Signs of intelligence UK.

[Gob]

almost, the thieves were only fined £75.00 ($124.00 US)

A businessman has been cleared of causing grievous bodily harm to thieves he caught red-handed raiding his business.

Andrew Woodhouse, 44, from Govilon, Monmouthshire, beat one so badly his legs and and arm were broken.

He then sat on burglars Kevin Green and Timothy Cross until the police arrived, Cardiff Crown Court heard.

Mr Woodhouse's firm had repeatedly been targeted by thieves. Green and Cross were later fined £75 each for theft.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it considered that there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

The court heard how Mr Woodhouse, who runs a groundworks business, was woken at about 00:30 GMT one day in March 2013 by a text message telling him a burglar alarm had gone off at the tyre yard where his business is based a mile from his home.

Gwent Police officers found Green, 53, lying injured under a blanket and Cross, 32, claiming the businessman had gone "over the top".

The court was told the father-of-five was arrested and accused of using excessive force.

But Andrew Taylor, defending, said: "These thieves thought they would have nice easy pickings that night.

"Many people would have given up and just claimed on their insurance but Mr Woodhouse is made of sterner stuff.

"He showed stoicism, courage and fitness to chase them.

"One of the men was armed and went to attack him. He acted in lawful self defence.

"He agrees the red mist came down which you can understand when his business has almost been wiped out by crime.

"If it hadn't been for him these men would not have been caught. Where are we in society when a person cannot act in self-defence to protect his property? That is what Mr Woodhouse was doing."

Green and Cross tried to escape into a neighbouring field with jerry cans full of stolen fuel.

But Mr Woodhouse chased Green and caught him near their getaway car. He attacked Green leaving him with two broken legs and a broken arm.

Mr Woodhouse then chased Cross before rugby-tackling him and then lying on top of the raider until police arrived.

James Wilson, prosecuting, said: "When he saw his hard earned money carted off by a couple of ne'er-do-wells, he gave chase in anger intending to injure them."

Mr Wilson described it an "unreasonable and unlawful assault".

He said: "It was not reasonable self-defence. Mr Woodhouse lost his temper and went over the top.

"He is a hard working businessman but he has let his frustration get the better of him. He lost it."

The court heard how Mr Woodhouse gave police a full account of how he fought with the two raiders like a "mad man".
'Sickened'

He told police: "I swore at the men and grabbed one of them, I then felt a blow to my hand and shoulder and began grappling with them.

"I was pushed over and then I grabbed something from one of their hands which felt like a wooden fence post."

Mr Woodhouse said he was "gutted and sickened" to learn the extent of Green's injuries.

The businessman, who denied the charges and was found not guilty on Wednesday, set up his company 20 years ago and had suffered the theft of machinery worth between £15,000 and £25,000 in recent years, the court heard.

The Crown Prosecution said it had considered it in the public interest to charge Mr Woodhouse.

It said in a statement: "In light of the evidence, including the injuries suffered by one of the intruders, it was the prosecution case that Mr Woodhouse's actions during the incident went beyond what the law allows for in terms of self-defence.

The statement said the CPS decided that it was appropriate to bring the matter to court so that a jury could determine the issue.

"Ultimately, all evidence relating to criminal cases is tested during the trial process, with the jury being the final arbiters of guilt or innocence.

"We respect the jury's decision on this matter."

[Lord Jim]

So when will these two pillars of the community be filing law suits?

[Gob]

No, rpobably not...

This is the sickening moment a violent thug kicked another man in the head 'as if it was a football' as he bent down to tie his shoelaces.



Vitalijis Zavjalovs, 22, was captured on CCTV cameras laughing with a friend as he left his victim lying on the ground unconscious following the attack in the early hours of December 8 last year.

The footage, which emerged during a court hearing to sentence Zavjalovs, made the presiding magistrate at Wigan and Leigh Magistrates' Court 'wince' as Brian Gallagher was kicked in the head, causing cuts to his face and lips.


The presiding magistrate told Zavjalovs: 'This was a particularly nasty incident. It made me wince watching it just now.

'It was a vicious attack. We are sick and tired of seeing incidents like this in Wigan town centre.

'You kicked his head as if it was a football, he had no way of defending himself and he did not know it was even coming.

'You used a weapon - your foot - we believe it deserves a custodial sentence but you have been shown leniency because you have shown remorse and it was an isolated incident and you have previous good character.'

Karen Schofield, defending, said: 'His recollection of the incident is somewhat vague. He had consumed an extremely large quantity of alcohol.

[Gob]

We'll have to rely on natural justice...

A petty career criminal plunged into a canal and drowned as he tried to rob two men on a city centre towpath, it is believed.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/ ... 34x422.jpg

Steven Cane, 25, was rushed to hospital after falling into the Rochdale Canal, in Manchester, but died two days later.

One of the two men he targeted also fell into the water but clambered out and has made a full recovery.

The two men who shoved the mugger into the water will be questioned by police about the incident - but officers are not planning to treat them as suspects as it is believed they were victims of crime.

A post-mortem examination is due to be carried out but it is thought Cane - who is said to have a 'catalogue' of previous convictions - died from drowning.

A 17-year-old boy - suspected of being the robber's accomplice - was arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery and attempted murder following the incident.

He was later charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent and occasioning actual bodily harm and a third charge of obstructing police and is now awaiting trial. A third suspect was released without charge.

The incident happened on Sunday evening as two men, aged 28 and 34, were walking along the canal path that runs towards a tunnel known as the Undercroft.

Both men were accosted by Cane and an alleged accomplice and it is thought they were told to hand over valuables.

Cane began grappling with one of the victims and they both fell into the canal together.

The mugging victim is thought to have swam to the canal bank and got out of the water before running away, but Cane disappeared and the emergency services were called.

The petty criminal was dragged onto the towpath by police before being rushed to Manchester Royal Infirmary by ambulance where he died two days later.

Police said the suspected mugging victim ran away from the scene after gettingout of the water but he collapsed a short distance away.

He was taken to hospital for a check-up but was later discharged.

Detective Inspector Brian Morley from Greater Manchester Police said: 'We are still trying to piece together exactly what happened before these two men fell in the canal.

'One of the men managed to get out of the canal himself, however the other man had to be rescued by emergency services and was taken to hospital.

'If anyone witnessed the incident or has any information which may help us with our inquiries, please contact the police as soon as possible.'

[Gob]

Referring to the OP...

A thief has criticised the justice system for 'letting him down' after the victim who battered him was cleared of assault.

Unemployed Kevin Green, 53, suffered two broken legs and a broken arm when landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse attacked him and his son-in-law as they fled his business premises.

Green and Tim Cross, 32, had stolen diesel from Mr Woodhouse's tyre yard, prompting the father-of-five to chase the pair and perform a citizen's arrest.

But Green told Emma Foster at The Sun he is the 'real' victim, adding that no one understands the pain and suffering he has been subjected to.

He said he is plagued by nightmares over the incident and is now unable to go fishing or walk his dogs after his injuries rendered him housebound.

'He went at me like a madman hitting me with a stick - all over 50 quid's worth of diesel,' he said.

'I'm the victim in all this. I don't think he realises what suffering I had to go through, which is ten times more than him.'

[oldr_n_wsr]

In some parts of the USA he would have been shot.

[Big RR]

It's hard to feel sorry for this guy; but it's also hard to understand how the theft of less than $100 or diesel fuel warrants such a severe beating or getting shot. Do we really want to say it's OK to severely maim or kill someone over a crime such as this? I don't think so; indeed, I think it should prompt a discussion of our priorities. For defense of life (or even a perceived danger to one's life), I would think any response could be justified, but for the defense of a trivial amount of goods? I just don't see it.

I don't think the owner should necessarily be prosecuted, but I do think it makes sense to look into why he did what he did. Flying into a rage and breaking both of the would be robber's legs and one arm (if that's what happened) is not, IMHO, justifiable, although there may well be other extenuating circumstances I am not aware of.
Again, I really don't feel all that much sympathy for the would-be robber, but then we have laws and ethics because of the kind of people we are (or want to be) and not because of the kind of person he is.

Edited to add: Before someone raises it, I'm not saying he shouldn't try and thwart the robbery, or even try and detain the would-be robbers; but when the would be robbers flee, I don't think he should be justified in using whatever force he wants to detain them or to exact some sort of justice before the police come.

I'll relate a story of my grandfather; during the 30s someone accosted him in the subway station and stole his wallet; when he yelled out a police officer shot and killed the man. He later found out the guy was an unemployed guy with a family who was killed over around $25 (a good amount of money in those days, but hardly a fortune). TO his dying day my grandfather regretted what happened, and often said that a family was growing up without a father because he had him killed. Not that he excused the guy for what he did; my grandfather was a stern man and he clearly thought th e guy was wrong and deserved to punished, just not killed.

[Sue U]

As they say over there, spot on, Big RR. Gob had brought us this story last summer, at which time I wrote:

Mr Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon when his burglar alarm went off at about 12.30am. The alarm is fitted to his business premises on an industrial estate a mile from his six-bedroom £350,000 home.

He drove to the estate,

So he's got a history of burglaries at the business, but rather than call the cops when the alarm goes off he just goes down there himself? He couldn't take the 30 seconds to call 999 to give them the address of a burglary in progress? WTF?

he saw two men trying to steal diesel from the engines of his fleet of vehicles. His wife, 42, said: ‘He shouted at them to stop and when they turned and ran he chased them.

So the threat to his property (and never to his person) was over at this point and required no further action to avert loss. Yet he proceeded to engage the burglars and break one's legs and wrist. By that time, he was not "defending himself" or "fighting back," he was meting out punishment. Again, even in Wales, I'm pretty sure the penalty for theft of diesel fuel does not include fracturing bones.

As Mr Woodhouse held Kevin Green, 52, the other alleged burglar, Timothy Cross, 31, is said to have returned with a third man, both carrying planks. Mrs Woodhouse had, by this time, also driven to the scene. She said: ‘When I got there Andrew was chasing one of the chaps. He saw me and shouted, “Get the police, get the police”.

Now he wants to call the police?????

Police charged Mr Woodhouse with causing grievous bodily harm with intent because he used ‘unreasonable’ force.

I don't know why the Daily Fail (or whichever tab this is from) felt the need to put scare-quotes around "unreasonable," because unless you are an aggrieved caricature mobster from some gangster movie, there is nothing at all reasonable about breaking someone's leg and arm bones for theft of a few gallons of diesel.

‘People may think he took the law into his own hands but what was he supposed to do, stand by and watch?’

Had you considered maybe, I dunno, calling the fucking police first????? It's pretty much their job.

The firm has lost £15,000 in recent years to thefts of diesel and tools.

Over how many years, exactly? And isn't this indicative of a long-standing security problem that should have been solved with preventive measures? And has he never heard of business insurance? And at any rate, whatever losses the business has suffered obviously haven't kept him from purchasing a "six-bedroom £350,000 home."

I am not rooting for the burglars, here. But neither am I a fan of aggravated assault masquerading as vigilante "justice." People have to recognize that simply being wronged in some way doesn't give them carte blanche to indulge their revenge fantasies.

I stand by my previous assessment.

[Gob]

Do we really want to say it's OK to severely maim

Yes.

or kill someone over a crime such as this?

No! My god man, we're not Americans!!

[oldr_n_wsr]

but I do think it makes sense to look into why he did what he did.

Yes it does. He did it because he was burglurized multiple times. Finally he had a chance to catch who was doing it.
Very rarely are police there in time to catch the thieves. Usually they can only start an investigation as they are there after the theft takes place.

I'm assume this guy reported previous thefts and still they continued.

I'm not normally an angry nor violent person, but when me and mine are continually violated, I can and will become both angry and violent.
"Fed up" is a term I would use for why he did what he did.

[Jarlaxle]

In some parts of the USA he would have been shot.

The downside being...what?

[oldr_n_wsr]

In some parts of the USA he would have been shot.

The downside being...what?

None at all.

[Lord Jim]

but I do think it makes sense to look into why he did what he did.

Yes it does. He did it because he was burglurized multiple times. Finally he had a chance to catch who was doing it.
Very rarely are police there in time to catch the thieves. Usually they can only start an investigation as they are there after the theft takes place.

I'm assume this guy reported previous thefts and still they continued.

I'm not normally an angry nor violent person, but when me and mine are continually violated, I can and will become both angry and violent.
"Fed up" is a term I would use for why he did what he did.

I think that nails it.

[Big RR]

Perhaps that might be the reason, but it's hardly an excuse. It's kind of like kicking the shit out of someone because they scratched your car. I've felt that sort of rage before, but it shouldn't be something that gives you carte blanche to exact the revenge you think you're due.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Maybe not, but it does give rise to a "way to go" attitude for the robbery victim and a rationalization for what he did.

Maybe a slap on the wrist for the robbery victim (community service in the neighborhood watch) as IIRC the robber only got a $75 fine. Much too lenient.

[Gob]

Perhaps that might be the reason, but it's hardly an excuse. .

The fact that they attacked him FIRST, using the fence post he wrestled from them then used against them, is more than enough mitigating factor for me.

[Big RR]

Gob--if he surprised them in his yard and they attacked him, then I'd agree he'd be justified in fighting back, but if this happened after they left the yard and he went chasing them, it's another story. Again, the point is whether he was justified to pursue them and attack them when they were off his property and didn't have any of his goods. Again, I understand he was pissed off; anyone would be. But I don't think being pissed off is, by itself, enough provocation for what he did. As for them attacking him first; if I come tearing down the street at you like a "mad man", the fact that you seek to defend yourself by hitting me with whatever you have available does not, IMHO, justify my beating the hell out of you.

[TPFKA@W]

I think you get what you get when you are caught stealing. I am just awful I guess.
To this day I fantasize taking a bat to the dirty little bastards who broke into my house and stole. Breaking every bone in their bodies would be a good start. It's not the material stuff it's my peace of mind that they took.

[oldr_n_wsr]

We had our house broken into on Christmas eve. We got home from grandmas and I found the back door ajar and the door jam mangled. I swear they were in there when I pulled into the driveway and ran out the front door as I came in the back door. Bastards stole my grandfathers pocket watch along with other items, but it was the watch I was/am really pissed about.

If I had caught him/them, there would be hell to pay.

[Big RR]

I don't disagree with either of you; I once had my wallet stolen and felt the same way. But that's exactly why we have laws; so we don't run off and live out our fantasies of exacting our own brand of revenge. And, as I said in that story of my grandfather, many of us might not feel all that satisfied after we took that revenge.