Someone tried to steal my car now I'm worried

vax2002

The police have already lost the public's respect and those that they have not have just not had a recent running with them.
They are not fit for purpose.
One thing they have learnt from these riots is.. That they police with CONSENT, they had forgotten that bit.

make_me_wise

yvonne13 wrote: »

OK, I am back from the police station and the CCTV footage was viewed.

1) Nothing is going to happen to me as I acted appropriately under the circumstances
2) The cheek sod did break into my car, he did something to it earlier in the evening, it was when I took my shopping out of the boot and left the car open, you can clearly see him open the door and do something.
3) I did speak to him when I came out of the house (I didn't remember at the time but he asked me for a light)
4) You could see him unlock the car and put something in it and start rolling. (We believe it was the hammer that was found in there)
5) The images back up what myself and neighbours were trying to tell the police and shows him for the liar he is.
6) The police went into my car and took something out that looked like a little black square I'm not sure what it was or how they knew it was in there as I never saw it.

They already had him in custody on other charges I don't know what they are, but the police told me that they are in no doubt that if I would have approached him he would have used the hammer on me.

Once again they advised me to put the steering lock on in future.

Now you can see all the facts above 3v3, would you care to add your view? Only since this has been written you have gone very quiet!

dramaqueen1973

I am completely lost by this thread now!!

oasisfeverish

3v3 wrote: »

If she hadn't whacked him (a human), they may well have taken action against his alleged attempted theft of a vehicle. Or, is property of more value than a human?

She wasn't under any physical threat; she subjected him to an unproked physical attack. She doesn't have the right to take the law into her own hands and she doesn't have the right to decide what his "punishment" should be either. That's why we live in a democracy

What a stupid point of view.

I hope that you are never put in that position or come home one day to find your home being raided of all your stuff.

You are the type of person that is turning a blind eye to how this countries society animals are ruling today. You would probably ask if you could help them carry your stuff to their awaiting van!

The reasonable force is to protect your property or welbeing. By the OP 'jumping from behind and slapping this individual' resulted in their property not being stolen. Therefore in a court of law this would be complete defence, and any CPS case thrown out for wasting court's time.

oasisfeverish

yvonne13 wrote: »

OK, I am back from the police station and the CCTV footage was viewed.

1) Nothing is going to happen to me as I acted appropriately under the circumstances.

So 3v3, I guess that by this statement advised to the OP from the police, clearly states that what the OP did was within the law under reasonable force to protect their property or welbeing.

So are you still sure you want to say what the OP did was assault, as you are such an authority on UK law? :rotfl:

Lotus-eater

make_me_wise wrote: »

Interesting way to put things. Just because someone holds a different view point to you does not mean they dont understand what was being discussed on this thread. It just means they look at a situation from a different perspective.

Good luck calling someone in a pub who doesn't share your opinion 'thick'. You must frequent much rougher pubs than I would be seen in, if people tolerate that kind of mindless behaviour. Im surprised at you, I thought you were an interesting guy with good view points up till now. Thats life though, people never fail to surprise you.

That's the silly thing, we don't even hold different viewpoints. I've not argued against a VP at all. All I've said is that you have to understand the way things work and 3v3 seemed to be trying to explain the way the police have to look at things. That's all and all very well said by kafkathecat

I am frightened by how many people on this thread do not understand the law and feel attacked when anyone tries to explain it to them. If people are allowed to physically assault anyone they suspect of committing a crime you have lynch mob justice and innocent people get hurt. Allow the police to do their job.

THAT is the point. 3v3 was being picked on and completely being derided and called stupid, especially by ska lover. Now, I'm not a great fan of 3v3, indeed she's on my ignore list. But I'm not going to stand by, when I see something that is wrong being done.

Now if you think it's OK to attack someone, frequently refer to other threads and have no reference to this thread at all, then by all means continue to thank ska lover. Indeed, I'm a bit surprised by you too.

kafkathecat, said it in an eloquent way, I'm afraid I went more base. I wish I was perfect all the time. Unfortunately it isn't so :A

ceridwen

Personally - my suspicion is that those who think "the law must be observed" even if "the law is an !!!" and that police will always be "on the right side" have probably not been in the position of having a thief stealing from THEM.

Once one knows that yes ...there really ARE such people as thieves and yes...they really WILL steal from oneself (ie because one of them has just done so) AND found that the police are sometimes "on the side of the wrongdoer" (judging by their inappropriate actions) then you realise that its a "waste of time and space to make excuses for criminals" and the only way one can rely on "justice being done" is to deal with things oneself sometimes and trust that Courts (if it comes to it) will realise who is actually in the wrong (ie the criminal) and act accordingly.

The pure and simple truth is that criminals are sitting back and laughing at those normal people who make excuses for them and take the view "Must let the law deal with it - even if they dont do so properly ...and even if they have a go at the one in the right".

I can only speak for myself on this - but if I let a criminal get away with thieving/etc from me - then that makes me a coward and afraid to stand up for whats right. I would rather take the risk of the law "taking the wrong side" and punishing ME (when the criminal was the one in the wrong) and know I have my self-respect and courage still in fully functional working order and that "justice was done" (if not by the law). Personally - I simply dont care about being "politically correct" - as I was born before that became the fashion and its one I havent adopted.

make_me_wise

Lotus-eater wrote: »

That's the silly thing, we don't even hold different viewpoints. I've not argued against a VP at all. All I've said is that you have to understand the way things work and 3v3 seemed to be trying to explain the way the police have to look at things.

3v3 got it wrong though didn't she. Once the police had looked at the cctv and had all the facts about what had happened they agreed the OP had acted appropriately under the circumstances. The man the OP stopped from stealing her car is now being dealt with by the police. It is the OP that has suffered unecessary derision on this thread in my honest opinion.

Lotus-eater

make_me_wise wrote: »

3v3 got it wrong though didn't she. Once the police had looked at the cctv and had all the facts about what had happened they agreed the OP had acted appropriately under the circumstances. The man the OP stopped from stealing her car is now being dealt with by the police. It is the OP that has suffered unecessary derision on this thread in my honest opinion.

Thankgoodness the police went the right way and everything worked out, thankgoodness for the CCTV.
Thankgoodness common sense prevailed. Unfortunate that some people were stupid enough to point out just what may happen and the way the law works. To go against the flow, the cries of hang him and birching is too good for them, etc etc.
Those cries are expected on here, but they aren't very useful or realistic.
Yes she got it wrong and good for the OP, but she may have got it right, the police handle things the way they are told to do so, not the way they want to.

make_me_wise

3v3 wrote: »

If she hadn't whacked him (a human), they may well have taken action against his alleged attempted theft of a vehicle. Or, is property of more value than a human?

She wasn't under any physical threat; she subjected him to an unproked physical attack. She doesn't have the right to take the law into her own hands and she doesn't have the right to decide what his "punishment" should be either. That's why we live in a democracy

yvonne13 wrote: »

OK, I am back from the police station and the CCTV footage was viewed.

4) You could see him unlock the car and put something in it and start rolling. (We believe it was the hammer that was found in there)
5) The images back up what myself and neighbours were trying to tell the police and shows him for the liar he is.

They already had him in custody on other charges I don't know what they are, but the police told me that they are in no doubt that if I would have approached him he would have used the hammer on me.

I rest my case. It is derision of the OPs actions like this and much more that has left myself and a great number of other posters with no respect for 3v3. Someone who you yourself have advised is on your ignore list lotus. We will have to agree to disagree on this one