jeff oakley Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 If you read this story it will either make your blood boil or you will disagree with logic. Hard working guy has a business and alarm goes off. It is just a mile away so he goes there and finds two theiving scumbags nicking his diesel. One allegedly takes a swing at him with a post so he takes it off him in self defence and breaks both his legs and an arm. Chases the other and detains him whilst police arrive and arrest the business man. Two scum bags get a £75 fine, he is facing prison. Anyone who is on that jury who does not stand up find him not guilty and give him a round of applause, have never had anything stolen and do not understand what these scumbags do. I hope he is found innocent. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544030/Businessman-attacks-two-burglars-catching-red-handed-arrested-defending-property.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubajess Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well I'll start the ball rolling - In my opinion he has done nothing wrong whatsoever and should be congratulated on 'detaining' two total scumbags. Anyone who has had dealings with these waste of a life ******s (and I've had way more than my fair share of 'contact' with them) will know exactly what I mean! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickmaster Andy Lowe Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yep Shouldn't have been arrested let alone got to court Waste of time and public money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveD Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 about right for this screwed up country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wile E. Coyote Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Anyone who is on that jury who does not stand up find him not guilty and give him a round of applause, have never had anything stolen and do not understand what these scumbags do. I appreciate your sentiment, but that is not how a jury does (or indeed should) work. The jury's role is to weigh the evidence and, with guidance on the law, determine whether the offence of which the defendant is accused has indeed been committed. It IS there to stand up for people who, under lesser regimes would not get a fair trial, but is NOT there to stand up for people if the evidence is against them. If the law is wrong, then it is that that needs to be changed, not the jury deciding that it can take whatever decision it feels like irrespective of the weight of evidence to the contrary - as soon as that becomes accepted you might as well forget having a functioning legal system... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The bloke deserves pat on the back. This country is just too soft, as usual the law protects the ones that break it in cases like this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wile E. Coyote Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 as usual the law protects the ones that break it in cases like this! Playing Devil's Advocate: we don't know yet that he didn't! Is it wrong that in a civilised society there is a limit to how far someone can go before they overstep the line? Should there be a line? If so, what should happen if someone does overstep it...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 I appreciate your sentiment, but that is not how a jury does (or indeed should) work. The jury's role is to weigh the evidence and, with guidance on the law, determine whether the offence of which the defendant is accused has indeed been committed. It IS there to stand up for people who, under lesser regimes would not get a fair trial, but is NOT there to stand up for people if the evidence is against them. If the law is wrong, then it is that that needs to be changed, not the jury deciding that it can take whatever decision it feels like irrespective of the weight of evidence to the contrary - as soon as that becomes accepted you might as well forget having a functioning legal system... You are correct, however when the law is wrong and there is little hope of changing it, we have to hope common sense prevails. Some years ago in Somerset, a one eyed lorry driver with no licence, crushed a little girl on her bike. He was seen laughing at the time. He was jailed for IIRC corcetly 5 years but was as usual let out early. The father of the little girl, found him an shot him but did not kill him. As you would expect he was arrested and charged. The evidence was overwhelming and he was charged with attempted murder. The Jury heard all the evidence and went against the Judge's direction and found him not guilty. In the abscence of justice people will make their own and that is a dangerous thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrie Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The guy got off 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigals Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 He probably did get carried away but if your facing the unknown and your out numbered two to one its a potential do or die situation, I wonder what would have happened if the two robbing toe rags had got the better of him !. He should get the same light punishment as the thief's. The day you cant defend your property is the day small business will die. Lets face it if he receives a custodial sentence it makes a mockery of justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigals Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The guy got off[/quote justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Playing Devil's Advocate: we don't know yet that he didn't! Is it wrong that in a civilised society there is a limit to how far someone can go before they overstep the line? Should there be a line? If so, what should happen if someone does overstep it...? I did expect this response (and I don't mean this sarcastically), a chap close to where I live had a similar thing happen to him. He found some scrote breaking into his car http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/story/2013-07-22/have-a-go-hero-in-hospital/ He died of his injuries 2 weeks later. You cannot reason with these people, they may be armed, high on drugs/booze who knows. I would have done exactly the same, fight or flight kicks in and sometimes there's nowhere to run. If they tried to attack first what would you do, "please think about what your doing" chats just don't happen. He has not lost it completely when he's tackled him because if he's manged to break bones then a strike with such force to someones heads would more the likely end them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Algar - Competition Secretary Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Was reading an interesting book which as part of it suggested that the Amercian Wild West was not actually as bad as the films make out because most people out there had war experience and were armed, so thiefs tended to get more than they bargined for I think Tricky is right, it's only trained people like Police / SAS who can on the spur of the moment act proportionally. Any normal person is just going to have to react. I personally think the law should be changed, but am aware that there are situations when it could be used badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid life crisis Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I don't in all honesty think it is the jury's place to influence the sentancing result, by finding a person 'Not Guilty', based on there well intentioned attempt to introduce a balance of common sence, while ignoring the evidence presented. That is in the power of the Judge. It is he the Judge, who should take a balanced view of the case and deterimine the suitable outcome and punnishment. This sadly is in my oppinion where things go pear shaped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff oakley Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 It would appear that common sense did actually happen and Andrew Woodhouse was found not guilty of GBH with intent. Haven't seen the summation but clearly the system worked here once he was in court. Now what I would hope is the CPS reflect on the cost, the heartache and more importantly to me the message it sends out to criminals. I would also hope the officers involved in future try to be more empathetic with the victims rather than those who created the situation in the first place. This is not the beat coppers fault, it is the whole rotten system where they have all the ability and flexibility to use common sense, taken away from them by the hand wringing PC advisors that rule the police and criminal institutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.