JohnRich 4 #1 March 24, 2004 In the news, from England (paraphrased): Man is jailed for killing robber Carl Lindsay was in his own home, when four criminals arrived at his front door with a gun to rob him. Carl grabbed a sword to defend himself, and stabbed one of the robbers four times. That robber was later found in an alley, and died at the hospital. The three remaining robbers were later caught, found guilty, and sentenced to 14 years in prison. So what happened to the homeowner and robbery victim? He is beginning an 8-year prison sentence for manslaughter, for killing the robber... Full Story Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #2 March 24, 2004 This is why I don't live in England. (Or California.) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 March 24, 2004 That's a pitty. That's not how the law should operate. I would not be surprised if this finding was overturned on appeal unless there's significantly more to the story than the papers report. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #4 March 24, 2004 ...Why I'm glad my ancestors decided to say "Sod off" to King Whatshisname in 1776. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #5 March 24, 2004 Damn, robbers walked into the WRONG house."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 March 24, 2004 Quote four times This may be the important part... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #7 March 24, 2004 Well, it could be one intended for each present.... So again, his right to protect himself against FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE GUN, and yet he is freaking guilty! "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 March 24, 2004 Maybe he broke the law about not taking a knife to a gun fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 March 24, 2004 if you have to stab someone four times, you don't know how to use your sword properly. Its a stupid ruling, though. he had reasonable cause to believe his life was in danger and defended himself accordingly. self defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #10 March 24, 2004 EVen worse he would have gotten 14 years for illegal weapons possesion..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
favaks 0 #11 March 24, 2004 Quote if you have to stab someone four times, you don't know how to use your sword properly I'd keep chopping away until he's dead, especially when he has a gun. favaks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #12 March 24, 2004 I've been thinking about this one. Something's not quite right about the home owner being jailed for Manslaughter and not Murder. If he's used self defence as a defence but it was found he use more than "reasonable force" his defence would have failed and he would have been convicted of Murder. But he's not - he's gone down for manslaugher. Now we have two kinds of manslaughter; voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary is basically gross negligence manslaughter and constructive manslaughter - now this can't really be gross negligence... It could technically be constuctive manslaughter where you do an obviously dangerous and illegal act which leads to death but where you intended no harm. It's difficult to see how you can intend no harm but stab someone 4 times... not a terribly likely finding. So we're left with voluntary manslaughter. This is where you intend to kill the guy but you either have the defence of provocation (quite possible here) or of diminished responsability (meaning an "abnormality of mind" - legalees for crazy - this is what Tony Martin was eventually convicted of). For provocation to work you have to show that you suffered a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" and is usually typified by bersker type characteristics. This is possible, although not a terribly likley scenario given the circumstances... but you can see it happening. So this guy is either suffering from an "abnormality of mind" (aka crazy) or had a "sudden and temporary loss of self-control" where he killed a guy. Hmmm. It is a puzzling case... I shall endevour to dig a little further through the trade as it were and see if I can find out for you all some of the unreported facts (which there always are). Thanks for brining this up, it's curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #13 March 24, 2004 I respect your opinions to the case, but what I see is that an individual who is at home, and is assaulted by FOUR GUN WEARING MEN, is better off raped or killed than defending himself. The assailant has more rights and are more protected by your laws if anything."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #14 March 24, 2004 That's one of the puzzling/worrying things about this case. It does not represent the letter of the law. If the court applied the law correctly, this guy should have been able to stab the crap out of the 4 blokes with a gun relying on the defence of self defence... unless there's a) something we're not hearing about (perhaps indicated by this man oddly being convicted of manslaughter not murder) or; b) someone just plane fucked up and this is an erronious jugement - they happen, no system's perfect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #15 March 24, 2004 Yes indeed. No system is perfect. But this is the scenario most of us, pro gunners have figured it will happen. Regardless of the circumstances, still the illegality of the weapon still worked in the assaulters side. You have stated you like guns, could you imagine this happening to you? I personally like the option to be armed and dangerous if this were to happen."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #16 March 24, 2004 If the guy with the sword would have been chasing the other guy for blocks after he dropped the sword is that enough reason for a manslaughter convenction instead of something else?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 March 24, 2004 Yeah I can imagine it happening to me. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Remember this is about the legality of the use of force in the defence of the person/home not the legality of guns. You yanks always seem to confuse the two issues. The outcome conviction wise for this guy would have been the same whether he used a gun, a sword, or a brick. Anyway, laters - its midnight here and I gotta be in the corroners court tomorrow morning about 100 miles away cos some dum schmuck swerved in front of my client. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #18 March 25, 2004 This guy's lawyer should be disbarred for incompetent jury selection. The laws in Canada would have this guy convicted for second degree murder or manslaughter. The history in similar cases however has jury after jury refusing to convict. The law is an ass, but the people tend to use common sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #19 March 25, 2004 And what is the common sense for a case like this? Pull your pants down and Bend over?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #20 March 25, 2004 Got a little comprehension problem there bud? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #21 March 25, 2004 Quote The laws in Canada would have this guy convicted for second degree murder or manslaughter. The history in similar cases however has jury after jury refusing to convict. The law is an ass, but the people tend to use common sense. Well, Definitely not glad I live there. The issue with comprehension is not on my side. I can help with preparation H if you need some and wish to follow my prior advice though...just in case. You seem more inclined on giving 4 pricks with a gun more rights than a man in his house."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #22 March 25, 2004 What part of refusing to convict don't you get? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #23 March 25, 2004 That's just plain wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #24 March 25, 2004 I know we don't have all the details of the case, so it's hard to say, but what would be the outcome in an American court of law for this case? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #25 March 25, 2004 QuoteI know we don't have all the details of the case, so it's hard to say, but what would be the outcome in an American court of law for this case? It's OK for cops to kill unarmed civilians, at least in New York City. Google on Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo, and Alberta Spruill for some recent examples. Diallo, who was unarmed and had committed no crime, was shot 41 times by NYPD cops in 1999.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
