Unjustice For Defending His Business!!!!!

[trt]

I just hope he gets off as he sounds like a good honest guy, and the two idiots only get a £75 fine, plus 2 broken legs and an arm :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544030/Businessman-attacks-two-burglars-catching-red-handed-arrested-defending-property.html

[Sqad]

appointing....should have been r@ped which I presume AB prefers.

[Peter Pedant]

Difficult to comment whilst it is running

It remains for the jury to find him guilty of the charges.

j-t-p this one is defence of property - not defence of person
or both...

[slaney]

He was cleared yesterday apparently....
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/10955637.Abergavenny_businessman_not_guilty_of_deliberate_attack/?action=complain&;cid=12385831

[LazyGun]

@Sqad But as best I can tell, the CPS guidelines are just that - proportionate.And his defence will be stressing the mitigating factors, and the jury will be making a decision.

I would agree that the notion of a £75 fine for the wannabe robbers appears ludicrously lenient, but that should have no bearing on a decision over the level of violence meted out.

Some of the respondents here seem happy with the level of force applied here; I would be interested to know just what would be considered disproportionate by these respondents? Death? Permanent paralysis? Where do you think the line should be drawn?

For me,I would certainly question whether 2 broken legs and a broken arm is a proportionate response when chasing someone.

If I or my girlfriend were under immediate physical threat I would not necessarily be so moderate in my response - but those same intruders/muggers/lowlife running away? Not the same thing at all.

[SlackAlice]

slaney
nice find and a correct decision for once.

[LazyGun]

@ Sqad Oh, and conflating rape and an immediate response to that with nicking diesel is a bit disingenuous of you.

Still, the guy has been acquitted, so justice has been done, everybody is happy, yes?

[Sqad]

\\\\Still, the guy has been acquitted, so justice has been done, everybody is happy, yes?\\\

Clearly not "everybody"......but i am.

\\\\@ Sqad Oh, and conflating rape and an immediate response to that with nicking diesel is a bit disingenuous of you. \\

After looking up the meaning of "conflating"....I was just giving the wide variations for evoking a physical response.

[jake-the-peg]

Sqad - My wife's worked for a number of small businesses as a book keeper so I do know what I'm talking about

What about you?

Emmie - you can see from the account that the guy just lost it! he's admitted it - red mist and he just batterred him

//'I swung out like a mad man between six and ten times. I was just lashing out man, I was hitting as hard as I could.'//

This is not a description of self defense

He's being charged with GBH - he's very lucky it wasn't attempted murder or even murder

Yes we should be sympathetic to him but we don't give carte blanche to kill thieves in this country!

[Sqad]

Jake-the Peg

\\\What about you? \\\

This is the second time that you have asked me this question and as i have answered it and you have not returned to the thread (which is routine for you)......I will answer you for the final time.

Yes.I have owned a boutique and a travel agency.......both small businesses.

[BlueToffee]

For what it's worth, I'm in full agreement with jake-the-peg.

[whiskeryron]

If they had not been illegally on his premises with criminal intent then NO ONE would have been injured. I am heartily sick of the mamby pamby attitude this country has regarding the feelings of criminals who get injured in the process of breaking the law, any punishment they get from a property owner who catches them on his/her property they well & truly deserve.

WR.

[Orderlimit]

Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 11 Sworn - 10:08
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 10:18
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness evidence concluded - 10:32
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 10:33
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 12 Sworn - 10:44
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 13 Sworn - 10:57
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:09
Trial (Part Heard) - Prosecution Closing Speech - 11:15
Trial (Part Heard) - ****** ******; Defence Closing Speech - 11:28
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 12:20 - 12:10
Trial (Part Heard) - Summing Up - 12:26
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 14:01
Trial (Part Heard) - Summing Up - 14:06
Trial (Part Heard) - Jury retire to consider verdict - 15:05
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 15:32

That didn't take long for the jury to decide. Not guilty.

[trt]

Really pleased for him.

Hope the verdict gets out to other thieves.

[jno]

agree with BlueToffee and jake. This wasn't defence of anything, it was attack.

[ludwig]

// He was cleared yesterday apparently.... //

Excellent.

[FredPuli43]

The jury would be directed that, if the defendant used only what seemed to him to be reasonable force, necessary for his self-defence, at the time; 'in the agony of the moment'; that amounts to self-defence. It doesn't matter that, in fact, the force was greater than needed. The law does not expect a man under attack, or protecting another person under attack or even his property, to be able to 'weigh to a nicety' the precise degree of force needed.

[Sqad]

LOL

\\\\The law does not expect a man under attack, or protecting another person under attack or even his property, to be able to 'weigh to a nicety' the precise degree of force needed.\\

Nicely put!

[naomi24]

Agreed Ludwig. If they hadn't been where they shouldn't have been they wouldn't have been 'attacked'. Burglars choose to do what they do, they take their chances, and they deserve all they get. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[jake-the-peg]

So Naomi

What if he'd deliberately killed him?

Slit his throat in his anger? would you have supported that?

Just wondering how far you'd go?

[jno]

FredPuli, two broken legs and a broken arm seems way beyond a nicety to me.