So if you're blind you can stab an unarmed intruder to death and be exonerated by the courts but if you can see and they have a gun it's manslaughter. Makes complete sense.
Having read the article about a man who killed an armed intruder jailed I cannot understand Detective Chief Inspector Sam Howarth's comments. Whose side is he on?
Confused
The Law has gone mad, are we supposed to stand back and watch people steal our posetions and let them beat us to a pulp??? Come on, wake up for god's sake, the Law is an ass in Britian. I give up, I really do.
if four armed robbers turned up at the police officers house,who is justifying sentencing a man for 8 years,for protecting himself.
if he put himself in that predicament what would he do?,maybe the police should concentrate on crime prevention,rather than waiting for crime to happen,you would be surprised that the crime would probably be reduced.
What a disgrace! A man defending himself against four armed thugs gets eight years. Drunken idiots who get in a car and mow innocent victims down typically get less than half this sentence. The robbers will probably get two years between them. I don't know who I'm more disugusted with - the police (although I don't know why I expect any better from them) or the jury who convicted him. Perhaps the criminals should have rung up the police first to get an escort to their crime to make sure they didn't get hurt. Clearly the police are more on their side than they are on ours.
B.S., the mans assulted by four men armed with guns and kills one man in self-defense, not cold blooded. Not to mention in his own home and he goes to jail. How, may I ask, is that justice?
This is the most absurd travesty to have befallen someone who chose to defend his home from a couple of armed miscreants. The irony of it all is that the remaining robbers would probably be sentenced to less prison time than Mr. Lindsay.
Set Carl Lindsay free. A man should be able to bravely defend his life without fear of being persecuted for it. Lindsay was grossly outnumbered (which alone is enough to justify Mr. Lindsay's actions) and out-armed because the criminals HAD A GUN while Lindsay only had a primitive weapon in comparison! Lindsay had to act aggressively and desperately against such overwhelming and unsettling odds. You can't give criminals the chance to do harm to you in a life-threatening situation if you have even the most remote chance to fight back, or you can bet that the criminals will impose their hatred on you without hesitation. You must act with swiftness and with justice like Mr. Lindsay did. This is such a clear case of appropriate self-defence from Mr. Lindsay that I almost feel ridiculous having to mention it. Lindsay should be a free man right now, and he should be given an award for bravery.
I thought in the U.K guns were illegal? So these criminals did not turn in their guns? The home owner defends his life with a primitive weapon against a criminal with a gun and gets 8 years...WOW! why would anyone want to live in a country like this? The U.k Government can not protect its citizens from criminals with guns and from this artical nore will it allow it own citizens to right of self protection...again why for the safety of oneself and family would one want to live in the U.K?
Why did the man defending himself and his home go to jail for eight years? Is there something the story isn't telling us?
What are you expected to do in circumstances such as this,
hand them your valuables and beg them not to shoot you?
If you condone this horrible miscarriage of justice I pity you.
If you think the courts were wrong for sending a brave man to jail for defending himself, why the hell are you reading this? You SHOULD be screaming bloody murder in the streets right now, the lot of you.
If the Queens house gets broken in to, and say one of those red coats shoots and kills the armed intruder would the red coat get years 8 years in the brig, or would he get a slap on the back and a medal. The fundamental RIGHT of all LIFE is SELF PRESERVATION you stupid ENGLISH! YOU make me so ashamed to be an ENGLISHMAN.
1. England basically bans the personal ownership of handguns. Yet the criminals still managed to get a handgun. Hmmm, where have we heard this argument against gun bans before I wonder?
2. The man DEFENDS himself with a sword, against FOUR men, armed with at least one firearm, and then is jailed for eight years?
Folks, those facts above speak for themselves. I won't say anything else except that we are witnessing another example of a socialist thought process where all violence is considered equal, that a righteous self-defense if viewed with the same criminality as a cold blooded murder.
It appears the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum, when it comes to distributing justice in Manchester. I hope I never get mugged in Manchester next time I visit the city - I don't want to be sued by a thief for not having enough money on me to steal.
Mr. Lindsey deserves a medal for protecting his home and his life, NOT JAIL TIME!
Since when can't you defend yourself? And you can't even defend your property?
This is just plain stupid as are the English laws and lawmakers who would make or enforce such a law. I cannot believe that the basic human right of defending ones on life has been done away with in a supposed "civilized" country!
The law in relation to self defence is quite clear, a person as the right to protect himself from attack and act in the defence of others in doing so. If no more force is used than reasonable to attack such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed, further more a person does not have to wait to be attacked, circumstances may justify the use of a pre emptive strike. Rv Beckford 1988. Now I'm fairly certain that the above stated case would have been taken into consideration by the police, the cps, the defendant's barrister, the judge, and not least twelve persons on the jury. It's quite clear that the full facts have not been reported. What is the history of the defendant? Why does a person keep a samurai sword close at hand? I live in Manchester and I don't. At what point did he go beyond self defence? It doesn't say in the report. Why blame the police? The job of the police is to present the full facts of the incident to the court. The court is responsible for coming to a verdict according to the law. And finally to our red neck American contributors, your knee jerk opinions are invalid. The UK never has and never will have a horrendous record on gun crime like yourselves simply because gun ownership s regulated. Your Wild West attitude to self defence is the last thing we need and after the way the CIA and Bush have deliberately misled the western world in recent times if I were an American I'd be keeping a pretty low profile at the moment. You've caused enough trouble!
One of two things has obviously happened here.
1. there is much more information about this story that the media have so "conveniently forgotton" to include (let's face it, they do it all the time for a sensational story).
or 2. the police, jury, and judge left their brains at home.
It just doesn't make sense!!
Comments
Login or Register to comment
So if you're blind you can stab an unarmed intruder to death and be exonerated by the courts but if you can see and they have a gun it's manslaughter. Makes complete sense.
What was he supposed to do, call the cops and hope they didn't kill him while he waited for them to arrive?
And I thought guns were illegal in England so why did the robbers have one?
Having read the article about a man who killed an armed intruder jailed I cannot understand Detective Chief Inspector Sam Howarth's comments. Whose side is he on?
Confused
when are the looneys going to stop running the asylum the man should be given amedal its a shame he never got the other 3
A man tries to protect himself and one of the true criminals dies and the innocent is sent to prison, where is the justice in that?
Carl Lindsay should have been given a reward and a commendation!
The Law has gone mad, are we supposed to stand back and watch people steal our posetions and let them beat us to a pulp??? Come on, wake up for god's sake, the Law is an ass in Britian. I give up, I really do.
He should be given a medal not a sentance.
if four armed robbers turned up at the police officers house,who is justifying sentencing a man for 8 years,for protecting himself.
if he put himself in that predicament what would he do?,maybe the police should concentrate on crime prevention,rather than waiting for crime to happen,you would be surprised that the crime would probably be reduced.
What the hell happened to self defense?? This man was not supposed to defend himself??
I dont think that Carl should have gotten 8 years i think he should have gotten atleast 1 year and a 1 year probation
What a disgrace! A man defending himself against four armed thugs gets eight years. Drunken idiots who get in a car and mow innocent victims down typically get less than half this sentence. The robbers will probably get two years between them. I don't know who I'm more disugusted with - the police (although I don't know why I expect any better from them) or the jury who convicted him. Perhaps the criminals should have rung up the police first to get an escort to their crime to make sure they didn't get hurt. Clearly the police are more on their side than they are on ours.
B.S., the mans assulted by four men armed with guns and kills one man in self-defense, not cold blooded. Not to mention in his own home and he goes to jail. How, may I ask, is that justice?
They should lock up the judge who gave him that sentence. Defending yourself against armed intruders should be rewarded and not punished.
This is the most absurd travesty to have befallen someone who chose to defend his home from a couple of armed miscreants. The irony of it all is that the remaining robbers would probably be sentenced to less prison time than Mr. Lindsay.
Set Carl Lindsay free. A man should be able to bravely defend his life without fear of being persecuted for it. Lindsay was grossly outnumbered (which alone is enough to justify Mr. Lindsay's actions) and out-armed because the criminals HAD A GUN while Lindsay only had a primitive weapon in comparison! Lindsay had to act aggressively and desperately against such overwhelming and unsettling odds. You can't give criminals the chance to do harm to you in a life-threatening situation if you have even the most remote chance to fight back, or you can bet that the criminals will impose their hatred on you without hesitation. You must act with swiftness and with justice like Mr. Lindsay did. This is such a clear case of appropriate self-defence from Mr. Lindsay that I almost feel ridiculous having to mention it. Lindsay should be a free man right now, and he should be given an award for bravery.
I thought in the U.K guns were illegal? So these criminals did not turn in their guns? The home owner defends his life with a primitive weapon against a criminal with a gun and gets 8 years...WOW! why would anyone want to live in a country like this? The U.k Government can not protect its citizens from criminals with guns and from this artical nore will it allow it own citizens to right of self protection...again why for the safety of oneself and family would one want to live in the U.K?
Why did the man defending himself and his home go to jail for eight years? Is there something the story isn't telling us?
What are you expected to do in circumstances such as this,
hand them your valuables and beg them not to shoot you?
If you condone this horrible miscarriage of justice I pity you.
If you think the courts were wrong for sending a brave man to jail for defending himself, why the hell are you reading this? You SHOULD be screaming bloody murder in the streets right now, the lot of you.
If the Queens house gets broken in to, and say one of those red coats shoots and kills the armed intruder would the red coat get years 8 years in the brig, or would he get a slap on the back and a medal. The fundamental RIGHT of all LIFE is SELF PRESERVATION you stupid ENGLISH! YOU make me so ashamed to be an ENGLISHMAN.
Would you rather have him open the door for them, make them a pot of tea, and then have them off with his valuables after lunch?
Let me understand this:
1. England basically bans the personal ownership of handguns. Yet the criminals still managed to get a handgun. Hmmm, where have we heard this argument against gun bans before I wonder?
2. The man DEFENDS himself with a sword, against FOUR men, armed with at least one firearm, and then is jailed for eight years?
Folks, those facts above speak for themselves. I won't say anything else except that we are witnessing another example of a socialist thought process where all violence is considered equal, that a righteous self-defense if viewed with the same criminality as a cold blooded murder.
This is just plain wrong.
Don Nelson
It appears the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum, when it comes to distributing justice in Manchester. I hope I never get mugged in Manchester next time I visit the city - I don't want to be sued by a thief for not having enough money on me to steal.
Dosen,t make sense this man should be released straight away on appeal.
ARE THE ENGLISH NUTS?
Mr. Lindsey deserves a medal for protecting his home and his life, NOT JAIL TIME!
Since when can't you defend yourself? And you can't even defend your property?
This is just plain stupid as are the English laws and lawmakers who would make or enforce such a law. I cannot believe that the basic human right of defending ones on life has been done away with in a supposed "civilized" country!
Shame on you Brits!
The law in relation to self defence is quite clear, a person as the right to protect himself from attack and act in the defence of others in doing so. If no more force is used than reasonable to attack such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed, further more a person does not have to wait to be attacked, circumstances may justify the use of a pre emptive strike. Rv Beckford 1988. Now I'm fairly certain that the above stated case would have been taken into consideration by the police, the cps, the defendant's barrister, the judge, and not least twelve persons on the jury. It's quite clear that the full facts have not been reported. What is the history of the defendant? Why does a person keep a samurai sword close at hand? I live in Manchester and I don't. At what point did he go beyond self defence? It doesn't say in the report. Why blame the police? The job of the police is to present the full facts of the incident to the court. The court is responsible for coming to a verdict according to the law. And finally to our red neck American contributors, your knee jerk opinions are invalid. The UK never has and never will have a horrendous record on gun crime like yourselves simply because gun ownership s regulated. Your Wild West attitude to self defence is the last thing we need and after the way the CIA and Bush have deliberately misled the western world in recent times if I were an American I'd be keeping a pretty low profile at the moment. You've caused enough trouble!
One of two things has obviously happened here.
1. there is much more information about this story that the media have so "conveniently forgotton" to include (let's face it, they do it all the time for a sensational story).
or 2. the police, jury, and judge left their brains at home.
It just doesn't make sense!!