Jail for standing up to drug dealer

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

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]

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.

Originally Posted by 454697819

oh **** this im off.. this country sucks.. Im off to populate the moon..

brb

lmao

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

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

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Whoever this judge is, I'd laugh my tits off if his daughter started taking crack and blowing dealers for her next hit.

Harsh but funny