1949threepence

I can't but there's one on Richard's rare penny website - scroll down to example 13. link

I've no idea of the underlying psychological/sociological reasons, and I couldn't definitively say it's a fact in being. But it's a very strong perception with many many people, especially when you get cases like this where the book is thrown at the householder and the intruders pretty much walk away laughing. Hence the point made with the link. I don't know how the poll was done, but I definitely wouldn't argue with the figure - ask the writers if you are in some doubt. Moreover with regard to this - "to remove the right to life simply because a burglar is removing the right of ownership of a bike is a bizarre and archaic notion" you're forgetting three very relevant factors:- a) There would have been zero incident without the original crime - that is very important in my view. The criminals themselves must surely know the extreme unpredictability of outcome and potential danger to them before they embark on their crime. Don't start a fight on the expectation that you won't get badly hurt in the process. As I see it the householder owes no duty of care to the criminal who invades his property, just not to carry on attacking once it's obvious the intruder is subdued enough to be controlled. b) I'm quoting from the link:- "In deciding whether householders have used an appropriate amount of force, both legal frameworks ask whether the use of that force was necessary. If so, the next question to be asked is whether such force was also reasonable in the circumstances. To pass both of these tests, the householder does not need to undertake a detailed risk assessment; 15 they just need to show that they did what they 'honestly and instinctively thought was necessary.' 16 On the face of it, these tests seem clear. But how well do they actually operate in practice?" So in other words the householder acts honestly and instinctively, and being ordinary bods, can't be expected to be fully cognisant with the ins and outs of the law. c) White didn't set out to kill them as you imply. Had he done so, he could have killed them once brought down on the road, using his car as a body crushing device, in a few seconds.

Very pleased with this 1854/3 penny bought from the recent December LCA. It's in cracking condition and even has some slight lustre on the obverse. I can't do a close up, but I have enlarged the obverse as best I can. Shows the typical slightly blurry and worn hair appearance at the front, and clearing to more normal at the back. The normal characteristics of a 4/3 are there in the date, showing to right and left at top of the 4, and then in the space between the lower vertical of the 4 and the left side of the cross bar. There was a slight doubt as the hair looked better in the LCA pic, and of course they didn't do a date close up either. Took a chance on the coin based on description, and pleased I did.

It actually says exactly and precisely what I know it says in relation to Chris's question. No further debate necessary as you are now clutching at straws.

Surely - take a look at this link A couple of useful extracts for you:- I'd bet that the 85% are not all Daily Mail readers, in the time honoured fashion. Here's another one which again indicates judiciary bias towards the criminal:-

I'm hoping that my items arrive tomorrow. They were posted yesterday, but are still showing as stuck at Medway Mail Centre.

Absolutely, sounds redolent of the "three strikes and you're out" principle used in parts of the USA. Although it should only apply to violent crimes, not trivial stuff such as shoplifting.

ah, some meeting of minds at last. I too would agree with that. and the intruders, do you agree they should have received harsher punishments?

well read the article and then reply ! You don't need to make an interim statement.

They may well do, but they don't receive much sanction when innocent folk get killed as a result. White got 22 months and no-one was killed.

So you're having difficulty following the article? It's about high speed police chases where innocent people get killed.

But the police believe that the public want criminals to be pursued at high speed, despite the potential dangers to others. From the Guardian article I linked to above:-

Anybody can lose control of their vehicle. It happens with great regularity.

There are numerous cases. Take a read of this link. I'd point you to one paragraph, which sums it up for me:-

Evidence that it was being "misused"?

The facts are the facts. What is in question here is the interpretation of those facts.

I don't agree and I'm sure the CPS would want to avoid what would obviously be public and media mayhem if they took the hypothetical old woman to trial. The public will consider that the dead man, who invaded the old woman's property, lost all rights the moment he did so.

That's an absurd argument as he was not an out of control driver. he merely lost control at one point on the journey.

"Reasonable" is a subjective word open to many degrees of interpretation. What's "unreasonable" in the eyes of what I would consder the majority, is treating the offender with more respect than the victim.

I still argue that. The CPS would deem it not in the public interest for such a case to go to trial.

If you start shooting in public, then I agree that is a step too far as it clearly endangers the lives of innocent passers by. But that is not the same as chasing after someone in a car and losing control on a bend.

Well hopefully it will go to appeal - even the ECHR if necessary - as there is a clear injustice.

I am sure you know as well as I do the extreme furore which would follow such an old lady being sent to trial for killing an intruder. The "reasonable force" argument would be treated as the farce that it would be in such an event. Did the 8 stone, 5' odd 85 year old lady use reasonable force against the 22 year old, hooded 15 stone 6' 2" intruder? I mean c'mon, get real.

Bias towards the criminal and away from the victim. That's self evident from the entire thread topic and posts. Sorry you're still having issues getting your head round it.

It's far from the only case of this type, as you know, and the principle will wrangle on as long as cases like this continue - where the judiciary makes it abundantly clear that it favours the criminal and comes down like a ton of bricks on the guy who hasn't thought like a lawyer in the middle of the night, but has protected his property the best way he knows how. The majority of the public, quite rightly in my view, hold the strong perception that the entire legal system favours the attacker criminal rather than the innocent defender of his or her own property. Incidentally, what makes you believe the programme was produced for "entertainment"? Moreover, defending oneself from direct attack as with a break in, is not "vigilantism". I think you're getting "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.", confused with self defence.