NationStates Jolt Archive

A robber/kidnapper sped away from police with a container of gasoline in his car. It splashed on his clothes, and when he jumped out of his wrecked car to flee on foot it was ignited by a police officer's taser. Currently he's in the hospital with burns over 70% of his body. I bet he'll sue the police and probably win big money.

http://www.wral.com/news/5135606/detail.html

To be fair, he is going to have medical bills to pay.

I posted the following on another forum recently
BLUFFTON, South Carolina (AP) -- A would-be carjacker got a different kind of jolt from his intended victim's morning cup of coffee, authorities said.

The suspect tapped the car window Wednesday morning with a gun and motioned the driver to get out, Chief Deputy Roy Hughes said.

But the driver -- who had just bought a cup of hot coffee -- slammed the car door into the carjacker's legs, threw the coffee at his neck and face and wrestled him to the ground, Hughes said.

A shot was fired during the scuffle but no one was hurt, Hughes said. He said the driver managed to get the gun from the suspect and point it at him.

The suspect ran into nearby woods, Hughes said. Deputies are searching for him and two people thought to be with him who drove off during the scuffle.

And this is the response I got from a UK resident:

If that happened in UK the perp would be running to a lawyer now screaming assualt and the driver would be in jail. Probably also get done for theft (of the pistol) and carrying an illegal fire arm
Another of Tony Blairs liberal pansy bollocks rules

What ever happened to 'An englishmans home is hie castle'
or modernising it 'My house is my firebase'

And this is the response I got from a UK resident:
Wouldn't happen.

To be fair, he is going to have medical bills to pay.
He'll clean up even if he does have med bills.

i agree.. shouldn't be allowed.

Wouldn't happen.

If you consider that there's a public perception of legal risk if you fight back (in the UK), I figure the man in the car would have just gotten out and given the man the car instead of fighting back at all.

We might rephrase this - how often do people really fight back there? Is the fighting back as common as it is here in the US?

We might rephrase this - how often do people really fight back there? Is the fighting back as common as it is here in the US?
That depends how common it is in the US.

In most cases, if someone thinks they have a chance against the person they will fight back. Obviously some wee old lady isn't going to fight back against some well built 20 year old guy trying to steal her handbag, but you get what I mean.

We might rephrase this - how often do people really fight back there? Is the fighting back as common as it is here in the US?
A lot more so, I suspect: people are less worried about getting shot if they start a fight with somebody here.

(I wonder how far to the right UK Resident is if he thinks Blair's a liberal?)

I think that if you live in a country where you're taught by the school and government never to fight back, there's a lot less fighting back.

If you live in a country where even the police, in self-defense classes, tell you to resist even if you don't have any advantage, there's probably more fighting back.

Also, it's a lot harder for a wounded criminal to sue here in the US - suing the police is easier than suing an individual civilian.

But, in the UK, there are several celebrated cases of people being jailed for defending themselves or their property. Maybe not in all cases, but certainly enough to make anyone think twice about resisting.

IBut, in the UK, there are several celebrated cases of people being jailed for defending themselves or their property. Maybe not in all cases, but certainly enough to make anyone think twice about resisting.
The main one was Tony Martin. He was jailed for hiding at the top of his stairs waiting for the burglars to come into sight so he could shoot them. He killed one of them and injured the other.

I'm not going to condemn what he did, but there are better ways to go about it.

He was jailed for manslaughter because he had planned it, not for defending his property.

The main one was Tony Martin. He was jailed for hiding at the top of his stairs waiting for the burglars to come into sight so he could shoot them. He killed one of them and injured the other.

I'm not going to condemn what he did, but there are better ways to go about it.

He was jailed for manslaughter because he had planned it, not for defending his property.

That's perfectly legal here in Virginia. The people in your house don't actually have to attack you - you just have to be in "reasonable fear" of your lives and safety. An intruder in your house at 3 AM when you have children in your house fits the bill rather nicely. And unlike some states, neither I nor my children are required to retreat from the house if possible.

I can open fire as soon as I identify the target is not my wife or one of my children. I am not required to warn the target, either.

I can't chase the other intruders and shoot them as they run - they no longer constitute a threat. But if they stand their ground at all - even for a second - I can continue to track to a new target and fire.

I think that if you live in a country where you're taught by the school and government never to fight back, there's a lot less fighting back.
Any examples of this, or are you just talking out of your arse and inventing facts that fit your prejudices about countries that practise gun control?

That's perfectly legal here in Virginia. The people in your house don't actually have to attack you - you just have to be in "reasonable fear" of your lives and safety. An intruder in your house at 3 AM when you have children in your house fits the bill rather nicely. And unlike some states, neither I nor my children are required to retreat from the house if possible.

I can open fire as soon as I identify the target is not my wife or one of my children. I am not required to warn the target, either.

I can't chase the other intruders and shoot them as they run - they no longer constitute a threat. But if they stand their ground at all - even for a second - I can continue to track to a new target and fire.
Another thing that did him in was that he had his shotgun licence revoked a few years beforehand, and so was using an illegal firearm.

The guy who died was shot in the back; so it's reasonable to conclude that he was running away once he saw Mr. Martin had a gun.

UK law is pretty clear...force in self defence is fine, otherwise it isn't...I don't think shooting somebody with an illegal shotgun when they are running away counts as self defence.

Any examples of this, or are you just talking out of your arse and inventing facts that fit your prejudices about countries that practise gun control?

If you figure that the Department of Justice states that 1 to 2 million times a year, people resist violent crime with a firearm, and compare that to the total number of violent crimes that are successful, it would appear that about 1 in 3 times, people resist violent crime in the US with a firearm

I don't have any statistics for the UK, but I bet they don't have firearms in their pockets when they are driving around Nottinghamshire or Barrow-in-Furness.

You always bring up "talking out of your arse" whenever it's an idea you can't fathom.

If you figure that the Department of Justice states that 1 to 2 million times a year, people resist violent crime with a firearm, and compare that to the total number of violent crimes that are successful, it would appear that about 1 in 3 times, people resist violent crime in the US with a firearm

I don't have any statistics for the UK, but I bet they don't have firearms in their pockets when they are driving around Nottinghamshire or Barrow-in-Furness.

You always bring up "talking out of your arse" whenever it's an idea you can't fathom.
I've marked the point where your argument here breaks down.
There's also the point that using a firearm only works one time out of three.
I accuse you of talking out of your arse when you're spouting shit, as you were in the post I took exception to.

Martin only got his sentence reduced from murder to manslaughter because his defence proved diminished responsibility. Tony Martin was not defending himself and what he used wasn't even close to reasonable force.

As far as defending yourself or another from a crime goes both common law and statute (in the UK) will protect you so long as you use reasonable force.

There is not a chance in hell that a person who got petrol on himself and accidentally caught fire when he was tazered could successfully sue. The reasons being that there was no assault or battery because the police used a lawfull application of force. On top of that the result of the action was completely unforseeable.

I've marked the point where your argument here breaks down.
There's also the point that using a firearm only works one time out of three.
I accuse you of talking out of your arse when you're spouting shit, as you were in the post I took exception to.

It's not that it only works one time out of three. It works nearly all the time, according to our Department of Justice. It's just that the other two times, the crime is occurring in an area where people are not allowed to carry firearms.

And that's not talking shit.

I know for a fact you can't drive around in the UK armed as I am here. So, how are you going to resist?

I bet it's rare. Why don't you prove otherwise?

Prove what's rare? That it's rare for anyone to drive around tooled up in the UK or that there are less carjackings per capita here than there are in the 'States?
If you're the one making unsubstantiated allegations based on basic prejudices (as far as I can tell, a conviction that any unarmed society tends towards bedlam) perhaps the onus is on you to provide an example of somebody being fucked over while commuting because they didn't have a gun.
Still, perhaps you could explain how the riot in Birmingham over the weekend would have been easier to contain and would have killed less people if both of the factions involved were carrying firearms.

Prove what's rare? That it's rare for anyone to drive around tooled up in the UK or that there are less carjackings per capita here than there are in the 'States?
If you're the one making unsubstantiated allegations based on basic prejudices (as far as I can tell, a conviction that any unarmed society tends towards bedlam) perhaps the onus is on you to provide an example of somebody being fucked over while commuting because they didn't have a gun.
Still, perhaps you could explain how the riot in Birmingham over the weekend would have been easier to contain and would have killed less people if both of the factions involved were carrying firearms.

I think you can't read.

I am saying that people in the UK are less likely to fight back.

I am NOT saying that they are more likely to be attacked.

And I think when you misread what I say, you fly off the handle for no reason.

I am saying that people in the UK are less likely to fight back.
On what evidence do you think this, given that you've already stated that you don't have a clue about how much violent crime there is in the UK, and how it's conducted?

To be fair, he is going to have medical bills to pay.

Yes, and he should pay them out of his own pocket, as the incident was entirely his own fault. He was the one who tried to run from the police, spilling gasoline on him, and he was the one who tried to resist further, resulting in getting tased.

Yes, and he should pay them out of his own pocket, as the incident was entirely his own fault. He was the one who tried to run from the police, spilling gasoline on him, and he was the one who tried to resist further, resulting in getting tased.
That's one point of view, and not entirely unreasonable. He could well have problems holding down a job with 70% burns and a criminal record, of course.

On what evidence do you think this, given that you've already stated that you don't have a clue about how much violent crime there is in the UK, and how it's conducted?

His logic is simple: In America it's legal to have a gun. If you have a gun you are more lightly to defend yourself against someone bigger or scarier than yourself. In Britian it is illegal to have a gun. Therefore you must physically restrain someone to fight back. Which you are un-lightly to do if they are bigger or scarier than you.
It's not rocket science.

It's also likely that this is going to provide rather less of a defence if the other party is also armed, however.
How do you account for this shit he was spouting about it being illegal to defend oneself and one's property in the UK, btw? That was the bit I took exception to, as it's entirely incorrect.

Well, when I was attacked by a gang of chavs I fought back. Gave one a bloody nose and bust anothers lips, but there were 5 of them and attacked me in back of the head with a pipe, cutting it open and requiring a trip to casualty.

No one ever said anything was wrong with me fighting back - the police congratulated me for it, and I got awarded compensation from the main agressor by the courts.

Killing someone in self defense is legal in this country. What isn't legal is doing something like what that stupid farmer did, camping out at night with an illegally owned firearm and then shooting a kid in the back who was trying to flee out of the window once he'd seen him.

That's one point of view, and not entirely unreasonable. He could well have problems holding down a job with 70% burns and a criminal record, of course.
Oh, your right! How terrible that someone who commits a crime might have . . . GASP! . . . a criminal record! I mean, that just doesn't make any sense at all!
And, yeah, that guy is a stupid fuck who has received enough mercy simply by the fact that he wasn't allowed to just burn.

And, yeah, that guy is a stupid fuck who has received enough mercy simply by the fact that he wasn't allowed to just burn.

You know, setting fire to suspects is considered bad practice by the majority of law-enforcement orginisations around the world.

You know, setting fire to suspects is considered bad practice by the majority of law-enforcement orginisations around the world.
Yes, well that is why putting him out was "enough mercy." You see, if someone says: "enough" then that means that they have been provided with the sufficient allotment that they deserve.
So, putting him out and saving his life was the sufficient allotment of concern that he was owed.

On the other hand, I do believe that your quote will be joining my sig.

A robber/kidnapper sped away from police with a container of gasoline in his car. It splashed on his clothes, and when he jumped out of his wrecked car to flee on foot it was ignited by a police officer's taser. Currently he's in the hospital with burns over 70% of his body. I bet he'll sue the police and probably win big money.

http://www.wral.com/news/5135606/detail.html


LOL, I wonder if there's an "open container" law there like in Jersey. If so, I doubt he'll get anything.

And why SHOULD anyone pay? He committed a crime (robbery/kidnapping) and was fleeing, was stupid enough to drive with gasoline inside the car with him, and when tasered (reasonable force) it happened to catch. So? Would you want him to sue the house out from under someone who walked by him smoking a cigarette?

You know, setting fire to suspects is considered bad practice by the majority of law-enforcement orginisations around the world.
And peroposly puting yourself knowingly in danger in such a manner is concidered idiocy ina majority of the world
People should not be payed back for knowingly endangering themselfs