ChatterBank2 mins ago
Unjustice For Defending His Business!!!!!
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.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-25 44030/B usiness man-att acks-tw o-burgl ars-cat ching-r ed-hand ed-arre sted-de fending -proper ty.html
http://
Answers
This is clearly a good, able and honest businessman who does not have sufficient clout to stop these scum testifying. If he was some psycopath he would have destroyed their mobile phones and walked away. Robber quote from the Daily Mail article (above): 'He said: “I been nicking diesel and some bloke has beaten me up with a stick and broken my legs and my arm. I...
03:07 Thu 23rd Jan 2014
There are some wonderful pictures with that article.
There is the 'businessman' in his Harley Davidson T-Shirt looking ridiculous. Then further down, a picture of one of the accused/victims posing with a fish. Both are funny pictures.
I speculate that there is a bit of inbreeding in that part of the country.
There is the 'businessman' in his Harley Davidson T-Shirt looking ridiculous. Then further down, a picture of one of the accused/victims posing with a fish. Both are funny pictures.
I speculate that there is a bit of inbreeding in that part of the country.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
2 to 1 Jake, and clearly they stood for the fight or one would have got away. I wonder what you would have done with 2 - 1? do you have a business to defend or do you sit in a cush Government office ?
There is no justice in this country, your home is not your castle it is for every piece of scum that wants a piece of it.
£75 fine, I am sure that will be more than covered by the compo claims.
Country has gone to the dogs (well criminals)
There is no justice in this country, your home is not your castle it is for every piece of scum that wants a piece of it.
£75 fine, I am sure that will be more than covered by the compo claims.
Country has gone to the dogs (well criminals)
\\ do you have a business to defend or do you sit in a cush Government office ? \\
Jake's idea of a small business is one that should be "wound up" if it couldn't afford to absorb the proposed rise in the minimum wage, so he would be completely confused by the fact that burglars stealing, repeatedly, his diesel and other items would have any effect on his business.
I would guess that Jake had never had a small business.....just a guess.
Jake's idea of a small business is one that should be "wound up" if it couldn't afford to absorb the proposed rise in the minimum wage, so he would be completely confused by the fact that burglars stealing, repeatedly, his diesel and other items would have any effect on his business.
I would guess that Jake had never had a small business.....just a guess.
The Law seems pretty reasonable to me, in terms of what constitutes an acceptable response, level of violence employed.
http:// www.cps .gov.uk /public ations/ prosecu tion/ho usehold ers.htm l
From the press report, it seems that the injuries were inflicted whilst Mr. Woodhouse was chasing the intruders.
From the CPS guidelines,
"What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not."
You could rightly question whether 2 broken legs and a broken arm constitutes reasonable force when chasing intruders, rather than defending oneself from attack.
For those of you who are questioning whether this householder has been treated fairly, what level of injury inflicted upon the intruders running away would you consider unacceptable, if any?
http://
From the press report, it seems that the injuries were inflicted whilst Mr. Woodhouse was chasing the intruders.
From the CPS guidelines,
"What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not."
You could rightly question whether 2 broken legs and a broken arm constitutes reasonable force when chasing intruders, rather than defending oneself from attack.
For those of you who are questioning whether this householder has been treated fairly, what level of injury inflicted upon the intruders running away would you consider unacceptable, if any?
My OH caught a burglar in our garage carrying things out years ago. He sat on him and rang the police. When they came to do a report, they were very careful how they worded it, making sure they put OH felt "threatened". They said if they didn't, OH could be in trouble- even though the burglar wasn't hurt. So there seems to be very little you can do.
In this case, it does sound like he went a bit over the top, but i have no sympathy for the burglars.
In this case, it does sound like he went a bit over the top, but i have no sympathy for the burglars.
Lazygun
"Hard and fast rules" in these sort of situations are not necessarily applicable and each case should be assessed on it's merits.
Chasing an verbally chastising a youth who had pinched your wallet might be appropriate, but someone who you had chases after appointing your wife might merit a more physical response.
This guy was clearly p1ssed off by being robbed repeatedly and responded with what i consider to be a human response.
Clearly your response would be more...."considered."
"Hard and fast rules" in these sort of situations are not necessarily applicable and each case should be assessed on it's merits.
Chasing an verbally chastising a youth who had pinched your wallet might be appropriate, but someone who you had chases after appointing your wife might merit a more physical response.
This guy was clearly p1ssed off by being robbed repeatedly and responded with what i consider to be a human response.
Clearly your response would be more...."considered."
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.