Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 911823.stm


http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midla ... -23035322/


The government claim that they support the right of self-defence, but in reality it just doesn't seem to work that way

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I really think we should try to head away from a custodial sentence here and head more for a medal.

It just shows you though how there is a difference in reporting. One seems to be telling one side of the story and, the other another side. I’m getting concerned about how the BBC put out this information.

Any "normal" person would defend themselves if they thought their life and their children’s lives were in danger. I’m coming to the conclusion that some of our Governors and Press etc... are not of this planet.

My heartfelt sympathy for the driver and his son, who as far as I’m concerned only done what his "instincts" told him to do. The only outcome for this case should be self defence.

And before anyone says it I’m by no means condoning going round killing each other, I’m far from it.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

There doesn't appear to be enough information to form a firm conclusion but it unlikely to be murder. The long established principles of British common law are : when threatened one should if possible retreat; if retreat is impossible one should use the minimum force necessary to protect ones self.

It is on the question of minimum force that most of the recent seemingly perverse decisions have hinged. I get the impression that the police tend to interpret "minimum force" very strictly whereas the courts tend to be more lenient. As one Judge said - it is unreasonable to expect a person under attack to "judge to a nicety" the exact minimum force required to defend himself .

IN this case it seems that the Greek is to some extent culpable. He was armed with and used an illegal weapon. Using that weapon against unarmed people, one of them a child, might be difficult to justify. But did think that they were armed? Perhaps lorry jackers in his homeland invariably carry fire arms? Definitely one for the courts.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Assuming he wasn't just using the hijacking as an excuse to stab people, I would probably give him a knighthood, maybe land as well.

I used to think that attack is the best form of defence, but sometimes it backfires. I recently attacked a man in L'pool, for zooming along the pavement and parking on it. He was a big fella, as well. Ended up almost getting my glasses knocked off! But I think I caught him with a hook as I turned. In any case, he scarpered pretty quick after that. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I can't wait to attack the next wrong-doer, but I'll choose someone smaller next time!

The facts reported point to self defence. Three people in a scubie attack one person in a truck. He has fair reason yo own a knife for cutting ropes and packaging. The person who died has a long criminal record.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

The lorry driver is being held on SUSPICION and has not been charged. I'd guess that if it had been a UK driver he would be out on bail.

Sooner they clear this up the better - it is ruining his career, and possily even the customer whose laod is on the lorry.
Give him a medal and send him on his way.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Sorry to seem a little Trollish here, but should not the title of this thread be "Justice, murder, or bloody funny!"

Hilarious to see these scrotes get their come uppance.

Trust certain members of the Constabulary not to have a sense of humor

My best wishes to the lorry driver.

And the attempted robbery is only "ALLEGED".

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

BBC playing it up a bit?

If you get attacked by one person there is a possibility you can subdue and restrain them. When attacked by multiple assailants then you can still possibly restrain one of them, the others you have to render incapable of continuing their attack. Assuming you cannot run away that is.

[PC mode]The alleged attackers should have tendered a CV including their martial skills and physiological ability to withstand particular stresses along with a statement of their intent and willingness to inflict a set maximum level of damage to the attackee, in Greek of course. The truck driver could then have done a risk assessment along with a cost benefit analysis in order to determine his optimum approach to resolving the threat. The driver would then submit his report to the attackers, translated to English at the attackers cost, so they could decide whether to proceed with their action.[/PC mode]

It appears, given the reported information, that the alleged attackers picked the right man to attack. Depending on your perspective. Providing the driver can show reasonable cause to be carrying the knife as a tool then its transformation to a weapon only occurred as a result of the attack. I wonder if the truck driver has any record of violence, it could push the carrying of the knife towards it being a weapon. I also think that the intent to attack the truck driver has to be clearly shown, there is a possibility the trucker has a hate of Subaru drivers and decided to attack. Just my opinions of course, the law is probably quite different.

The guy did not deserve to die, as reported I would call it a consequence of his own decisions and actions rather than justice or murder.

Edited for correctness - allegedly

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

ALLEGED attackers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

There is of course the armed forces view of reasonable force - the force necesary to ensure that your attacker is rendered unable to harm you.

There is a phrase particularly in H&S civil cases "Volenta non fit injura" - Knowing acceptance of the risk it's normally used to reduce claims on the basis of contributary negelgence, maybe it should be applied to cases like this.

If you wish to attack / rob / steal from someone you'll just have to accept that it is an occupational risk that the person you attack / rob or steal from may well be big enough or armed with something that could put your life at risk.

As for the argument that this could cause esculation, the only people who don't routinely go armed are the law abiding.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Changed it. I did point out that I was not assuming guilt later in the post and was careful to point out conclusions based on the situation as reported.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

There is a different one? Sufficient force to ensure your attacker only maims you, leaves you for dead, just beats you up a bit or only inflicts minor flesh wounds perhaps?

That does not mean you have to knock them out or kill them, making sure they cannot run as fast as you would be sufficient. A mate once simply hung a would be mugger on a fence by the collar of his jacket and walked off.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

What worries me isn't escalation in that sense but rather that the right to defend yourself can easily escalate into the right to make pre-emptive strikes. If you climb into the cab of a lorry and start to throttle the driver I suppose it is fair enough to fight back. But what if you are climbing up to, say warn him, that his fuel tank is leaking and he assumes that you are about to attack him. In a climate where violent defence has become the norm there will be a real fear that he will "shoot first and ask questions later".

Using deadly force for any reason must always be a last resort and must be always subject to the full scrutiny of hind-sight.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Thats easy if you have the ability to comfortably outwit your opponent, presumably your mate was someone able to handle himself and not a choice pick for the would be mugger. It'd be lovely to have the ability to jackie-chan someone or hold them paralysed by a pressure point, but slightly beyond the capabilities of the average Joe. Outside of hollywood/pro sports most fights/attacks are over quickly when one party overwhelms the other/strikes a crippling blow. When it comes down to Mr average Joe being "attacked" by assailant(s) of unknown capabilities and intent, the most reliable and therefore only defence is everything you've got, inflict harm in any way conceivable without thought or regard to the other's welfare. Any restraint is a weakness that may be your undoing, the only thing is your survival. That is self defence; you may say thats a harsh or black-and-white frame of mind, but to survive you need to think about number 1, morally supreme, the end.

I regard self defence as one of the most basic human rights, there are "repressive regimes" and "barbaric countries" the world over that grand you this right far more compassionately than britain today. Anyone would think we're coercing a country of people to feel weak and impotent.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

A colleague of mine was set upon by four men in an underpass. He put one in hospital with a broken arm and collarbone, and another with a crushed throat, he was quite literally eating through a straw for months. The other two, quite sensibly, ran off.

Thankfully he was not charged with anything, despite a worrying few weeks, but was advised against pressing charges against his assailants on the grounds that he came off better. I think this is despicable, they should be made to face the consequences of their actions on the night of their offence, such is the risk of a life of crime, and the full legal ramifications of that offence, regardless of the outcome!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

It was a while ago, I think he had not actually reached 2nd Dan by then, up to 4th now. Ju Jitsu.

You are quite right about not holding back, even someone well trained would not mess around with multiple attackers as per Robin's colleague, aiming to disable rather than kill would seem reasonable restraint in that situation.

In basic self defence classes we used to advise something along the lines -

1. Don't be there
2. Do something
3. Don't fight, stop them

The first has many levels to it, the second is what most of a basic class is about, getting people to actually do something rather than freeze. The last is about minimising the time they have to inflict damage on you. The type of attack, situation and your skills will determine an appropriate response, but the aim is always to prevent the attacker from being able to escalate their offensive.



Pretty much why the mugger was left on the fence, not worth the hassle of involving the police.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

It depends on the situation, if threatened with a knife for instance then a pre-emptive strike could be the best response.

I am not sure I would climb into the cab of a truck with a leaking fuel tank. That notwithstanding I understand your point, however would you not be trying to tell the driver what the problem was as you approached? It is difficult, especially with this kind thing being used by lorry/car jackers as method of getting to drivers.

A couple of weeks ago while walking for my bus home I was stopped by a young woman asking if she could have 50p to make a phone call. I knew I had some change and even if it was just a scam I would rather loose 50p than be the person that left her stranded in town on what was a pretty foul night. As I fished in my pocket though I kept moving past her then turned placing my side on which I was carrying a bag towards the side of a building and gave myself the opportunity to check behind . It was only afterwards that I realised I had done that just in case it was a setup to do a snatch of what could have been a bag with a laptop in it.

Self defense is much more than than hitting back, it is about not being a target - i.e. not being there, the best pre-emptive strike of all.

The other side to this is learning that it is sometimes a bad thing to surprise people.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May