The Student Room Group

Businessman on trial for assaulting two thieves on his property...

Scroll to see replies

Original post by InnerTemple
Seems odd that the number of burglaries is on the decline then...



But three limbs? Really?

Even Mr Woodhouse's own statement goes against him somewhat. He says that he grabbed one intruder and was struck by the other. He disarmed this man - and then (as you and others say) reasonably broke three of his limbs. Mr Woodhouse then detained the second, unarmed, intruder.



I didn't intend to suggest as such. I am very aware that there is limited logic or thought - and that the law takes this into account.


I don't care. Burglaries shouldn't exist in the first place. People that burgle are scum. You should be able to defend yourself whatever.
Original post by uktotalgamer
Who gives a **** what happens to them? They shouldn't steal in the first place.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Original post by Liquid Swordsman
Two wrongs don't make a right.


Liberals gun liberal. You're an enabler.
Original post by uktotalgamer
Liberals gun liberal. You're an enabler.
Is this supposed to mean anything?
Original post by Liquid Swordsman
Is this supposed to mean anything?


You enable petty crime.
Original post by TimmonaPortella


What an idiotic thing to say. On so many levels.

A barrister does his job -- a highly skilled job, crucial to the working of the justice system, and for which he may well be paid pittance -- and because you disagree with the particular argument he has to give you condone burglary.

The amount of hysterical ignorance on these threads is unbelievable. This reads like a Daily Mail comments section (which, effectively, it is).


The guy is paid (most likely a LOT tbh) to try his hardest to put people in prison, regardless of their guilt.

Lawyers suck.
Original post by InnerTemple
Does it?

The guy was acquitted and the intruders convicted. What part of this eventual outcome do you not agree with.

As I said above, allegations were made which were backed up by the severe injuries sustained by the intruders. It was only right that this was investigated and put before a jury.



He should not have had to go to court in the first place for defending himself and his property, and from what I hear they only got a fine, even though they where caught red handed.
Original post by Arturo Bandini
The guy is paid (most likely a LOT tbh) to try his hardest to put people in prison, regardless of their guilt.

Lawyers suck.


James Wilson is CPS I think.

So he probably does better than the poor sod who was defending Mr Woodhouse. But it would be wrong to say he gets paid a lot.

He is not paid to put people in prison - and certainly not regardless of their guilt.

Did the lawyer who defeded Mr Woodhouse suck? Or should that poor man have to defend himself?

If you got into trouble, would the lawyer who defend you suck?

If you became the victim of crime, would the lawyer who prosecutes the criminal suck?

Get a grip.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by InnerTemple
James Wilson is CPS I think.

So he probably does better than the poor sod who was defending Mr Woodhouse. But it would be wrong to say he gets paid a lot.

And he is paid to get convictions. He is not paid to put people in prison - the prosecution is neutral when it comes to sentencing.


Your argument on the semantics of my post makes no difference to my point.
Original post by Arturo Bandini
Your argument on the semantics of my post makes no difference to my point.


I've edited my post.

I am not sure you actually have a point to be honest...
Reply 50
Original post by Liquid Swordsman
Two wrongs don't make a right.


That's something teachers say in primary school when they can't be bothered to deal properly with misbehaviour.
Original post by InnerTemple
I've edited my post.

I am not sure you actually have a point to be honest...


My point - to the guy I quoted - was that this guy isn't so hard done by ("probably paid a pittance, woe is him, etc").

Defence lawyers equally suck because they get paid lots to defend people they know are guilty.

I'm aware that on both sides of the coin this is only an occasional event but the bottom line is that in general, lawyers are highly paid and morally unscrupulous.
Original post by InnerTemple
The sweet theif would just go in armed to the teeth and take the shopkeeper out first.


I highly doubt it. Most theives are out to steal things with little to no hindrance, not get into fights or commit murder.
Original post by InnerTemple
I've edited my post.

I am not sure you actually have a point to be honest...


I think the argument is that CPS employees are fat cats who cynically profit from defendants' misery, and that therefore it should be legitimate to burgle them (even though 'burglars are scum' etc).

My comparison of this thread to the daily mail comments section grows more true every post.

Original post by Arturo Bandini

I'm aware that on both sides of the coin this is only an occasional event but the bottom line is that in general, lawyers are highly paid and morally unscrupulous.


No, criminal lawyers are not generally highly paid.

And I'm pretty sure you can't defend someone you know to be guilty, though InnerTemple is probably the authority on that in this thread.

I wasn't saying 'woe is him'. I was saying that he is, in all likelihood, a hardworking and conscientious chap, and that saying he should be burgled in retribution for taking up this particular case (as part of his job) makes you a moron.

Original post by goldenfish
He should not have had to go to court in the first place for defending himself and his property, and from what I hear they only got a fine, even though they where caught red handed.


He didn't have to go to court for defending himself and his property.

He had to go to court to prove that he was defending himself and his property.

These are different things.
Original post by MJ1012
That's something teachers say in primary school when they can't be bothered to deal properly with misbehaviour.
I think you are confused
Reply 55
Original post by Liquid Swordsman
I think you are confused


how so?
Original post by uktotalgamer
You enable petty crime.


You enable serious crime.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
You enable serious crime.


How? You're the one all for this wimpish liberal crap.
Original post by Arturo Bandini
My point - to the guy I quoted - was that this guy isn't so hard done by ("probably paid a pittance, woe is him, etc").

Defence lawyers equally suck because they get paid lots to defend people they know are guilty.

I'm aware that on both sides of the coin this is only an occasional event but the bottom line is that in general, lawyers are highly paid and morally unscrupulous.


I can tell you that they are not highly paid.

Defence barristers will be used to earning less than minimum wage at times. No sick pay, no pension, no holiday pay and massive over heads. With lots and lots of long hours.

They have recently had a strike about it.

CPS lawyers are basically civil servants.

With respect, you know nothing. It would take more than a forum post to bring you up to speed.

Original post by TimmonaPortella
And I'm pretty sure you can't defend someone you know to be guilty, though InnerTemple is probably the authority on that in this thread.


But because TP has mentioned it, I'll give some detail.

If the client confesses to the barrister, the barrister cannot advance a positive case on behalf of the client as this would mean telling lies. All the barrister could do is test the prosecution evidence. The result would almost certainly be a conviction.

The client should be informed of this - and maybe reminded of the advantages to entering a guilty plea.

The barrister would probably retire from the case on the grounds that he is professionally embarrassed.

Original post by TimmonaPortella
My comparison of this thread to the daily mail comments section grows more true every post.


Indeed.
Original post by MJ1012
how so?
Well firstly because the phrase would not even make sense in that situation





At what point does it become ok to assault somebody? Where do you draw the line?

Quick Reply