Example of UK Legal System

Remove all ads!

The UK's legal system has to be the softest in the world. No exaggeration.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005191056,00.html

So basically it's all good and well for these chavs to baseball bat your head in, but try and defend your home, family and yourself and you’ll get six months.

It makes my blood boil.

 

It's the same in the U.S. You can be charged with "Robbery with a Dangerous and Deadly Weapon" if you rob a convenience store with a toy gun. The point is not whether or not the gun was real or not, but whether the person you were pointing the gun at thought it was real or not. It makes no sense, it's stupid, and it goes against common reason. At least if it was an air gun, you could argue that if it was shot at close range it could cause some damage if it hit you in the face, or particularly the eye. But in the case of an actual toy gun that is not able to fire any type of projectile, it's senseless.

 

Generally law-abiding middle class types with a home decent job etc. are easier to catch than dodgy fake burberry-clad chavs who spend their lives dodging the fuzz anyway while scamming benefits. After all, duff up a burglar in your own home, it's kinda difficult to get away. Mug a granny, you can be home by teatime with no one knowing.

The problem is the law is very unclear on what constitutes "excessive force", and thus seems to assume that something like this occurs:

ME (armed with shinai) - hello Mr. Intruder. I was wondering if you were just here to knick the TV, or if you were going to attempt to rape/murder my wife and family on the way out?

MR. INTRUDER - Nah mate, I'm just after the telly. Mine's bust so I can't see Trisha no more.

ME - Ah, that's ok then. Insurance'll cover it. Don't forget the DVD or my laptop, will you?

Which is clearly absurd. I know we Brits are supposed to be polite, but surely everyone has some right to "deal with" intruders, whether it's just property they're after or not. I don't mean killing people, except when absolutely necessary (or when a fight goes pear-shaped through no intent of the homeowner) just to actually be able to not be locked up for actually being preapared.

 

I see your point, Aldeth, but I have to disagree. In armed robbery, the person who gives up goods is compelled by the gun. Doesn't matter if it's a real gun or a fake. It makes the victim act all the same. Of course, a joke is different, but if you really attempted robbery with a toy gun looking real, it would be the same on the victim's side and your aim would still be to deprive the victim of his goods, so it would still be armed robbery.

If you threatened a girl with such a toy gun, would it be rape any less?

 

What a dickhead the judge is. The guy should appeal. If he was about his property (which the artical does not clearly state) and he wanted to get rid of these idiots who have been pestering him, even if they were in the neighbourhood, he should be allowed to.
Does not matter if it was a baseball bat or a plastic gun.

 

True, but once it is discovered by the police, I think the charge should be robbery, not armed robbery. With armed robbery, there are also two lesser included charges of "Use of a handgun in the commission of a felony", which carries a minimum 5 year sentence, and 1st degree assault, which carries up to a 10 year sentence. It turns out that people who rob convenience stores (with a toy gun) end up getting much more jail time than someone who went in with a very real knife, bat, pipe, etc. That's because simple robbery carries less of a prison sentence than the so-called "lesser included charges". (I don't quite understand why they are called "lesser included charges" when they actually have harsher penalties than the primary charge. If you don't have a gun and rob a convenience store, it's basically the same crime as purse-snatching, which probably wouldn't get you any jail time at all, or a sentence of no more than 1 year.)

Now I will point out that it has to be a realistic looking toy gun. If you pull out a multi-colored water pistol that is obviously not a real gun, then you don't get charged with armed robbery. However, some BB-guns do look like the real thing, and at quick glance the store clerk may not be able to identify it as a fake gun.

 

Well, yeah, but a very real knife is far less convincing than a pretty fake gun. The person shouldn't be punished for actual use of a gun, but in so far as the gun serves as a tool of coercion, it's all the same.

Let's take it to an extreme: a martial artist. You see a guy with a newbie belt, two ranks below your own. You tell him to get bent. But then you see a guy with a black one. The only real difference is the colour of the belt, but you have absolutely no warranty that he has any right to wear that belt. My point is that for coercion, it doesn't mean what you really have but what you make the victim think you have. The situation is different when the charge assumes some real shooting. Then the person couldn't have done that if the gun hadn't been real.

 

I agree with Chev. He has the legally right point of view.

In Germany we had the 'lispstic case' that pretty well sums up what this is about. A guy pushes a lipstics in his victims back and threatens the victim, saying it's a gun. Of course, the lipstic is completely harmless, but the utterances of the culprit generate the desired coercive effect.

This is punished, too, because using even a fake gun generates a much higher degree of coercion than threats without a fake or real weapon - in the end that's just why you would use weapons in a robbery.

The victim thinks it is a weapon and thinks it is threatened with death or severe harm. For that the criminal is punished. That he couldn't possibly harm the victim with a lipstic is beside the point - it's all about the coercion and the intent to coerce that is criminalised.

Fake gun or real gun, the coercive effect is comparable and waving a gun at harassing youths sure *is* a little over the top. When they ran away crying after that, they sure are not made of the stuff to justify such an approach.

I just think 6 months is pretty harsh in this case, there are plenty of mitigating points in favour of this dad. Should have sentenced him and put him on parole right away because IMO there is barely any criminal energy in him, risk of repetition is low.

[ April 28, 2005, 22:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Holy crap! Did you guys actually read the story? From what I read this poor slob was trying to scare off a bunch of hooligans and now he is going to do time. I know England is supposed to be the model of the "Nanny State", but how do you people put up with this nonsense. How you allowed your government to take away your right of self-defense is amazing to me. I am of the firm belief that here in the States at worst he would have been charged with being a public nusiance and get probabtion. In all probablilty the cops would have talked to him and told him not to do it again, and then hopefully give those 'kids" a talking to. This is disgraceful.

 

Maybe I should make my point clearer.

As I said, the sentence is clearly too harsh. With good reasons there could not have been a trial because (a) the 'crime' is a minor one, (b) because it was self defense or putative self-defense, (c) no one was harmed, (d) lack of criminal energy.

That is to say, in Germany that case wouldn't have made it to trial but would have been abandoned after § 153 StPO for being a trifle.

What I wanted to say is, that the argument of the judge is comprehensible and not totally bonkers. It's just the verdict that's way too harsh.

If british law doesn't have a 'trifle' norm, then maybe it was the law and not the judge that's to blame.