Unprovoked attacker not jailed

[Cheekyvincent]

Source
"The son of an 96-year-old man who was viciously assaulted on a tram has criticised the attacker's sentence.

Terry Chaudhry's father Shah was left blind in one eye after the unprovoked attack in Croydon, south London, in December.

Stephen Gordon, 44, of Croydon, was convicted of grievous bodily harm and given a three-year supervision order. "

So, a man made an unprovoked attack on an innocent 96 year old man. The attacker walks free from court. Fine, the man was mentally ill, but should we really let people walk free? The judge didn't even order counselling. All the judge gave him was a 3- year suspension order. And what does that do?

Is this really time we should be allowing such evil people walk free to try and ease the jail capacity crisis?

Personally, we've just let potential murderer free and in say, 3 months time, he's going to be on the news having murdered someone. However, some silly charity says that it would breach his human rights etc. and? these people are a danger to the society...

Thoughts?

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 01:58 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: the man was mentally ill, but should we really let people walk free? The judge didn't even order counselling. All the judge gave him was a 3- year suspension order. And what does that do?

i think this speaks more about the u.k's attitude towards mental illness patients but this also applies in the u.s rather than their judicial system. anyway ive always despised the idea of pleading insanity in court but if someone is genuinely insane and they were walking on the street beating people up i think it's more the state's fault than the man himself, he needs to receive treatment or be put down.

Is this really time we should be allowing such evil people walk free to try and ease the jail capacity crisis?

umm what?

Personally, we've just let potential murderer free and in say, 3 months time, he's going to be on the news having murdered someone.

so we put him in jail for life? how is putting a mental person in jail going to solve his outstanding issues

[jcorishas]

At 10/23/07 01:58 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Source
"The son of an 96-year-old man who was viciously assaulted on a tram has criticised the attacker's sentence.

Terry Chaudhry's father Shah was left blind in one eye after the unprovoked attack in Croydon, south London, in December.

Stephen Gordon, 44, of Croydon, was convicted of grievous bodily harm and given a three-year supervision order. "

So, a man made an unprovoked attack on an innocent 96 year old man. The attacker walks free from court. Fine, the man was mentally ill, but should we really let people walk free? The judge didn't even order counselling. All the judge gave him was a 3- year suspension order. And what does that do?

Is this really time we should be allowing such evil people walk free to try and ease the jail capacity crisis?

Personally, we've just let potential murderer free and in say, 3 months time, he's going to be on the news having murdered someone. However, some silly charity says that it would breach his human rights etc. and? these people are a danger to the society...

Thoughts?

Wow, that's fucked up but (in a weird way) it's a little reassuring that this type of shit isn't exclusive to the US. The way I think about, if someone can't control themselves they should be in some sort of facility. However, that's a slippery slope and I could see where the charity is coming from but he should have at least gotten mandatory treatment.

[Drakim]

"My client is so crazy he doesn't understand what he does! That is why we can't put him safely behind bars, but instead need to set him free on the street!"

The logic is void.

[BeFell]

At 10/23/07 01:58 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Thoughts?

Your country sucks.

[therealsylvos]

Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

[BeFell]

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

Now were these burglars coming at him with knives or were they running away with his television and he was pissed because it meant he'd miss Oprah so he capped their asses. Given his history of shooting at cars that happen to be turning around in his driveway perhaps those crazy Brits are on to something here.

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 02:26 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

true. i think it's obvious given his history that he probably just went batshit crazy and shot the kid for probably coming unto his property to ask for directions. anyway the report filed was hilarious - 'danger to burglars'.

[therealsylvos]

At 10/23/07 02:26 PM, BeFell wrote:
Now were these burglars coming at him with knives or were they running away with his television and he was pissed because it meant he'd miss Oprah so he capped their asses. Given his history of shooting at cars that happen to be turning around in his driveway perhaps those crazy Brits are on to something here.

What the fuck? who cares? denied parole because "Danger to burglars?" that should be a reason for immediate release!

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 02:30 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 10/23/07 02:26 PM, BeFell wrote:

What the fuck? who cares? denied parole because "Danger to burglars?" that should be a reason for immediate release!

KEY: his friend ALLEGES that is what the report said.

[Cheekyvincent]

At 10/23/07 02:06 PM, tony4moroney wrote: i think it's more the state's fault than the man himself, he needs to receive treatment or be put down.

true, the court hasnt even ordered counselling or given him help

so we put him in jail for life? how is putting a mental person in jail going to solve his outstanding issues

at least detain him in a place where he is off the streets where he can be counselled

At 10/23/07 02:09 PM, jcorishas wrote: Wow, that's fucked up but (in a weird way) it's a little reassuring that this type of shit isn't exclusive to the US.

no, the US is, lets just say 'unique'

The way I think about, if someone can't control themselves they should be in some sort of facility. However, that's a slippery slope and I could see where the charity is coming from but he should have at least gotten mandatory treatment.

true, but then as always, right wingers would ask the following questions:

-cost
-human rights
- and some other stupid questions

At 10/23/07 02:11 PM, Drakim wrote: "My client is so crazy he doesn't understand what he does! That is why we can't put him safely behind bars, but instead need to set him free on the street!"

The logic is void.

its all thanks to the mental health act. Its one of those things that are "you're dammed if you do, your dammed if you dont"

At 10/23/07 02:16 PM, BeFell wrote: Your country sucks.

atleast we can write our dates the right way round...

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

FACT: the majority of judges are high when they are in court

[Elfer]

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

He shot a teenager to death. You don't generally get parole when you kill someone.

[Cheekyvincent]

At 10/23/07 03:16 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

He shot a teenager to death. You don't generally get parole when you kill someone.

but, within theory, it was self defense

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 03:16 PM, Elfer wrote: n00b

strangers trespassing on your property aren't generally looking to borrow your things politely.

[Elfer]

At 10/23/07 03:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:16 PM, Elfer wrote: n00b

strangers trespassing on your property aren't generally looking to borrow your things politely.

That still doesn't mean to get to kill them.

Also, I like how you've downgraded the threshold for killing someone from "burglary" to "trespassing"

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 03:40 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:16 PM, Elfer wrote: n00b

strangers trespassing on your property aren't generally looking to borrow your things politely.

That still doesn't mean to get to kill them.

he shot him, and the guy died from his wounds. what do you do when a burglar gets on your property? OH HI! DW I IS ONLY GUNA SHOOT U IN DA LEG LAWLAWL PLZ STAND STILL MUCH?!

Also, I like how you've downgraded the threshold for killing someone from "burglary" to "trespassing"

oh... flaaaaanders. yes totally legitimate. what i meant to imply is that this guy was trespassing on his property and he shot him under suspicion that he was a hamburglarizing mofo. if people trespass you have the right to beaR arMs. i thought that was the hole purpose of possessing one for people.

[Elfer]

At 10/23/07 03:55 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:40 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

That still doesn't mean to get to kill them.

he shot him, and the guy died from his wounds. what do you do when a burglar gets on your property? OH HI! DW I IS ONLY GUNA SHOOT U IN DA LEG LAWLAWL PLZ STAND STILL MUCH?!

If you can't use a firearm to defend your property without killing someone, then you shouldn't be using one.

Killing someone is generally considered worse than theft.

[slackerzac]

And this is the reason why the death penalty should be reinstated.

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 04:30 PM, slackerzac wrote: And this is the reason why the death penalty should be reinstated.

you mean youre the reason it should be reinstated.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/23/07 04:23 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:55 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:40 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 03:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

That still doesn't mean to get to kill them.

he shot him, and the guy died from his wounds. what do you do when a burglar gets on your property? OH HI! DW I IS ONLY GUNA SHOOT U IN DA LEG LAWLAWL PLZ STAND STILL MUCH?!

If you can't use a firearm to defend your property without killing someone, then you shouldn't be using one.

;
I've got a cousin whose a mountie, he once told me if someone breaks into your home while your there & you kill him , make sure he's got a weapon. Even if you have to give it to him after you kill him.
Your in your own home , afraid for your & your loved ones lives.
That's your story & you stick to it.
His story well now, their going to have to get a seer or medium to get his story & that isn't going to be admissable in court.
IF your even tried for the offense.
Not a jury in Canada will convict you of that.

Killing someone is generally considered worse than theft.

Yes , but how do you know he was only going to steal?
You don't know that, so be safe & blow his @#$*ing head off.
The world will be a better place.

[Elfer]

At 10/23/07 04:37 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Yes , but how do you know he was only going to steal?

Umm, stats?

You don't know that, so be safe & blow his @#$*ing head off.
The world will be a better place.

So you're saying there's absolutely no way that a burglar could be rehabilitated, and that from the age of 16 they're destined to be incurably criminal?

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 04:45 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 04:37 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Yes , but how do you know he was only going to steal?

Umm, stats?

lol. oh hey, there's a hamburglar in mai home... well statistically it's highly improbable that he's going to physically harm me... hmm... well maybe we should take into consideration several other factors that may influence the-- OH FUCK I HAVE A GAPING WOUND IN MY CHEST.. SON OF A BITCH!

So you're saying there's absolutely no way that a burglar could be rehabilitated, and that from the age of 16 they're destined to be incurably criminal?

there's absolutely no way you can be certain that burglar isnt going to shoot you or physically harm you. not enough reason to warrant you trying to prevent his death by aiming for his limbs.

[Elfer]

At 10/23/07 05:00 PM, tony4moroney wrote: there's absolutely no way you can be certain that burglar isnt going to shoot you or physically harm you. not enough reason to warrant you trying to prevent his death by aiming for his limbs.

How many unarmed burglars who break into a place to steal shit are going to shoot the owner for absolutely no reason? An MS paint anecdote of something that never happened isn't a good argument.

[therealsylvos]

At 10/23/07 07:13 PM, Elfer wrote:
How many unarmed burglars who break into a place to steal shit are going to shoot the owner for absolutely no reason? An MS paint anecdote of something that never happened isn't a good argument.

Oh excuse me Mr. Burglar but are you armed?

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 07:13 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/23/07 05:00 PM, tony4moroney wrote: there's absolutely no way you can be certain that burglar isnt going to shoot you or physically harm you. not enough reason to warrant you trying to prevent his death by aiming for his limbs.

How many unarmed burglars who break into a place to steal shit are going to shoot the owner for absolutely no reason? An MS paint anecdote of something that never happened isn't a good argument.

let me get this straight... he lives in a remote home... it gets raided by two teenagers in the middle of the night, he shoots one of them with a gun... and you think he should be jailed for life for that?

you think he could have somehow used less lethal force? that he wasnt justified in shooting one of the criminals that broke into his home? because he didnt consider the 'statistics' and therefore the viability of them harming him and his family? get real buddy, i dont know where you come from, detroit or st louis or some shithole but it's not common to get your home invaded by insurgents in the middle of the night, especially in a remote home. when that happens the normal thing you do is try and protect yourself, unfortunately in this case he shot one of them and they died from the resulting injuries. fact is, it was their fault in the first place for being fucking MORONS.

[Proteas]

At 10/23/07 04:23 PM, Elfer wrote: Killing someone is generally considered worse than theft.

Unfortunatly, we don't have much to go on as far as the article goes; farmer shoots burgeler dead, end of story. Seeing as how the man was arrested forthright and there is no mention of investigators finding the body in a creek somewhere a week later, I'm going to assume that this was at most Manslaughter and not premeditated murder.

But then again I was more shocked that there was a gun death in England... why... that's unheard of!!!

</sarcasm>

[Proteas]

At 10/23/07 07:27 PM, tony4moroney wrote: fact is, it was their fault in the first place for being fucking MORONS.

Wait... there was more than one burgeler?

Did he get charged with anything?

[Britkid]

There are many underlying issues here: lack of prison spaces, good legal backing, cost etc. You can't just dismiss such a heinous crime as 'mental disability'. He at least needs secure rehabilitation.

Privatising prisons has only made this situation worse.

[tony4moroney]

At 10/23/07 07:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/23/07 07:27 PM, tony4moroney wrote: fact is, it was their fault in the first place for being fucking MORONS.

Wait... there was more than one burgeler?

Did he get charged with anything?

here i got more thorough information. yes there were two morons, normally teenagers dont do this shit without camaraderie.

from that, the thief was treated like a victim and wasnt charged with anything. also it turns out tony martin actually used lethal force after they fled from the scene, rather than during a confrontation which explains why he was charged with manslaughter rather than self-defense. although i think a lot of people under the same circumstances would have done the same thing.

still doesnt change what you asserted though elfer, based on the scenario you had stipulated.

[Elfer]

The scenario I stipulated of unarmed burglars who were stealing things? That doesn't sound like a life-threatening situation to me.