Posted on 09/02/2014 6:57:29 AM PDT by dennisw
A man who admitted killing a knife-wielding robber who took his son's iPhone has been jailed for six years.
Derek Grant, 38, confronted Patrick Bradley after the 29-year-old had held up his son Jordan in Greenock on 30 August last year.
During the confrontation, Bradley stabbed Grant in the eye, after which Grant then fatally stabbed him.
Grant was originally charged with murder but pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
At the High Court in Livingston judge Lord Boyd noted that Bradley "was a man of violence" and had "10 convictions for assault" prior to his death. Criminal record
He told Grant: "But you, of course you did not know that. What you did know was that earlier that night Patrick Bradley had robbed your son of his mobile phone at knifepoint.
"Had he been caught it seems likely given his record that he would have been prosecuted in this court, the High Court, and on conviction would have received a High Court sentence.
"As it happens you had the means to bring him to justice because the phone had been easily located by the Find My iPhone app."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
One perp and the feminized police in the UK would have brought tons of backup. So odds are with the coppers in a confrontation plus they would have had some guns
I’m not discussing the moral issues of the case. I was simply explaining the law, as I understand it.
You may disagree with the law, and think it’s stupid, but it doesn’t stop being the law.
I am not an attorney, but did do a fair amount of research on the law of self-defense in FL back in the Trayvon days. My previous post is my understanding of how FL law applies.
It may very well be wrong or incomplete. If someone with a more accurate understanding of the law wants to correct my mistakes, I’d appreciate it.
“Another fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine example of how the UK is leading the West into the abyss of death and destruction.”
It is a tad difficult to be a ‘leader’ when one is being laughed at and derided as a wimpy wanna-be dhimmi.
Also, the mere act of picking up a weapon and taking it along to a planned confrontation implies premeditation, particularly in the case of an illegal weapon.
I’m not defending the dead guy, just pointing out that the gentleman who was just sentenced was not himself innocent under the law. AFAIK, this would be true in most US states, too.
With probable exception of Texas. :)
laws suck today.
and only suckers follow them. Wish it weren’t true.
What a worthless country.
***
Really? Would you want people to say that about the USA? A foreigner could conclude that we are all nitwits and commies just by watching our media and the behavior of our overlords.
Taking a weapon means self defense and is what you would have done
That is your opinion.
It is, not, however, the way the law sees it, at least not in UK.
Even here, if I don’t normally carry a gun, but choose to take one along to a planned confrontation, I’m going to have a difficult time explaining why the change in my behavior.
The idea that those who initiate a confrontation have some responsibility for the results of that confrontation, BTW, is not some new or modern notion. It goes WAY back in the common law, back to where the normal method of addressing disputes was exactly what this guy did. Get your buddies together and go over and confront your enemy.
Fairly obviously, this led to a lot of breaches of the King’s Peace. So the common law addressed the issue by making the initiator of the confrontation at least partially responsible for how it turned out. Under the law he was supposed to go to the King’s representative for justice rather than go for the do it yourself version.
You may not like this, but your opinion does not change the law.
“Had he been caught it seems likely given his record that he would have been prosecuted in this court, the High Court, and on conviction would have received a High Court sentence.
“And as with the other times, we would have promptly let him go to rob and do worse again. But we will not tolerate ordinary men giving justice just because we refuse to.”
He just needs to say he is a Muzzie and that it was an honor stabbing, and he will get off scot free.
True, but I think we do manage to hang on to some shred of manliness and decency, at least in some parts of the country. And I do cling to the hope that we can draw on those reserves when they are needed.
What I meant was that I doubt that the mamby-pamby treatment of criminals, especially mohammedans, and the other problems that we read about regarding “diversity” are probably not paradigms of the ideals held by average Britons. I don’t know if I am correct, but I suspect I am correct.
Anyone learning about the United States simply through our corrupt media would, no doubt, form a completely erroneous picture of the average American’s beliefs and values.
Agreed.
I remain, forever,
a Bitter Clinger,
keat
in a sane world self defense is regarded as self defense.
The British have been citizens since 1948. Common mistake to think they are because they have a monarch.
Scotland.
This was Scotland, sadly. And is it possible to give the ‘saved Britain’ rubbish a rest in any UK thread on FR?.
The UK economy is out of recession and in a far healthier state than yours.
Going by this, and your posts on the London murder thread, you REALLY have little idea about the UK.
Does the Monarchy have any authority over British “citizens”?
A rose, by any other name…
You can call yourself a citizen if you want, but if your government prevents you from exercising your natural rights, you’re a subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.