: Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:09 pm
Eurob0y wrote:
Hey, mr clueless wannabe lawyer.
Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness, son.
Eurob0y wrote:
You do realise that breaking a door does not constitute gaining entry by voilence dont you.
Whether I do or I don't is irrelevant, as this is not a proposition on which i have offered a view.
Eurob0y wrote:
So my sentence was correct.
It was?
Eurob0y wrote: There was no evidence from the prosecution to say that either Pryce or Reardon forced their way in.
Er, except the actual words used, which are quoted in the reports! If the reports were incorrect, then you would have a point. However as every reporter seems to have heard the same words, you need to get over it.
Eurob0y wrote:
As was proved in the court today. The bit from the reports you quoted, is just criminal damage.
Nothing was "proved" son, they pleaded guilty. Things are only proved if cases go to trial. What you don't understand is that what the prosecution says about the facts are just that - stated facts - unless the defence challenges the prosecution account. They didn't.
If you want a brief law lesson, then whilst criminal damage may well be caused to a door when breaking it down, and whilst the offence may, or may not, be charged, this makes no fscking difference to the fact that Reardon forced his way in.
If you want another one, then where a man is pleading guilty to a serious, imprisonable offence, then it is quite normal for lesser charges (such as criminal damage) not to be proceeded with. In this case, the most serious charges were the described assaults.
The court was told "
Reardon ....charged the door, breaking the frame and the lock".
Who do you think told the court that, son? The tooth fairy? Santa?
I do accept, of course, that there are always going to be people who are so incredibly dense that they will argue breaking down a door and entering the property that way does not equal "forcing your way in", but they are the sort of retards that there is generally no point in trying to converse sensibly with.
You just point them to what the Judge in the actual Court said:-
Judge Mr Fowler said Pryce went to the flat to help keep the peace and had not anticipated any violence.. but... should have left when Reardon forced open the door.
In your head, does this mean the judge concluded Reardon did NOT force open the door? Then you need a head check.
HTH.
