Honda XRV Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
I refuse to read such stories as it winds me up too much, it simply can't be true, i refuse to beleive!

Besides, it still wouldn't deter me from battin a burglar no matter what the police do to me, as long as the family in my house is safe thats all i really give a sh!t about so let the police do whatever they like afterwords i really would not care :)



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I think the problem being he went after them then stopped them leaving which counts as false imprisonment. Also being minors the law is in there favour.
If he had just knocked them both out or locked them in his beer cellar and told the police he feared for his life he would have probably got away with it.

Similar thing happened to me years ago when I was in a student house some scumbag tried to clime through the ground floor window which happened to be my room waking me and my girlfriend (Now Wife) so without thinking I shouted at him then run down the garden after him with a large bowie knife. When I told the police I chaise a possible attacker/burglar from my properly they then gave me a bollocking for giving chaise especially with a knife.

Mind you I think the sight of a hairy naked 6 foot man chasing him shouting come here gave him more of a fright than the knife.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,170 Posts
I gotta say, I feel sorry for that man.

Sussex (and Surrey) Police are twats, and have sent out a clear signal to those toerags that they can harrass that poor man and his business, and escape with a slapped hand.

Crowborough (where it happened) should be a lovely country town, but it's (MOSTLY!) a dumping ground for deranged lowlife with little respect for others and the law.

Like others, I'm sick and tired of hearing stories like this, and just wish there was a way of turning it around (without getting arrested by stupid PC Police forces)

I think someone should creat a "name & shame" site that reports only facts about those that have been convicted and had their photograph released into the public domain.


Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
The Daily Wail again.

I saw a similar post to this on another forum - the headline was something like 'Man attacked by drug crazed axeman in his own home arrested for defending himself with a knife'

I decided to find out what the actual facts were and it became clear very quickly that the Mail's headline and story bore little resemblance to what had actually happened and the arrested man did well not to get jailed for attempted murder.

You are allowed to use reasonable force whilst defending yourself and your property - if this guy thinks he was in the right he should not have accepted the caution and then had his day in court (to actually get a caution, he had to own up to the crime) - and it's more than likely that the CPS would just have dropped it.

Juries and judges tend to be on the side of the good guys.
 

·
Captain unsensible.......
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
this is exactly why the public have no confidence in the police.....
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
after receiving a caution for assault and battery, which will stay on his record for five years.
If he's received a caution, then it's an admission of guilt as far as the law is concerned I think (someone might be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it works).

It might be more his lawyer messing up than the police or law really (in this case at least).

When faced with those accusations, I would guess the police would have no option other than to charge him and pass the case to the CPS (as an accusation of assault has been made where there's a witness - albeit one of the burglars). Then it'd go to the CPS (where considering the circumstances it might be thrown out anyway), and if the CPS didn't throw it out, then it'd go to court (where I'd guess it would be thrown out - almost certainly if it ended up infront of a jury I'd imagine! - which is a good reason we should all be fighting to make sure Labour don't remove the right to trial by jury as they'd like to!).

To avoid charging him, they might have offered him a caution instead. But by accepting that, he's more or less agreed that he did what he's been accused of (by accepting the caution).

I might be wrong in this case, but I think that's how cautions are supposed to work. To reduce strain on the courts by allowing the police to issue them in the case that the accused has accepted guilt for misdemeanors (where a non custodial sentence would be likely to follow). Considering the accusations could add up to a custodial sentence if he were found guilty, then maybe by even offering him a caution, they were trying to help him (though his lawyer should have probably told him not to accept it, if he has actually been issued a 'caution' - which seems might not have happened if it'll be wiped after 5 years).

I think they're supposed to stay on his record permanently and not just 5 years (unless he's under 18 or 16). So maybe it wasn't an actual 'caution' that he's recieved and just a 'talking to', with a note on their system that this event occurred (which would happen anyway).

Might be completely wrong, and I'm not one to always jump to the defence of the police and the law either, but in this case it might be more a case of daily mail scare mongering than the law actually doing anything wrong.

If I found myself in the same circumstances, I'd expect to be charged too really (though whether I'd expect to be found guilty is another matter). I think it needs to work like this, or there's nothing to stop someone just dragging some innocent person off the street, beating hell out of them, then claiming they were a burglar. Not that I'm saying that's what has happened in this case, but you might see my point.
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
Zen is right, but honest members of the public don't know a caution stays on their record and is an admission of guilt. The police offer them in the hope you'll sign and leave. If you say no, they then have to keep you and decide what to do.

From personal experience and nothing more, I'd estimate that the vast majority of cautions are to innocent members of the public not aware until afterwards what they have signed. It's not nice being arrested and held in a police cell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
If he's received a caution, then it's an admission of guilt as far as the law is concerned I think (someone might be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it works).
Yup

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.
Cautions are now covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'.
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q562.htm

If the guy had refused to admit the offence, the police decide whether to charge him and then refer it to the CPS. The CPS can then kick it into touch (they need to believe that they have a better than 50% chance of a conviction)

If the Daily Mail's story is accurate (haha) I really doubt a jury would convict or that the CPS would even attempt it.
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Zen is right, but honest members of the public don't know a caution stays on their record and is an admission of guilt. The police offer them in the hope you'll sign and leave. If you say no, they then have to keep you and decide what to do.
He should have been told, but whether he was (or was in a way that it actually sunk in and he understood during the stress of the situation is another matter I guess).

That's why everyone should always ask for a lawyer, even if they feel they haven't done anything wrong.

From personal experience and nothing more, I'd estimate that the vast majority of cautions are to innocent members of the public not aware until afterwards what they have signed. It's not nice being arrested and held in a police cell.
Yeah, the guy has my sympathy. It's bad what has happened to him, but its probably because he didn't understand what was happening without a lawyer or didn't ask for a lawyer I'd guess.

Though I suspect he wasn't even issued a caution if he's been told it'll be wiped after 5 years. It's probably just that they've given it some crime number or something and that stays on their system for 5 years (which would happen anyway). I may be mistaken though as the 5 year thing and the caution don't add up (unless they work differently from how I think they do now).
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.
Cautions are now covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'.
Thanks. I didn't know that. I thought you would have to answer 'yes' to that question regardless of when it was issued and you could only answer no if asked if you'd been convicted of an offence. Might have got it wrong, or maybe the law has changed (though as far as I know it'll still stay on his record permanently and not just for 5 years still).
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
When you're in nick and they're shouting at everyone and those who sign get let out and those who insist on a lawyer get thrown back in the cells, you sign whatever they put in front of you.

When it happened to me - on a demo - there was a solicitor from Liberty outside recording all out details and telling us, a bit late, what we should have done.
 

·
XRV750 RD04
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Yeah, I know mate. That's rough. Many years ago, I found myself in a similar situation over something trivial (that's generally dealt with by a telling off, particualry nowadays), and made the same stupid mistake myself (in retrospect it was likely it would have been thrown out anyway as an unlawful arrest and even if it had gone to court, the worst that would have happened would be a small fine). As you say, it's often the people who generally don't do anything wrong who are more likely to sign to get home and avoid court, and that are also more likely to say they don't want a lawyer.

I'd suspect that in a lot of cases, after seeing a lawyer, it wouldn't even end up in court anyway, and the reason cautions are being offered is because they know that.

Most policemen will tell you privately, never to accept a caution, except after seeing a lawyer and them advising you to accept one, and always to wait for a lawyer, because in that situation, the police aren't your friend (even if their demeanour suggests otherwise).

Live and learn :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,811 Posts
Two lessons to draw from this. (1) If you get arrested - especially if you are innocent - don't get pressured into doing something just to get a quick release. (2) Can folks please stop taking these Daily Mail stories at face value without taking a little effort to check the facts? I'm getting fed up with story after story being presented on here as simple fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,768 Posts
Two lessons to draw from this. (1) If you get arrested - especially if you are innocent - don't get pressured into doing something just to get a quick release. (2) Can folks please stop taking these Daily Mail stories at face value without taking a little effort to check the facts? I'm getting fed up with story after story being presented on here as simple fact.
Fact The Daily Mail is very truthful in its reports, it is only second to the Sunday Sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,811 Posts
Oh, I stand corrected! :D LOL

I don't say it's entirely a work of fiction. (They might get one right by accident one day.) All I'm saying is please take a little trouble to check the story before posting here and having people explain what REALLY happened.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top