one victim gets a broken neck, judge gives suspended sentence...(Belvoir Hunt vs Hunt Monitors)

Jokester said:
They were filming them :o
Click to expand...
wow....quick release the hounds.....oh wait.

if you want to engage in acts that some find morally questionable and many times in the past have stretched into the illegal then expect people to monitor or film you. if that triggers you so much then you need a different past time, i'd suggest lawn bowls :p
 
Thekwango said:
wow....quick release the hounds.....oh wait.

if you want to engage in acts that some find morally questionable and many times in the past have stretched into the illegal then expect people to monitor or film you. if that triggers you so much then you need a different past time, i'd suggest lawn bowls :p
Click to expand...
How are you finding it?
 
Jokester said:
They were filming them :o
Click to expand...

Which is not intrinsicly provocative of anything. If they felt threatened or their privacy invaded over these years of it happening, then they should have sought redress by a restraining order, not violently taking the law into their own hands.

Yes, you are right they have been found guilty of the crime, but the sentence for such a thing does seem unduly lenient on the face of it.
 
Thekwango said:
behave yourself, there's no justification, legal, moral or otherwise for withholding the information we're talking about here - namely identifying those that carried out the attack.
Click to expand...
Hang on a second, people are completely legally justified in withholding information in most criminal matters, morals don’t come into it from a court point of view.
 
Jokester said:
Hang on a second, people are completely legally justified in withholding information in most criminal matters, morals don’t come into it from a court point of view.
Click to expand...
fair enough. then the law is wrong, withholding such information and blatantly obstruction the police should carry some form of punishment......i guess i wrongly assumed it did.
 
Thekwango said:
fair enough. then the law is wrong, withholding such information and blatantly obstruction the police should carry some form of punishment......i guess i wrongly assumed it did.
Click to expand...

You have the right to remain silent.

And to be fair, if dealing with the police, I'd recommend using that right every time :p
 
Freakbro said:
You have the right to remain silent.

And to be fair, if dealing with the police, I'd recommend using that right every time :p
Click to expand...
oh i get that but i would have assumed refusing to identfy someone who carried out a violent assault, in particular someone you brought into the equation, would come with some form of sanction.
 
"They were never identified, and the Grants refused to tell officers who they might be."
so that doesn't count as non-compliance, perverting the course of justice or whatever?
 
sorry @Freakbro i didn't notice at the time

wolfie138 said:
"They were never identified, and the Grants refused to tell officers who they might be."
so that doesn't count as non-compliance, perverting the course of justice or whatever?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they're obliged to legally as Jokester has pointed out.

It perhaps ought to count against them though. I mean they've entered guilty pleas and brought in character witnesses to say this is completely out of character for them etc.. and that seems to have worked. But it does seem silly that an argument of it just being a case of flipping out has been accepted when he actually called "the boys" round and waited for them to deal with them and despite the argument that it is out of character + the guilty plea they still refused to cooperate and name the masked men. Maybe this is the standard sentence for this sort of thing in spite of lack of cooperation with the police but IMO it really shouldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom