Hunt Sab ran over

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

Whatever you think of hunting or sabs no one has the right on either side to take the law in to their own hands to the extent of trying to kill someone. .

Actually no-one has the right to take the law into their own hands full stop.

I do NOT support the driver's actions in any way but those sympathising with Hunt sabs in general should remember that often their actions are illegal. They do not have the right to break the law, either.

 

[Sandstone1]

Actually no-one has the right to take the law into their own hands full stop.

I do NOT support the driver's actions in any way but those sympathising with Hunt sabs in general should remember that often their actions are illegal. They do not have the right to break the law, either.

Please read what I said. NO ONE has the right on EITHER side to take the law in to their own hands. Yes sabs sometimes break the law. As do hunts. However, we are talking about one particular case here. Someone purposely ran someone down. Whichever "side" you are on really makes no difference does it? All this "sabs do this hunts do that" Has nothing do do with it. This person clearly broke the law by running someone down. Its on video it happened. I do support hunt sabs for trying to stop a illegal and cruel activity but had a sab ran someone down like that that too would be wrong. However it was not a sab in this case. People can say it as long as they like and try and excuse it because of this and that but the fact remains. The woman tried to kill the sab.

 

[minesadouble]

I wasn't justifying the actions of the driver at all and I used the word 'clipped' as she was, luckily just bruised rather than seriously injured.

Two wrongs.most certainly do not make a right
I can't stand people taking the law into their own hands. I hate the whole vigilante culture we seem to be cultivating in this country. It seems rife, particularly where suspected.paedophiles are comcerned and I abhor it.

My point was brought to mind as I have been watching a documentary about a convicted drug dealer who was talking about his life and said 'i have lived a violent life so I won't be surprised if I meet a violent death.' Hence the use of the phrase 'live by the sword, die by the sword'.

 

[Nasicus]

I wasn't justifying the actions of the driver at all and I used the word 'clipped' as she was, luckily just bruised rather than seriously injured.

I appreciate what you're saying, but she was run down by a speeding vehicle, and would have been regardless even if she'd been lucky enough to spring back up and continue her day. Pure luck that she didn't get seriously injured does not downgrade the incident to a 'clipping', and whilst unintentionally, such language does minimize what happened. If you were explaining what happened to someone without any prior knowledge, and said she'd been clipped by a car, the mental image and understanding of the severity of that is entirely different to what happened. Like Ester said, clipped conjures up images of being smacked by a wing mirror, not of being hit by the car and sent flying off of her feet.

 

[Red-1]

I wasn't justifying the actions of the driver at all and I used the word 'clipped' as she was, luckily just bruised rather than seriously injured.
.

I too would equate 'clipped' with being a glancing blow causing minimal damage, such as with a wing mirror where the person wasn't thrown to the floor. I'm not sure where you get that she is just bruised with no serious injury from? Sometimes, soft tissue injuries can be more serious and take longer to heal than broken bones.

Only time will tell how serious the injuries are. The initial bruising will have to go down before any other soft tissue injury will be properly assessed.

Besides, even if it were just bruising, the potential of the impact of that car, tossing her off her feet, had the potential to kill.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

Please read what I said. NO ONE has the right on EITHER side to take the law in to their own hands. Yes sabs sometimes break the law. As do hunts. However, we are talking about one particular case here. Someone purposely ran someone down. Whichever "side" you are on really makes no difference does it? All this "sabs do this hunts do that" Has nothing do do with it. This person clearly broke the law by running someone down. Its on video it happened. I do support hunt sabs for trying to stop a illegal and cruel activity but had a sab ran someone down like that that too would be wrong. However it was not a sab in this case. People can say it as long as they like and try and excuse it because of this and that but the fact remains. The woman tried to kill the sab.

Please read my direct quote from your post, including 'to the extent of trying to kill someone'.
That reads as if other illegal acts are ok, as in 'the end justifies the means'. I don't agree with that.
.
Eta but your thread title is unclear, too. It should actually read 'Hunt Sab run over', your title reads as if the HS did the running over.

 

[Sandstone1]

Please read my direct quote from your post, including 'to the extent of trying to kill someone'.
That reads as if other illegal acts are ok, as in 'the end justifies the means'. I don't agree with that.
.
Eta but your thread title is unclear, too. It should actually read 'Hunt Sab run over', your title reads as if the HS did the running over.

Actually, I didnt start the thread or give it its title. Think you need to read things properly . I really do not care if you agree or disagree with me.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

Actually, I didnt start the thread or give it its title. Think you need to read things properly . I really do not care if you agree or disagree with me.

.
I apologise, no you didn't start the thread

 

[stangs]

My point was brought to mind as I have been watching a documentary about a convicted drug dealer who was talking about his life and said 'i have lived a violent life so I won't be surprised if I meet a violent death.' Hence the use of the phrase 'live by the sword, die by the sword'.

Apologises, I've read back your previous post and I'll admit it's an interesting point, albeit from a sociological angle, not a legal nor moral one.

I suppose this boils down to how a hunt monitor or sab perceives their identity and role in the hunting sphere, whether they feel they're doing the right thing (i.e., not living by the sword), or whether they're doing the 'wrong' thing but for the 'right' cause (i.e., living by the sword and therefore mentally may expect repercussions - like the drug dealer, though he would have known he's doing the 'wrong' thing for what was most likely a 'wrong' cause). Or if they perceive themselves to be in a war - which is a common animal rights rhetoric - then would they believe that, eventually, the opponent will retaliate? Or is the war between the 'abuser'/'hunter' and the 'animal', and the monitor/sab is joining in the fray, but still somewhat an external party, and therefore 'untouchable'?

This probably isn't the right thread for such a discussion though.

 

[Nasicus]

Apologises, I've read back your previous post and I'll admit it's an interesting point, albeit from a sociological angle, not a legal nor moral one.

I suppose this boils down to how a hunt monitor or sab perceives their identity and role in the hunting sphere, whether they feel they're doing the right thing (i.e., not living by the sword), or whether they're doing the 'wrong' thing but for the 'right' cause (i.e., living by the sword and therefore mentally may expect repercussions - like the drug dealer, though he would have known he's doing the 'wrong' thing for what was most likely a 'wrong' cause). Or if they perceive themselves to be in a war - which is a common animal rights rhetoric - then would they believe that, eventually, the opponent will retaliate? Or is the war between the 'abuser'/'hunter' and the 'animal', and the monitor/sab is joining in the fray, but still somewhat an external party, and therefore 'untouchable'?

This probably isn't the right thread for such a discussion though.

Funny you mention the war aspect, I often feel people on both sides actually enjoy the conflict, like how people enjoy airsoft and war games.

 

[Red-1]

Funny you mention the war aspect, I often feel people on both sides actually enjoy the conflict, like how people enjoy airsoft and war games.

I would not enjoy that, but yes, I do think some people do. War games under a different name. Fighting for good and righteousness. Boths sides, bizarrely!

 

[Tiddlypom]

For those who don't venture on the hunting is in a spot of bother thread.

An update on this incident.

A Cottesmore Hunt supporter filmed mowing down a hunt saboteur with her car pleaded guilty to causing ABH at Leicester Magistrates Court on Thursday.

Angela Jarrom, who was following the hunt at the time, received a six month prison sentence suspended for 18 months and ordered to do 100 hours of community service as well pay compensation to the injured saboteur.

 

[Fjord]

Thanks for the update Tiddlypom.

 

[Millionwords]

For those who don't venture on the hunting is in a spot of bother thread.

An update on this incident.

Apologies for not posting it here, I'd forgotten about this thread. Thanks @Tiddlypom !

 

[Red-1]

That is a decent sentence. She didn't try to say it was an accident then.

Did it say how much compensation the victim got?

 

[Sandstone1]

I think she got off too lightly myself. It was a deliberate act and could have been so much worse.

 

[ycbm]

I think she got off too lightly myself. It was a deliberate act and could have been so much worse.

She'll have got a very big discount for an early guilty plea. I agree with you it's too little, only 100 hours community service (working in a charity shop normally, for a woman) as long as the sentence isn't activated.
.

 

[Red-1]

She'll have got a very big discount for an early guilty plea. I agree with you it's too little, only 100 hours community service (working in a charity shop normally, for a woman) as long as the sentence isn't activated.
.

IME, she'd have to do some thing(s) absolutely awful to have the sentence activated, and then it would likely be concurrent with whatever sentence she got for the absolutely awful thing (I'm meaning killing someone or something - not that what she did wasn't awful in itself).

On the face of it, all she got was working 100hrs in a charity shop, but the real sentence is the conviction, which will mean she can't be on a PTA, volunteer in a school, work with her kids/grandkids (not sure who the little girl in the car was). It is loss of status.

I hope she has realised how awful she was.

 

[ycbm]

I wouldn't mind betting that inside her own circle she's a hero regarded as having "taken one for the team". (An expression used in football to describe deliberately fouling someone who was likely to be just about to score a goal, and being sent off for it.)
.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

One has to wonder if the driver had been either a young male off the local council estate, a member of a traveling community or even perhaps a person of colour etc. etc., would the sentence have been the same?

Or if the victim had been a police officer would the slap on the wrist have been quite so lenient?

Call me an old cynic but you do have to question the justice in such a ridiculously low sentence for deliberately running someone over with your vehicle.

 

[Red-1]

One has to wonder if the driver had been either a young male off the local council estate, a member of a traveling community or even perhaps a person of colour etc. etc., would the sentence have been the same?

Or if the victim had been a police officer would the slap on the wrist have been quite so lenient?

Call me an old cynic but you do have to question the justice in such a ridiculously low sentence for deliberately running someone over with your vehicle.

If it had been a Police Officer then it would have been more lenient LOL. Had it be a judge, the key would have been thrown away!

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

If it had been a Police Officer then it would have been more lenient LOL

Crikey - is that based in truth or a bit tongue in cheek? I do not really know how the police are viewed over there in the UK so a serious question. Over here they would have the book thrown at them for sure if they tried to mow down a member of the Gardaí !

 

[Red-1]

Crikey - is that based in truth or a bit tongue in cheek? I do not really know how the police are viewed over there in the UK so a serious question. Over here they would have the book thrown at them for sure if they tried to mow down a member of the Gardaí !

I was assaulted, knocked unconscious and kicked around the floor whilst out cold. I woke up not being able to feel below my chest, which did improve over the night. I had dreadful whiplash, a cracked tooth, was off for 6 months in total. Sadly, I quit riding for years as I couldn't turn my head or lift the saddle. I still have difficulties.

The sentence... Conditional discharge and I think also a small fine. No compensation, although I did get some from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board... LOLOL.

Most colleagues got some compensation for injuries but it would be at 50p a week or something and they would only pay a couple of payments before stopping. It was in the too hard to do box. It was considered that we accepted being assaulted as part of the job, as it was to be expected . Protect the protectors.

The law has been changed since because nonsensical sentencing was the norm, but not really tough sentences even now.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

It was considered that we accepted being assaulted as part of the job, as it was to be expected . Protect the protectors.

My God Red-1, no wonder you posted your comment about lenient sentences. Are you still a serving police officer? That attitude from the establishment would have had me searching for a nice boring little office job somewhere in the far reaches of Devon or something.

I am so sorry that happened to you and hope you are now somewhat recovered but I can imagine it must leave long term physical and emotional scars to say the least.

 

[Red-1]

My God Red-1, no wonder you posted your comment about lenient sentences. Are you still a serving police officer? That attitude from the establishment would have had me searching for a nice boring little office job somewhere in the far reaches of Devon or something.

I am so sorry that happened to you and hope you are now somewhat recovered but I can imagine it must leave long term physical and emotional scars to say the least.

Nope, all done now. At least we got to retire early!

 

[ester]

Given what we seem to give car drivers who kill cyclists it seems fair.

 

[Gallop_Away]

I'm a bit late to the party here but my two pennies worth.....

I have the utmost respect for the right to protest. Afterall where would we be without it? However I think there needs to be balance. The right of an individual to protest does not precede the right of an individual to enjoy peaceful legal activities, or give the individuals protesting the right to force their views on others by breaking the law. Now before I get mobbed here I am fully aware hunt sabs are protesting against ILLEGAL hunts for the most part, however that does not give them the right to take the law into their own hands as many sabs often do, and/or break the law themselves. furthermore, as we have seen in recent months, many animal rights groups have turned their attention towards LEGAL activities such has horseracing and the meat industry.

So whilst I utterly respect the right to protest, in my view it should be done peacefully and not be forced on others via intimidation/violence.

As for the lady that ran the sab down, that is utterly inexcusable. I have been on the receiving end of abuse from sabs and whilst I understand the frustration it causes, that does not excuse her behaviour. The fact remains she could easily have killed her and that is never excusable. It seems she got off rather lightly.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It's rather weird that the outcome of the magistrates court hearing last Thursday (6 days ago) seems only to be being reported by the antis. Normally local and even national news outlets would have picked this up by now.

As a lay person, I don't seem to be able to access magistrates court records that are over 24 hours old.

Can anyone confirm that the hearing happened as the antis are saying? There's a lot of detail in the report.

Is there some sort of news blackout ?

 

[ycbm]

Given what we seem to give car drivers who kill cyclists it seems fair.

There isn't normally an intention to kill, or even hurt, cyclists on the part of motorists though, is there? In this case the intention was to knock her down irrespective of what injury that might cause.

I think it's a very light sentence given the intent.
.

 

[ycbm]

Crikey - is that based in truth or a bit tongue in cheek? I do not really know how the police are viewed over there in the UK so a serious question. Over here they would have the book thrown at them for sure if they tried to mow down a member of the Gardaí !

Sentencing guidelines changed since that awful incident Red describes. It is now automatically an aggravating feature, and should lead to a harsher sentence, if the person assaulted is acting in a role in service to the community (police, fire, ambulance, doctor, etc).

Having said that, if somebody is, for example, under the influence of drugs when they commit an assault, but by the time the case comes to court they have got themselves onto a rehab program, are clean, have taken up a full time job and are about to marry a steady girlfriend who is about to give birth to their first child, then the sentence might well appear to the public to be incredibly lenient for the offence, in order not to knock that progress back off course.
.