Six years (out in three) for crashing a party and stabbing the host. His heart stopped three times but he survived.
Eight years (out in four) for shooting the lock off your neighbour's front door then blasting her from point blank range. She died.
If more judges were shot, would sentences increase ?
What's really impressive is the comparison with this story.
"A primary school head teacher has been jailed for four years for possessing an illegal arsenal of guns and ammunition.
Martin Wynn Davies, 58, from Wrexham, admitted illegally possessing 10 hand guns, two rifles and ammunition.
The head of Ysgol Deiniol, Wrexham, asked for nine other offences to be taken into account at Mold Crown Court.
Judge John Rogers QC said he had reduced Davies' jail term because of his "impeccable character".
The court was also told about Davies' good service to the community during his 22 years as a head teacher.
The usual jail term for such offences is five years. "
There was no suggestion in court that the guns would be used in criminal activity. The guy was a gun nut, an enthusiast. His sentence of four years matched exactly that given to Ian Richards, a smackhead with 50 previous convictions who broke into Hawkswood College and beat and stabbed lecturer Lawrence Hart to death.
Richards and fellow scumbag Darren Botchett (who'd been released two days before, after being given a community punishment for his latest offence) were told 'a substantial period in prison is inevitable'.
Four years. Out in two.
Well, Of Course We Will, Emma…
14 hours ago
10 comments:
Hey, wait a minute! Labour has brought in over 3,000 new laws since they slithered into office! Three thousand new laws that aren't in our calmly-ordered-over-centuries constitution!
Three thousand new laws! Do you know even one of them? Or the reason for its existence? Except a controlfest by Tony and the Blairina?
And the people offending against old laws, like murder, rape, burglary, grievous bodily harm are attracting titchy-witchy sentences from the ZaNuLAB party judges.
Prosecutor Ed Beltrami said: "There's no suggestion he's anything other than an enthusiast."
So WTF is he incarcerated when real criminals - convicted thugs, rapists and murderers - are let out early beacause the jails are overflowing?!?
It would be interesting to know how the plod - who as the article shows, know next to nothing about firearms - came to discover his 'crimes' in the first place.
This man is a political prisoner by any other name.
Charles Martel writes, I assume ironically, that it is easy to blame the judges. Does he think they would impose tougher sentences were they able to do so? I think not. There was a time when our common law system appeared to operate with commom sense in the common interest. We now have a post modern sytem of "justice" (there's irony for you) where what most of us would regard as real crime goes largely unchallenged whilst politically correct thought crimes are prosecuted to the nth degree.
This is simply emotion-derived law. He has guns-gasp! he might shoot someone! Lock him up! He has just shot someone-gasp! he probably comes from a broken home! Let him out!
Another way to put it would be to say that the law-abiding prove themselves to be mentally balanced, and so not deserving of our sympathy. By contrast, the criminal, in the act of committing a crime, prove themselves to be unbalanced and hence deserving of our sympathy. As such, the act of committing a crime absolves you of all responsibility!
The root of all this is Cultural Marxism, a crack-pot theory which holds that being in any way superior to soemone else is an act of oppression.
I posted this under the 'See No Evil' header below, but as you've now covered the case, I'll post it again:
The BBC report seems to be somewhat judgemental on the Rondel case.
Noteably - "The family of Mrs Rondel, who was awaiting trial on drug charges at the time of her death, issued a statement describing her as full of life and energy."
Why the need to mention it at all, if it was not relevant to the crime? And she's the victim!
I've since read two papers this morning (Express & the London Metro) and neither saw fit to mention it. Why then the mention on the BBC, which is usually so keen to keep these sort of details out of its stories in other cases?
Then there's the police spokesman's almost jokey reference to "Clearly, the relationship between cats and pigeons got out of hand". Is it me, or that a bit 'Bird/cat lovers, eh, what can you do (sigh of exasperation)?'
The tone of this report sits uneasily with the seriousness of the crime. As I said in the previous post, don't get me started on the paltry 8 year jail term!
Why exactly was the jury so convinced of 'provocation' when the incident of the pigeon shed burning down was dismissed as 'no evidence it was Mrs Rondel'? As if that was considered provocation that equalled a death sentence for the victim if proven.
Why the lesser charge of manslaughter when there is no question that he went to her house armed and shot her at point blank range? He could hardly say it was an accident & he thought the gun wasn't loaded, as he'd just shot out her window!
And why the bizarre, slanted portrayal of the case on the BBC website - the perpetrator doesn't seem to be someone the BBC would normally be sympathetic to...?
There is something a bit odd about this story - anyone have any idea what it is, as I'm baffled?
juliam - any chance the Beeb was subtley (most unlikely, I know) was trying to convey without attracting libel charges, that this murder was part of a drug war?
Robs Law:
All prisoners on release are housed within 1/2 mile of the judge.
Verity - hmm, hadn't thought of that one. Possible, I suppose, although from what was in the reports I read, no other factors that might tend to this theory came to light (large house, lots of money, no discernable income).
I just find it curious that the tone of the BBC website report is so almost 'jokey' about the case....
Try as I might, I can't see the BBC trying this kind of subtle 'the victim had it coming' if the victim were other than an old cat-loving lady.
Especially given that the drunken thug next door (perils of drinking!) blew her away (perils of gun ownership!) after making anti Welsh remarks (Argh! Racism!).
I mean, if anything, the Beeb should be all over the case on the side of the victim. But they aren't. And that puzzles me....
"Four years. Out in two."
Out in two? An optimistic forecast. I reckon 18 months.
"jailed for four years for possessing an illegal arsenal of guns and ammunition."
Hold on a minute! Didn't he hold "licences which allowed him to keep a large number of weapons legally at his home as well as 7,000 rounds of ammunition."
So much of this 'arsenal' was in fact lawfully owned under present legislation, and the remainder lawfully acquired before the Blair regime took office.
Presumably the guy had also been carefully screened by the police - several times over the past 15 years - who declared him to be no threat to society!
What a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money; still, if they can record 21 counts of breaking the conditions of his firearms licence as crimes solved, it'll make their arrest and clear up record look better. A nice little easy job with the 'villain' co-operating with them all the way to his cell.
"Det Chief Inspector Neill Anderson of North Wales Police said after the case that he was pleased that the weapons had been taken out of circulation."
What a complete and utter prick! He's made himself a bigger f*ckwit than that other tosser who posed with the Star Trek Klingon battle axe seized in a 'dawn raid' a few weeks ago.
And the Plod wonder why no-one respect them any more?
Post a Comment