View Full Version : Jail for standing up to drug dealer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7892881.stm
A man who said he stormed into a drug dealer's home and flushed heroin down a toilet has been jailed for two months.
slark01
17-02-09, 11:05 AM
Not suspended, but actually jailed!
Unfeckinbelievable!!!!
Luckypants
17-02-09, 11:05 AM
The coppers and justice system take a very dim view of ordinary folks doing what they are too scared to do. He got jail 'for taking the law into his own hands' - a much worse crime than anything on the statute books :rolleyes:
SoulKiss
17-02-09, 11:06 AM
In the eyes of the law its the right thing to do - it has to be shown that vigilantism is not to be tolerated.
He did a good thing, but a wrong thing.
As said - he should have gotten the police involved.
John 675
17-02-09, 11:13 AM
... laughable ... what happend to the dealers then?.. nothing..
he might have two months jail but that man couldof just saved someones life that day lol
so well played in my book!
Kate Moss
17-02-09, 11:20 AM
Just doesn't make sense
the_lone_wolf
17-02-09, 11:22 AM
Vigilantism is only one step away from rebellion once people start to question their "elected" government...
;)
Dicky Ticker
17-02-09, 11:23 AM
Can't do right for doing wrong
I will admit that I would take action myself over certain things and hang the consequences
454697819
17-02-09, 11:31 AM
oh **** this im off.. this country sucks.. Im off to populate the moon..
brb
Should have killed the drug dealer and torched the house.
The minuet you start telling the truth is when they get ya, you either go all out or not at all, the middle ground is where people get shafted.
correct sentence in my opinion.
he flushed drugs away, drugs become less available, pushes prices up, people turn to more crime to fund higher priced drugs.
next.
Luckypants
17-02-09, 11:39 AM
correct sentence in my opinion.
he flushed drugs away, drugs become less available, pushes prices up, people turn to more crime to fund higher priced drugs.
next.
:smt046 Quality as always!
Ceri JC
17-02-09, 12:16 PM
An inevitable consequence of a society with a failed legal system. Sometimes I think The League of Shadows in Batman Begins had the right idea... :(
madness
17-02-09, 12:32 PM
I don't agree with taking the law into you're own hands but I can understand why someone would do it. I'm sure I would in certain circumstances. The fact that people feel that the police/government/legal system will not do anything is the important issue. We all see/hear about/experience crime at some point and the authorities seem to do very little about it.
timwilky
17-02-09, 12:41 PM
Vigilante justice is usually quicker, cheaper and more effective than the legitimate injustice system.
Victims (and the family of the user are) do not see the system working on their behalf and it is more akin to a job protection system for the legal/law professional.
By reclaiming morel law and the need to see transgressors adequately punished you are potentially doing these professionals out of a job. No wonder they were keen to protect themselves from a more efficient system.
That aside, It was nice to see my local family of scroats turn from burglary to drug dealing. The local drug dealer protected his job and ensured we had no local scroats with his own version of vigilante justice and a pick axe shaft.
Mr Speirs
17-02-09, 12:42 PM
I don't understand what crime he committed??? Can someone please tell me what crime he committed?
Luckypants
17-02-09, 12:46 PM
I don't understand what crime he committed??? Can someone please tell me what crime he committed?
He barged in and forcibly took drugs from dealer, then flushed them down loo. This was a 'breach of the peace'.
MiniMatt
17-02-09, 12:48 PM
I don't understand what crime he committed??? Can someone please tell me what crime he committed?
I suspect this:
However, Sheriff Robert McCreadie ignored the plea for mercy and said: "If you were concerned about matters you should contact the police, not enter a house and threaten to kill someone. You can't take matters into your own hands the way you did."
... had something to do with it.
yorkie_chris
17-02-09, 12:48 PM
Dunno, I've always thought if you are commiting a crime, then you are outside the law. E.g I should be able to kick the living $hit out of any burglars in my house... someone threatens to kill some slag of a dealer, unlucky.
His mistake was admitting to it afterwards... you don't get prosecuted on what you do, you get prosecuted on what you say afterwards.
Should have tried "I went there to buy some, but we disagreed on price, so I flushed his stash down the bog". (I swear to tell the truth, the half truth, and nothing like the truth)
SoulKiss
17-02-09, 12:48 PM
I don't understand what crime he committed??? Can someone please tell me what crime he committed?
Breaking and entering and threatening behaviour.
Ceri JC
17-02-09, 12:50 PM
Incidentally, I don't think the (generally valid) concerns against vigilantism apply here. The main reasons it's seen as A Bad Thing are:
1) Vigilantes tend to act on passion rather than proof; they have a track record of correctly IDing the guilty that doesn't compare favourably to the police, which is saying something.
2) They tend to be emotionally involved and most people lack the ability to put this to one side and operate solely on rational thought, so the punishments meted out tend to be disproportionate to the crime ("You stole my wallet, so I'll kill you and all your children").
In this case though;
The guy was correct in IDing the suspect (he didn't boot down some old dear next door's front door- something I've seen the police do).
The guy didn't batter the fook out of the dealer, never mind kill him. He just broke in and flushed the drugs down the toilet. No harm done.
I'm intrigued as to how this got reported. If I had been driven to do this, I'd of had no qualms about roughing up the dealer a bit to intimidate them into not reporting the whole thing. I'd also deny it if the police came round (because I'd anticipate the courts making a stupid, unjust decision like this) and claim I just went round to have a "stern talk" with the dealer concerning not selling to my brother, but deny touching any heroin/breaking in.
Mr Speirs
17-02-09, 12:52 PM
The dealers claimed he entered originally to buy drugs so he didn't barge in he was let in.
For breach of the peace however I don't think you can be automatically jailed.
yorkie_chris
17-02-09, 12:53 PM
Some other smackhead reported him I believe.
Whoever this judge is, I'd laugh my tits off if his daughter started taking crack and blowing dealers for her next hit.
Luckypants
17-02-09, 01:19 PM
I suspect this:
However, Sheriff Robert McCreadie ignored the plea for mercy and said: "If you were concerned about matters you should contact the police, not enter a house and threaten to kill someone. You can't take matters into your own hands the way you did."
... had something to do with it.
If there was evidence to that effect, don't you think he would have been charged with making threats to kill? He might have said those things, but it was not proven, so the judge was using his 'privilege' to make those remarks without being done for slander.
To use your own oft used phrase, base your answer on proven facts, not hearsay.
Moral being never underappreciate the right to remain silent?
yorkie_chris
17-02-09, 01:29 PM
Indeed. You get f##ked over my the law not for what you do, but for what you say afterwards.
A couple of my friends have found that out the hard way for legitimately defending themselves.
Miss Alpinestarhero
17-02-09, 01:35 PM
oh **** this im off.. this country sucks.. Im off to populate the moon..
brb
lmao :winner:
I'm intrigued as to how this got reported. .
That's the funny thing - the next addict to turn up & find no heroin available reported it :lol:
MiniMatt
17-02-09, 04:09 PM
If there was evidence to that effect, don't you think he would have been charged with making threats to kill? He might have said those things, but it was not proven, so the judge was using his 'privilege' to make those remarks without being done for slander.
To use your own oft used phrase, base your answer on proven facts, not hearsay.
Hearsay? Slander? The prosecution stated:
"On Sunday at 5.30pm, the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, went to the address and demanded entry. He was allowed into the hallway and began shouting and swearing at Nellies.
'He continued to shout and swear and threatened to kill Nellies if he continued to supply heroin to members of his family."
(my emphasis)
The defence did not contest this account.
So before you go accusing Sherrifs of slander, perhaps you should base your answer on proven facts, not hearsay.
joshmac
17-02-09, 04:28 PM
Whoever this judge is, I'd laugh my tits off if his daughter started taking crack and blowing dealers for her next hit.
:lol: Harsh but funny :p
svdemon
17-02-09, 05:30 PM
Exactly what i would expect of this countrys justice system. Anyone who attempts to stop someone wrong doing gets hammered by the courts. Hence why no one wants to help people getting mugged etc. They fear they will end up getting prosecuted, this country is rapidly going to the dogs.
Luckypants
17-02-09, 05:52 PM
Hearsay? Slander? The prosecution stated:
"On Sunday at 5.30pm, the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, went to the address and demanded entry. He was allowed into the hallway and began shouting and swearing at Nellies.
'He continued to shout and swear and threatened to kill Nellies if he continued to supply heroin to members of his family."
(my emphasis)
The defence did not contest this account.
Does not render it proven ;)
MiniMatt
17-02-09, 06:00 PM
The prosecution stated "you said this".
The defence had opportunity to contest, could have easily said "no i did not" and it would then have been up to the prosecution to prove it (which undoubtedly they'd struggle to do). The defence chose not to contest what was said.
The Sheriff, the prosecution, and the defence all seem happy that the threat to kill was an accurate account of events.
Jeez, your asking for proof of something that everyone involved in the case accepts happened.
I don't condone vigilante actions - but I would have taken his circumstances into consideration (had it been put to the Jury of Dirk).
FWIW: He did the wrong thing by admitting to the police that he had been to the house and that he had threatened to kill the dealer. If he'd kept stumm, then it would have been his word against the dealer - who's the police going to believe then?
Luckypants
17-02-09, 06:05 PM
Jeez, your asking for proof of something that everyone involved in the case accepts happened.
Well not really, I just think that but if it were a proven fact (or were indeed capable of being proved) then they would have prosecuted for making threats to kill. As it is he was prosecuted for a breach of the peace which he coughed for.
Maybe there was a plea bargain, I am ever the cynic.
Remember that our legal system has nothing to do with finding out the truth, it's all about which lawyer can win the argument. That's it in a nutshell.
It's probably the worst legal system in the world, apart from all the others.
Me, I saw nothing, heard nothing, said nothing. I know nothing. I didn't pee on the constable even though he was on fire. I have nothing but respect for the law, and precious little of that.
Bluepete
17-02-09, 06:14 PM
The coppers and justice system take a very dim view of ordinary folks doing what they are too scared to do.
Now Mike, that's just not true and you know it. :mad:
It saves us loads of paperwork if people sort their own problems out :D
Pete;)
John 675
17-02-09, 07:01 PM
Vigilantism is only one step away from rebellion once people start to question their "elected" government...
;)
lol,i think we are well past questioning mate lol :smt040
Sid Squid
17-02-09, 07:09 PM
By reclaiming morel law and the need to see transgressors adequately punished you are potentially doing these professionals out of a job. No wonder they were keen to protect themselves from a more efficient system.
Quite.
That and the previous post suggesting what he really did 'wrong' was showing the Plod up is what got him nicked.
Scandalous.
Milky Bar Kid
17-02-09, 07:09 PM
Well not really, I just think that but if it were a proven fact (or were indeed capable of being proved) then they would have prosecuted for making threats to kill. As it is he was prosecuted for a breach of the peace which he coughed for.
Maybe there was a plea bargain, I am ever the cynic.
In relation to the above comment, the common law crime of Threats is vary rarely used except in extreme circumstances these days unless viewed to be serious threats and not just rubbish.
A breach of the peace is more applicable in this case as it covers all of his behaviour.
Also, there is no way that guy would have been jailed unless he has a long string of previous convictions for similar offences!
Did anyone see his picture in the paper - nothing but another ned!
I do agree with the idea that the guy selling drugs is a low-life scumbag ruining other people's lives, however, people have to take responsibility for there own actions.
metalmonkey
17-02-09, 07:47 PM
Quite.
That and the previous post suggesting what he really did 'wrong' was showing the Plod up is what got him nicked.
Scandalous.
How could such a thing be suggested;)
He should have got a community trust action award and a medal.
ArtyLady
17-02-09, 10:38 PM
I hope the scumbag drug dealer has since been busted and jailed! after all the police now know what he does? :mad: oh no of course not - not enough evidence - it all went down the bog ;)
Biker Biggles
17-02-09, 10:46 PM
He should have got a community trust action award and a medal.
Now Im not usually an advocate for vigilante action,but in this case I cant argue with Lozzo.:batman:
Mr Speirs
17-02-09, 11:41 PM
Still can anybody tell me what crime he committed?
Breach of the peace isn't a jailable offence.
Luckypants
17-02-09, 11:51 PM
Still can anybody tell me what crime he committed?
Breach of the peace isn't a jailable offence.
It is, at least it is in Scotland. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/sah-03.asp, scroll down a bit.
Mr Speirs
18-02-09, 12:01 AM
Mmm it seems it is punishable by imprisonment in Scotland. I bow to you Mr Luckypants. (When is NW4.5???:))
I actually do agree with this stance on breach of the peace however not in this case. The man was only trying to do what any father/brother would do in this circumstance.
I read with dismay how many people form an opinion purely on a few paragraphs on the BBC website.
Firstly to sentence someone rather than give them community service or a fine or a slap on the wrist for breach of the peace really does suggest previous and he is therefore likely not to be the hard done by chap he claims.
Just because his vigilanty acts happened to get the right people, it should have no bearing on the case as it is wrong to take the law into your own hands.
The police dont have magic radars for this and unless we help them by giving them information what are they supposed to do? conversely his actions may have scuppered a long standing operation which instead of netting quite a few dealers and suppliers they end up with nothing.
Lastly and this will probably get me some stick, I whole heartedly believe in the drug dealers rights. If we start taking away rights like this then where will it end? Do you really want your son or daughter beaten up in their own home and the police turn around and say "well he waved his rights because we found a spliff in the kitchen, therefore we aint gonna do anything"
In my opinion the legal system in this country is actually very good and generally speaking judges will try adn act blind to knee jerk press banter. The only thing I have issue with is recent so called anti terror laws. This is what deserves your attention, not this non story clap trap.
Ill get me soap box :)
yorkie_chris
18-02-09, 01:46 AM
it is wrong to take the law into your own hands.
In my opinion the legal system in this country is actually very good and generally speaking judges will try adn act blind to knee jerk press banter. The only thing I have issue with is recent so called anti terror laws. This is what deserves your attention, not this non story clap trap.
Point 1: Legally, only if you get caught. Morally ... ???? As far as I am concerned the laws of a nation have no bearing on morality.
Point 2: I agree
yorkie_chris
18-02-09, 01:51 AM
Hearsay? Slander? The prosecution stated:
"On Sunday at 5.30pm, the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, went to the address and demanded entry. He was allowed into the hallway and began shouting and swearing at Nellies.
'He continued to shout and swear and threatened to kill Nellies if he continued to supply heroin to members of his family."
(my emphasis)
The defence did not contest this account.
So before you go accusing Sherrifs of slander, perhaps you should base your answer on proven facts, not hearsay.
"The prosecution stated"? Just because they did not contest this as fact does not mean it happened. There is sod all proof there.
Personally I reckon "sell my brother/sister/son/daughter drugs again and I'm going to shoot you" seems a perfectly fair statement to make to someone. And if half of the w4nkers prosecuting this had been in similar situation, or indeed justifying this as you are matt, then they would hang up their wigs.
He should have got a community trust action award and a medal.
+1
Ceri JC
18-02-09, 09:33 AM
Just because his vigilanty acts happened to get the right people, it should have no bearing on the case as it is wrong to take the law into your own hands.
I disagree: Take the law into your own hands and get it wrong, IE punishing a proveably innocent person and you should be treated as harshly as the courts are able to for whatever you did.
If, as he did in this case, get it right and don't go overboard in the punishment you dish out and they should let you off with a slap on the wrist. I think the courts should remember why vigilantism is considered wrong (see my previous post) and if those reasons don't apply in your case they shouldn't be too upset by it.
On a related note, it'd be good if they actually looked into why people felt they had to take the law into their own hands whenever people were prosecuted for vigilantism. If the person had previously reported it to the police and nothing was done about it, it should significantly decrease any punishment the court gives them.
Welsh_Wizard
18-02-09, 10:06 AM
In all fairness it 'doesn't make sense' because the BBC have reported it.
They haven't mentioned the actual dealers fate because it isn't sensational enough. I should imagine that if it was in our neck of the woods, they'd be dealt with too and a closure order on the house done if it is proved to be a place where people are using class a's.
I hate it when BBC report I really do.. you are at the complete whim of what the reporter wants you to know, not what the facts are.
Do you think that this guy simply knocked on the door, calmly walked in, took the drugs and flushed them away?? No chance. I bet some violence was used somewhere whether to actually gain entry or on the dealers them selves. Did anyone in the flat, who wasn't a dealer get hurt etc etc.. there is more to this than the BBC lets on, its a shame they haven't given us the full story. They do mention another person getting a mouthful when they approached the flat to buy more drugs so I assume that probably happened in the street or in at least 'ear-shot' of completely 'innocent' bystanders for want of a better word.
Also, this is Scottish law, not English law..different beasts unfortunately.
It completely down to morals as someone has said. Law wise he is guilty and has been given a suitable punishment. Moral wise it stinks because he has taken a stand against an issue that most people have umbrance over and eventually lost. The dealers are proabably still dealing and in fact probably think they have 'won' now that the guy has got prison himself..
He should have gone to the police.. they could have done a proper operation, arrested, charged and likely imprisoned the dealer taking him off the streets, get the crack house shut down and put some referrals in for the 'users'.
Endellion
18-02-09, 10:56 AM
In all fairness it 'doesn't make sense' because the BBC have reported it.
They haven't mentioned the actual dealers fate because it isn't sensational enough. I should imagine that if it was in our neck of the woods, they'd be dealt with too and a closure order on the house done if it is proved to be a place where people are using class a's.
I hate it when BBC report I really do.. you are at the complete whim of what the reporter wants you to know, not what the facts are.
Do you think that this guy simply knocked on the door, calmly walked in, took the drugs and flushed them away?? No chance. I bet some violence was used somewhere whether to actually gain entry or on the dealers them selves. Did anyone in the flat, who wasn't a dealer get hurt etc etc.. there is more to this than the BBC lets on, its a shame they haven't given us the full story. They do mention another person getting a mouthful when they approached the flat to buy more drugs so I assume that probably happened in the street or in at least 'ear-shot' of completely 'innocent' bystanders for want of a better word.
Also, this is Scottish law, not English law..different beasts unfortunately.
It completely down to morals as someone has said. Law wise he is guilty and has been given a suitable punishment. Moral wise it stinks because he has taken a stand against an issue that most people have umbrance over and eventually lost. The dealers are proabably still dealing and in fact probably think they have 'won' now that the guy has got prison himself..
He should have gone to the police.. they could have done a proper operation, arrested, charged and likely imprisoned the dealer taking him off the streets, get the crack house shut down and put some referrals in for the 'users'.
:cheers: +1
ethariel
18-02-09, 01:04 PM
He should have gone to the police.. they could have done a proper operation, arrested, charged and likely imprisoned the dealer taking him off the streets, get the crack house shut down and put some referrals in for the 'users'.
Really?
Try reporting a residence for the selling of prohibited substances some time. All you get is 'Yeah, we know bout that one, cant do anything tho, one more search and they will complain bout harrasment again'.
Much easiet to get, say, 4 friends round in black leathers, black lids, black visors and assorted axe handles to sort it out.
Milky Bar Kid
18-02-09, 01:38 PM
Whatever cop told you that is an idiot and clearly not interested in his job or he would have taken it seriously. Or maybe its the way the Met deal with things.
You can't just expect t phone the Police and say "Jimmy at N.23 is dealing heroin - bye!" and for them to say "Oh, ok, I will take your word for it!" and for them to then get 20 officers, knock Jimmy's door in and arrest him and imprison him for life!
They need EVIDENCE. Knowing someone is doing it isn't enough. You need to be able to prove it.
In the original case we are discussing, it is entirely possible that the dealer is part of a far bigger operation where he might be the low-end dealer for a bigger "fish" as it were and it is also entirely possible that the vigilante (who, being Scottish myself I know how the court system works up here, would not have been jailed if he didnt have considerable previous convictions) has compromised a Police operation.
I do agree that more should be done, but you can't blame it all on the Police, after all, they are only doing their jobs and have their hands tied behind their backs half the time! (BTW - refering to the coppers on the beat - not the bosses!!!)
northwind
21-02-09, 05:13 PM
I don't think the talk of vigilantiism makes much sense. He (allegedly, but lets be honest here it's as good as fact) threatened the guy into not dealing heroin to his family, he DIDN'T do anything to actually stop the guy dealing heroin. If he'd gone to the police, it would probably have been possible to close the dealer down entirely and get HIM jailed, instead when he took it into his own hands he acted in a way that would still leave the dealer dealing. That's pretty poor vigilantiing... If he'd done something to take the dealer out of the equation entirely I'd be more impressed.
I wonder, with this case presumably the dealer was also arrested?
John 675
22-02-09, 08:56 PM
dont most vigelante's kill there intended targets? like the punisher lol.. the new batman does now.. lol,
if he hadnt got caught then he would be a silent hero.. but thats rule number one i suppose.. do not get caught.. but he has so off to prison he goes. now he will get abuse fromdrug dealers in his prison i guess?? but still i think judges are strange animals... they seem to enforce the law when it suits them.. yet pickpockets and chavs get away with a slap??
still i cant prove that the judicial system is flawed.. because i only hear about it in papers and the news stations.. i dont believe a damm thing they say lol,
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.