UK news: Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still waiting for agricola to come and try to defend his socialist paradise.

That has to be one of the sickest miscarriages of justice I've ever seen. England further entrenches it's reputation as a violator of basic human rights. :barf:
 
To coin a phrase... well to quote one actually...

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
geo orwell, 1984

(well two out of three ain't bad)

That's a strong, free society reflected in the news account. Disturbing is putting it mildly. Wouldn't play in Peoria... (well, maybe Dallas or Phoenix is a better city selection)

It does make me wonder what evidence was presented and allowed and what other laws have degenerated from ye Olde Common Law in Merry Olde...

Maybe it was because it was an oriental sword instead of an Excaliber replica :rolleyes: or that the only witnesses to testify were on the side of and friends of the "deceased victim"

After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: “Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells’ death.
I like our laws a whole lot better. The other three would be charged with homicide... it may be that us backwards Colonists just haven't got it figured out (shaking head)
 
:scrutiny:

Hate the policy, not the whole nation. Things may change if more of these insane headlines pop up in the future. At the very least, the accused now understands how law abiding citizens become criminals by defending their very life. He may have gained a few friends along the way.

Next will be a sword ban like the Aussies have down under.

"Video cameras are everywhere to save you. If attacked, do not resist. It blurs the picture and makes identifying the alleged assailant more difficult. Die politely, go quietly with a gurgle or a whimper. Stiff upper lip."

This one must be over turned, right? :confused:
 
If the right of self defense is a basic human right...

is there a human rights group that defends those who are convicted of defending themselves against agression? I know that there have been such cases here in the US, but what about in Europe-an equivalent to ACLU or Amnesty Int. for State-perpetrated violence?
 
Damn that is sad, and i cross posted that for agricola wear he would see it.

I wonder how he will try and explain this?
 
Here's the best bit...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3561555.stm

"His three accomplices were found guilty of robbery and firearms offences and sentenced to fourteen years."


That's 14 years between the three of them - that's how the BBC reports multiple convictions to try and lend the impression that the courts are handing down more severe sentences than they really did.

4 1/2 years each for the bad guys for home invasion, assault and weapons posession(not to mention the felony murder), and 8 years for the victim for self defence.

Unbelievable. Justice would have the judge as these guys next victim (there will be more, it's just a question of whom) when they are paroled in 2 years.
 
The question about Amnesty International was a veeeeeeery good one... they waste their time and resources on plenty more worthless people. I wonder how they'd react if presented this kind of a case?

(I dated an AI activist during my adventurous years at the university... :D )
 
I don't know much about the politics in the part of the world but I noticed that the article is from a Scottish paper. Isn't there some kind of ill feeling between Scotland and England? Is Scottland still fighting for freedom from "the crown"?

Perhaps this is part of the reason behind this.

Also remember that England has been persecuting its citizens for many hundreds of years. Isn't that the reason that our forefathers came here and fought so valiently to establish this great nation.

It merely seems that England has learned nothing despite the many wars. They continue subjugate their own people.

I looked for a way to e-mail the paper but found nothing. It seems that more research is in order.
 
iamkris, O.K., I'll explain it. When you use deadly force against a fellow human being, all kinds of bad things can happen. These bad things are Problem #2. Despite the rampant Yeehawish of the Errornet, Problem #2 exists every time you hurt your fellow man.

Just because you can use deadly force does not mean that you should. What seems a good idea at the time will later be judged months later by a legal standard that you may be unaware of at the time. What you think is "reasonable and proper" may not be want a jury/judge thinks is the right thing to do.
 
Crime Victims

And people wonder why nearly one out of every four in UK have been a crime victim?

V/r

Chuck
 
I suspect there may be more to the case than what was reported. This is just too absurd.
 
LT, do you know for sure that the stab wounds were to the back? Do you have a cite for it? That would sure add some clarity to this mess.
 
El T

I agree with Daniel T...that's what I'm looking for...real facts. I usually respect what you write on this board but this time I don't quite understand what you're saying. (Frankly, your response to me didn't make any sense...maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.)

You're acting like you have more info than the rest of us on the case...what is it? Stab wounds to the back could certainly look bad in a court of law...then again, it depends on the circumstances. Big difference between stabing someone who is fleeing from you or on the floor in front of you versus stabbing in the back if someone (or his buddies) is maneuvering around you for another go at you.
 
Actually, if an armed gang invades your home, you should feel absolutely free to stab or shoot them in the back. Preferably you should shoot them all in the back from a dark corner behind solid cover. At least where I come from, you are not required to stand up and offer yourself as a target by yelling at them or switching on a bunch of lights to mark your profile. If they are armed and have broken into your house while you are there, it's entirely reasonable to assume they will kill you. It's about as imminent a deadly threat as you can get. Announcing yourself or even trying to escape can and probably will lead to your own death.

Things are quite different in the UK, as we all know. A once proud people have been reduced to the level of sheep by a long series of socialist governments since WWII. And the gov'ment don't want sheep that fight back! That might make it dangerous for the politicos when it's time for them to be shorn.
 
In the back????

Heheheheheheh... I once remarked in Army basic bayonette training that if anyone ever stabbed me with cold steel, it would be in the arse, because I'd d be hoofing it in the opposit direction!!!! :neener:
 
intresting comments on this site
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=85176

Here's some of the ones from UK residents that caught my eye.

One of two things has obviously happened here. 1. there is much more information about this story that the media have so "conveniently forgotton" to include (let's face it, they do it all the time for a sensational story). or 2. the police, jury, and judge left their brains at home. It just doesn't make sense!!
Carl, Manchester
24/03/04 at 11:02

Good point that I agree completely with. (speaking of above quote)

Could all Americans please leave this topic alone and go back to grieving for the THOUSANDS of people killed by handguns in your own country. That said, everyone should have some right to protect themselves from intruders, however I don't believe that extends to being allowed to keep a samurai sword to hand then stab someone four times with it. If you keep a weapon at your door it isn't decorative, it's there to be used, and in the case of a samurai sword it's likely to be fatal. It's right he should be punished, although I will concede 8 years seems a lot.
Leo, Manchester
24/03/04 at 11:33

What on earth is this prejuduced Idiot Smoking??:banghead:

It appears the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum, when it comes to distributing justice in Manchester. I hope I never get mugged in Manchester next time I visit the city - I don't want to be sued by a thief for not having enough money on me to steal.
Steve, East Sussex
24/03/04 at 09:20

Intresting way to put it...

This is the most absurd travesty to have befallen someone who chose to defend his home from a couple of armed miscreants. The irony of it all is that the remaining robbers would probably be sentenced to less prison time than Mr. Lindsay.
Albert Fitzgerald, London
24/03/04 at 03:48

Yep!

The Law has gone mad, are we supposed to stand back and watch people steal our posetions and let them beat us to a pulp??? Come on, wake up for god's sake, the Law is an ass in Britian. I give up, I really do.
T. Hawkins, Swinton, Gtr. Manchester
23/03/04 at 20:11

Know the feeling dude...

Dunno about you guys, but it looks like much of the UK is Furious over this total Miscarrage of Justace.
 
Cosmoline -- I agree...just said it would look bad to all the sheeple in the jury...

Zedicus -- glad to see there are at least a few sane people in the UK...then again "Leo from Manchester" sums up the attitude that most people I meet and/or work with from the UK have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top