An Example of the UK's Stupid Legal System.

[Diasi]

I just hope the two scrotes & their grubby little lawyers don't succeed with suing this bloke for damages.

https://yhoo.it/3Ufq6OB

The programme featuring the case can be seen here.

https://bit.ly/3VEpWkZ

[Michael Rolls]

'victims should not take the law into their own hands!' That's what they always bloody say - in other words put on a brave face and let the scum get away with it.

[Scrumpy]

I saw this on the tv..
 The poor man.. reacted on impulse.. as most of us would.. Even the policeman interviewing him understood why it happened..
It would seem that criminal is protected more than the victims..

[Michael Rolls]

and that just about sums it up.

[Cassandra]

To succeed and then persist, laws must first be 'fair and reasonable. The background to this principal is however a dynamic and changing one. Because our system is the oldest established in the modern world, it is a very crowded menu. Many retained from nothing more than historic nostalgia and the inertia to review and rescind them. For example posting a stamp with the monarch's head on upside down is still an act of treason. In Scotland if someone rings your bell and requests entry to use your toilet, you cannot legally refuse. OK trite reference, but there are n000's of similar statutes on 'torts' (wrongs) long gone, or in need of revision.

Self defence and response laws are reasonably clear. You can use reasonable force including applying an object to defend yourself, if someone attempts unlawful entry to your home. However pursuing burglars in a two ton car on public roads, breaking traffic laws is not.

I once defended a farmer who found two offenders in his barn attempting to steal various items. Standing 6'5" tall and weighing 17 stone he utilised a chain saw to persuade these 'visitors' to get in a cage that he transported livestock to market in. The perpetrators counter-claimed, alleging attempted murder and being submitted to an act of inhuman terror.

It didn't take too long to convince 'The Jury'. The great thing was that 'Plod', took six hours to arrive during which time my client sat there drinking tea and viewing his captives whilst revving his motor saw, accompanied by his two trusty Dobermans. I always thought the village PC took his time to arrive maybe?

Over here the local cops told me;

if someone attempts to break in, knock em out, drag em inside, before you shoot em. In England they'd have danced the 'Mararena' first, before inviting them out to dinner!

[Alex]

This man has a 'Go Fund Me' page now standing at £95,000, so many people were upset at the injustice of this.
I also read that he was chasing the two on their motorbikes and they braked suddenly, he had no chance to break and ploughed into them. I don't know if that is the truth of what happened.

[Cassandra]

This man has a 'Go Fund Me' page now standing at £95,000, so many people were upset at the injustice of this.
I also read that he was chasing the two on their motorbikes and they braked suddenly, he had no chance to break and ploughed into them. I don't know if that is the truth of what happened.

Problem was he set off with intent to pursue and gain revenge, therefore he committed to exceed the speed limit etc within this action, exposing innocent people to potentially unnecessary lethal risk. Similarly he incited the ungodly to respond within a similar manner to flee his wrath, after they'd left his property. Not much to mitigate I'm afraid - two wrongs don't make a right. In defence I'd attempt to develop reactionary shock and anger to his earlier experience fermenting as a corollary to a red mist of anger etc. Pointing out, that had there been no inversion in the first place, the episode would never have originated anyway? Unfortunately the 'victim' will lose his Driving licence (dangerous driving) and could be charged with affecting actual bodily harm with intent. For the Law the two things are separate sets of events and offences, the fact they are connected and morally who is the worse, by comparison is not the prime consideration. A congruence between wrongs is never a good place from which to argue the seniority of culpability.

As Confucius said, 'Before setting out on the road to revenge, first dig two graves'.

[Alex]

Have you ever sat in your court room and said to yourself, 'this law is an ass'  ?   

[Cassandra]

Have you ever sat in your court room and said to yourself, 'this law is an ass'  ?   

Too many times Alex and I used to preface my delivered judgements (much to the annoyance of the legal establishment and the Lord Chancellor's Office in particular) suitably. In fact, I now know that in many cases they 'revolved' me on many hearings, especially towards the end of my term to avoid such admonishments!

Hence the Avatar ...