Man put through a year of hell for defending his home and family.

This man was put through almost a year of hell for defending his family and his home...the well known low life who attempted to enter his home and break into his car, then when confronted threatened to stab him..... was given an eight week prison sentence.

British justice is alive and well.  

"When Carl Sinclair was ­confronted by a burglar at his home, his first instinct was to protect his family and property.
But the 47-year-old ended up being charged with attacking raider Hughie Hendry and spent the next 11 months fearing he was going to prison.
And the brave dad slammed the justice system after a jury took just 30 minutes to clear him of wounding the career criminal drug addict.
Carl, who lost his job as a railway safety manager because of the stress of his arrest last December, said he believed the case should never have even got to court.

Magistrates even increased his original charge of assault to wounding, which carries jail sentences of three years to life.

Speaking of his nightmare year, he fought back tears as he said: “I was never the criminal but my life has been left in tatters. I’m just a dad and a husband who did what any man would do to protect his family.
“Yet for 11 months I’ve been made to feel like a nasty criminal and faced going to prison for a long time.
“We would have lost our house and my family would have been on the streets as I wouldn’t have been able to pay the mortgage.
“How is that fair? I stop a well-known thug attacking us and breaking into our home and we are left with the risk of losing everything we have worked so hard for.

Hendry was jailed for eight weeks for interfering with the family’s car.
The Crown Prosecution Service said: “We acknowledge and respect the decision the jury has reached.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-put-through-year-court-11540410

Should have been given an OBE

we need a cull

After some similar cases like this down here several years ago, the NSW guvm'nt rewrote and redefined the laws to make it easier for somebody to claim "self defence", and with more certainty, when they believe that the safety of themselves and/or others is under imminent threat from an assailant, aggressor or invader...

British law obviously needs to be updated for people defending themselves, their family, friends and neighbours, and even innocent bystanders --  more in line with the laws in the USA and Oz, in the matter of self defence..

Our law states that a person may use reasonable force in self defence and to protect property etc....the same when making a citizens arrest.

Obviously 'reasonable force' means different things to different people.

Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

Syl wrote:Our law states that a person may use reasonable force in self defence and to protect property etc....the same when making a citizens arrest.

Obviously 'reasonable force' means different things to different people.

That sounds similar to what the New South Wales law was like a decade or so ago...

Until they redefined the law so that the defendant only had to honestly/earnestly believe that he/she was going to be attacked or killed --  and didn't have to wait for an actual physical attack before defending themselves, or others..

They also tightened up on the definition of "reasonable force" in self defence cases --  obviously it could be an over-reaction to blow away a noisy 14 year old kid abusing you from the street, silencing with a round from your 12 gauge shotgun,  but not so bad if somebody is approaching you with an axe, sledgehammer or gun, or already assaulting someone in front of you.

Vintage wrote:Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

I should think if someone breaks into your home, or poses a threat to you or your family, fight or flight reactions would come onto force.
If you fight it must be very hard at the time to use what the law would consider 'reasonable force'.
In the heat of the moment I imagine just stopping them by whatever means would be your priority.

There was a case a while ago when the home owner actually chased a fleeing burglar, caught up with him, and battered him...now THATS unreasonable imo....but in the op case there should have been NO doubt the man acted properly.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

I should think if someone breaks into  your home, or poses a threat to you or your family, fight or flight reactions would come onto force.
If you fight it must be very hard at the time to use what the law would consider 'reasonable force'.
In the heat of the moment I imagine just stopping them by whatever means would be your priority.

There was a case a while ago when the home owner actually chased a fleeing burglar, caught up with him, and battered him...now THATS unreasonable imo....but in the op case there should have been NO doubt the man acted properly.

Why is that unreasonable?   If more scumbags got a beating for trying to steal off hard working people, they might think twice.

Vintage wrote:Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

You  know what?   If some scumbag gets accidentally killed during the course of his crimes, tough fucking titters.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I should think if someone breaks into  your home, or poses a threat to you or your family, fight or flight reactions would come onto force.
If you fight it must be very hard at the time to use what the law would consider 'reasonable force'.
In the heat of the moment I imagine just stopping them by whatever means would be your priority.

There was a case a while ago when the home owner actually chased a fleeing burglar, caught up with him, and battered him...now THATS unreasonable imo....but in the op case there should have been NO doubt the man acted properly.

Why is that unreasonable?   If more scumbags got a beating for trying to steal off hard working people, they might think twice.

Its unreasonable because it is obviously not 'reasonable force'. If someone is legging it and you give chase and batter someone to a pulp, its you who becomes the aggressor.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Vintage wrote:Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

You  know what?   If some scumbag gets accidentally killed during the course of his crimes, tough fucking titters.

I agree with that if its a him or me scenario.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Vintage wrote:Surely we have to start from the obvious fact that the criminal had no legitimate reason for being in another persons house, therefore you should be able to use as much force as is required in order to get him to leave or be incapacitated by the threat of physical action so that the police can be called and arrest him or enough force to actually incapacitate him until help arrives, without actually killing him of course, any injuries he receives is his problem.

You  know what?   If some scumbag gets accidentally killed during the course of his crimes, tough fucking titters.

You see what I mean

You live bt hate, not reason

You go off a actor scenario that a criminal, is a criminal for life hre based on this crime

It means you live in vengence and hate and you never actually suffer this

You can only imagine

You want to increase their sentence, based on your emotions

It shows you are led by hate

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


You  know what?   If some scumbag gets accidentally killed during the course of his crimes, tough fucking titters.

You see what I mean

You live bt hate, not reason

You go off a actor scenario that a criminal, is a criminal for life hre based on this crime

It means you live in vengence and hate and you never actually suffer this

You can only imagine

You want to increase their sentence, based on your emotions

It shows you are led by hate

Or fear, because if you are so afraid that the attacker is going to kill you or yours, the instinct would be to make sure he doesn't.
When my OH worked nights I was alone in the house with my small son. There was a spate of several middle of the night breakins in the area. One man disturbed the burglars and he was threatened with violence, so he did nothing.

I took a hammer to bed with me, and I know if I had to use it I would I have done.  The protective instinct is very strong.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


You see what I mean

You live bt hate, not reason

You go off a actor scenario that a criminal, is a criminal for life hre based on this crime

It means you live in vengence and hate and you never actually suffer this

You can only imagine

You want to increase their sentence, based on your emotions

It shows you are led by hate

Or fear, because if you are so afraid that the attacker is going to kill you or yours, the instinct would be to make sure he doesn't.
When my OH worked nights I was alone in the house with my small son. There was a spate of several middle of the night breakins in the area. One man disturbed the burglars and he was threatened with violence, so he did nothing.

I took a hammer to bed with me, and I know if I had to use it I would I have done.  The protective instinct is very strong.

That is protecting yourself from harm

Its not actual intent to commit harm, as we have no idea how you would act


Hence the big difference

I mean i have lost family to terrorism

I know the pain and hurt from this and yet I see this and feel very small

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


Why is that unreasonable?   If more scumbags got a beating for trying to steal off hard working people, they might think twice.

Its unreasonable because it is obviously not 'reasonable force'. If someone is legging it and you give chase and batter someone to a pulp, its you who becomes the aggressor.

One has to take emotions into account.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


You see what I mean

You live bt hate, not reason

You go off a actor scenario that a criminal, is a criminal for life hre based on this crime

It means you live in vengence and hate and you never actually suffer this

You can only imagine

You want to increase their sentence, based on your emotions

It shows you are led by hate

Or fear, because if you are so afraid that the attacker is going to kill you or yours, the instinct would be to make sure he doesn't.
When my OH worked nights I was alone in the house with my small son. There was a spate of several middle of the night breakins in the area. One man disturbed the burglars and he was threatened with violence, so he did nothing.

I took a hammer to bed with me, and I know if I had to use it I would I have done.  The protective instinct is very strong.

Is using a hammer to brain someone 'reasonable force'?

I'm not sure what the video has to do with this subject Didge.

However I watched it, its fascinating. We all know about the atrocities the nazis inflicted on innocents at Auschwitz, but to listen to that woman calmly talk about the horror she went through, the death of her twin because of it, and the lifelong suffering she has endured because of how they were treated, and then she manages to forgive the cause of it all....its incredibly touching.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Or fear, because if you are so afraid that the attacker is going to kill you or yours, the instinct would be to make sure he doesn't.
When my OH worked nights I was alone in the house with my small son. There was a spate of several middle of the night breakins in the area. One man disturbed the burglars and he was threatened with violence, so he did nothing.

I took a hammer to bed with me, and I know if I had to use it I would I have done.  The protective instinct is very strong.

Is using a hammer to brain someone 'reasonable force'?

Blimey

So you view is like Nazism

To correct something

Using a hammer to defend yourself from phsicyal harm is self defense

Using a hammer to attack someone is not reasonable force when they are noy threat to anyone

Its simple violence

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Or fear, because if you are so afraid that the attacker is going to kill you or yours, the instinct would be to make sure he doesn't.
When my OH worked nights I was alone in the house with my small son. There was a spate of several middle of the night breakins in the area. One man disturbed the burglars and he was threatened with violence, so he did nothing.

I took a hammer to bed with me, and I know if I had to use it I would I have done.  The protective instinct is very strong.

Is using a hammer to brain someone 'reasonable force'?

That's what I said at the beginning....in the heat of the moment just stopping them would be your priority.
A slight tap wouldn't do it.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Is using a hammer to brain someone 'reasonable force'?

That's what I said at the beginning....in the heat of the moment just stopping them would be your priority.
A slight tap wouldn't do it.

When  the adrenalin is in full flow, you do things you might not  normally do.  Chasing that guy down the street and battering him is no different.    Anger and fear combined is a powerful thing.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's what I said at the beginning....in the heat of the moment just stopping them would be your priority.
A slight tap wouldn't do it.

When  the adrenalin is in full flow, you do things you might not  normally do.  Chasing that guy down the street and battering him is no different.    Anger and fear combined is a powerful thing.

First truthful thing you have said

So its a lottery how people will feel yes when faced with this?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's what I said at the beginning....in the heat of the moment just stopping them would be your priority.
A slight tap wouldn't do it.

When  the adrenalin is in full flow, you do things you might not  normally do.  Chasing that guy down the street and battering him is no different.    Anger and fear combined is a powerful thing.

I understand that, but its still a lot different to fight in self defence than to actively pursue someone to hurt them.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

When  the adrenalin is in full flow, you do things you might not  normally do.  Chasing that guy down the street and battering him is no different.    Anger and fear combined is a powerful thing.

I understand that, but its still a lot different to fight in self defence than  to actively pursue someone to hurt them.

Now that is a real honest answer

+1

Night

x

Night ...off myself for the evening, have a good one. x

The man did what anyone of us would've done.  He was the victim here, not the robber.  He shouldn't have been in his house.

When are our laws going to protect the victim.

It sounds like he was protecting his car. Can't blame him for that.

Mirror wrote:When Carl Sinclair was ­confronted by a burglar at his home, his first instinct was to protect his family and property.

But the 47-year-old ended up being charged with attacking raider Hughie Hendry and spent the next 11 months fearing he was going to prison.

What did he do?  The article is vague.  It says only that he rushed the malefactor with a hammer, and he admits to spending 20-seconds pummeling him.

With the hammer, and sufficient damage, perhaps the cops thought it was a bit of overkill. What damage did he do?

Original Quill wrote:

Mirror wrote:When Carl Sinclair was ­confronted by a burglar at his home, his first instinct was to protect his family and property.

But the 47-year-old ended up being charged with attacking raider Hughie Hendry and spent the next 11 months fearing he was going to prison.

What did he do?  The article is vague.  It says only that he rushed the malefactor with a hammer, and he admits to spending 20-seconds pummeling him.

With the hammer, and sufficient damage, perhaps the cops thought it was a bit of overkill.  What damage did he do?

It doesnt say he used the lump hammer even though he grabbed it as he went out to confront the man, he says he punched him just enough to stop him.  

"My main aim was to stop him pulling out a knife. I wrestled Hendry to the floor. I did punch him but just enough to stop him coming back to hurt me or my family. It was all over in 20 seconds. I shouted for Nicola to call the police.” But when officers arrived, he was arrested."