England to Subjects....Die.
- Thread starter NIGHTWATCH
- Start date
- Status
bukijin
Member
Chalk up a success for the jury system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/3835537.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/3835537.stm
Locus
Member
Ouch.
Stand_Watie
Member
Never should have gone to trial. That's the kind of garbage charge that grand juries are supposed to weed out.
bukijin
Member
I agree that it shouldn't have gone to trial, but the fact was that it did.
agricola
Member
boofus,
as someone whose main contribution to the debate has been to steal someone elses joke (which was funnier at the time), for you to accuse anyone of trolling is laughable.
rest,
the reason why he was charged is probably because the sequence of events went:
i) Kirk went outside to confront men he thought were damaging a phonebox;
ii) there was a tussle;
iii) Kirk was stabbed;
iv) Kirk went inside his house;
v) Kirk came back outside with the harpoon gun;
vi) Kirk shot the youth with the harpoon gun.
as someone whose main contribution to the debate has been to steal someone elses joke (which was funnier at the time), for you to accuse anyone of trolling is laughable.
rest,
the reason why he was charged is probably because the sequence of events went:
i) Kirk went outside to confront men he thought were damaging a phonebox;
ii) there was a tussle;
iii) Kirk was stabbed;
iv) Kirk went inside his house;
v) Kirk came back outside with the harpoon gun;
vi) Kirk shot the youth with the harpoon gun.
Someone has to. People often see what they want to see and the conversation might turn into ganging on someone. No matter who is right in this case, all sides and possibilities should be looked. Its not interesting otherwise!
Agricola's idea sounds very possible. The problem is that this article, like many others, leaves gaps and we are not sure what exactly happened. The English cant react THAT unreasonable.
But suppose:
* Teenagers messing around beside vandalised phone.
* Angry man assumes they were the vandals, gets a harpoon gun and shoots one.
* The others attack him in "self defence".
* Man with harpoon claims they attacked him first.
I do despair at times over the passivity of some of my fellow Brits, and I do think we ought to be allowed to own guns (correction: should not have our RKBA infringed) for defence against criminals, JBTs etc. But if someone is shot (or otherwise injured) in alleged "self defence", its quite reasonable to have to make sure the "defender" is telling the truth.
I think its not only reasonable but necessary to investigate (in court if need be, although in other cases it could be too obvious to need that) to see whether the "self defender" is telling the truth or acting reasonably.
Stand_Watie
Member
According to the news article he had already been stabbed in the chest when he shot the attacker. I'll stand by my assessment that it was a garbage charge.
I do deplore how little information there seems to be available about your trials - if we didn't have to rely upon a couple of distilled paragraphs after the fact to try and determine what testimony was presented it would be easier to come to an objective conclusion.
I do deplore how little information there seems to be available about your trials - if we didn't have to rely upon a couple of distilled paragraphs after the fact to try and determine what testimony was presented it would be easier to come to an objective conclusion.
Dain Bramage
Member
Wow, no Ag. The lack of word-parsing, definition-wrangling, pages long conceptual sparring, and Marquis of Queensbury Rules for Infinite Debating is oddly refreshing.
Note to self: Post all Great Britain stories in General Discussions.
Note to self: Post all Great Britain stories in General Discussions.
Dain Bramage
Member
Sheeesh. Take too long to type something, and look what happens.
I'll be in Autoloaders, pouting.
I'll be in Autoloaders, pouting.
agricola
Member
dain,
I believe one of the Marquis of Queensbury Rules for Infinite Debating is "dont post ad hominem attacks when you lack any intelligent comment to add to the debate".
Another one is "Read the entire thread before posting".
I believe one of the Marquis of Queensbury Rules for Infinite Debating is "dont post ad hominem attacks when you lack any intelligent comment to add to the debate".
Another one is "Read the entire thread before posting".
Dain Bramage
Member
Ag, I would have read the rules, but they are infinitely long.
I have two items to add, one useful to the debate and the other not.
1.) Other members to this board have cited a sequence of events that are favorable to Mr. Kirk. You cite a different sequence, with your usual certainty, that are not favorable.
I believe the board is using British news sources for their version. What source are you using for yours? I understand that you are a LEO there. Do you serve in the area that this event happened? Is it mere officer chit-chat or do you have a serious source?
Posting the basis of your reasoning will eliminate quite a bit of debate and cross-talk up front.
2.) Do you Britons ever sleep?
I have two items to add, one useful to the debate and the other not.
1.) Other members to this board have cited a sequence of events that are favorable to Mr. Kirk. You cite a different sequence, with your usual certainty, that are not favorable.
I believe the board is using British news sources for their version. What source are you using for yours? I understand that you are a LEO there. Do you serve in the area that this event happened? Is it mere officer chit-chat or do you have a serious source?
Posting the basis of your reasoning will eliminate quite a bit of debate and cross-talk up front.
2.) Do you Britons ever sleep?
2nd Amendment
member
Well since Agri is here to whet your whistles how'd ya like to go bicker at a real European leftist or three over the subject...?
http://www.phlogredux.org/messages/53137.html
http://www.phlogredux.org/messages/53137.html
Dain Bramage
Member
2nd Amendment: Speaking of ad hominem attacks, I have to take you to task and defend poor Agricola. You were somehow implying that Ag is not a "real" European leftist. I'm sure he is the genuine article!
agricola
Member
dain,
my sequence is taken from the Court reports on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3833445.stm
particularly:
which compares with what I said:
I really wish people would read what I wrote, rather than just make up what I wrote and go from there.
Also, its 1631 GMT as I write this.
my sequence is taken from the Court reports on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3833445.stm
particularly:
which compares with what I said:
I really wish people would read what I wrote, rather than just make up what I wrote and go from there.
Also, its 1631 GMT as I write this.
2nd Amendment
member
I duly apologize to Aggy. I have NO doubt about his leftist credentials!
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Truth is, if he went inside and came back out, he'd be in trouble even here. He's supposed to retreat, and even in states where you aren't required to retreat, if you do, you can't come back and employ deadly force. I think that's stupid, because there are often situations where cowering somewhere and waiting for your attacker to continue his attack with all the initiative is dangerous, but that's the fix we've allowed ourselves to be put into here as well.
HOWEVER, it sounds to me like the second part of the "brawl" to use the BBC's term took place on the steps of the house, and retrieving the harpoon gun could have been as simple as reaching in the doorway (where the news report says he'd left it right next to the door) and dodging back out. He could easily have been under threat the entire time, and it appears the jury agreed that it was so.
What bothers us is not that there was a trial, it's that the prosecutor seems to have agreed that he was attacked, outnumbered, with deadly force, and yet still wanted to fry him. That's disgusting. Also, your pointing out that the stab wound was taken before he retrieved the harpoon gun is pretty disingenuous, since he was still facing three young men, they still had the knife even if they didn't manage to stab him, and there seems to be no dispute of the fact that they were swinging a baseball bat with bad intent.
Baseball bats are deadly weapons. A three-on-one booting is deadly force.
HOWEVER, it sounds to me like the second part of the "brawl" to use the BBC's term took place on the steps of the house, and retrieving the harpoon gun could have been as simple as reaching in the doorway (where the news report says he'd left it right next to the door) and dodging back out. He could easily have been under threat the entire time, and it appears the jury agreed that it was so.
What bothers us is not that there was a trial, it's that the prosecutor seems to have agreed that he was attacked, outnumbered, with deadly force, and yet still wanted to fry him. That's disgusting. Also, your pointing out that the stab wound was taken before he retrieved the harpoon gun is pretty disingenuous, since he was still facing three young men, they still had the knife even if they didn't manage to stab him, and there seems to be no dispute of the fact that they were swinging a baseball bat with bad intent.
Baseball bats are deadly weapons. A three-on-one booting is deadly force.
El Tejon
Member
Given Ag's description of the statement of facts, I hate to break it to everyone but there's a good shot that something like this would have been prosecuted in the U.S. as well. Indeed, I have done four such cases (none involved harpoon guns--one had a "Conan the Barbarian" two handed sword though).
BTW, just goes to show that just because you stick them good does not mean the fight is over!
BTW, just goes to show that just because you stick them good does not mean the fight is over!
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Here's the BBC piece on the acquittal:
Man acquitted of harpoon attack
A man accused of firing a harpoon into a teenager's face has been cleared of all charges against him after a jury accepted he acted in self-defence.
Nathan Kirk was cleared of unlawfully possessing an offensive weapon after earlier being acquitted of one charge of grievous bodily harm with intent.
The 25-year-old, from Hungerford, Berkshire, was also cleared of grievous bodily harm, on Thursday.
The harpoon hit Matthew Hawkins in the face, causing him to lose an eye.
Nathan Kirk said he was acting in self-defence
Mr Kirk himself had been stabbed close to his heart during the fight in March 2003.
The jury at Reading Crown Court decided that the gun had been fired by Mr Kirk accidentally during the fight.*
He brought out the scuba gun when a gang, including the 15-year-old, arrived at his girlfriend's flat in Thatcham following an argument over vandalism to a telephone box.
During the brawl, it was fired and became lodged in the teenager's face.
'Overjoyed and relieved'
Hawkins' injury was so serious that he lost an eye and paramedics had to use bolt-cutters to cut off part of the three-pronged harpoon.
Mr Kirk left the court without commenting to reporters waiting outside, but a statement read by his solicitor Georgina Murray said: "He is overjoyed and relieved that this traumatic case has now come to an end.
"He now wants to put the past 14 months behind him and get his life back on track.
"He is eternally grateful to his mother, father, family and friends for their support during the most difficult period of his life so far."
The court was told how Mr Kirk opened the door of the flat to Hawkins, his half-brother Barry Lovegrove and his sister's boyfriend, Derek Watkins.
The trio punched and kicked him and stabbed him close to the heart.
He retreated inside and brought out the harpoon to frighten the gang, according to Michael Topolski QC, defending.
Hawkins, Lovegrove and Watkins were also charged in connection with the fight and tried at Reading Crown Court earlier this year.
Watkins, 37, of Thatcham, was discharged on all counts.
Hawkins was discharged on two counts but convicted of affray and given a community punishment and rehabilitation order.
Lovegrove, 28, of Thatcham, was jailed for 18 months for affray.
* No, they didn't. No way they believed that, although it's possible. What they really believed was that the law didn't leave them an opening to say he did it purposely without convicting him of a crime, so they used a bit of tactical fiction. Good on 'em. Jury Semi-Nullification.
**This sure makes it sound like he was attacked as soon as he opened the door, and we've already heard that the harpoon was next to the doorway. In other words, when Agricola says he went inside, that was probably a trip of a foot or two with three armed attackers right on his heels. No wonder he grabbed the harpoon.
The really dumb thing he did was open the door. But people do that every day. In a recent gun rag article, Mas Ayoob writes about a guy in Vermont who was the first to be targeted by the thrill-killers who ended up murdering two Dartmouth college professors in their home. This guy lived in the middle of nowhere, so they cut his phone lines at night and one of them went to the door to ask for help while the other stayed in the bushes. They told the police later that the one at the door was to rush the victim as soon as he opened the door and, with the long knife he was concealing behind his leg, stab him in the chest repeatedly. The second would ignore the initial victim and run past to find the rest of the family (the man's wife and young son.)
This didn't work out because the homeowner did two smart things:
1. Knowing he was isolated, he carried his Glock in his home.
2. He DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR for the teenager acting strangely on his doorstep.
He had a short negotiation with the teenager, offered to call a towing service, went to the phone to call the police instead, and discovered the dead phone. At that time, he went back to the door, where the teenager was screaming at him to open the door and threatening to break it down, and showed him the Glock. The two disappeared.
Unfortunately, their later victims weren't as well-prepared as that one.
Man acquitted of harpoon attack
A man accused of firing a harpoon into a teenager's face has been cleared of all charges against him after a jury accepted he acted in self-defence.
Nathan Kirk was cleared of unlawfully possessing an offensive weapon after earlier being acquitted of one charge of grievous bodily harm with intent.
The 25-year-old, from Hungerford, Berkshire, was also cleared of grievous bodily harm, on Thursday.
The harpoon hit Matthew Hawkins in the face, causing him to lose an eye.
Nathan Kirk said he was acting in self-defence
Mr Kirk himself had been stabbed close to his heart during the fight in March 2003.
The jury at Reading Crown Court decided that the gun had been fired by Mr Kirk accidentally during the fight.*
He brought out the scuba gun when a gang, including the 15-year-old, arrived at his girlfriend's flat in Thatcham following an argument over vandalism to a telephone box.
During the brawl, it was fired and became lodged in the teenager's face.
'Overjoyed and relieved'
Hawkins' injury was so serious that he lost an eye and paramedics had to use bolt-cutters to cut off part of the three-pronged harpoon.
Mr Kirk left the court without commenting to reporters waiting outside, but a statement read by his solicitor Georgina Murray said: "He is overjoyed and relieved that this traumatic case has now come to an end.
"He now wants to put the past 14 months behind him and get his life back on track.
"He is eternally grateful to his mother, father, family and friends for their support during the most difficult period of his life so far."
The court was told how Mr Kirk opened the door of the flat to Hawkins, his half-brother Barry Lovegrove and his sister's boyfriend, Derek Watkins.
The trio punched and kicked him and stabbed him close to the heart.
He retreated inside and brought out the harpoon to frighten the gang, according to Michael Topolski QC, defending.
Hawkins, Lovegrove and Watkins were also charged in connection with the fight and tried at Reading Crown Court earlier this year.
Watkins, 37, of Thatcham, was discharged on all counts.
Hawkins was discharged on two counts but convicted of affray and given a community punishment and rehabilitation order.
Lovegrove, 28, of Thatcham, was jailed for 18 months for affray.
* No, they didn't. No way they believed that, although it's possible. What they really believed was that the law didn't leave them an opening to say he did it purposely without convicting him of a crime, so they used a bit of tactical fiction. Good on 'em. Jury Semi-Nullification.
**This sure makes it sound like he was attacked as soon as he opened the door, and we've already heard that the harpoon was next to the doorway. In other words, when Agricola says he went inside, that was probably a trip of a foot or two with three armed attackers right on his heels. No wonder he grabbed the harpoon.
The really dumb thing he did was open the door. But people do that every day. In a recent gun rag article, Mas Ayoob writes about a guy in Vermont who was the first to be targeted by the thrill-killers who ended up murdering two Dartmouth college professors in their home. This guy lived in the middle of nowhere, so they cut his phone lines at night and one of them went to the door to ask for help while the other stayed in the bushes. They told the police later that the one at the door was to rush the victim as soon as he opened the door and, with the long knife he was concealing behind his leg, stab him in the chest repeatedly. The second would ignore the initial victim and run past to find the rest of the family (the man's wife and young son.)
This didn't work out because the homeowner did two smart things:
1. Knowing he was isolated, he carried his Glock in his home.
2. He DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR for the teenager acting strangely on his doorstep.
He had a short negotiation with the teenager, offered to call a towing service, went to the phone to call the police instead, and discovered the dead phone. At that time, he went back to the door, where the teenager was screaming at him to open the door and threatening to break it down, and showed him the Glock. The two disappeared.
Unfortunately, their later victims weren't as well-prepared as that one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
