91 replies to this topic

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 29 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Can you cite/link-to the laws or legal precedent that you're explaining here, please?   Are you describing the law in England or Britain?   My supposition was that the dog attacked someone to death.  Whose judgment is going to determine when that intruder is subdued?   I don't see any minimum expectation here at all.   I don't think any charges would be possible in any of your scenarios unless there was eyewitness testimony by people who were there, as there's no way to reliably determine the conditions you're speaking of otherwise.  

In any event, what you just described is far different than the article we discussed previously on burglar bites in Wales.

It doesn't matter whether you think charges would be brought or not unless there was a witness, since the guidelines place the burden of proof with the prosecution, they have the available evidence and it is them that have to make a case for unreasonable force.

CPS guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.u...u/self_defence/

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 29 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

It doesn't matter whether you think charges would be brought or not unless there was a witness, since the guidelines place the burden of proof with the prosecution, they have the available evidence and it is them that have to make a case for unreasonable force.

CPS guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.u...u/self_defence/

In the general sense, yes.  But it does matter whether you think charges would be brought or not unless there was evidence, which in the case of my supposition won't be possible without having a witness.   How is a prosecutor ever going to know that the dog owner was present in the room when and where his dog mauled someone to death to make anything you said in those scenarios even relevant?   How is a prosecutor going to know the dog owner was in any condition to give a command in the first place?    There's no way of knowing that a command was given, or not given, if the dog owner was even there to give the command at all.  So prosecution doesn't seem plausible under any circumstance, unless there's an eyewitness.   And who would be an eyewitness in many cases?    If the laws are changing and people are afraid that if their dog bites an intruder they'll be prosecuted for it (and as we learned, they are) then this presumes that the State is going to rely on the testimony of the criminal to prosecute the victim and that's just ridiculous, I hope you'd agree.

[TheLastLazyGun]

skookum, on 29 January 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

if I was one of the people involved in restraining him I would be extremely worried at the moment.

They'll be alright if commonsense prevails.

It's extremely disturbing when people have to start worrying just because they've prevented a crime from happening.  I suppose that what happens when you let the left-wing lunatics run the aylum, though.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 29 January 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[TheLastLazyGun]

questionmark, on 29 January 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Probably not, but the widow (if there is one) might try a civil case (though, to the contrary of the US, they are very unlikely to succeed if the hurt party was committing a crime). Each of the principalities of the UK have their own laws but must abide to Westminster.

Sorry, said the contrary of what I meant

The last time I checked attempting to rob a bookies with a gun is committing a crime.

The only person to blame for this scumbag's death is the scumbag.  He would still be alive had he not attempted to rob the place in the first place.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 29 January 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[freetoroam]

He said: "The staff become your friends, it's a little family, and it's no different to a member of your family being threatened. He shouldn't have been doing that in the first place."

As I tried to explain on another thread (yeah it got a bit muddled) this is a friendly little neighbourhood and people tend to stick together. The criminals know this happens.
He was not murdered, the people were trying to defend themselves and i do not blame them when someone with a gun wearing a gas mask bursts into to rob you.

"It's extremely disturbing when people have to start worrying just because they've prevented a crime from happening." So true, and it is a proud moment when people do not go jellified at the knees, every one should be able to protect themselves without having to worry about some do gooder overpaid lawyer trying to prosecute them. Remember Tony Martin, he had a lot of support and since then the law has had to think twice before putting the criminal before the victim.
This man died, bad luck or plain stupidity, but no one else should have to pay for it......the good thing is, he will not be doing it again. Thats one more criminal off our streets.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 29 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

In the general sense, yes.  But it does matter whether you think charges would be brought or not unless there was evidence, which in the case of my supposition won't be possible without having a witness.   How is a prosecutor ever going to know that the dog owner was present in the room when and where his dog mauled someone to death to make anything you said in those scenarios even relevant?   How is a prosecutor going to know the dog owner was in any condition to give a command in the first place? There's no way of knowing that a command was given, or not given, if the dog owner was even there to give the command at all.  So prosecution doesn't seem plausible under any circumstance, unless there's an eyewitness.   And who would be an eyewitness in many cases? If the laws are changing and people are afraid that if their dog bites an intruder they'll be prosecuted for it (and as we learned, they are) then this presumes that the State is going to rely on the testimony of the criminal to prosecute the victim and that's just ridiculous, I hope you'd agree.

You saying there is no way of knowing if a command is given etc is again not relevant (or the other questions), since we don't know the specific details available on any given case, only the defence, prosecution, and CPS are fully aware of all the info that has been made available for any given case. The police investigate, collect all the info they can, if they deem unnecessary force was used they present that evidence to the CPS, the CPS asses it to see if they think it is strong enough to lead to a prosecution, if they think it is strong enough it goes to trial, the prosecution present their case, the defence contest it, both sides, trial judge and defendant and victim are the only ones that really know all the info.....not me, or you, or the media. So speculating about scenarios you have put forward are pointless - the CPS guidance on self defence is self explanatory.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 29 January 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Michelle]

Sky Scanner, on 29 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

You saying there is no way of knowing if a command is given etc is again not relevant (or the other questions), since we don't know the specific details available on any given case, only the defence, prosecution, and CPS are fully aware of all the info that has been made available for any given case. The police investigate, collect all the info they can, if they deem unnecessary force was used they present that evidence to the CPS, the CPS asses it to see if they think it is strong enough to lead to a prosecution, if they think it is strong enough it goes to trial, the prosecution present their case, the defence contest it, both sides, trial judge and defendant and victim are the only ones that really know all the info.....not me, or you, or the media. So speculating about scenarios you have put forward are pointless - the CPS guidance on self defence is self explanatory.

That is the key point here people are failing to realize. The man was incapacitaded, helpless and of no threat while they were holding him down. The law is clear you cannot us excessive force when your life is no longer in danger whether you are using a gun or brute force.

Edited by Michelle, 29 January 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

Michelle, on 29 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

That is the key point here people are failing to realize. The man was incapacitaded, helpless and of no threat while they were holding him down. The law is clear you cannot us excessive force when your life is no longer in danger.

Exactly. People talk about the law being revised etc, but it hasn't been really, since the same method of reasonable force has been applied for decades, it's was just spelt out a bit clearer after the infamous Tony Martin case a few years back (mainly due to media hype about it). The best case where prejudice against 'reasonable force' was tested in this country was back in the 80's, and again in the 90's with the same man being involved.

In the 80's the police were investigating the smelting of 26million pounds of stolen Brinks Mat gold, they (rightfully) had their sights on one of the few men around capable of pulling off such an operation - a very intelligent career criminal called Kenneth Noye. The police were monitoring him from his own grounds one night when a man called Brian Reader delivered some unmarked gold to him...the dogs were spooked and Noye went into the trees in his grounds armed with a knife to see what was going on, he found a man dressed entirely in black and wearing a balaclava (a policeman), he stabbed him 11 times and the officer died. At the trial it was shown that Noye had no way of knowing it was a police officer in his grounds, and despite stabbing him eleven times the jury believed he was scared, and whilst in the throws of a fight the man was stabbed numerous times. All teh evidence available showed the injuries were sustained during the scuffle - in line with reasonable force when being met by a stranger in your grounds wearing a balaclava, he was found not guilty of murder.

Fast forward 10yrs, the same man (Kenneth Noye) was involved in a road rage incident on the M25 slip road in kent. He was nearly 50 at the time, and got in a fight with a 21 yr old who could definitely handle himself - all 20 plus witnesses to the fight said the other fella was getting the better of him, Noye walked back to his car, got a knife, came back and started fighting again, stabbed the lad 2 times and he died - he claimed self defence, lost and was found guilty of murder, and rightfully so since he had the chance to drive away after the initial fight but chose to grab a knife and have another go...that's not reasonable force.

This "reasonable force" law has been tested in our courts time and time again...and with a couple of contentious exceptions been shown to work.

Edited by Sky Scanner, 29 January 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

TheLastLazyGun, on 29 January 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

They'll be alright if commonsense prevails.

It's extremely disturbing when people have to start worrying just because they've prevented a crime from happening.  I suppose that what happens when you let the left-wing lunatics run the aylum, though.

How do you always manage to whittle everything down to left and right? I'd bet you don't even look left before crossing the street.

This has nothing to do with the left, rather it is to do with the law. Human rights laws to be more specific. And, oops, I guess human rights is an inherently 'left' area of the law (at least according to some), without which we would still have death camps, illegal detentions of innocent civilians, outright, public racism, gay-bashing, back-room abortions, forced confessions, torture, and a whole host of backwards practices.

I don't agree with the balance that exists with this particular subject - never have - but I'm not naive or blind enough to think it's simply down to a political party, or that human rights laws are idiotic or unwarranted. I think it's outright stupid how people always manage to wash away the things they don't agree with by blaming it on a political ideology.

[ExpandMyMind]

Sky Scanner, that is an excellent example. Perfect, even, to get your point across.

[Sky Scanner]

ExpandMyMind, on 29 January 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Sky Scanner, that is an excellent example. Perfect, even, to get your point across.

Thanks

Never really understood how people struggle to understand this simple law - although I suspect they don't really, but prefer to try and use it to try and excuse their temper..

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 29 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

You saying there is no way of knowing if a command is given etc is again not relevant (or the other questions), since we don't know the specific details available on any given case, only the defence, prosecution, and CPS are fully aware of all the info that has been made available for any given case. The police investigate, collect all the info they can, if they deem unnecessary force was used they present that evidence to the CPS, the CPS asses it to see if they think it is strong enough to lead to a prosecution, if they think it is strong enough it goes to trial, the prosecution present their case, the defence contest it, both sides, trial judge and defendant and victim are the only ones that really know all the info.....not me, or you, or the media. So speculating about scenarios you have put forward are pointless - the CPS guidance on self defence is self explanatory.

Reminding me there are CPS guidelines doesn't address what I'm asking.  

The police investigate, collect all the info they can, and a burglar is laying dead on the floor with his throat ripped out of his neck by Fido and Mimi.   How are they going to prosecute it?

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 30 January 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Reminding me there are CPS guidelines doesn't address what I'm asking.  

The police investigate, collect all the info they can, and a burglar is laying dead on the floor with his throat ripped out of his neck by Fido and Mimi.   How are they going to prosecute it?

I mentioned the CPS guidelines, because you asked me if I could cite the laws/guideance surrounding this, so I did.

Who said they will prosecute it? Unless you see all the evidence they have collected, you can't make a call on whether they can prosecute or not. How do you expect someone on a forum to make a call on whether something can be prosecuted with just "The police investigate, collect all the info they can, and a burglar is laying dead on the floor with his throat ripped out of his neck by Fido and Mimi" to go on?

[Yamato]

Sky Scanner, on 30 January 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

I mentioned the CPS guidelines, because you asked me if I could cite the laws/guideance surrounding this, so I did.

Who said they will prosecute it? Unless you see all the evidence they have collected, you can't make a call on whether they can prosecute or not. How do you expect someone on a forum to make a call on whether something can be prosecuted with just "The police investigate, collect all the info they can, and a burglar is laying dead on the floor with his throat ripped out of his neck by Fido and Mimi" to go on?

I said they wouldn't.  You said they would prosecute, depending on the circumstances involving how a dog owner controlled his dog.   I'm not asking you whether or not it will be prosecuted.  I'm asking you HOW it even could.  The only possible way is with an eyewitness.  Now if you concede that, we're done here.  If you have anything else to add, that's what I'm asking for.

[Sky Scanner]

Yamato, on 30 January 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

I said they wouldn't.  You said they would prosecute, depending on the circumstances involving how a dog owner controlled his dog.   I'm not asking you whether or not it will be prosecuted.  I'm asking you HOW it even could.  The only possible way is with an eyewitness.  Now if you concede that, we're done here.  If you have anything else to add, that's what I'm asking for.

Of course it's not the only possible way if they have a eye witness, that's just one scenario, they can use forensics and injuries sustained, blood splatters, whether the person was armed and therefore able to fight the dog etc...they can draw up a reasonable picture of events, and whether it was a prolonged attack by the dog or not using all sorts of modern methods. To simply say that if a man is found dead with his throat ripped our by fido and there's no other witness's but the dog owner then they can't prosecute is laughable and inaccurate.