DrLarry

defending oneself at the site of a breakin acknowledges that reasonable force can be taken against trespass and through accepted fear of ill intent towards the home owner. It is not vigilantism. But if you take the situation into a public domain ( lets say you start shooting and hit an innocent person) you are just as much a criminal towards that victim. The case would have been driven by his willingness to undertake a potentially harmful act using a weapon ( a car) in public will disregard to any other person on the streets. Nothing else . then in an attempt to "Ram " 9 or lose control on a bend0 to apprehend ( citizens arrest) read them their rights and take them to a police station . He simply lost control and did not utilise the legal authority to seek justice. in so doing the bike was trashed, his car trashed, he disregarded the safety of himesle and therefore by emotional attachment the family and unborn child. this is the argument the judge would have asked them to pass judgement on ....guilty or not of dangerous driving, reckless endangerment, clearly they did and the judge decided his action required a minimum penalty which was custodial sentence

I think I really endorsed your argument of judicial bias if that was not clear then my apologies. But I cannot see in this case what the bias is ?

true but it would have course go to trail. If she killed by one accidental stab you are likely right. if she went into a stabbing frenzy as sometimes people do with adrenaline then the law would likely say the force used was unreasonable. The only right to protect self is to show reasonable force if I am not mistaken. It illustrates that a top line headline "old lady kills burglar" is not all the evidence as in this case "homeowner convicted after causing GBH to burglars" it was a TV entertainment programme they will be searching through millions of treats on tritter or is it twitter? to rank their popularity value so they can make more money when selling advertising space

this will wrangle on for a long time I am sure and it will divide opinion. Those who have no faith in the legal system will contribute to his legal fees those that believe that the facts are presented for entertainment recognise that we cannot have all the evidence will continue to acknowledge that trial but public has limited value. I hope that we get to hear the follow up and perhaps more evidence will be presented. Rather than being a case of liberalism verses conservatism it is a matter of public safety verses personal rights to take actions ( vigilantism) even if the provocation seems reasonable.

I suppose there is something in the idea that if you see yourself as innocent it doesn't matter you will always be found to be guilty in that it reduces the likelihood of criminality. But I agree I am not sure what the instruction was to the Jury whether majority or unanimous but they would have been informed in advance ( I would imagine with a case potentially sensitive as this is ) it would be a unanimous advisory . I do not know even how long it took the jury to decide the decision. But if sufficient disagreed then a mistrial would have been called and the case heard again. I have never been called to be a juror as yet.

that was a terrible case and I believe the offenders are both serving life?

but he is not innocent he was found to be guilty presumable of reckless endangerment of life , his own included , dangerous driving with intent to cause harm, presumably speeding. The criminals did not get away with it on their part they have to serve 200 hours community service. I do not know the penalty for his crimes presumably as he got a custodial sentence this is the minimum he could be given decided by a judge. Judge in the lower court are unlikely to set legal precedent and change the law. We are lucky to have the right ot precedent in the appeals and supreme court and the European court of human rights. It may well be the case if the case goes to appeal that the custodial sentence will be overturned.

institutionalised racism may be happening in many trials where there is subliminal bias and I agree there is an an issue , but Mr White is as his name suggests. But I see your point on bias as evidence of a failure of the jury system and is a separate but significant issue. perhaps that should be our next topic ?

but you keep mentioning this old lady with a gun and this family man with a gun you fail to see that to obtain a licence to have a gun ( although some idiots have been given them ) you have to have had at least some training (many a lot of training) and some knowledge of the rules controlling the use of these weapons The legal duties of ownership at least ready someone to know how to use them effectively not to kill but to use to protect which might mean being shot in the leg but not shot in the head or heart. In other words a person with a gun (in this country at least) is taught the duty. Preparation is the main thrust of my argument here is that one can prepare to control adrenaline with appropriate training. In controlled experiments with those who are in extreme adrenaline situations illustrate how clarity of thinking in stress situations can be controlled I am certain the electrician had no such training and reacted as a "normal" person would. Reckless endangerment to himself and others and hence the Jury must have had better evidence than we have.

the jurors must have had a lot more information given to them than a 20 minute show could present. Either the jurors all of them or the majority must have believed the contrary to your opinion. If he gets to an appeal maybe that may change but to have grounds for an appeal some new evidence must need to be provided or the court of appeals will throw it out.

yes they must have done so with ALL the evidence and the majority verdict or all must have agreed so somewhere in this the MAJORITY of 12 at least did as they felt was correct ..

I answer to myself in respect to my opinions . I would guess most of the attitudes I have dont register with the majority but I have never really much felt the need to answer to my personal philosophy.

well I have been thinking about that quite a lot and in their duty to act as a proxy for the victim of the crime they often seem to cause damage to the criminal in pursuits which has to be done in order to apprehend , if the person resists arrest or that person causes an accident they do so at their risk. The warning is given the moment a blue light shows to expect someone to pull over it is a signal of intent. And I am sure the rules governing such events is codified legally. These days with body cams most footage is seen which helps clarify the process. I very much hope they would not (the police) be charged if they were diligent in their duty....why would they they are paid by us to enforce the law., they are trained in the skills of interception. Training to control adrenaline and to keep clarity of mind I am sure takes many years to master,

I Did consider that as I was writing and that would be a different set of circumstances which would depend on many factors but for the most part the difference is that high speed pursuit by trained officers would be the preferred option as they are less likely statistically to lose control

I dont know how long the pursuit lasted and the surroundings in which it took place or the time of the day all these things would be considered. Physiologically adrenaline at the scene of the crime is aggravated by the criminal. Adrenaline in the chase is initiated repeatedly by the driver as much as the the criminal directly so I assume they had expert witness in the trial to explain this to the jurors

I would hope not it is just that burglary warrants a lower penalty

well I would hope that they are not afforded damages and I am sure there is law of precedent that somehow makes their case invalid

it is I think nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism. If he lost control how would it be if you had been driving your car innocently around that bend . I think the ruling would have looked at the loss of control as a positive affirmation of the the issue. He lost control over a skill that normally comes as second nature because he is not trained in fast pursuit. The judgment will be based on the driving being out of control and a preemptive judgment based on irrational action that could have caused harm to life. My "liberalism" is based on a premise that I wish all people walking down a road or driving on it should have the freedom to feel "reasonable" safety when they are going to pick up the children, or going to buy a paper, or walking the dog. I am not in any way agreeing with the actions of the criminals. But he also is judged as a criminal in charge of a pretty deadly weapon that a car is. My hope would be that the burglars would get additional charges laid on them by their actions of of "aggravated counter responses they were responsible for" sadly I dont think the law exists in this cross over point it sees two events and has to judge the two . I do not think it liberal to expect the penalty for theft to be any more than the law decides . I also do not think it right to decrease the penalty for dangerous driving and bodily harm. Even if unintended in the "loss of control" on the bend ....he could have killed you or a child or an old lady (without a gun) because he simply is responding with adrenaline driving the primitive response. Laws are made to subliminally impose on the primitive brain the need for cautious response and as society evolves over time laws eventually control our actions to make us all safer .

I would agree in the US that would be the case , I dont know the legality of the arms controls in the UK if she had a licence I doubt very much there would be much of a reaction in her own home in the UK

it is most unlikely that those on one side of this argument are likely to to agree with the counterargument. Whilst I disagree with the actions of the burglars I also agree that the law had not other choice than to charge him with intent. I assume it was a 30 minute show and hence difficult to know all the legal discourse , it was I assume made into a TV show for entertainment purposes edited in such a way to give part of a story. All those that believe so do have the final opportunity to add to the go fund me page. Because £167, 000 doesn't buy much legally

but in the end we still have to rely upon the servants of the law to seek redress. As instinctive as it is, so are many crimes, he made the choice and he has been charged with an attempt to cause bodily harm. If I were the magistrate I would have to direct the case up to the crown prosecution service. Of course both are wrong scenarios and hence they must be looked at as two criminal actions. We do have a right to protect property but the right has its limitations. The handbook is that we all know that protecting oneself or family is to put up defence to hinder the assailants progress. I am quite serious tiny incursions progress towards larger and more serious incursions until there is limited order. I am sorry if you do not agree there is little I can do about that, hopefully if you feel strong enough you will contribute to is legal costs.

but you're advocating anarchy, the freedom of the individual to respond outside the law. We don't live in a theocracy an eye for an eye and even in those systems there still has to be due process (no matter how skewed). if each person is allowed to take such action for things that rightly or wrongly they feel the right to pass judgement on then no one would be able to live with a sense of freedom. In this case there is , of course, condemnation of the thieves but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy. The Law stamps on such cases in order to keep a check on behaviours that can easily spill in to general life. I dont think it is a case that the thieves deserve any less harsh a treatment under the law. But the home owner is also a criminal in his actions. Property is just not valued and neither should it be beyond a defense in the house to protect. To think where' s my keys? where's my car? let's run them down..... is three thinking steps forethought with malicious intent. sadly or otherwise to prevent anarchy that is how law works. I know I personally would not feel very safe in a system that works allowing someone that freedom.

HALF SOVEREIGN #406 Flaw on the O reads SCVEREIGN

the HALF SOVEREIGN # 405 b plain edge and 406 reeded edge

403 silver ...unlisted in Rogers maybe unique