I was abused by a gang of CHAVS! A guide to the Chav!

Originally posted by CrackBerry

Originally posted by sassyncute
reply to post by TheLoneArcher

 

In England no one is aloud to defend themselves in the face of adversity and are more than likely to be the ones charged.

Sorry but that is totally incorrect, the law states that you are allowed to use such force, as is reasonable, in self defence . To quote the actual law "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." Also there is no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can, it is even enshrined in UK law that pre-emptive strikes are allowed as Lord Griffith said in Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: "A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."

While that is correct you know just as I do that in the UK political correctness gone mad and other factors have led to many, many cases where the victim is arrested and even prosecuted by the police while the attacker escapes scot free.

Take Tony Martin as a prime example.

en.wikipedia.org...(farmer)

Probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm

Sums up English law perfectly...

Of course you should be allowed to defend your property with force, lets make it simple for all those burglars out there: If you don't want to be shot at, stabbed, punched or other wise injured then don't attempt to break into other peoples homes and take what isn't yours!

Ah, chavs, I know them only too well!!

I come from a fairly poverty stricken area (as far as UK terms go) and they are a blight on society. I've been in this situation a few times and believe me, it's always adviseable to try to walk away. Last time I fought back, I spent a lovely fortnight eating hospital food after being stabbed - luckily it was only superficial, but it got infected.

This is the reason that people won't intervene when they see something like this, because they are afraid of getting beaten up or worse. This and the fact that the chavs know they can get away with anything, so they will basically have no limits to the violence they inflict upon people. Isn't it amazing that they only ever attack people when they are on their own?

I was surprised to hear that the biker types in the pub were so restrained, being the only natural predator of the chav, biker/rocker types are usually far more physical when it comes to a confrontation. I know that in my local biker bar in Wolverhampton, the big hairy ones (myself included in that description) would probably have handed them their backsides on a plate and left them naked in the city centre. In fact, it's probably one of the safest places to go for a night out, as the chavs are all too scared to go near the place!

reply to post by Death_Kron


Although I agree that British law is a farce when it comes to defending yourself, I should just point out that Martin was prosecuted because he shot one of the Burglars in the back whilst he was attempting to run away. Also, it was not classed as reasonable force to use a shotgun.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but that was the legal reason behind his sentence.

To be fair though, I bet no one has tried to break into his property since

Originally posted by Death_Kron
While that is correct you know just as I do that in the UK political correctness gone mad and other factors have led to many, many cases where the victim is arrested and even prosecuted by the police while the attacker escapes scot free.

Take Tony Martin as a prime example.

en.wikipedia.org...(farmer)

Probation officers on Martin's cases said there was an "unacceptable risk" that Martin might again react with excessive force if other would-be burglars intruded on his Norfolk farm

Sums up English law perfectly...

Of course you should be allowed to defend your property with force, lets make it simple for all those burglars out there: If you don't want to be shot at, stabbed, punched or other wise injured then don't attempt to break into other peoples homes and take what isn't yours!

edit on 16/9/10 by Death_Kron because: Added external text & comment

But the level of force that Tony Martin used was in no way reasonable, the chappie he killed was shot in the back, while running away. Also, the shotgun he had was illegal. There is a fine line between defending yourself, and executing people.

reply to post by CrackBerry


You don't work in law do you?

That's more or less the exact reasoning the police or a court would use and unfortunately I don't agree with the softly softly approach.

Whilst I understand what your saying to a point i.e. someone doesn't deserve to lose their life simply for breaking into someone else's home, where do you draw the line?

You don't know what someones intention is when they are breaking into your home in the middle of the night, what if they intend to rape your children and kill your wife or husband?

Because of that I think that it should be a hard and fast rule that if someone breaks into your own you have the ability to defend it by taking their life although I could see lots of problems occuring e.g. teenage son being kicked out and trying to enter the family home at night to sleep and you then shooting him.

Although as you know it's pretty hard for the average person to get hold of a gun in the UK.

Originally posted by CrackBerry
But the level of force that Tony Martin used was in no way reasonable, the chappie he killed was shot in the back, while running away. Also, the shotgun he had was illegal. There is a fine line between defending yourself, and executing people.

You are seriously oversimplifying that one. He was terrorised for a long time and he finally snapped. That's why it was a miscarriage of justice becuase when someone snaps they don't always just pick up a gun and shoot random people, they can snap like he did, waiting long hours until the burglars come back again. I wonder if you would be saying this same thing if you had had your property broken into multiples times and felt under siege in your own home.

reply to post by Death_Kron


That reasoning might have worked if the burglar wasn't running away at the time he was shot. If he's running away, how can it be self defence? If it's not self defence, then it's assault, or in this case, he could have been done for attempted murder!

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You are seriously oversimplifying that one. He was terrorised for a long time and he finally snapped. That's why it was a miscarriage of justice becuase when someone snaps they don't always just pick up a gun and shoot random people, they can snap like he did, waiting long hours until the burglars come back again. I wonder if you would be saying this same thing if you had had your property broken into multiples times and felt under siege in your own home.

Got to agree with that, the poor bloke had his property broken into on more than one occasion, he was probably scared, angry and most likely confused as to why he was being repeatedly targetted.

I don't think for one minute he intended to kill one of the burgulars but rest assured if someone broke into my home at night I'd fight tooth and nail in an attempt to get them out of it.

Originally posted by nik1halo
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

That reasoning might have worked if the burglar wasn't running away at the time he was shot. If he's running away, how can it be self defence? If it's not self defence, then it's assault, or in this case, he could have been done for attempted murder!

I'd disagree mate although I can see your point of view...

At the end of the day the lad was somewhere he didn't belong i.e. he had broken into someone elses home.

I believe you can be shot if you venture too far in places around Area 51. You might argue that Area 51 is a military facility and thus they have greater reason to shoot you but that's tosh in my opinion, your not supposed to be in a military facility (unless you have reason to) and it's just the same that your not supposed to be in someones house unless your invited.

Originally posted by nik1halo
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

That reasoning might have worked if the burglar wasn't running away at the time he was shot. If he's running away, how can it be self defence? If it's not self defence, then it's assault, or in this case, he could have been done for attempted murder!

He didin't shoot them the first or even second time. His house was broken into repeatedly so i would argue it was self defense. If you know someone is going to come back and possibly hurt you because there is a track record of your property being vandalised/burgled and you have the option of stopping that from happening when you have exhausted other measures, then what would you do? If the police had done their job and stopped his place being burgled then it wouldn't have gone as far as it did.

ah- the chav thread resurfaces--update from phoenix-
a grandfather babysitting his grand kids confronted 2 guys breaking in
and shot them both. they were later arrested at a local hospital.
then at a local store a guy was head on the head with a wrench and robbed of his beer.
the assailant was confronted and shot dead. no charges filed.
-dont mess with the grandkids or a mans beer..
meanwhile down at the mexican border a couple drones went up.
troops fired into mexico at juarez. lots more beheadings in northern mexico.
other assorted mayhems ..
as police forces are being cut back-
and in england as well.? what then, when you are on your own-defenseless?
i have an old shotgun, but i may get a little makarov pistol for 200 bucks .
hey-lotsa luck with your chave problem.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Ah, but the difference here is that Area 51 is a military facility in the US, although I'm pretty sure you'd risk being shot if you tried to enter a top secret military facility here in the uk to be fair - either way, it isn't a private domicile.

My point wasn't that the man was in any way wrong and I do feel sorry for the guy, as he was the overall victim in all of this. My point was that the law is the law and he was sentenced as the law pertains. If anything, he got a very lenient sentence really. The law states that you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself or others from imminent danger from unlawful actions. The scumbag was not posing an immediate threat as he was running away and Martin went beyond reasonable force by using a shotgun.

You simply cannot pick and choose how the law is carried out, otherwise where do you draw the line? Martin broke the law, regardless of his reasons and regardless of how scared he was and regardless of how sorry we, the judge or the jury may feel for him, he broke the law and therefore, must be sentenced appropriately in accordance with the law. As I said before, considering he shot someone, he got the absolute bare minimum sentence.

One of the first things I learned in law is that morality and legality do not always go hand in hand.

Originally posted by nik1halo
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

One of the first things I learned in law is that morality and legality do not always go hand in hand.

And that my friend, is in my opinion, where the law in this country is flawed. Circumstances should be taken into account from the victims point of view, not the perpetrators.

Do you not think it's wrong that a judge would consider the burglars personal situation e.g. say they were a drug addict or alcoholic, the judge would take that into account for the person behaviour whereas if the victim aka Tony Martin in this example, stated his fear and concern about his property being broken into several times and being fearful for his own life wouldn't be taken into consideration.

The victims circumstances are very rarely taken into account in my opinion.

Originally posted by nik1halo
One of the first things I learned in law is that morality and legality do not always go hand in hand.

Yes the law and justice often seem to be at odds. No one is questioning whether the law was followed because it was, however i would argue that there were some rather serious mitigating circumstances. The man was at the end of his tether, the police had failed him,. he had done everything a law abiding citizen should of and he finally cracked. I never saw whether he argued diminished responsibility, i know that's hard to prove but it's something to have on appeal. Shooting someone is so obvious in that situation it would only be done by a desperate man.

Either way the law needs changing in the UK, a person should be able to defend their property and not simply be told to lock themselves in a room until the police arrive. Burglars are usually in and out in under 3 mnutes, experienced ones sometimes even faster than that. The police simply won't have time to get there and if i can grab a stick and knock the individual to the floor i don't see the problem. If said individual happens to die then that's a shame but he came into the home and understood the risks when doing so.

Hopefully that'll never happen though.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Yes the law and justice often seem to be at odds. No one is questioning whether the law was followed because it was, however i would argue that there were some rather serious mitigating circumstances. The man was at the end of his tether, the police had failed him,. he had done everything a law abiding citizen should of and he finally cracked. I never saw whether he argued diminished responsibility, i know that's hard to prove but it's something to have on appeal. Shooting someone is so obvious in that situation it would only be done by a desperate man.

Either way the law needs changing in the UK, a person should be able to defend their property and not simply be told to lock themselves in a room until the police arrive. Burglars are usually in and out in under 3 mnutes, experienced ones sometimes even faster than that. The police simply won't have time to get there and if i can grab a stick and knock the individual to the floor i don't see the problem. If said individual happens to die then that's a shame but he came into the home and understood the risks when doing so.
Hopefully that'll never happen though.

We haven't agreed on much recently but I'll agree with you on that 100%!

reply to post by Death_Kron


Mitigating circumstances were taken into account, which is why he got such a light sentence.

I agree that the law should be changed and that a person should have the right to defend their property and once upon a time this was the case. If it weren't for the bleeding heart liberals that have taken over this country, it still would be. Unfortunately, I think that the Martin case was a poor example for this thread, as excessive force was used IMHO. I do agree however that as it stands, the rights of the criminal far outweigh the rights of the victim, which is completely ass-backwards. Thank you again PC brigade.

Unfortunately, our laws weren't simply created, they evolved over more than a millennium and have been emulated throughout the world. For the moment, it's the best we've got and to prevent chaos from ensuing, people who break the law must be punished, unless you're a chav of course, in which case you'll just get another ASBO and a slap on the wrists

reply to post by nik1halo


I agree with all of that mate, maybe apart from the fact that excessive force was used. It might well have been excessive but as Imaginary has pointed out, this poor guy had been targetted on several occasions and I don't really believe he intended to kill the lad, he just snapped and wanted an intruder off his property.

reply to post by Nikolam


Skins and Rudies stay true stay

Chavs... are those the "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" people? In the US they just started showing this program and said it was a huge success in Britian, I was shocked. Pikeys/ Irish Travellers or is just anyone of any ethnic group able to be a "Chav"? We have Rednecks and Wiggers here, the Chav seems to be a frightening blend of them both.

I think they have changed the law in regards to burlars breaking into your home. There was an asian about 6mths ago who was freed after chasing the burgler down the street and battering him with a cricket bat. His wife and kids had been tied up and he managed to escape and fought back.
How ever im not sure about in the street, thats another matter altogeather.
Chavs in the street are just half witted bully boys. I try to avoid them but if attacked, I will definately fight back, as I dont like to bow my head to any one, never mind some half witted chavs.
Sorry to hear about the Op in this case, but I would have backed them up, or at least helped. ( Im a dinosaur Most people today would look the other way and ignore you. Its a crazy world in which we live in. And the police are never there when you need them. To busy out chasing people for traffic offenses, or some other such nonsense to fill their coffers.
I cant wait to catch one, trying to break into my home