Colocho Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255422/Joyrider-shouts-judge-tells-wont-jailed-killing-police-dog-injuring-officers-wrecking-spree.html First heard about this happening in November, the fact scumbags like him are getting away with this on a daily-basis is totally unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 His friends go down, but he walks. That's some wild shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Had to look it up, killing a police dog is a felony on this side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 His friends go down, but he walks. That's some wild shit. Nah, they all got suspended sentences. How did the judge come to the conclusions that "having a suspended prison sentence hanging over him would be greater punishment than locking him up" Is he senile? Should have banned him from driving for a lot longer than 3 years, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Love the futility of driving bans for people like this. "Coming out twocking the night?" "Ner, I haven't got a licence - wouldn't want to get into trouble, would I?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 The police officers and perhaps the force (re the dog) should use the civil system and bankrupt the fucker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 The police officers and perhaps the force (re the dog) should use the civil system and bankrupt the fucker. Yeah, I'm sure he's minted. Whatever you made him pay, he'd do it at a pound a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Just been reading about this on the Chron's site. Beggars belief if I'm honest and it reinforces my belief that some of these little bastards believe they are untouchable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Roll on the election .lets get some sanity back into this Counrty,vote BNP it is the ONLY party that WILL bring law and order to our streets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Nah, they all got suspended sentences. How did the judge come to the conclusions that "having a suspended prison sentence hanging over him would be greater punishment than locking him up" Is he senile? They didn't all get suspended sentences, one was released from court because of the time he'd spent in custody while on remand. Lawson was probably released because with a guilty plea and time spent on remand, his sentence would have been ridiculously short anyway. You might be surprised how tied judges' hands are when it comes to sentencing. If the maximum sentence was two years (just one of which will be custody) and they'd been on remand since the middle of November, they'd have all been out in eight months max (which they wouldn't have got anyway because of guilty pleas). A suspended sentence means that when (possibly if depending on how cynical you are) they breach, they can do the whole 12 months. I must confess, that when right over my head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 The police officers and perhaps the force (re the dog) should use the civil system and bankrupt the fucker. Yeah, I'm sure he's minted. Whatever you made him pay, he'd do it at a pound a week. True, dat. True. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Suspended sentences are basically getting away with until you re-commit? Right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Sensible post Open_C, as usual the Daily Mail turn out to be shit stirring scumbags appealing to the lowest common denominator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Sensible post Open_C, as usual the Daily Mail turn out to be shit stirring scumbags appealing to the lowest common denominator. Great journalism though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The Daily Mail sensationalising a story, well I never! The problem a lot of people have is with sentencing. Personally I think sentences should not run concurrantly, but consecutively and that sentences should be longer, especially for things like killing someone with a motor vehicle and drink driving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The Daily Mail sensationalising a story, well I never! The problem a lot of people have is with sentencing. Personally I think sentences should not run concurrantly, but consecutively and that sentences should be longer, especially for things like killing someone with a motor vehicle and drink driving. They do run consecutively, quite often. It's just that when you hear about a 21 month sentence, it will often consist of (for example) an 18 month for one offence plus a 3 month consecutive for a lesser one on the same case. The media usually report it as total sentence length and only name the index offence. The only thing that drives me mad is that when people are in prison, if they have any court fines they ask them to be taken into account and magistrates almost always make them concurrent to the sentence being served.. effectively, the fines are written off. OK, thanks. Maybe I just want to see longer sentences then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Aye, it's not too easy to follow (unless you run a custody office in a prison, which I do). Basically in most cases, [...] Thanks for that excellent explanation I could have read Wikipedia for days and not learnt as much. It all makes a lot more sense now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail sensationalising a story, well I never! The problem a lot of people have is with sentencing. Personally I think sentences should not run concurrantly, but consecutively and that sentences should be longer, especially for things like killing someone with a motor vehicle and drink driving. They do run consecutively, quite often. It's just that when you hear about a 21 month sentence, it will often consist of (for example) an 18 month for one offence plus a 3 month consecutive for a lesser one on the same case. The media usually report it as total sentence length and only name the index offence. The only thing that drives me mad is that when people are in prison, if they have any court fines they ask them to be taken into account and magistrates almost always make them concurrent to the sentence being served.. effectively, the fines are written off. OK, thanks. Maybe I just want to see longer sentences then. Ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now