Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ExpandMyMind

Gunman dies after public stop Plymouth

92 posts in this topic

A masked gunman has died after being pinned down and restrained by customers during an armed robbery at a bookmakers in Plymouth.

The man, in his 50s, entered the Ladbrokes branch in Crownhill Road at 18:45 GMT on Friday wearing a gas mask and holding a pistol.

Police arrested the man, who was already unconscious, but he died a short time later at the scene.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-21208674

"No way your robbing this bookies. My coupon's just come up!" :D

Moral of the story: Gun or not, us Brits don't mess about.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral of the story: Gun or not, us Brits don't mess about.

Yes, until one or more of the 'restrainers' get charged with manslaughter!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, until one or more of the 'restrainers' get charged with manslaughter!

Aye, that's a bit silly isn't it? This country has no self-defence laws at all. Literally, if someone is attacking you, you are not allowed to defend yourself with, say, a punch. Even if the guy has a knife. And by our laws, even a push on someone can see you charged with assault.

Madness.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not sure what the law will do with one, they can`t do all the people who pinned him down for manslaughter.....but you never know, there must be 1 do gooder human rights for the wrongens brigade who will ask them to at least try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, until one or more of the 'restrainers' get charged with manslaughter!

Proving yet again that people like you are on the side of the criminals rather than the victims and the law-abiding majority.

Way back in medieval times the English were the first people in the world to come up with the idea of citizens' arrest. Today, the law in England and Wales states that any person or people can apprehend any criminal. These people should be applauded for putting an end to criminality. I have no sympathy at all for this thug.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, until one or more of the 'restrainers' get charged with manslaughter!

Yes and it is bound to be on CCTV, if I was one of the people involved in restraining him I would be extremely worried at the moment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proving yet again that people like you are on the side of the criminals rather than the victims and the law-abiding majority.

I'm pretty sure that you read ealdwita wrong.

I read it as if he was making the statement that citizens aren't protected if they stop a crime, not that he supports criminals...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and it is bound to be on CCTV, if I was one of the people involved in restraining him I would be extremely worried at the moment.

I would have been too, but the police gave them a pass (as did the man's, I assume, gangster family (who else says there will be no retribution?)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffocating a bookstore robber to death in England and not facing charges seems a helluva lot smarter than being charged for doggie burglar bites in Wales. So I guess it all depends on which Brits are being messed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffocating a bookstore robber to death in England and not facing charges seems a helluva lot smarter than being charged for doggie burglar bites in Wales. So I guess it all depends on which Brits are being messed with.

Not a bookstore owner - a bookmaker aka: bookie, they take bets, which usually means they carry a fair amount of cash during trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bookstore owner - a bookmaker aka: bookie, they take bets, which usually means they carry a fair amount of cash during trading.

Bookiestore then, if you prefer.

So I might as well ask, if the bookmaker's dog bit him to death, would there be Wales-like charges in England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookiestore then, if you prefer.

So I might as well ask, if the bookmaker's dog bit him to death, would there be Wales-like charges in England?

*shrugs shoulders* we'll never know cos it didn't happen - yet. I'm betting there is a lawyer somewhere just hanging out for that particular type of case though, make a name for himself and all that jazz....

I am curious as to how the law there does deal with this, hopefully there will be more news bites - am watching this space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookiestore then, if you prefer.

So I might as well ask, if the bookmaker's dog bit him to death, would there be Wales-like charges in England?

Depends really, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) guidelines on self defence are pretty straight forward really - it's defined as the protection of self, property, members of the public, or in the duty of preventing a crime, or apprehending a criminal.

In the case in this thread, it's simply the case that if he was just restrained, and died for some reason then no charges are brought, if however he was restrained and then someone decided to kick him in the head whilst he's laying there, and he dies, charges will be brought as that's not self defence.

With a dog, it depends on the scenario, if no ones around and someone breaks in and is mauled by a dog, no charges, if you let your dog off and it pins someone down to restrain them, no charges...if you encourage the dog to attack and encourage it to maul them to death, you'll be charged, and you'll also be charged if your dog goes for an intruder and then when the intruder is subdued to dog fails to stop on command....since you're in charge of that animal, so the minimum you can expect is a charge of failing to control the animal.

Edit - there is also nothing in law that says you have to be attacked first, or that you have to retreat etc...all that is media myth.

Edited by Sky Scanner
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends really, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) guidelines on self defence are pretty straight forward really - it's defined as the protection of self, property, members of the public, or in the duty of preventing a crime, or apprehending a criminal.

In the case in this thread, it's simply the case that if he was just restrained, and died for some reason then no charges are brought, if however he was restrained and then someone decided to kick him in the head whilst he's laying there, and he dies, charges will be brought as that's not self defence.

With a dog, it depends on the scenario, if no ones around and someone breaks in and is mauled by a dog, no charges, if you let your dog off and it pins someone down to restrain them, no charges...if you encourage the dog to attack and encourage it to maul them to death, you'll be charged, and you'll also be charged if your dog goes for an intruder and then when the intruder is subdued to dog fails to stop on command....since you're in charge of that animal, so the minimum you can expect is a charge of failing to control the animal.

Edit - there is also nothing in law that says you have to be attacked first, or that you have to retreat etc...all that is media myth.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookiestore then, if you prefer.

So I might as well ask, if the bookmaker's dog bit him to death, would there be Wales-like charges in England?

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

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.