A piece in todays Telegraph. Elderly farmer shot burglar in the foot over suspected diesel theft, court hears
Farmer beat up
- Thread starter CCB
- Start date
What a disgrace to have this man in court. The prosecution doesn't even contend that he intended to cause serious harm, yet they charged him with GBH. An 83 yr old man having to face an unknown number of people half his age in the dark threatening, if not assaulting him with a vehicle. People his age are routinely killed by burglars.
Even the previous case, the householders were held by police for more than 40 hours of questioning on suspicion of very serious criminal offences. We don't know what effect that had on his gun licences.
I find the image of that pond life in the wheelchair disgusting and no doubt he managed to drive himself to and from court......
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Aye in a tax payers provided mobility car. as no doubt that these folk know all the scams.
Absolutely agree. The lesson the CPS seem to be giving from this is that if you're going to shoot at someone make sure you cause them a serious enough injury that you feel the inevitable arrest, questioning, court case and reputational harm are worth it.
I'm probably not the only one who is struggling to understand why the pond life is not attending court in prison uniform, flanked by warders.
I'm probably not the only one who is struggling to understand why the pond life is not attending court in prison uniform, flanked by warders.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
Reasonable force is at best a defence (as has already been mentioned). It will always be interpreted and questioned so basically do what is reasonable, its not a tough line to cross. Its not what you do ......... its the way you tell it (your honour).
However, there are not many folk who would come out on the good side against 3 people who are there ready for mischief.
Old chap int he article has some serious guts to go out there against the lurcher lads, hats off to him.
Best thing is to hope you never need to find out where the line actually is!
However, there are not many folk who would come out on the good side against 3 people who are there ready for mischief.
Old chap int he article has some serious guts to go out there against the lurcher lads, hats off to him.
Best thing is to hope you never need to find out where the line actually is!
What's reasonable depends very heavily on what you are comparing the situation to. If you compare it to situations where the police have shot people dead, then it's reasonable to shoot intruders on sight if you even think they're going to look at you the wrong way.
For perspective since 1990 the police have shot 63 people. In four cases only did policemen stand trial, none were convicted. Of course, it helps that the police are allowed to collude and get their story straight between themselves.
1,600 people have died in police custody or following contact since 1990.
I have no idea what the figures for householders are, but they must be orders of magnitude lower, yet we still see them appearing in court far more often.
For perspective since 1990 the police have shot 63 people. In four cases only did policemen stand trial, none were convicted. Of course, it helps that the police are allowed to collude and get their story straight between themselves.
1,600 people have died in police custody or following contact since 1990.
I have no idea what the figures for householders are, but they must be orders of magnitude lower, yet we still see them appearing in court far more often.
Defender 130
Well-Known Member
Common sense has prevailed
A jury took just 24 minutes to clear him according to bbc news
Yorkshire farmer, 83, cleared over shooting - BBC News
Result - but what a pity he had to go through all that for a piece of vermin.
Defender 130
Well-Known Member
I guess by prosecuting 2 cases now with this one and the one in Leicester a few years ago both judges and jury's are effectively saying the ordinary person is sick of this crap and if the criminal gets **** then tough
Each one they prosecute and lose surely gives the next person to do it and find themselves in court more cases before them for their solicitor to quote in their defence
Each one they prosecute and lose surely gives the next person to do it and find themselves in court more cases before them for their solicitor to quote in their defence
Defender 130
Well-Known Member
Although he has been found not guilty, he is now left with a legal bill estimated to be around £30,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-39233017
I agree. Why the hell did it have to go to court to decide this? It's the modern thing of nobody wanting to make a decision for fear of being wrong, so pass it on up to someone else, that being the court and a jury.
I agree. Why the hell did it have to go to court to decide this? It's the modern thing of nobody wanting to make a decision for fear of being wrong, so pass it on up to someone else, that being the court and a jury.
EMcC
Well-Known Member
The Criminal Protection Society - oh sorry, I mean the CPS should have nipped this in the bud before it got this far.
It is their job to look at all the facts and weigh them up as to the likelihood of a conviction. It just goes to show they weren't doing their job !
Even if they only thought it was a 50/50 chance it should have been dropped.
It is their job to look at all the facts and weigh them up as to the likelihood of a conviction. It just goes to show they weren't doing their job !
Even if they only thought it was a 50/50 chance it should have been dropped.
Similar threads
