Just a thought, but a criminal is not a criminal until they are convicted of being a criminal. So at what point are we suggesting removing their rights ? Only asking ...
Rights of a criminal...
- Thread starter robinthehood
- Start date
- Status
I know what you mean, apocryphal story springs to mind. In the case quoted though, what if they had won? £150k costs plus damages. Even if insurance covers it, maybe maybe not, that is a lot of stress as those costs build up.
Incidentally, how the heck can costs get to that level if the case is cobblers?
Incidentally, how the heck can costs get to that level if the case is cobblers?
A criminal is a criminal when engaged in the commission of a criminal offence. They become a convicted criminal when the court finds them guilty.
I still feel bad about forgetting to scan that 30p bread roll on the self checkout, I’m expecting a knock on the door any day now.
If the company is found to be negligent then their insurance may not cover them.
Equally, insurance doesn't stop situations from being stressful
Equally, insurance doesn't stop situations from being stressful
I didn't say anything about the poiice, or the police determining guilt. Perhaps you're letting your prejudices cloud your judgement?
A criminal is by definition someone convicted of a crime by a court of law.
We seem to be talking about the rights of the suspected criminal before the judicial process is complete.
Arrest: this is the point of apprehension and the first time the 2 parties come together. The level of force involved in this must be proportional to the level of resistance / risk , but must always be reasonable.
the shooting of the London Bridge terrorist was deemed reasonable as he was wearing a bomb vest, the fact that it was later found to be a fake is not a defence.
The prisoner will be fed, watered and given medical care if necessary, the police must be allowed to do their job and if the prisoner resists or is violent, then suitable force can be used to subdue them.
Once a prisoner has been charged then a judge will decide on remand or bail, restrictions etc,
At this point the prisoner is not convicted but is in the judicial system
All of this is well known and shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
I think the crux here is the level of force on arrest.
Police dogs would only be sent in to subdue someone who was a threat to others or to the arresting officers.
The independent police complaints authority will investigate any issues raised, that’s what they are there for.
Police officers have to work within the law, but they are human and sometimes placed in potentially dangerous situations where a split second decision is needed. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it is necessary to stand in the shoes of the police.
We seem to be talking about the rights of the suspected criminal before the judicial process is complete.
Arrest: this is the point of apprehension and the first time the 2 parties come together. The level of force involved in this must be proportional to the level of resistance / risk , but must always be reasonable.
the shooting of the London Bridge terrorist was deemed reasonable as he was wearing a bomb vest, the fact that it was later found to be a fake is not a defence.
The prisoner will be fed, watered and given medical care if necessary, the police must be allowed to do their job and if the prisoner resists or is violent, then suitable force can be used to subdue them.
Once a prisoner has been charged then a judge will decide on remand or bail, restrictions etc,
At this point the prisoner is not convicted but is in the judicial system
All of this is well known and shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
I think the crux here is the level of force on arrest.
Police dogs would only be sent in to subdue someone who was a threat to others or to the arresting officers.
The independent police complaints authority will investigate any issues raised, that’s what they are there for.
Police officers have to work within the law, but they are human and sometimes placed in potentially dangerous situations where a split second decision is needed. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it is necessary to stand in the shoes of the police.
During the crime imo.
And anything in connection with said crime.
So if he hurts himself during the crime he loses all rights to sue the victim..
Two scenarios you fall over a spilt milk bottle in Tesco. You are entitled to sue for damages.
But burglar falls over spilt milk when the shop is shut. Not entitled to sue. Just my opinion.
And anything in connection with said crime.
So if he hurts himself during the crime he loses all rights to sue the victim..
Two scenarios you fall over a spilt milk bottle in Tesco. You are entitled to sue for damages.
But burglar falls over spilt milk when the shop is shut. Not entitled to sue. Just my opinion.
Ask Dirty Harry [ Clint Eastwood ] he had a great answer to what is Intent 
Genuine question to you.
Have you ever been on the wrong end of a personal crime, burglary ,mugging etc.
Then think what it’s like to be sued by the burglar because he hurt himself falling over your rug.
So he robbed your house then takes you to court for damages because he hurt himself fleeing the scene.
He would probably lose but it’s the damage done to you.
Don’t feel safe in your own house.
Paranoia every time a stranger knocks on your door.
I have seen this and it’s not nice.
So I am all for no criminals suing their victims.
Have you ever been on the wrong end of a personal crime, burglary ,mugging etc.
Then think what it’s like to be sued by the burglar because he hurt himself falling over your rug.
So he robbed your house then takes you to court for damages because he hurt himself fleeing the scene.
He would probably lose but it’s the damage done to you.
Don’t feel safe in your own house.
Paranoia every time a stranger knocks on your door.
I have seen this and it’s not nice.
So I am all for no criminals suing their victims.
I beg to differ Phil;
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary;
Definition of criminal (Entry 2 of 2)
1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
So when that person commits a crime, they are a criminal. Were I to wander into Tesco's and help myself to a bottle of Smokehead and leave without paying, knowing that payment was required, I would be a criminal. The fact that I have yet to be arrested and be convicted, either by a court or my own admission, does not alter the fact that I would be a criminal. And I would know that I was a criminal.
I do agree that it would be nice if people sometimes stood in the shoes of the police; unfortunately it seems these days some would far rather stand on the shoes of the police.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary;
Definition of criminal (Entry 2 of 2)
1: one who has committed a crime
2: a person who has been convicted of a crime
So when that person commits a crime, they are a criminal. Were I to wander into Tesco's and help myself to a bottle of Smokehead and leave without paying, knowing that payment was required, I would be a criminal. The fact that I have yet to be arrested and be convicted, either by a court or my own admission, does not alter the fact that I would be a criminal. And I would know that I was a criminal.
I do agree that it would be nice if people sometimes stood in the shoes of the police; unfortunately it seems these days some would far rather stand on the shoes of the police.
Last edited:
I agree that no criminal should be allowed to try and gain a benefit from their victim. It’s reprehensible that they would commit a crime in the first instance but to compound this with a claim should they be injured in the attempt or getaway would be lunacy
Remember the guy who shot and killed one of the two gypsies for breaking into his farmhouse. The guy who survived ( Brendon Feardon) he successfully claimed 5K in legal aid attempting to sue the farmer ( Tony Martin) for “ Loss of earnings”. I kid you not. It was thrown out of court because he was photographed riding a bike. Remember he had been shot in the scallops. The BBC decided to pay out of taxpayers money £4,500 for an interview.
I could go on, But you are as well looking on Wikipedia. Suffice to say people like Mr Feardon are wasting valuable oxygen.
I could go on, But you are as well looking on Wikipedia. Suffice to say people like Mr Feardon are wasting valuable oxygen.
I’ve read the thread and I’m still not 100% sure what you are asking?
Are you trying to see if you should sue someone in whose house you were injured whilst robbing them?
Are you trying to see if you should sue someone in whose house you were injured whilst robbing them?
Did you or a friend whack a little toe rag round the head with a 9 iron while they tried to make off with your TV?
Or is this just a theoretical/research type thing?
Or is this just a theoretical/research type thing?
This criminal milarky can be a tad dangerous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
- Status