15 year old poppy seller had face burnt in attack

[trev]

I admire you for that Trev, you have far more self restraint than I can rely on in myself.

The end result would have probably been the same in both cases mate but in law intent is the thing that matters. I'd have been using reasonable force to prevent an assault on a child. You'd have been beating the stuffing out of someone for it

 

[Slowhand]

You're right there Trev I agree entirely with what you've said.

Not wanting to start a debate here, this is just a thought....
I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

 

[trev]

I think it's two fold mate, 1 when the attack against the victim stops and 2 when the assailant has stopped resisting.
It's a potential minefield, that guy who stoved someone's head in with a cricket bat a couple of years back acted unlawfully because they were walking away from his property so there was no risk of an attack on it or any of his family. Had they been still on his property then he'd probably have gotten away with it.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

An aerosol shoved up their arse?

 

[gnuuser]

truly a tragic thing to happen to the cadets.
vigilante tacticts no but if duly convicted in a court of law then acts like that warrant severe punishment.
there is no rehabilitation strong enough for someone who would commit such a cruel act.

rehabilitation does work wonders for a lot of people but not everyone
having a compulsion to commit a crime rehabilitation can resolve issues such as this
but even under the influence of alcohol to lower inhibitions the intent there to commit a crime cannot be rehabilitated.
and acts of violence such as this shows pure un-reasoning hatred

 

[Besoeker]

Come off it guys, you can't seriously be advocating vigilante justice here can you?
The "PC judges" are bound to apply and uphold the law as it stands, not what anyone would like it to be, and there are good reasons for that.
Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

I've read through this thread a couple of times now and some quite polarised opinions are coming out.
What happened to the cadet is abhorrent and inexcusable.

A couple or three points.

I completely agree with you - retribution on the perpetrator by third parties would turn one crime into two - or more.
The case of Tony Martin, Norfolk farmer, comes to mind when he shot at the fleeing intruders. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no sympathy for what the intruders did, but Martin had already defended his property on that occasion. This pursuing further offensive action resulting in a fatality was inexcusable in my opinion.

I'm also with you on the capital punishment issue. I don't agree with it. We have had a number of convictions quashed of different grounds.
Guildford Four and Birmingham Six come to mind.
The finding of guilt comes from a jury - a group of individuals with no particular expertise on the matter in hand. They get information to assimilate from both sides. Making different cases for guilt or innocence of those standing trial.
They have to come to a verdict based on what information they are given.

How reliable is that? Not very in some cases. Miscarriages happen.
Should the life or death of an individual depend on the collective views and deliberations of a dozen laymen?
I don't think so.

Severity of sentencing - judges, as you say, have limited options. Whether they deploy those to best effect - possibly not

 

[rapparee]

I'm also with you on the capital punishment issue. I don't agree with it. We have had a number of convictions quashed of different grounds.
Guildford Four and Birmingham Six come to mind.
The finding of guilt comes from a jury - a group of individuals with no particular expertise on the matter in hand. They get information to assimilate from both sides. Making different cases for guilt or innocence of those standing trial.
They have to come to a verdict based on what information they are given.

How reliable is that? Not very in some cases. Miscarriages happen.
Should the life or death of an individual depend on the collective views and deliberations of a dozen laymen?
I don't think so.

Severity of sentencing - judges, as you say, have limited options. Whether they deploy those to best effect - possibly not

Id have to disagree with you a jury would be my prefered choice of trial. The use of diplock courts in my view shouldnt be encouraged. The judicary are mostly white, male, middle aged upper-class what chance has a young working class dark skinned defendant got. In the past diplock courts were used in northern Ireland against catholics suspected of being republicans, they would not have been regarded as fair or unbiased at least with a jury you should have a cross section of society to condemn you.

 

[trev]

I too would rather rely on a jury made up of a cross section of the public although I read it as a jury should not have to decide life or death.

 

[Besoeker]

I too would rather rely on a jury made up of a cross section of the public although I read it as a jury should not have to decide life or death.

I agree. They should not have to be arbiters on a decision of whether capital punishment is appropriate.

But, if capital punishment was an option and they returned a guilty verdict, they would be part of that decision. Knowing that they might be party to an execution might, just might, make them less objective.

And that leaves aside the possibility that their verdict might have been wrong anyway.

 

[Barry White]

You're right there Trev I agree entirely with what you've said.

Not wanting to start a debate here, this is just a thought....
I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

In my eyes anything that stops him the young boy could have been killed or blinded .