This sort of programme always misses out stuff. For that sort of prison sentence, he most likely did rather more than chase them. Sounds rather like he either rammed them or forced them off the road. Causing catastrophic injury.
The other problem he has is that they weren't burgling his house. And they posed no threat to him or his family-they were fleeing.
Injure a Burglar in your House, in the heat of the moment is 1 thing. Hunting someone down afterwards is rather different.
This sort of programme always misses out stuff. For that sort of prison sentence, he most likely did rather more than chase them. Sounds rather like he either rammed them or forced them off the road. Causing catastrophic injury.
The other problem he has is that they weren't burgling his house. And they posed no threat to him or his family-they were fleeing.
Injure a Burglar in your House, in the heat of the moment is 1 thing. Hunting someone down afterwards is rather different.
He was foolish to chase them. He and his family werent in danger as the burglars had left the property. Although I do understand people getting frustrated by a lack of response from the police. Anyway, he chased them. The chase resulted in a crash. Both vehicles hit separate stationery vehicles. He might have clipped the rear wheel of the motorcycle they were escaping on. The motorcycle was stolen. I get wound up by criminals conducting "no comment" interviews. Although I must admit that he contributed to his own demise by being so open, and honest with the police. He would have been well advised to have said nothing until he was legally represented, rather than giving the police sufficient information to enable them to charge him. The perpetrators were shown later in the programme, going equipped in a stolen car, while out on bail. One of the villains was still on a crutch after discharging himself from hospital. He had suffered a bleed on the brain, this may have been contributed to by his failure to wear a helmet on the crashed stolen motorbike.
Although it is quite easy to understand how it panned out, the result doesnt seem fair.
Incidentally the guy has a theory that the burglary attempt resulted from an ad he placed on Facebook. He advertised a motocross bike for sale. Got a suspicious call from someone appearing to be interested in purchasing it, the night before. He thinks the call may have been from one of the burglars.
I totally understand that many people feel that the burglars receiving a lesser sentence than the person who was subject to the burglary seems wrong.
But you are believing the way that a TV programme sets up the facts so as to increase how many people watch. Let me give some examples from what I have read of this case:-
1. There is no "might" about whether he hit (and it appears to be rather closer to "rammed" than "clipped") the motorbike. That is why the 12 people on the Jury-ordinary members of the Public, who had heard all the evidence-found him Guilty of "Causing Injury by Dangerous Driving" 2. Look at some of the facts that are missing. Dangerous Driving is very different to Careless Driving. It is a deliberate or reckless act that falls way below the standards of the ordinarily competent driver. He did not just, as is claimed, "lose control on a bend"-what speed do you think he was doing? At a guess, I'd estimate about 85 in a 30-zone. Because it is rare that a car can catch up to, and hit, a fleeing motorcyclist. And no detail as to how far from the original scene when he rammed them. Ask yourself-what was he hoping to achieve by chasing them? 3. He is not a "hero"-he left his distraught wife and kids in order to try and hunt down 2 people who were trying to break in to his garage 4. He insisted on pleading Not Guilty. Had he pleaded Guilty, and shown remorse for his actions (like the burglars) there would not have been an expensive trial, and he would likely received a substantially lower penalty. His Wife took rather more extreme actions than a Guilty plea in the expectation of Guilt and Prison 5. He is not really being sued by the would-be burglars. His motor insurer has to cough up even though he was using his car as a weapon. And guess who ultimately pays-yes, us, the taxpayer/motorist via higher premiums 6. Where an act is deliberate, rather than Negligent, it is sometimes possible for the Insurer to seek to recover their outlay from their insured. Someone has no doubt told him that-hence he is transferring money given to him for a different purpose than it was given. although I bet he is keeping far more than the original £51K once interest and living expenses are taken into account. He just doesn't want a lump sum sitting in his bank account 7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions
7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions.
What about the original actions of the two burglars which lead to all the following circumstances ? Is the word Culpability ? I think most people are angry that without the scumbags actions in the first place none of this would've happened and they got what they deserved. They chose to go out and break the law, how about them accepting responsibility for their own law breaking decisions?
7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions.
What about the original actions of the two burglars which lead to all the following circumstances ? Is the word Culpability ? I think most people are angry that without the scumbags actions in the first place none of this would've happened and they got what they deserved. They chose to go out and break the law, how about them accepting responsibility for their own law breaking decisions?
They did "accept responsibility for their own law breaking decisions". They pleaded Guilty, and were punished. Rather leniently IMO, but I expect their multiple injuries were taken into account
Last time I checked, the penalty for Burglary was not being hunted down, attacked, broken bones, a fractured skull and a bleed on the brain.
I totally understand that many people feel that the burglars receiving a lesser sentence than the person who was subject to the burglary seems wrong.
But you are believing the way that a TV programme sets up the facts so as to increase how many people watch. Let me give some examples from what I have read of this case:-
1. There is no "might" about whether he hit (and it appears to be rather closer to "rammed" than "clipped") the motorbike. That is why the 12 people on the Jury-ordinary members of the Public, who had heard all the evidence-found him Guilty of "Causing Injury by Dangerous Driving" 2. Look at some of the facts that are missing. Dangerous Driving is very different to Careless Driving. It is a deliberate or reckless act that falls way below the standards of the ordinarily competent driver. He did not just, as is claimed, "lose control on a bend"-what speed do you think he was doing? At a guess, I'd estimate about 85 in a 30-zone. Because it is rare that a car can catch up to, and hit, a fleeing motorcyclist. And no detail as to how far from the original scene when he rammed them. Ask yourself-what was he hoping to achieve by chasing them? 3. He is not a "hero"-he left his distraught wife and kids in order to try and hunt down 2 people who were trying to break in to his garage 4. He insisted on pleading Not Guilty. Had he pleaded Guilty, and shown remorse for his actions (like the burglars) there would not have been an expensive trial, and he would likely received a substantially lower penalty. His Wife took rather more extreme actions than a Guilty plea in the expectation of Guilt and Prison 5. He is not really being sued by the would-be burglars. His motor insurer has to cough up even though he was using his car as a weapon. And guess who ultimately pays-yes, us, the taxpayer/motorist via higher premiums 6. Where an act is deliberate, rather than Negligent, it is sometimes possible for the Insurer to seek to recover their outlay from their insured. Someone has no doubt told him that-hence he is transferring money given to him for a different purpose than it was given. although I bet he is keeping far more than the original £51K once interest and living expenses are taken into account. He just doesn't want a lump sum sitting in his bank account 7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions
I suppose it could have been worse. He only did around 7 months, and pocketed 100k. Lots of people would be happy to do that.
7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions.
What about the original actions of the two burglars which lead to all the following circumstances ? Is the word Culpability ? I think most people are angry that without the scumbags actions in the first place none of this would've happened and they got what they deserved. They chose to go out and break the law, how about them accepting responsibility for their own law breaking decisions?
They did "accept responsibility for their own law breaking decisions". They pleaded Guilty, and were punished. Rather leniently IMO, but I expect their multiple injuries were taken into account
Last time I checked, the penalty for Burglary was not being hunted down, attacked, broken bones, a fractured skull and a bleed on the brain.
The first part of that summary is accurate. The second part is not.
You can use reasonable force in this country. So-if a burglar is carrying a crowbar, and you fear for your safety, you can hit him with a lot more than an umbrella.
What you cannot do is chase them ,commit separate unrelated criminal acts, and blame other people. He was not convicted of GBH-it was causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
His Wife clearly accepted he was going to be found Guilty more than 2 years before he was. Whereas he did not.
Timing of Guilty pleas is very important. So-to use here as an example:-
Burglars-swift Guilty plea-still got severe injuries when sentenced. If they had delayed, likely worse outcome
Vigilante could have expressed remorse, had pregnant wife, and likely got a Community Penalty. But no-he knew better. Rolled the dice. And lost.
The first part of that summary is accurate. The second part is not.
You can use reasonable force in this country. So-if a burglar is carrying a crowbar, and you fear for your safety, you can hit him with a lot more than an umbrella.
What you cannot do is chase them ,commit separate unrelated criminal acts, and blame other people. He was not convicted of GBH-it was causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
His Wife clearly accepted he was going to be found Guilty more than 2 years before he was. Whereas he did not.
Timing of Guilty pleas is very important. So-to use here as an example:-
Burglars-swift Guilty plea-still got severe injuries when sentenced. If they had delayed, likely worse outcome
Vigilante could have expressed remorse, had pregnant wife, and likely got a Community Penalty. But no-he knew better. Rolled the dice. And lost.
And blames everyone else for that.
Better episode this week. The culprit did get his just rewards. CH4 10pm tomorrow Cops in Crisis, Dispatches. Is British policing fit for purpose?
Yes, though how he got away with just 14 years is a mystery to me.
There were also issues with the Mother & the daughter. No 15/16 year old deserves the way she was treated by that dreadful man, but the Mother's relaxed attitude to the approach of him to her daughter was almost a crime in itself. A complete stranger walks up to them in the middle of town, brazenly asks for the Daughter's phone number, & the mother never batted an eyelid when the daughter gave it.
Yes, though how he got away with just 14 years is a mystery to me.
There were also issues with the Mother & the daughter. No 15/16 year old deserves the way she was treated by that dreadful man, but the Mother's relaxed attitude to the approach of him to her daughter was almost a crime in itself. A complete stranger walks up to them in the middle of town, brazenly asks for the Daughter's phone number, & the mother never batted an eyelid when the daughter gave it.
There was plenty of evidence on his phone. I am not sure what sort of effort the police put in to finding more victims, as there werent many charges in relation to the number of victims. Nine years inside will do him good. Lots of parents dont seem to be prepared to accept much responsibility these days.
It's Saul Murray's second appearance on '24 Hours In Police Custody' his first was for using a girl to carry out a 'Honeytrap' robbery on a man at a hotel, where the girl gained entry to the room then Murray went in tied the victim up, threatened to stab him and robbed him in 2015.
The elder of those two women - the ring-leader as I saw it - was evil to her core.
She was. There seems to be a few of them out there.
Strange that they all gave up on the "no comment" sh1t as soon as they were charged.
There was a clear plan involving the four of them to drug, and rob the guy. The plan resulted in a murder. Therefore I dont understand why only one of them was charged with murder.
If you take into account the likely discounts, I dont think that the sentences were adequate.
The technology used by the police was quite impressive. You would think that they would catch more criminals.
I dont suppose many people realise that the stuff they post on social media could be making them a target.
It's Saul Murray's second appearance on '24 Hours In Police Custody' his first was for using a girl to carry out a 'Honeytrap' robbery on a man at a hotel, where the girl gained entry to the room then Murray went in tied the victim up, threatened to stab him and robbed him in 2015.
Yes, if he wasnt dead, you could say there was a bit of poetic justice about the story. But you cant, nobody deserves to be stabbed to death.
Comments
This sort of programme always misses out stuff. For that sort of prison sentence, he most likely did rather more than chase them. Sounds rather like he either rammed them or forced them off the road. Causing catastrophic injury.
The other problem he has is that they weren't burgling his house. And they posed no threat to him or his family-they were fleeing.
Injure a Burglar in your House, in the heat of the moment is 1 thing. Hunting someone down afterwards is rather different.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/adam-white-heartfelt-response-to-150-k-donations-after-jail-for-chasing-criminals-from-home-the-rest-goes-to-charity-123620677.html
He and his family werent in danger as the burglars had left the property.
Although I do understand people getting frustrated by a lack of response from the police.
Anyway, he chased them.
The chase resulted in a crash.
Both vehicles hit separate stationery vehicles.
He might have clipped the rear wheel of the motorcycle they were escaping on.
The motorcycle was stolen.
I get wound up by criminals conducting "no comment" interviews.
Although I must admit that he contributed to his own demise by being so open, and honest with the police.
He would have been well advised to have said nothing until he was legally represented, rather than giving the police sufficient information to enable them to charge him.
The perpetrators were shown later in the programme, going equipped in a stolen car, while out on bail.
One of the villains was still on a crutch after discharging himself from hospital.
He had suffered a bleed on the brain, this may have been contributed to by his failure to wear a helmet on the crashed stolen motorbike.
Although it is quite easy to understand how it panned out, the result doesnt seem fair.
Incidentally the guy has a theory that the burglary attempt resulted from an ad he placed on Facebook.
He advertised a motocross bike for sale.
Got a suspicious call from someone appearing to be interested in purchasing it, the night before.
He thinks the call may have been from one of the burglars.
But you are believing the way that a TV programme sets up the facts so as to increase how many people watch. Let me give some examples from what I have read of this case:-
1. There is no "might" about whether he hit (and it appears to be rather closer to "rammed" than "clipped") the motorbike. That is why the 12 people on the Jury-ordinary members of the Public, who had heard all the evidence-found him Guilty of "Causing Injury by Dangerous Driving"
2. Look at some of the facts that are missing. Dangerous Driving is very different to Careless Driving. It is a deliberate or reckless act that falls way below the standards of the ordinarily competent driver. He did not just, as is claimed, "lose control on a bend"-what speed do you think he was doing? At a guess, I'd estimate about 85 in a 30-zone. Because it is rare that a car can catch up to, and hit, a fleeing motorcyclist. And no detail as to how far from the original scene when he rammed them. Ask yourself-what was he hoping to achieve by chasing them?
3. He is not a "hero"-he left his distraught wife and kids in order to try and hunt down 2 people who were trying to break in to his garage
4. He insisted on pleading Not Guilty. Had he pleaded Guilty, and shown remorse for his actions (like the burglars) there would not have been an expensive trial, and he would likely received a substantially lower penalty. His Wife took rather more extreme actions than a Guilty plea in the expectation of Guilt and Prison
5. He is not really being sued by the would-be burglars. His motor insurer has to cough up even though he was using his car as a weapon. And guess who ultimately pays-yes, us, the taxpayer/motorist via higher premiums
6. Where an act is deliberate, rather than Negligent, it is sometimes possible for the Insurer to seek to recover their outlay from their insured. Someone has no doubt told him that-hence he is transferring money given to him for a different purpose than it was given. although I bet he is keeping far more than the original £51K once interest and living expenses are taken into account. He just doesn't want a lump sum sitting in his bank account
7. He still believes that it is the system that is wrong, rather than his own actions
What about the original actions of the two burglars which lead to all the following circumstances ? Is the word Culpability ? I think most people are angry that without the scumbags actions in the first place none of this would've happened and they got what they deserved. They chose to go out and break the law, how about them accepting responsibility for their own law breaking decisions?
Last time I checked, the penalty for Burglary was not being hunted down, attacked, broken bones, a fractured skull and a bleed on the brain.
There are 2 separate Criminal Acts here.
He only did around 7 months, and pocketed 100k.
Lots of people would be happy to do that.
The episode was suitably entitled "Two Wrongs"
You can use reasonable force in this country. So-if a burglar is carrying a crowbar, and you fear for your safety, you can hit him with a lot more than an umbrella.
What you cannot do is chase them ,commit separate unrelated criminal acts, and blame other people. He was not convicted of GBH-it was causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
His Wife clearly accepted he was going to be found Guilty more than 2 years before he was. Whereas he did not.
Timing of Guilty pleas is very important. So-to use here as an example:-
Burglars-swift Guilty plea-still got severe injuries when sentenced. If they had delayed, likely worse outcome
Vigilante could have expressed remorse, had pregnant wife, and likely got a Community Penalty. But no-he knew better. Rolled the dice. And lost.
And blames everyone else for that.
The culprit did get his just rewards.
CH4 10pm tomorrow Cops in Crisis, Dispatches.
Is British policing fit for purpose?
Better episode this week.
Yes, though how he got away with just 14 years is a mystery to me.
There were also issues with the Mother & the daughter. No 15/16 year old deserves the way she was treated by that dreadful man, but the Mother's relaxed attitude to the approach of him to her daughter was almost a crime in itself. A complete stranger walks up to them in the middle of town, brazenly asks for the Daughter's phone number, & the mother never batted an eyelid when the daughter gave it.
I am not sure what sort of effort the police put in to finding more victims, as there werent many charges in relation to the number of victims.
Nine years inside will do him good.
Lots of parents dont seem to be prepared to accept much responsibility these days.
Imagine Setting Up Ruthless Honey Trap For Rolex Watches Which Were FAKE
The elder of those two women - the ring-leader as I saw it - was evil to her core.
There seems to be a few of them out there.
Strange that they all gave up on the "no comment" sh1t as soon as they were charged.
There was a clear plan involving the four of them to drug, and rob the guy.
The plan resulted in a murder.
Therefore I dont understand why only one of them was charged with murder.
If you take into account the likely discounts, I dont think that the sentences were adequate.
The technology used by the police was quite impressive.
You would think that they would catch more criminals.
I dont suppose many people realise that the stuff they post on social media could be making them a target.
But you cant, nobody deserves to be stabbed to death.