24 hours in Police Custody. Ch.4 documentary.

[Westley]

5 hours ago, Rem260 said:

A free ride for criminals then. Attempt to commit a crime without fear of being detained. If you are disturbed in the act then you can just walk away and try another day.

"Thief enters store. Attempts to steal TV. Seen by security guard and manger and approached. Wherby they take to thier heals out of store. Pursued by manager and guard. Manager/Guard grabs thief by shoulder. Who falls over and cracks skull on pavement."

You want manager/guard charged ?

I can assure you that once the offender is leaving the store, minus the property of course, they will NOT be pursued. I speak from first hand experience. It saves all the hassle of Staff attending Court, adjournment after adjournment, possibly several times before the Offender eventually pleads guilty. Too much money wasted with paying Staff to go to Court, easier to just let them go. Of course the Crims know this and will play the system. 

[Rem260]

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

You are defending your property whilst you remain on your property. Once you leave that, you are potentially going from defending to attacking. This is why the lad ended up inside.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy with the lad who was burgled, once you set off chasing them and ramming their bike, you have gone way outside of your rights.

You are allowed to take reasonable steps to arrest and detain a person who has committed a indictable offence.

I have not watched the video in question but it does seem that he exceeded what was reasonable.

3 minutes ago, Westley said:

I can assure you that once the offender is leaving the store, minus the property of course, they will NOT be pursued. I speak from first hand experience. It saves all the hassle of Staff attending Court, adjournment after adjournment, possibly several times before the Offender eventually pleads guilty. Too much money wasted with paying Staff to go to Court, easier to just let them go. Of course the Crims know this and will play the system. 

There it is in essence the descent into anarchy. The CPS use this under the guise of not in the public interest.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Rem260

[old'un]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

You are defending your property whilst you remain on your property. Once you leave that, you are potentially going from defending to attacking. This is why the lad ended up inside.

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy with the lad who was burgled, once you set off chasing them and ramming their bike, you have gone way outside of your rights.

Bizarre. Just what has that got to do with anything?

I think you can pursue and preform a citizens arrest anywhere.

 

Rem260   You beat me too it this time

Edited November 29, 2022 by old'un

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

 

Happy to see our country upholding the law. 

I'm not denying the law has been upheld, the problem is, the law does not protect decent people anymore and something needs to be done about it. I'm obviously not suggesting going out intending to injure criminals or vigilante action, but while decent people are sat terrified or miserable in their own homes at the hands of criminals who are literally laughing at the law, you know the system isn't working. 

3 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I haven't watched the program. Why would I need to watch it? I believe that they would need to sue him and hope his car insurance would cover him - which it won't.

No.

my mistake 👍

1 hour ago, Mickeydredd said:

we won't though, that is why the Courts generally impose a custodial sentence for any perceived vigilante action - they use it as a deterrent.

I hope we won't to, or we really will be living in a lawless society. But I certainly think we're going to start seeing more of it. The criminal justice system is broken and at some point, decent people will have enough, particularly if the law allows everything they've worked for to be taken away by criminals and their families are in danger. At that point there's nothing left to loose. Which is the way this country is heading if something doesn't change. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Rob85 said:

What about an innocent bystander who gets run over and killed by someone pursuing the scumbags. That would see the burglary victim facing somewhere in the region of 14 years inside for causing death by dangerous driving. Cases like this are very seldom straight forward. Quite often police will break off a chase because there's more risk to the public by continuing a pursuit. Also bear in mind that not all police officers that drive cars are pursuit trained. Crimes remain unsolved because there isn't enough evidence to bring it to a trial. Plenty of murders have went unsolved even though people know who done it. Bringng the required weight of evidence into a courtroom that proves to a jury who done it is another matter, alleged rapes and sexual assaults being the big one.

Don't get me wrong I am all for protecting your property and if you catch someone in the act I believe you should be able to detain them, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to involve yourself in a chase and ram them off the road.

I haven't said alot of the actions you've talked about should be done. But you've half proved the point I'm making. We need to change the system, take one of your examples of breaking off a police chase that is becoming dangerous, sure continuing it carry a not insignificant risk, but by breaking it off, it sends a very clear message to criminals that if they behave recklessly enough, they'll get away and they will do that time and again, ultimately exposing the public to a greater long term risk and also creating problems like in this case where the general public feel they need to protect themselves or their own property, as they know the police can't. Case in point was the recent London moped crime that was getting completely out of hand, the police started ramming them off their bikes and moped crime was halfed within a week. What I'm saying is, public safety is a far bigger picture than the immediate danger in the moment, or allowing criminals, particularly violent ones, to be able to act unabated. 

21 minutes ago, Westley said:

I can assure you that once the offender is leaving the store, minus the property of course, they will NOT be pursued. I speak from first hand experience. It saves all the hassle of Staff attending Court, adjournment after adjournment, possibly several times before the Offender eventually pleads guilty. Too much money wasted with paying Staff to go to Court, easier to just let them go. Of course the Crims know this and will play the system. 

Another good example of what I'm talking about. The criminal justice system failing to interrupt criminal activity that will clearly mean, more criminals will try it on, while victims feel powerless,or are tempted to tackle the problem themselves. 

22 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

You are allowed to take reasonable steps to arrest and detain a person who has committed a indictable offence.

I have not watched the video in question but it does seem that he exceeded what was reasonable.

There it is in essence the descent into anarchy. The CPS use this under the guise of not in the public interest.

Yep you beat me to it also 👍

[Scully]

This story was on our regional news last week. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63636409.amp

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

This story was on our regional news last week. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63636409.amp

Interesting case thanks for posting. Its why I believe it's so important justice is done and seen to be done, or people will take action when pushed far enough. 

 

[Westley]

In my day if you pranged a Police Vehicle you were grounded, now it is the FIRST consideration. It is more cost effective to write off a Police Vehicle and attempt to stop a pursuit before it starts. It also saves the adverse publicity when things go wrong. I agree with Walker regarding the way that Police Forces are now forced to act and the CPS are a total waste of space. Prosecuting Solicitors were always the ones who failed to make good Defence Solicitors  !  I do believe however that a correctly worded Defence Statement and a 'No Comment'  interview and the best they could have done would have been a 'Due Care' which would not have ended with a prison sentence.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

now you are talking vigilante, never suggested that, I am talking about the good guys defending their family and property.

Its another step on the spectrum. Start with chasing them down. Then maybe a little nudge. Then maybe ram them. Then maybe run them down. Next week carrying a shank in the pub. 

I have every sympathy with the home owner and none with the perp but the moment you chase them down............... You may not feel the law is sufficiently robust or the police under resourced then that's a separate matter. 

I cannot support or condone breaking the law. What starts as a nudge ends up in a lynching. Leave the law of the jungle where it belongs with the uneducated. 

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

Its another step on the spectrum. Start with chasing them down. Then maybe a little nudge. Then maybe ram them. Then maybe run them down. Next week carrying a shank in the pub. 

I have every sympathy with the home owner and none with the perp but the moment you chase them down............... You may not feel the law is sufficiently robust or the police under resourced then that's a separate matter. 

I cannot support or condone breaking the law. What starts as a nudge ends up in a lynching. Leave the law of the jungle where it belongs with the uneducated. 

I agree that taking the law into your own hands is bad, but at what point would you cross the line, your slippery slope example works both ways, at first you get anti social behaviour affecting your home life, then your works van and all its tools are stolen and you can no longer earn a living, then your house is burgled you don't chase them down because you believe in law and order ect, but still no one faces justice, while you suffer, then your partner is murdered and children assaulted by a pedophile. I know we're taking hypothetical to the extreme here, but the point is, if the law doesn't start getting to grips with criminals, good people will be criminalised themselves and who could blame them? Just like the mother of those boys Scully posted up. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

You are allowed to take reasonable steps to arrest and detain a person who has committed a indictable offence.

Gotta love those who advocate a "citizens' arrest". A minefield.

I presume you believe ramming the bike was a reasonable step. Subsequent injuries demonstrate that it was hardly reasonable.

Westley has a grip of the situation. Without the full script - which none of us have - I believe the lad's honesty and wish to co-operate were his downfall. No comment would have served him better.

[Rem260]

52 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Gotta love those who advocate a "citizens' arrest". A minefield.

I presume you believe ramming the bike was a reasonable step. Subsequent injuries demonstrate that it was hardly reasonable.

Westley has a grip of the situation. Without the full script - which none of us have - I believe the lad's honesty and wish to co-operate were his downfall. No comment would have served him better.

My god! You've once again proved your inability to read and understand was is written.

Plus you didn't need to persume as it was clearly written what my view was.

Keep up the good work.

 

3 hours ago, Rem260 said:

You are allowed to take reasonable steps to arrest and detain a person who has committed a indictable offence.

I have not watched the video in question but it does seem that he exceeded what was reasonable.

 

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

Plus you didn't need to persume as it was clearly written what my view was.

Keep up the good work.

 

My god! You've once again proved your inability to read and understand what you wrote. New one on me "persume". Is that a legal term?

PS What is "was is"?

🙂

Edited November 29, 2022 by Gordon R

[henry d]

4 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Adopt the American three strikes system.

And how is that working over there?

4 hours ago, old'un said:

now you are talking vigilante, never suggested that, I am talking about the good guys defending their family and property.

Does running someone over after the fact come under your suggestion of "defending"?

4 hours ago, Rem260 said:

Funnily had Ukraine got tooled up. It would have been prevented the criminal attack on its sovereignty. It shouldn't of then fought back and just let the worlds police (UN) sort it out.

Comparing oranges and fish there my friend!

[Gordon R]

Quote

And how is that working over there?

It might be better than our system, it might not, but I would be happier.

Quote

Comparing oranges and fish there my friend!

Got to agree. Logic isn't his forte.

[12gauge82]

16 minutes ago, henry d said:

And how is that working over there?

 

 

Perfectly, you don't need to rehabilitate someone if they're never released from prison to harm other people again. 

[Scully]

12 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Interesting case thanks for posting. Its why I believe it's so important justice is done and seen to be done, or people will take action when pushed far enough. 

 

I’m not sure I can condone it because it opens up all manner of questions and ramifications, but I can totally understand why she did it. 

[old'un]

10 hours ago, henry d said:

 

Does running someone over after the fact come under your suggestion of "defending"?

 

obviously not, but if you look back the word “defending” came from asking oowee how far he would go, never suggested running someone over, did I?

[Westley]

58 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m not sure I can condone it because it opens up all manner of questions and ramifications, but I can totally understand why she did it. 

And so can I, but it was pre meditated and she took the knife with her. Her sole intention was to kill or maim her intended victim. I do deeply sympathise with her situation, brought about by a major failing of the legal system, that allowed that person to be back in society after his previous convictions for the same offences. However, I do not believe that was the case here. I believe that the home owner lost control of his vehicle, after striking the kerb in his attempt to avoid the braking motor cycle. He certainly showed a lack of due care. The collision was unavoidable. I have a degree of sympathy for the 2 victims, the ones that make a living off decent hard working people and continued to do so within days of this incident. However, it is not their fault, it has been bred into them from previous generations of like minded families and will continue to do so for the prolific generations to come.  Still, we must live in hope that one day someone will have the sphericals to actually make the sentence befit the crime.

[old man]

15 hours ago, oowee said:

Defend your property by all means. Revenge attacks and killings belong in the jungle. 

That sounds OK initially but the chain of events that then follow as procedure currently dictates means that you would be arrested with guns taken? Meaning possibly months of real stress and disruption to your life, with you hoping for the right outcome?

The degree of force used must be proportional but that would be decided by people not connected to the real event and situation?

Still don't understand why the situation has become so skewed away from the person who was law abiding?

There seems to be so little common sense these days that the future could be chaos?

[henry d]

21 minutes ago, old'un said:

obviously not, but if you look back the word “defending” came from asking oowee how far he would go, never suggested running someone over, did I?

No, but we are slipping away from the original story which was.

[henry d]

6 minutes ago, old man said:

That sounds OK initially but the chain of events that then follow as procedure currently dictates means that you would be arrested with guns taken? Meaning possibly months of real stress and disruption to your life, with you hoping for the right outcome...

If you didn't defend your self/family/etc would the stress etc of that be the same or more? No one can say as they are outcome based and we act on what is in front of us and have to accept the consequences. 

[old man]

14 minutes ago, henry d said:

If you didn't defend your self/family/etc would the stress etc of that be the same or more? No one can say as they are outcome based and we act on what is in front of us and have to accept the consequences. 

Again you misunderstood, I am not talking about personal responses to any situation but trying to understand how society here has moved so far towards defending the law breaker at the expense of the law abiding? No common sense involved?

[old'un]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

No, but we are slipping away from the original story which was.

this is really petty, please look and see how the word "defending" came into an exchange of posts between me and oowee.

[Scully]

Revenge isn’t an acceptable form of defence in court. Totally understandable in my opinion, but not acceptable. Judicial decisions are formed in the cold light of day and emotionally detached, and that’s the way it has to be I’m afraid. 
Again, it’s a rock and a hard place, but once the criminal is fleeing the scene, then it isn’t acceptable to pursue if revenge is your intent, but it would take someone more disciplined than me to think like that when the heat is on!🙂 I’ve even seen coppers administering a little ‘catch up’. We’re only human. 

I’m sure circumstances would change if the person fleeing the scene had committed a murder, but to what extent they would change I have no idea, and hope I never find out. 
If the courts don’t get serious, especially with serial offenders, then it wouldn’t be surprising if vigilantism started playing its part, and then we’re really in trouble.