"Crocodile Dundee" hero is set free !!

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Cavalry Doc, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    "Crocodile Dundee" hero is set free !!

    [​IMG]

    By JOHN COLES

    Published: 27 Feb 2010
    Add a comment Add a comment (26)
    A HERO soldier did a Crocodile Dundee with a MACHETE when yobs confronted him with a tiny PENKNIFE.

    Veteran Charles Cardwell, 54, pulled out his 2ft jungle blade and told them: "That's what you call a knife."

    Cardwell was set free by a court yesterday after he had been arrested for waving the blade at the yobs by his front door.

    In the 1986 Crocodile Dundee film a New York mugger pulls a flick-knife on the Aussie hero.

    Dundee asks: "You call that a knife?" before taking out his big hunting knife and telling them: "This is a knife."

    Cardwell, who had faced months of anti-social behaviour, said the youths fled after he produced the machete. He admitted using threatening words and behaviour and possessing the knife, known as a golok, in public. He got four months' jail suspended for a year and 100 hours' unpaid work.

    Warwick Crown Court heard soldier Cardwell of Leamington Spa, Warwicks, was injured in Northern Ireland in the '80s and in Iraq in 2005.

    Judge Christopher Hodson said: "This country owes you a debt for what you have done while serving in the Army."

    Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...le-Dundee-hero-is-set-free.html#ixzz0gnCe2Euz


    Finally, they found two sensible Brits that can agree.
     
  2. silentpoet

    silentpoet

    Messages:
    30,883
    Likes Received:
    21,478
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Location:
    This Old Caddy
    Sounds like they need a revolution, other than the ones Winston is doing in his grave.
     

  3. Mad Man 666

    Mad Man 666

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio
    next the guy is going to start fishing with TNT...lol
     
  4. RioKid

    RioKid

    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Location:
    SW Missouri
    "Get off of my lawn." :steamed:

    Age and experience will trump youth and stupidity every time.:supergrin:

    Good for Mr. Cardwell.
     
  5. jp3975

    jp3975

    Messages:
    7,469
    Likes Received:
    512
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Location:
    Texarkana, Tx
    That's pretty sad.

    Someone came to his house and tried to rob him with a small knife. He produced a large knife and said "that's not a knife; this is a knife" and gets arrested and given 100 hours community service.
     
  6. CharlestonG26

    CharlestonG26

    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    192
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Sad...but not surprising. This is just another example of the social decay that is destroying the UK.
     
  7. stevelyn

    stevelyn NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    4,619
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Yup. Welcome to Bizarro World justice in Britoony and the CW states. :steamed:
     
  8. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    I use another version of that.

    "Old age and treachery beats youth and vigor every time."
     
  9. treeline

    treeline

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    ex-CA, now UK
    On the radio they added a few details, like the kids (13-15yo) being in a public place and Caldwell threatening them prior to the kids pulling a knife. It's unclear what the penknife was. One of the teens claims it was a small Victorinox, a 2" non-locking blade, and they pulled it when some psycho walked up to them screaming vague threats.

    Not on his property and not a robbery.

    Also, I've got that machete! Great for brambles and light branches. It's much smaller than it looks in the photo, about a 12" blade.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  10. JuneyBooney

    JuneyBooney

    Messages:
    18,216
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    It is indeed kind of sad. He should have not been charged at all.
     
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    That IS a markedly different story. Those are not additional details, they directly contradict what was in the article. Both can't be correct.
     
  12. Hyksos

    Hyksos

    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    39
    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Location:
    Jupiter/Miami, FL
    LOL, man talk about turning a garbage man into a waste disposal specialist! Anti-social behavior? I think they mean mischief and crime, I saw on BBC news a week or so ago that in the UK they had formed a volunteer coalition to patrol mountainous regions. The volunteers said that they were seeking out 'anti social' behavior, like riding quads and dirt bikes, or groups of hooligans 'doing things.' Seems to me that doing something in a group, does not count as anti social.
     
  13. treeline

    treeline

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    ex-CA, now UK
    It's not a contradiction because the Sun article isn't that clear. They said the youths were "by his front door", which gives the impression they were on his property. The youths supposedly were not on his property but on public land. A lot of English houses, especially in towns, have little or no front garden I can understand how they'd be near the door without trespassing. A photo of the house would be interesting.

    The article also ignores what Caldwell said to the youths before they pulled the knife.

    I should admit I can't stand the Sun. Along with the Daily Mail they're the main fear-mongering newspapers. According to them Britain is full of feral teens who will stab you for kicks and then sue you for bleeding on their stolen sneakers. They're the main media channels for the 'ban knives & guns' brigade. After all, it's for the kids.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    In the article, the Youths are the aggressor, in your version, the man with the machete is the aggressor.

    There's a big difference there.
     
  15. racerford

    racerford

    Messages:
    6,227
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    DFW area
    It would seem from their crime statisitcs to be true. Well except the suing, it is a much different proposition their. Mostly they would complain to the paper and the police.

    The reports of people getting prosecuted for defending themselves are true. It is a sad state of affairs, that some are trying to change the laws to correct. I don't think they will allow a significant loosening of the weapons laws. Just if you defend yourself in your home with a cricket bat you won't be the one to go to jail.
     
  16. Walt408

    Walt408

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Location:
    Northeast Tennessee
    This reminds me when I was in the Army stationed in Turkey. A fellow GI, Sam, from the Bronx NY, was walking around Istanbul when a Turk came up to him with an open pocketknife and tried to rob him. Sam looked at him, looked at his knife, looked at him again, and laughed. The Turk turned around and walked away.
     
  17. Retseh

    Retseh

    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Violent, foul-mouthed teenagers are commonplace in the UK, and they terrorize the homes of countless victims.

    This man defended his home, not injuring anyone in the process, and earned a criminal conviction for it.

    Anyone who thinks this is some kind of victory is a fool.
     
  18. treeline

    treeline

    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Location:
    ex-CA, now UK
    You're right. I think it's just the Sun's interpretation. The court saw things differently. A big part of the Sun's readership is armed forces and I'm not surprised they slanted it towards the ex-forces guy. Not a big deal as it's really only a small local story.

    Having lived here for close on 10 years, I don't think that's correct. People defend themselves with bats, knives and guns all the time and it's never noticed because it's legal and nothing happens afterwards. It's the cases where it's ambiguous that get the press. It is NOT illegal to defend your property or your life.
     
  19. racerford

    racerford

    Messages:
    6,227
    Likes Received:
    2,025
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    DFW area
    My wife was born in England and she still has family there, one is a crown prosecutor and another is on the metropolitan police force in London. I have discussed this topic a number of times with them both.

    From a government website:

    Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime
    Guidance confirmed up to date: 7 July 2009

    PrincipleGuidance
    The Law and Evidential SufficiencyReasonable ForcePre-emptive StrikesRetreatingRevengeUse of Force against Those Committing CrimeFinal ConsequencesPolice PowersPrivate Rather than Public DutyCivilian Powers of ArrestBurden of ProofPublic InterestUse of Force against Those Committing CrimeApprehension of OffendersProcedureUseful Links & ReferencesPrinciple
    This section offers guidance of general application to all offences susceptible to the defences of:

    self defence;
    defence of another;
    The prevention of crime; and
    lawful arrest and the apprehension of offenders.
    Self defence and prevention of crime originates from a number of different sources. Defence of the person is governed by the common law. Defence of property however, is governed by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Arrest and the prevention of crime are governed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

    This guidance is particularly relevant to offences against the person and homicide, and prosecutors should refer to Offences against the Person, incorporating the charging standard and Homicide, Murder and Manslaughter elsewhere in this guidance.

    In the context of cases involving the use of violence, the guiding principle is the preservation of the Rule of Law and the Queens Peace.

    However, it is important to ensure that all those acting reasonably and in good faith to defend themselves, their family, their property or in the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders are not prosecuted for such action refer to joint CPS and ACPO leaflet - Householders and the Use of Force Against Intruders.

    When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence or action in the prevention of crime/preservation of property, prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:

    the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
    in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence generally.
    Prosecutors should be aware of the sensitivity of such cases. This is particularly so when the alleged victim of an offence was himself/herself engaged in criminal activity at the relevant time. For instance, a burglar who claims to have been assaulted by the occupier of the premises concerned.

    When considering cases where an argument of self-defence is raised, or is likely to be raised, you should apply the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors refer to the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

    The guidance in this section should be followed in determining whether the Code tests have been met.

    When considering the sufficiency of the evidence in such cases, you must be satisfied that there is enough reliable and admissible evidence to rebut the suggestion of self-defence. The prosecution must rebut self-defence to the criminal standard of proof see Burden of Proof in this section below.

    If there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence, and to rebut self defence, the public interest in prosecuting must then be carefully considered.

    Top of page

    Guidance
    The Law and Evidential Sufficiency
    Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

    The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr. App. R. 551; see also (Archbold 19-41);

    It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.

    The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v. R and other authorities, is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 19-39):

    A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

    Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters so, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

    Reasonable Force
    A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

    self-defence; or
    defence of another; or
    defence of property; or
    prevention of crime; or
    lawful arrest.
    In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

    was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? And;
    was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
    The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).

    To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

    It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R, 1971 A.C. 814);

    If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...

    The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41).

    However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

    In (R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315) it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

    Pre-emptive strikes
    There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves: (R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75).

    Retreating
    Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. . It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: (R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110)

    Revenge
    In (R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377) it was held:

    The mere fact that a defendant went somewhere to exact revenge from the victim did not of itself rule out the possibility that in any violence that ensued, self defence was necessarily unavailable as a defence.

    However, where the defendant initially sought the confrontation (R v Balogun [2000] 1 Archbold News 3.)

    ...A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself. If that is what he does then he acts lawfully.

    It follows that a man who starts the violence, the aggressor, cannot rely upon self-defence to render his actions lawful. Of course during a fight a man will not only strike blows, but will defend himself by warding off blows from his opponent, but if he started the fight, if he volunteered for it, such actions are not lawful, they are unlawful acts of violence.

    Use of Force against Those Committing Crime
    Prosecutors should exercise particular care when assessing the reasonableness of the force used in those cases in which the alleged victim was, or believed by the accused to have been, at the material time, engaged in committing a crime. A witness to violent crime with a continuing threat of violence may well be justified in using extreme force to remove a threat of further violence.

    In assessing whether it was necessary to use force, prosecutors should bear in mind the period of time in which the person had to decide whether to act against another who he/she thought to be committing an offence.

    The circumstances of each case will need to be considered very carefully.

    See Public Interest Use of Force against Those Committing Crime, below in this chapter

    In (R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 27), the Court of Appeal held that whilst a court is entitled to take account of the physical characteristics of the defendant in deciding what force was reasonable, it was not appropriate, absent exceptional circumstances which would make the evidence especially probative, to take account of whether the defendant was suffering from some psychiatric condition.

    Final Consequences
    The final consequences of a course may not be relevant to the issue as to whether the force used was reasonable. Although, the conduct of the suspect resulted in severe injuries to another or even death, this conduct may well have been reasonable in the circumstances. On the other hand, the infliction of very superficial or minor injuries may have been a product of simple good fortune rather than intention.

    Once force was deemed to be unreasonable, the final consequences would be relevant to the public interest considerations.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force

    The issue is not just the law, it is the interpretation of the law by the courts and the juries, based on their indoctrination. Use of weapons is severely frowned upon, knives and guns alike, other weapons to a lesser extent. If you bring a gun to a knife fight or against a youth with a cricket bat, even if you are defending yourself, your likelihood of being prosecuted is an order of magnitude greater in the UK than say in Texas. Their view of when it is reasonable to retreat, is significantly different than in Texas. Oh wait, we don't have to retreat in our home.

    Their evidence of conviction of people who defend themselves against crime is that they do it on a regular basis. The reason it doesn't happen more is people know they will get prosecuted, so they just let the criminals take what they want.

    Their attitude is evident in their police force. MANY police do not want to carry guns, even if they are would be given the chance. Their logic is if the criminals know that they will not be shot by the police, they will feel no need to shoot at the police. However, the immigrant drug gangs don't have that same mindset and they have had a number of police killed or injured as a result.

    It is not just the laws, but the mindset of the people.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  20. jp3975

    jp3975

    Messages:
    7,469
    Likes Received:
    512
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Location:
    Texarkana, Tx
    People can have guns in England?