Running over scrotes

**chicane** · 14 February 2008, 08:05

Originally posted by dude69 View Post

If that had been the knife-wielding scumbag being sentenced then he would no doubt have been let free because of the disruption to his home life of being sent to prison.

It's only fair.

**Diver** · 14 February 2008, 08:09

E smashed me winder an glass wen in me eye, me foot slipped off the clutch yer onner.

I were orrified when I seen that I ad itt the poor bloke, I avent slept a wink since yer onner.

**threaded** · 14 February 2008, 08:22

Originally posted by Diver View Post

E smashed me winder an glass wen in me eye, me foot slipped off the clutch yer onner.

I were orrified when I seen that I ad itt the poor bloke, I avent slept a wink since yer onner.

Absolutely, the number of times I've seen people who think telling the truth and being honest in court is the way to do things. Planks. They deserve to go to jail 'cause they're too stupid to be allowed out on their own.

**swamp** · 14 February 2008, 08:27

You forgot to mention this:

"Armstrong mounted the pavement in his vehicle and drove it into him as he stood in nearby bushes."

You need to say you tried to swerve and avoid the individual whilst fleeing for your life. Can't really say that when you've just driven into the bushes.

**mrdonuts** · 14 February 2008, 09:14

i saw the family interviewed on tv, they appeared reasonably respectable, it sounds as though the neds ( and adult with knife) got what they deserved

**PAH** · 14 February 2008, 10:29

Originally posted by dude69 View Post

See this is why you opt for trial by jury and plead not guilty:

Indeed. I remember seeing a documentary about an armed robber who said even if they caught him in a bank with a shotgun in his hand and a hole in the ceiling, he'd still plead not guilty.

Ironic thing is, by pleading not guilty, and having representatives argue your case, you're likely to get a more leaniant sentence than just pleading guilty from the outset. That's if the jury finds you guilty at all.

**Moose423956** · 14 February 2008, 10:46

"You were entitled to be angry. You were entitled to be affronted. But you were not entitled to respond by wielding your vehicle as a weapon at him in the way you did."

So he should have said "Oy you, I'm angry and affronted. Please stop attacking me". That would have worked.

He should have made sure he killed the scrote, then it would have been worthwhile. His family will now have to move away from the area so they aren't subjected to revenge attacks.

He wasn't allowed to defend himself. Which goes against what we're being told by the police. I hope he appeals and gets let out. And the judge gets sacked.

**chicane** · 14 February 2008, 10:54

Originally posted by Moose423956 View Post

He wasn't allowed to defend himself. Which goes against what we're being told by the police. I hope he appeals and gets let out. And the judge gets sacked.

The "correct" course of action in the eyes of the law would probably have been for him to flee from the scene once the scrote commenced the attack, then report criminal damage/attempted assuault/whatever to the local police station.

We all know that the attacker would have got off with a week's community service at worst, but even with this in mind it's difficult for the driver to justify his actions.

**threaded** · 14 February 2008, 11:02

Originally posted by Moose423956 View Post

He wasn't allowed to defend himself. Which goes against what we're being told by the police. I hope he appeals and gets let out. And the judge gets sacked.

Don't believe what the plod tell you: there is no such thing as a plea of 'self-defence' in English law. If you find yourself in that situation, kill 'em, and always have a friend who's a pig farmer.

Running over scrotes