The law is quite clear on this : If anyone had run them over with a car they would, without any shadow of doubt, have been arrested and charged. Running them over in that situation would have been totally disproportionate to the aim of arresting them - and would have been purely an act of revenge. It would not in any way have been seen as “reasonable force” and would, in the eyes of the law, have been illegal. The problem with “taking on” terrorists / psychopaths / nutcases in a situation like this is that they may well be prepared to die for their “cause”. If that is the case they will also be willing to do serious damage to any number of people before they do actually die. Would you be willing to take on an armed suicidal maniac who had just committed a gruesome murder? No matter who you are, I think probably not… Especially without anything to arm or protect yourself…
So if you run them over whilst the act of murder is still being commited NOT afterwards is it still against the law and not reasonable. What is reasonable force if two people are trying to kill someone then.I guess in the eyes of the law you should ask them politely to stop lol.
If someone run a person over trying to kill one of my family id be grateful to them until the day I die. Anyway lets just agree to disagree on this one.Fuck the law id rather do the right thing and try and save some poor bugger minding his own buisness from getting murdered.
If you had attempted to run them over whilst they were still in the act - how would you have done so without injuring their victim? Some people watch far too many American films...
Ok forget the car or method. If I got involved whilst a murder was taking place and seriously injured attackers would that be against the law.I might be carrying a offensive weapon myself like 1000's of others out there on the streets of the UK or maybe something else. Ps most of my experience has been gained from real life incidents of serious violence not films.Im glad none of you guys were watching my back while I worked the doors for ten yrs for sure.
Mate, I worked the doors for years too, and I stood with three other guys against a hoard of pikeys who were battering us with pick axe handles and the like. My mate Dave had his head cracked open like an eggshell. And we were alone, the police wouldn't come anywhere near. But that means absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to a cold-blooded killing in broad daylight by a pair of lunatics with weapons. It doesn't compare at all. I stand by what I said; the biggest likelihood is that any one of us, including you, would scarper in a similar situation.
As you don't know me I don't think you can say what I would probably do. Your old firm sounds fuck all like the ones I worked with thank god..Your pikey friends would have got a totally different reaction from us. Like I said different firms mate.But that's all in the past now.
Long time ago mate.I haven't worked the doors for 10yrs or more now. Got out at the right time.Seems guns are everywhere round these parts and cant be arsed sweating my bolloxs off wearing a bullet proof vest anymore.Not for that money.
Matt - If you "got involved" whilst a murder was taking place and seriously injured the attackers would that be against the law? You might be carrying a offensive weapon myself like 1000's of others out there on the streets of the UK... You obviously have an undersatnding of the law so you know full well what the answer is - yes, you would have committed an offence by seriously injuring the attacker if it was deemed that you used unreasonable force. Yes, it is against the law to carry an offensive weapon... It's a crying shame that you weren't in that street that day, obviously... And with that, like Fig says, "I'm out"...
It isn't clear to me whether they have entered their "not guilty" pleas with the assistance of lawyers (paid for by us). If so, I find it staggering that any lawyer can have had a conversation with them which did not result, one way or another, in the perpetrators revealing that they had indeed commited the offence, in which case my understanding was that a lawyer cannot represent you.
The answer would surely be that they are not being represented, or they have a foreign lawyer in tow.
I doubt if any court would be prepared to accept a plea of guilty to murder under these circumstances - a plea of not guilty would have to be required. The point is that if a guilty plea is entered, and accepted, the court proceeds direct to sentencing. On a plea of not guilty, there is a trial of sorts. If the main facts of what occurred are essentially beyond dispute, the main issue in the trial would be whether the defendant is insane. Not guilty by reason of insanity - Broadmoor; Guilty - prison. This was the main issue in the trial of Anders Breivik in Norway, you may recall.
Well, I guess it will all come out in the wash. It does seem that murderers usually plead "not guilty" (perhaps in order to claim manslaughter or self-defence), and I found this discussion: Why don’t people plead guilty to murder? | UK Criminal Law Blog Whatever happens it seems to me unlikely that this pair will be let out early. I'm not sure what the Islamic position on suicide is (in the case of a prisoner committing suicide rather than spend 40+ years in confinement). I am sure that the reason the murderers acted in a way which led to their being shot, rather than dropping their weapons, was in some way an attempt to "die in battle" or whatever.
I thought that was the reason they charged at police also.So can insanity be accepted in a clearly well planned act that they had gone well prepared for.Oh well lets hope they are found sane and its prison as a fair few ex forces are serving time and im sure they would love to say hello to these two c##ts. JR45' im out' also im going to leave all the legal eagles to argue it out.All I would say is it would be difficult on your own but with others like mary hinge maybe a few people banding together can be very effective from my previous experiences.I guess I have a totally different mindset to many on this forum. Lets just hope they are never released.
I notice that in post #58 the words: "...they would love to say hello to these two cunts." have been edited by Matt to: "...they would love to say hello to these two c##ts." Matt must have had a good reason for doing this, but I wonder what it was? Has there been some unannounced change to editorial policy? If so, I am rather disappointed.
Unless they are permanently segregated from the (shall we say?) 'non-Religious' cons, then they won't last long anyway......... Even cons repect our Armed Forces personnel.
