reckless, albeit driven from trying to do the right thing, stopping two thieving toerags getting away.

The law needs changing, as happened to an extent after the Trevor Martin case. If you are going out committing criminal acts then it should be made clear that if law abiding citizens trying to stop you injure you in the process it is a risk you take. Even the police themselves changed their procedures when faced with a spate of moped robberies. Instead of letting them drive away they started ramming them.

It is a touchy and emotive subject. If I'd have been on the jury by the letter of the law I'd agree he'd been reckless and stupid but I'd also understand why he took those actions. I'd realise he was unlikely to ever be in this situation again and the stress he'd suffered leading up to and during the trial would have taken a huge toll on him and his family. On that basis I'd have voted not guilty as sending him to prison served no real purpose. A deterrent to others? Possibly but I doubt it, people will still react on the spur of the moment on threats to their homes, family and property and with the fight or flight emotion highly triggered it will happen again.

I'm pleased to see a go fund me page set up by somebody on his behalf has reached £51,000 which at the moment will reimburse him his legal costs. As the two scumbags are suing him for damages his nightmare isn't yet over. Can somebody committing a criminal act sue for damages caused while committing that act?

 

[mancityvstoke]

It always blows my mind how many people on here fantasise about living in the wild west.

It's 2022 and we still have people who wish they lived in a world where an attempted burglary gives them the right to go on a high speed chase through the local area and attempt to kill people by ramming into them.

He's lucky he didn't kill anyone, he's lucky he didn't kill or seriously injure a bystander, and he's incredibly lucky that he only got sentenced to 22 weeks for a crime that could have put him in prison for 5 years.



Poor bloke, just protecting his wife by leaving her alone in the house while he went on a high speed chase around town trying to get revenge while putting countless other local residents at risk of death.



That’s the problem the fantasists forget of course - you’re much more likely to be the innocent passer by taken out by some vigilante **** chasing down burglars than you are to be the hero giving the career criminals their just deserts.

yeah...poor bloke...made a mistake after scumbags tried entering his property.

Glad you aint my neighbour....

 

[paulchapo]

I genuinely don't think it's that hard a call.

Burglary is a horrible crime, but it's obviously a lot less serious a crime than deliberately ramming someone off the road while speeding in a 4x4 miles away from your house.

He crashed into the blokes who stole his motorcyle, he could just have easily have crashed into a family of 5 and killed the lot of them.

It wasn't miles away it was around the corner and it wasn't proved he deliberately rammed them. Reckless driving? Yes, but the police do it all the time in pursuit of criminals and innocent people have been killed in the process. He might have been misguided and made the wrong choice but it came from doing the right thing trying to prevent two criminals from getting away. The way some people on here are painting it he's being likened to some kind of Charles Bronson hunting down perpetrators of crime.

They actually didn't steal his motorcycle but were on another one they had already stolen. Luckily he didn't crash into anyone else, as for the two scumbags I wish he had wiped them out he'd have saved other people years of misery in the process.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I hope they win their case against him and are awarded significant damages. His actions were entirely disproportionate and could easily have caused death or very serious harm to them, himself, or others.
Society needs protecting from testosterone filled macho vigilantes every bit as much as it does from young opportunistic burglars.
If he is financially ruined by his actions he will only have hisself to blame and hopefully may give pause for thought if in a similar situation again.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I hope they win their case against him and are awarded significant damages. His actions were entirely disproportionate and could easily have caused death or very serious harm to them, himself, or others.
Society needs protecting from testosterone filled macho vigilantes every bit as much as it does from young opportunistic burglars.
If he is financially ruined by his actions he will only have hisself to blame and hopefully may give pause for thought if in a similar situation again.

ffs

 

[mancityvstoke]

Some right cunts around these days

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

That's a bit of an extreme example. He wasn't doing any of that he dashed out to try and stop them getting away by pursuing them in his car. Whether he deliberately drove the car at them I don't think was proven but admittedly his actions were reckless, albeit driven from trying to do the right thing, stopping two thieving toerags getting away.

The law needs changing, as happened to an extent after the Trevor Martin case. If you are going out committing criminal acts then it should be made clear that if law abiding citizens trying to stop you injure you in the process it is a risk you take. Even the police themselves changed their procedures when faced with a spate of moped robberies. Instead of letting them drive away they started ramming them.

It is a touchy and emotive subject. If I'd have been on the jury by the letter of the law I'd agree he'd been reckless and stupid but I'd also understand why he took those actions. I'd realise he was unlikely to ever be in this situation again and the stress he'd suffered leading up to and during the trial would have taken a huge toll on him and his family. On that basis I'd have voted not guilty as sending him to prison served no real purpose. A deterrent to others? Possibly but I doubt it, people will still react on the spur of the moment on threats to their homes, family and property and with the fight or flight emotion highly triggered it will happen again.

I'm pleased to see a go fund me page set up by somebody on his behalf has reached £51,000 which at the moment will reimburse him his legal costs. As the two scumbags are suing him for damages his nightmare isn't yet over. Can somebody committing a criminal act sue for damages caused while committing that act?

If they’d been able to prove he’d intended to hit them with the car then he’d have been charged with attempted section 18 which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Some prosecutors (erroneously imo) would have stuck attempted murder on the indictment in this circumstance, although that would be very hard to prove. The offence for which he was convicted is by its nature is one of recklessness, as it is the conflation of the dangerous driving and the serious injuries that were caused by the driving, so that point is moot.

The answer to your question at the end is there is nothing preventing anyone commencing a claim, but whether it will succeed is (I think) highly unlikely based on the doctrine of volenti.

Volenti non fit injuria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Certainly if there was a legitimate way for a judge to find volenti on the facts, then they would for public policy reasons.

You can’t have scumbags like this routinely making and winning claims as it makes a mockery of and undermines public confidence in the system and wastes court time.

 

[domalino]

yeah...poor bloke...made a mistake after scumbags tried entering his property.

Glad you aint my neighbour....

"I made a mistake" doesn't work when it's not a split second decision. Thinking about going after them was a mistake. Getting the car keys was a mistake. Leaving his house was a mistake. Getting in the car was a mistake. Speeding after them was a mistake, ramming them off the road and taking out 2 other vehicles was a mistake.

That's a well worn legal precedent by the way, going out of harms way and then returning to do something - like going back to your house and grabbing your keys - is premeditation.

He put the public in danger, when he and his family were not in any.

I'm glad I'm not your neighbour either, don't need wannabe vigilantes going around trying to kill people.