Man jailed for retaliation over knife attack

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DesktopCommando, Feb 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Jail-for-fedup-father-who.3766628.jp

    A FATHER was jailed for three years and eight months yesterday after he "lost it" and drove a van at a knife-wielding thug.

    The following evening, Armstrong was about to go shopping in his van when he saw the second boy with the 22-year-old man in his street. He heard a bang on his van. He got out to remonstrate, and the man took out a knife and an extendable baton from the back of his trousers and swung them at Armstrong.
     
  2. Disgraceful, but hardly surprising; taking the Law into you're own hands is one of the few crimes you can GUARANTEE judges will hand down a heavy sentance for.

    I hope he appeals against his sentance. Peadophiles have raped children and got lighter sentances than this. :evil:

    And judges, politicians etc wonder why nobody respects the Law anymore... :roll:
     
  3. Oh, for f*ck's sake.

    Forget the thugs, that judge needs to be hit with a van.

    Yet another example of the so-called "justice system" siding with the offender. Pure insanity.
     
  4. I have 'issues' with the legal system and the way it works as much as the next guy but what did he expect.

    The guy deserved to go down for attempted murder, the situation did not justify his actions in the slightest, he could of just driven away.

    Obviously, the knife wielding oxygen thief deserves the same, if not worse.
     
  5. I don't know Harry: I see where you're coming from, looking at this incident in isolation. But when you look at the history and build up (assuming the reporting is correct, which is another story), you see a respectable family man driven beyond rationality. I have real problems with saying he could have just driven away. Until when? That night, when they're back, taunting, abusing him/his family and vandalising his van/home?

    TBH, I'd class this as a self inflicted wound on the part of the scum: if you continually taunt, poke and prod a pet, it'll turn on you: if you continually taunt, poke and prod a bloke with a family who feel trapped and unable to escape, he's going to snap, somehow, at some time. I'd also point out that, unlike poor Newlove, he's at least alive to enjoy the knowledge that one swine is 'disfigured for life'. Good drills, hope he gets out early.
     
  6. He needs to appeal and get a competent barrister. Clearly he was in fear of his life - that's all the defence that he needs.
     
  7. What he needs is a Poice "Service" that isn't so tied up on meeting figures and targets.

    The PC should be able to assess the situation, ask to see the knife / baton in question, or if unavailable get some corroboration.

    The moment it appears that man was in fear and protecting himself, Thug gets told that his complaint has been dismissed under S1 of the Tough Sh1t act 2008.

    When he moans about his rights remind the mouthbreather of his responsibilities and RTB.
     
  8. One can only hope that the gentleman appeals and succeeds, and that "Lady" Smith ends up on the receiving end of similar trouble one day. Not likely as those who supposedly uphold the law live in splendid isolation from the mundane troubles of most of society.

    Perhaps admitting that he "lost it" was not the best strategy....perhaps he should have claimed he was in abject screaming fear of his life and could not recall the precise details of his actions other than the overriding panic. Admitting guilt is not the best approach in a target-led system, at least when you have the recourse to call upon the opinion of a jury.

    There is one legal system for "the deprived" - not their fault, its all the fault of Margaret Thatcher and the Tories after all - and another for those who "take the law into their own hands" regardless of provocation.
     
  9. Some poor 26 year old bloke in Manchester was beaten nearly to death my some delightful young vermin last night. What the fook is this country coming to!?
     
  10. Decision to prosecute wouldn't be the Police but the proc fiscals office
     
  11. This is the judge in question:

    You can bet whatever you like that she has a large house in Morningside or Murrayfield and only ever encounters "nasty" people in court accompanied by a lengthy dossier compiled by social workers of how it is "society's fault" they are so bad....that is, except for the normal working and middle classes who ought to know better and put up with whatever they get.
     
  12. Is this the case?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7240297.stm

    Does anyone have a sense of deja-vu? :evil:
     
  13. Not up on my Scottish Law but wouldn't the decision to charge be made by the Police (or Polis as they call it in the land of Oatmeal Savagery).

    My point was it shouldn't even have reached that stage. The PC should be allowed leeway and allowed to exercise that most valued of attributes - common sense.
     
  14. My morning rant is coming to an end...

    I doubt the police could turn a blind eye to someone in hospital after being knocked down, no matter what the circumstances. However, it is ridiculous that the man was charged - they should have been dropped. But this "justice" system only shows leniency to the "deprived" and to fiddling politicians - "in the public interest".

    There are some high profile blogs out there focusing on political issues. Someone should set up a "Justice Watch" blog....it would look in detail at the justice system, naming and shaming the fools who let thugs out on bail and lock up people for defending themselves, over-zealous coppers etc. It would show how isolated the judicial system is from reality and how inept it is in punishing those who act with malign intent.