WTF!!!

bendertherobot wrote:

Ah, better.

http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/15923141.Rage_driver_left__petrified...

That gives much better context, thanks.

bendertherobot wrote:

The difference is in the application of force. A door was used in London, the bike thief was unharmed, and the law on self defence (of property) is in relation to private individuals.

In this case there's nothing about what belief the Defendant had at all in relation to the property. It was also not his property. The offence, while admitted at trial, doesn't tell us anything about what the Defendant thought and believed. Reasonable force can be used in self defence, that's always been the case. Ditto for home owners. Defending someone else's seemingly cheap bike by running them over and causing significant injuries is generally going to cross the line. There's no information either on whether the jury found that he honestly held the belief that the bike was stolen (even if mistaken). I suspect, given a 5 day trial, there's an awful lot of missing info here.

The bike belonged to the defendants girlfriend at the time so I think it pretty safe to say that the defendant "thought and believed" that the bike was stolen. As the "victim" claims to have taken it for a one time use to cycle to his mother's it is easy to assume that he was seen in the act (probably at a distance) of theft and the defendant chased in the vehicle. His actions may have been extreme but I can understand it in the heat of the moment when your blood is up. I know that I have been equally angry when returning to find parts of my bike stolen and I don't know what I may be capable of if I cought them in the act.

I would assume that the factors in giving such a long ban and jail time are due to prior offences and the difference in the Scottish justice system.

ClubSmed wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The difference is in the application of force. A door was used in London, the bike thief was unharmed, and the law on self defence (of property) is in relation to private individuals.

In this case there's nothing about what belief the Defendant had at all in relation to the property. It was also not his property. The offence, while admitted at trial, doesn't tell us anything about what the Defendant thought and believed. Reasonable force can be used in self defence, that's always been the case. Ditto for home owners. Defending someone else's seemingly cheap bike by running them over and causing significant injuries is generally going to cross the line. There's no information either on whether the jury found that he honestly held the belief that the bike was stolen (even if mistaken). I suspect, given a 5 day trial, there's an awful lot of missing info here.

The bike belonged to the defendants girlfriend at the time so I think it pretty safe to say that the defendant "thought and believed" that the bike was stolen. As the "victim" claims to have taken it for a one time use to cycle to his mother's it is easy to assume that he was seen in the act (probably at a distance) of theft and the defendant chased in the vehicle. His actions may have been extreme but I can understand it in the heat of the moment when your blood is up. I know that I have been equally angry when returning to find parts of my bike stolen and I don't know what I may be capable of if I cought them in the act.

I would assume that the factors in giving such a long ban and jail time are due to prior offences and the difference in the Scottish justice system.

It's not safe to assume anything from a tiny report of a 5 day trial. It's simply impossible to hail this bloke as a have a go hero wronged by the system or compare it with other cases. There will have been jury directions in relation to self defence all of which, having heard the evidence, they rejected. Whether that was force, or reasonable belief it's unclear. 5 days for what appears to be a straightforward case it a lot. 

bendertherobot wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The difference is in the application of force. A door was used in London, the bike thief was unharmed, and the law on self defence (of property) is in relation to private individuals.

In this case there's nothing about what belief the Defendant had at all in relation to the property. It was also not his property. The offence, while admitted at trial, doesn't tell us anything about what the Defendant thought and believed. Reasonable force can be used in self defence, that's always been the case. Ditto for home owners. Defending someone else's seemingly cheap bike by running them over and causing significant injuries is generally going to cross the line. There's no information either on whether the jury found that he honestly held the belief that the bike was stolen (even if mistaken). I suspect, given a 5 day trial, there's an awful lot of missing info here.

The bike belonged to the defendants girlfriend at the time so I think it pretty safe to say that the defendant "thought and believed" that the bike was stolen. As the "victim" claims to have taken it for a one time use to cycle to his mother's it is easy to assume that he was seen in the act (probably at a distance) of theft and the defendant chased in the vehicle. His actions may have been extreme but I can understand it in the heat of the moment when your blood is up. I know that I have been equally angry when returning to find parts of my bike stolen and I don't know what I may be capable of if I cought them in the act.

I would assume that the factors in giving such a long ban and jail time are due to prior offences and the difference in the Scottish justice system.

It's not safe to assume anything from a tiny report of a 5 day trial. It's simply impossible to hail this bloke as a have a go hero wronged by the system or compare it with other cases. There will have been jury directions in relation to self defence all of which, having heard the evidence, they rejected. Whether that was force, or reasonable belief it's unclear. 5 days for what appears to be a straightforward case it a lot. 

Are you suggesting that it's plausible the defendant went to mow down a random person on a bike and it was just coincidence that victim was riding a stolen bike belonging to the defendants girlfriend?

ClubSmed wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The difference is in the application of force. A door was used in London, the bike thief was unharmed, and the law on self defence (of property) is in relation to private individuals.

In this case there's nothing about what belief the Defendant had at all in relation to the property. It was also not his property. The offence, while admitted at trial, doesn't tell us anything about what the Defendant thought and believed. Reasonable force can be used in self defence, that's always been the case. Ditto for home owners. Defending someone else's seemingly cheap bike by running them over and causing significant injuries is generally going to cross the line. There's no information either on whether the jury found that he honestly held the belief that the bike was stolen (even if mistaken). I suspect, given a 5 day trial, there's an awful lot of missing info here.

The bike belonged to the defendants girlfriend at the time so I think it pretty safe to say that the defendant "thought and believed" that the bike was stolen. As the "victim" claims to have taken it for a one time use to cycle to his mother's it is easy to assume that he was seen in the act (probably at a distance) of theft and the defendant chased in the vehicle. His actions may have been extreme but I can understand it in the heat of the moment when your blood is up. I know that I have been equally angry when returning to find parts of my bike stolen and I don't know what I may be capable of if I cought them in the act.

I would assume that the factors in giving such a long ban and jail time are due to prior offences and the difference in the Scottish justice system.

It's not safe to assume anything from a tiny report of a 5 day trial. It's simply impossible to hail this bloke as a have a go hero wronged by the system or compare it with other cases. There will have been jury directions in relation to self defence all of which, having heard the evidence, they rejected. Whether that was force, or reasonable belief it's unclear. 5 days for what appears to be a straightforward case it a lot. 

Are you suggesting that it's plausible the defendant went to mow down a random person on a bike and it was just coincidence that victim was riding a stolen bike belonging to the defendants girlfriend?

I'm suggesting nothing, which is rather the point of my original post. Without knowing why the defence was clearly rejected we don't learn very much. What we do know is that he was jailed for 4 years. I don't know what guidelines were used (i.e. whether Scotland use the same) but that's a big sentence and, by clear implication, any mitigation of justification was rejected by the Judge.