Whaley Bridge shooting

[idahoblues]

They already have.

Sad times

 

[Dubai Blue]

Here you go.
Just read up on the MEN site. Like clockwork!

""He was a Resident DJ here and we are devastated at your loss he was much loved by everyone who met him, he was a funny, polite, well mannered, charming young man who will be extremely missed by everyone, our thoughts, wishes and prayers to you all."

Missed by everyone???
Well the guy who shot him while being robbed didn't miss him. Just did the world a favour.

The funeral will be like some returning war hero as well...

Blows my mind that people react publicly like this, particularly when this seems to have come from a business.

No matter how highly I thought of a friend/employee/acquaintance, if I found out they'd been shot dead while burgling someone my first reaction would be "I got that one wrong then, what a shit judge of character I must be."

The only possible conclusion you can draw is that this particularly business owner is just as dodgy as the **** that got shot.

 

[hilts]

Blows my mind that people react publicly like this, particularly when this seems to have come from a business.

No matter how highly I thought of a friend/employee/acquaintance, if I found out they'd been shot dead while burgling someone my first reaction would be "I got that one wrong then, what a shit judge of character I must be."

The only possible conclusion you can draw is that this particularly business owner is just as dodgy as the **** that got shot.

Even persistent criminals have mates it's why reporters shouldn't seek out such fuckwittery.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Not necessarily. It should still be based on the circumstances of when the intrusion happened. What someone says in the heat of the moment out of frustration is different to them actually doing it. Equally, it could be a statement of fact that if he doesn't feel safe in his home because the police have failed to protect him, he will inevitably find himself in a situation where he will have to protect himself. If I walk home in a place where muggings happen often and I say "If they try that on me, I'll beat the shit out of them" and then it happens and I do, that's not evidence that it was some sort of premeditated attack on my part. Is it premeditated to have a gun nearby just in case because you've been broken into 17 times? About as premeditated as taking self defence lessons, perhaps. And reportedly, we're not talking about a couple of young scamps, we're seemingly dealing with serious violent criminals who were looking to steal firearms. That's far more threatening than a few scrotes nicking a bit of fuel or farming equipment.

Have you watched 12 angry men, what you described there is what happens, fantastic film

 

[tommybooth]

More power to his trigger thing. Well done.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Society is not breaking down. We live in a more tolerant civilised society than at any time in history.

FWIW I'm not in the 'hang em high' camp and if I was on the jury in the case described in this thread, despite having sympathy with the home owner, I'd uphold the law and vote guilty (that's obviously hypothetical as we don't know the facts).

But suppose I thought the law was wrong? Maybe I'd be bloody minded enough to acquit. Jurors are human beings with their own set of values and prejudices.

Fair comments, but aren't the jury generally guided by the judge.

 

[GortonBlue62]

Fair comments, but aren't the jury generally guided by the judge.

In an earlier post, @blueish swede wrote...

"...1670 it has been a cornerstone of the English legal system ever since. It's called Jury nullification and is based on the jury's absolute right to return a verdict as they see fit. It works because Juries can't be prosecuted for the verdict they deliver and the accused can't be subject to double jeopardy. It is one of the stronger arguments, I think, for having jury trials and not a panel of judges, as is common in many European "

... which I think explains how and why we can get verdicts that seem to defy expectation.

 

[supercity88]

Fair comments, but aren't the jury generally guided by the judge.

The judge guides on procedure and law but I saw it best described as the judge being "judge of the law" and the jury being "judge of the facts" in that they are the ones that decide whether the facts lead to a guilty or not guilty decision. The judge just tells them what evidence they can and can't consider. A judge can force them to return a not guilty verdict in certain circumstances, like a successful "no case to answer" but can never force them to find a defendant guilty.

The law in this case is clear. But the facts often create grey areas. You can see it in this thread. There's a split between those that think "the law is the law" and would therefore find him guilty, and others who believe that there is mitigation in that he was repeatedly robbed and this was the last straw. For me, I change my position on this from one minute to the next in all honesty. You can't set a precedent whereby someone can just shoot someone and get away with it, but I appreciate the farmer's position here. I wonder whether he could have shot them in the leg and just got rid of them that way, but someone else would probably be back - which is why he shot to kill in all likelihood.

As a result I'm on the fence for now - I'd have to know more of the facts!

 

[mancityvstoke]

Bottom feeding burgling scum............

 

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

Break into my house, you’re bummed, pretty simple