PeteBrant

No, when he ran him over, he wasn't being threatened by the other guy at all.

That's the whole point - it wasn't a reaction to a threat, it was a considered act of retribution.

dpb

lol - and shortly afterwards then he would get the chair

The Zohan

Peter, you can have a vigilate society and wil lget one if things do not change, if anything the harshness of the sentence against the bloke in the peoplecarrier will only encourage this. what will help to redress the balance is the law fully understanding the problems and properly punishing the scumbags as well so justice is seen to be done as much as anything.

silly community service orders are not the answer.

People are getting frustrated and this is showing.

letr me give you an example.

This is true and factual.

I witnessed a group of lads, 4 of them and what attracted my attention was one of them kicking the hell out of a parked Polo and screaming his head off. the others tried to stiop him then let him get on with is just laughing

I immediately called the police who where based a whole 1/2 mile up the road.

It took them 20 mins to respond and after 3 further calls from me.

This lad was shouting and screaming at passers by, women with children, old people, we was attempting to kick in shop windows ans kicking out a passing motorists nearly causing several accidents. He tried to pull a motorist out of his car

The last time i called i informed the police that i was gonig to put a stop to it as he was endangering other innocent people.

He was eventually arrested after a struggle and the threat of Pepper spray.

I offerd myself as a witness.

I was interviewed at home.

The CPS decisded not to press charges as he had just split up with is g/f and had mittigating circumstances. The police also told me he had just spent his giro on drink and drugs befroe the violnence. He got a warning and let off.

Is that justice, what message does it send out to him and his cohorts.

The cops where very angry and rightly so, he was 'known to them' so not exactly an angel.

this is what is wrong peter.

PeteBrant

I think it's likely to have the oppostie effect- it will discourage vigilante behaviour.

Community service orders are placed when applicable, custodial sentences are passed when they are applicable.

Of course there are pressures due to prison places, but people do not get treated "better" if they are a offender rather than a victim,.


Firstly this is Anecdotal, and therefore almost completely worthless, but we'll run with it.

What would you have liked to have happened?

(i)As the situation played out
(ii)Person prosecuted and given community service
(iii)Person prosecuted and given a cutodial sentence
(iv)Person put on some form of education/job skills programme

The Zohan

As for being anecdotal, it is factual so tbh peter - **** you!, it happend and happend as retold peter but a lot easier for you to dismiss so easily.

as for the scumbag, custodial sentence and training would suffice and a repeat offence would see an sever custodial sentence. He terrorised several people and attempted to drag someone out of thier vehicle in a busy street along with trying very hard to put several shop windows in, he also committed criminal damage on a car (Polo)

as you so often do you miss the point or you at least appear to - or maybe the troll tag could be applied

And what exactly do you think should have happened based on my anecdotal faireytale of the bad boy?

People are sick to the back teeth with putting up with it and if you believe different then say so.

If you have the solutions then say what they are.

actually, dont bother as really i just do not care.

PeteBrant

It's anecdotal.

I.e. an isolated "I saw x happen" does not represent an accurate nationwide picture.


Someone else could say "i saw someone acting a **** and they got arrested immediatly and sent to prison" ans it cancles out what you saw.

Hence anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Not interested in getting into this sort of silliness.
I think you are missing the meaning of the word Anecdotal - It doesn't mean it didn't happen - it means that an isolated incident cannot be taken as representative of the situation as a whole.


ANyway, the CPS decided not to prosecute based on the guy having lost his rag after splitting up with his girlfriend. I don't know enough about the situation to say whtehr he deserved prison - But I wouldn't have said what you described deserves prison - perhaps community service.

The Zohan

Yes peter, it only happend on one day and in northampton, the rest of the country does not have a thing to worry about as it is all peachy and good!

as for anecdotal, i do understand it meaning thank, i may not be a guardian reader but do manage to get by somehow.

yet agian we agree to disagree, it does seem you left wing and rather PC approach is not the answer, whilst i do not want to birch or hang everyone, something does need to be done other than some lefties wringing their hands and forming a comittiee. community sentences are seen pretty muchas a joke by all!

as for getting into silliness, perhaps asking if a am victorian was the starting point - eh

stilover

Not so.

In Texas if you take a short course (1 or 2 days) you are allowed by law to carry a consealed weapon.

You are trained on how to defend yourself with the use of your gun, if someone attacks your vehicle.

In Texas if some ****** attacks you, you have the right to shoot first and ask questions second.

The law is on your side.

PeteBrant

That sounds brilliant.

Just one question though.

What happens if I shoot someone in the face because I feel like it, and then say to the police man "I felt threatened"

Leslie

It is a shame that he did what anyone would be tempted to do and drove at him on another day. That was a mistake but I think that he should not have been jailed but been given a "slap on the wrist" penalty such as is given to the thugs and vandals who cause wanton damage and injury to others and too often-death.

I wonder why there is a legal reason why the 22 year old cannot be named, and whether he has been summonsed for the damage he did to the defendant's car and for threatening behaviour.

Pete Brant,

What do you think of the action taken against young thugs and vandals these days. Are they punished effectively enough? What would you suggest?

Les

borat52

This is exactly what you'll end up with if jobs are allowed to carry on. This guy was the innocent party, the job smashed the window on his people carrier, he instigated the conflict. If the police dealt with the first aggressor properly (and tell me one good reason why you should not be in prison for several years after threatening someone with a knife and baton then smashing their property) then there would be no problem. The fact that the police do not punish this behaviour means that law abiding people have 2 choices, put up with it and live in constant worry of it, or take it into your own hands and deal with it (something the police are paid to do, but sadly no longer seem interested in).

As has already been mentioned on here, when you hear of cases like this, its not far off law abiding people who get involved in things like this going out of their way to flea the scene and hide evidence for fear of being locked up as a result of scum attacking them.

Haveing read the article its hard to get a grasp on the timescale involved but if the guy did not act on this, its more than likely these people would have been back to harrass him seeing him as a soft touch they could go and annoy whenever they wanted their 'kicks'.

Its time the police started locking people up for a long time for aggressive, threatening behaviour.

Put it this way, if the job had chosen another car to smash that day, then the guy who wewnt to prison would not have had any trouble at all and yet the job would still have been in trouble. Who is the real problem to society? The job is going to continue to cause trouble, whereas the poor chap in jail would not have been a problem to anyone else providing they did not attack him.

stilover

If you are threatened or attacked, it is your legal right to protect yourself. If you just shot someone for no reason then yes you'd go to jail.


That's the job of Detectives. To get to the truth. If it's proved you were attacked, then you'd be let off.

Criminal attacks gun packing victim. Victim pulls out Desert Eagle handgun and blows Criminals head off. Justice done.

In America if you're the owner of a store or a home owner and someone holds-up your store or invades your home, it is your right to defend yourself through means of a handgun.

Shame those same laws don't apply here. If someone invaded my home in the middle of the night, they'd be shot with a shotgun.

Now, how would the Police respond to this?
Burglar had knife, I felt that he could stab me, so I shot him. I go to jail.
Burglar had knife, I disturbed him and he stabbed me? Burglar probably never caught and does it again and again.

I wouldn't shoot to kill. Just shoot his knee cap off.

PeteBrant

That's a very good post and certainly gives me pause for though.

PeteBrant

Of course mistakes are made - but, by and large, Judges and magistrates, get it right. They are of course, bound by the law.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

For a start the ****** should have been charged with: conspiracy to commit murder, threatening behaviour and criminal damage. That in itself is enough to justify a lengthy custodial sentence.

CrisPDuk

More than likely it's because he is related to the one of the scum who committed the original offence, and he is probably a minor

I bet the CPS didn't prosecute the 'victim' for criminal damage for breaking the guy's car window either

Pete, the reason more and more people are feeling the need to take the law into their own hands is because they feel (rightly IMO) that the law of the land is now more interested in protecting offenders rights than victims

Devildog

Sorry, but that's all bollox Pete. The justice system in the UK is going down the pan, and successive governments have not done a thing about it.

Community service orders and custodial sentences are handed down as the law provides. That doesn't necessarily mean "as appropriate" (as is often the case)


Give the aggressive little **** a public flogging, and then compel him to repay all the damage he caused.

If he can't do so or decides not to, custodial sentence for 5 years. Any further infringements after that, bang him up for life.

If the prisons get too full, just put more in a cell. stack em high.

Fecking human rights? Sorry, but you are a convicted criminal. You just waived goodbye to human rights.

That's what I'd do.

borat52

I really do support this idea. I've never understood why people are not ordered to pay for damage and police time as a mandatory penalty when they are found guilty. If they are a minor then this charge should go to the parents (who should imho be seen as ultimately repsonsible for their children's behaviour, and if the children can't behave and keep running up bills they need to keep them on a closer leash till they have leaned to be responsible = part of growing up that many kids miss out on these days).
If they can't/refuse to pay then take their assets from them(car, TV, ipod, mobile phone) until the debt is recoevered. If they have no assets and refuse to pay then they should face a lengthy jail sentance or even better chain gang them and get them to clean the streets/empty bins/clean toilets.

There was a recent case somewhere on the south coast (Plymouth I think) where a man parked his Gallardo outside of a bar. He went in for a drink (cup of tea I would hope) only to come out and fine a massive dent in the roof and a footprint from a shoe on it. A yob had decided to run over his car and jump on the roof. Bizarrely someone video'd it on a mobile phone and then sent it by bluetooth to all the phones in the area. The chap who owned the lambo got hold of the video and took it to court. The yob was found guilty of causing damage in court and fined something like £2000. The court was presented with the bill for £30k to fix the roof (think its a carbon fibre uber expensive effort) yet the judge only awarded a fine of £2k.

Who is supposed to pay the extra £28k to fix the car?
Some poeple may say the insurance company, what they dont realise is that means them! Anyone who pays insurance contributes to fixing stupidities like this, I think thats unfair. The yob caused the damage, he should pay in full. If that means losing his car/house/freedom then thats tough!

The Zohan

yes, and me, we are a little beyond hugs and kisses and more hugs to cure viscious little thugs who chose to do bad things knowing it is wrong and knowingly hurt others!

Hoppy

Emotive stuff. And quite rightly. But I don't know the full facts, and am a bit short on easy answers also.

But I will say this: the public perception is that the law is ****-about-face. Kill an innocent driver with a breeze bloc gets you 12 months. Pelt the Fire Service with bricks and you just run off.

But if you injure a baton/knife wielding thug that has just smashed your car gets YOU several years stretch.

The criminal fraternity has never had it so good, while honest citizens have never had it so bad. That's the message I'm getting, and I don't like it.

Richard.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

It happened in Dereham in Norfolk actually (I'm guessing not THAT many Lamborghini's get ran over with the idiots equally stupid mate videoing it all on their phone!!)

I know the guy who's Lamborghini it was; it was parked up in the centre of town. The idiots passed the video around until it got sent to another mate of mine, who happens to work for the said Lamborghini owner. Video was forwarded with "you might want to see this mate!" and the rest is history.

There was talk of them writing the car off, the **** had ran all the way up and over it and dented the bonnet, roof and rear panel, one of the footprints was right on the front edge of the roof where it meets the windscreen which they were saying they couldn't remove without totally screwing up the integrity of the shell, and with the dent there, it had destroyed the resale value of the car.

Leslie

Pete,

Is there a chance that you might asnwer my question?

Les

PeteBrant

Sorry Les, Sure...


I am not conviced that locking people up and forgetting about them is the answer. If anything it breeds further criminal behaviour - Like I said before, we need look at why people feel the need to commit these crimes.


Are they punished enough now? That's open for debate - Whilst I possibly agree with cautioning someone rather than giving them a criminal record, this can obviously only go on for so long - after the 34th offence you have to say enough is enough.


I would say some form of scheme to get these people off the streets - Commit a crime - get a caution along with a work plan that you have to attend every day, and if you don't you are in the dock - You need to instill a work/reward ethic. But obviously that costs money.


Of course the counter argument is why should these people even need incentivising? Well I don't know the answer to that, I'm not in the head of these people - But the fact is they obviusly do need incentivising, for whatever reason, and it's no good to say just because we have values, that everyone else automatically will.

Leslie

Thanks Pete,

I see what you are getting at. The trouble is that a dyed in the wool criminal is going to be very difficult if not impossible to change around onvce his way of thinking has reached such a stage. You might sort a few out but it would be very difficult I think.

Treating them in what we might see as a civilsed manner seems more likely to create even less respect and they will look on that as a weak response. Having got to such a way of thinking, and that applies to young hooligans too, I think that the fear of a strong punishment where they are in a position where they cannot gainsay authority is about the only way to reduce further offending. In other words, they need to realise that the unpleasant experience stemming from being caught at it makes the offence less worth while.

Once they have lost the sense of shame at being caught breaking the law, then I believe a different approach is required to protecting the innocent public. I believe that less "featherbedding" and a bit more hard labour in prison would have a marked effect eventually.

Les

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Booze here is dirt cheap and available 24/7 and I do not feel threatened by gangs of youths hanging around anywhere at anytime of day or night, there is also next to no graffiti round where I live and I live on a housing estate.

I also do not feel worried about leaving my car parked in front of a gang of teenagers standing around.

Leslie

Yes I remember how well they seem to be brought up in comparison.

Les

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

He'll be out within the year !! Mark my words

brihoppy

i was chatting to someone a few months ago who is an educator in a prison and we got into a massive argument about rehabilitation...she quoted me something like a 5-10% rehab rate (ie those that dont re-offend) which she considered to be successful...?!?!



i cant believe people claim stats like this as a success...

PeteBrant

So a 95% reoffending rate? - It's much much lower than that.


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1006.pdf

41.3% for juveniles and falling.