Derek Grant Gets 6yrs For Fatally Stabbing Mugger, after Hes Stabbed In the Eye

1468910

Comments

  • DanCleggDanClegg Posts: 2,002
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What did he do?

    Why are you being selective about it? Does it matter to you what he did?

    What would you actually want to happen from this case? Do you want to deliver the message that if someone commits a crime against you, you're allowed to go and attack them with knives rather than let the police do their job?
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd happily see criminals, scum families etc, simply disappear......

    Some of us work hard, save, go without for the things we have and some shithead comes along and takes it.

    When I read a mugger/burglar/rapist has been killed, I feel no sympathy. The world is a fractionally better and safer place to be, without them on it.
    What did he do?

    You didn't define what they had to do to suffer your ultimate penalty. You said criminals/scum. This bloke was a past criminal, and guilty of an unlawful killing here. How is he not scum in your world?
  • LyceumLyceum Posts: 3,399
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well put........

    Ten convictions.......they seem to be given endless chances until one day they seriously injure someone or kill them. Then you get a faceless official on the news, wringing their hands, saying it was a tragic, senseless death.

    The criminals should fear our police, fear the consequences of their actions, fear the courts, not stroll around like bertie big bollox repeating their crime time after time after time.

    Basically this.

    People have no faith in the police because criminals don't fear them in any way shape or form. They are well aware than 9 times out of 10 they will get a slap on the wrist, if it happens they get a judge wanting to make an example then they get a few months in prison and then can brag to their friends how they have been in prison and wear it like a badge.

    One of my cousins is a career criminal. Had been in and out of prison all his life. I once asked him what it was like. He said 'just like home but without people nagging me'. He had a TV in his cel, a games console and a mobile phone. He would also regularly have people send him money in to buy trainers or clothes he wants. He does not see prison as a punishment at all, more an inconvenience.

    Now I'm not saying prisons should be like war camps etc. But right now criminals don't see them as a deterrent. And until that changes people will do as they please without fear of repercussions.

    The dead guy here had ten convictions. Why was he walking the street at all? Surely ten convictions should have the powers that be realising he is a danger to society and locking him up. Apparently not.

    I agree with the poster who stated that the US's three strikes your out rule might be worth considering.
  • ian_charlesian_charles Posts: 578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DanClegg wrote: »
    Why are you being selective about it? Does it matter to you what he did?

    Yes, it does. If he was found guilty of not paying tv licence, that is one thing. If he was a rapist that's another.
  • ian_charlesian_charles Posts: 578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You didn't define what they had to do to suffer your ultimate penalty. You said criminals/scum. This bloke was a past criminal, and guilty of an unlawful killing here. How is he not scum in your world?


    Rapist, kiddy fiddler, child trafficker, etc.

    He removed vermin......not an issue to me.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ... all it says is that he didn't have a record for violence.

    However, if we had the "Three strikes and you're out" he'd either be in jail or on a final warning.
  • ian_charlesian_charles Posts: 578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rapist, kiddy fiddler, child trafficker, etc.

    He removed vermin......not an issue to me.

    In other words all the ones you think should be dealt with by the courts, paroled after a relatively short time and then let out to re-offend.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    Of course we have no idea of what knives were involved. For all we know Bradley could have had a Stanley knife, with a short blade, and Grant could have had a six inch kitchen knife.

    So the first scenario you come up with is one where the original victim is now painted as the aggressor.

    Well done.
  • ian_charlesian_charles Posts: 578
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kaybee15 wrote: »
    So the first scenario you come up with is one where the original victim is now painted as the aggressor.

    Well done.

    Unbelievable isn't it......
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kaybee15 wrote: »
    So the first scenario you come up with is one where the original victim is now painted as the aggressor.

    Well done.

    Well, he did grab a knife and go looking for the thief, how did he expect him to react?


    Would you go looking for a potentially violent encounter with just a Stanley knife for company when there may be a kitchen knife available?

    Whereas, according to various news items, a Stanley knife seems to be in use by various criminal.


    Teenager who slashed best friend's face with a Stanley knife in an attempt to blind him is jailed for 16 years - 2012

    Man slashed in face with Stanley knife in Brighton street attack - 2012

    Five sentenced after men slashed in Midland Stanley knife attack - 2014

    Throat-cutter given ten year extended jail term for 'unprovoked' attack with Stanley Knife - 2014
    ...
  • RichmondBlueRichmondBlue Posts: 21,279
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DanClegg wrote: »
    Why are you being selective about it? Does it matter to you what he did?

    What would you actually want to happen from this case? Do you want to deliver the message that if someone commits a crime against you, you're allowed to go and attack them with knives rather than let the police do their job?

    But he didn't go after the mugger with the intention of attacking him with a knife. He went to get the mobile phone back which the thief had stolen at knifepoint.
    Even the prosecution didn't claim that Grant had instigated the attack, he just responded after being badly wounded.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He is an idiot, an idiot not to far from the highest level. Even if he didn't get his son's phone back by calling the police, he would still have two eyes and he would have his freedom.
    But Grant wouldn't have lost everything that he has. He would have gotten his phone back for certain, you can't say he probably would be free to commit another offence because nobody knows how it would have gone.

    I'm assuming that you are looking down on him then. You can't decide within the space of 15 minutes whether or not Grant would definitely have got his phone back (hint: he wouldn't), and you imply that despite his ten previous convictions, this potential eleventh would open Bradley's eyes and change him into a model citizen, praise the Lord (hint: it wouldn't).

    I really don't understand why people such as yourself are so very desperate to blame and ridicule the victims. It's abhorrent.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    His son was the victim (of the robbery), not him.
  • sandstonesandstone Posts: 1,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    I think he had good reason to expect he would be
    At the High Court in Livingston judge Lord Boyd noted that Bradley "was a man of violence" and had "10 convictions for assault" prior to his death.

    He told Grant: "But you, of course you did not know that. What you did know was that earlier that night Patrick Bradley had robbed your son of his mobile phone at knifepoint.

    To me this is the entire problem with the law, Bradley should never have been loose on the public.
    violent people like this i'd happily see locked up for life.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    sandstone wrote: »
    To me this is the entire problem with the law, Bradley should never have been loose on the public.
    violent people like this i'd happily see locked up for life.

    Fortunately, we'll get no more trouble from him.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    Well, he did grab a knife and go looking for the thief, how did he expect him to react?


    Would you go looking for a potentially violent encounter with just a Stanley knife for company when there may be a kitchen knife available?

    Whereas, according to various news items, a Stanley knife seems to be in use by various criminal.
    <snip for brevity>
    ...

    Sorry, are those links meant to back up your stance? All I see are stories of people having their faces carved open, then their families being threatened and attacked afterwards because they went to the police. I see dangerous lunatics being allowed their freedom time and time again after committing serious offences.

    What was Grant to do? Accept his son's mugging, say 'fiddle-di-dee' to the loss of a £500 phone? Ignore the trauma his son had been through? Obviously not. But equally obviously it is as dangerous a tactic involving the police as attempting to sort it out yourself - see the first link for details.

    The only thing that will work at this point is an enforced crackdown on all violent criminals, including the three strikes rule There is nothing to gain from imprisoning Grant, he and his son were the victims. Had they the assurance that Bradley would be dealt with severely, it is entirely possible that they would have simply gone to the police. As it is - I can fully understand why they did what they did. By going team-handed they were I suspect looking to intimidate Bradley into giving up the phone and leaving them alone. The knife was there as a last resort, evidenced by the fact it was Bradley who came out swinging with the blade, not them.

    What I can't understand is people actually blaming them - 'Oh, they probably had a bigger knife and the poor man was scared'. It is PRECISELY this sort of attitude that has caused us to suffer the likes of Bradley in society.
    His son was the victim (of the robbery), not him.

    And that is why I used the word victimS. Grant Jr the victim of the robbery, Sr the victim of being stabbed in the eye and blinded. Jeez.
  • Hollie_LouiseHollie_Louise Posts: 39,760
    Forum Member
    kaybee15 wrote: »
    I'm assuming that you are looking down on him then. You can't decide within the space of 15 minutes whether or not Grant would definitely have got his phone back (hint: he wouldn't), and you imply that despite his ten previous convictions, this potential eleventh would open Bradley's eyes and change him into a model citizen, praise the Lord (hint: it wouldn't).

    I really don't understand why people such as yourself are so very desperate to blame and ridicule the victims. It's abhorrent.

    Well you assume wrong then. I didn't say he would have definitely got his phone back but if he had used his brain, called the police and said "this man has my sons mobile phone" it could have been proven and he likely would have had his phone back.

    I also am not blaming the victim of the particular crime he was imprisoned for, I'm blaming the person that sunk a knife into a man five times. He is not the victim of THAT crime, he is the criminal.

    What is abhorrent is people thinking they can take the law into their own hands and stab people five times. This whole situation would have been avoided if he had engaged his brain before deciding to go after him. Instead, he made a decision to act like a tit and has been arrested and improsoned for a crime he committed. Yes I feel sympathy because he lost his sight and his son was mugged but his actions have caused his punishment. He's been man enough to admit to his crime and accept his punishment so good on him. But he did stab the man five times, that did lead to his death and because of that, the judicial system that apparently doesn't work has put him in prison.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kaybee15 wrote: »
    ...
    And that is why I used the word victimS. Grant Jr the victim of the robbery, Sr the victim of being stabbed in the eye and blinded. Jeez.

    ... and, of course, the corpse being a victim of vigilante behaviour.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,848
    Forum Member
    nanscombe wrote: »
    ... and, of course, the corpse being a victim of vigilante behaviour.

    The corpse is a victim of its own stupidity
  • WutheringWuthering Posts: 1,071
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's a good idea, lock up all the victims of crime.

    I love the way people on here can twist your post into literally anything they want when they have an agenda to push. This is one of the most extreme examples of that yet!
  • WutheringWuthering Posts: 1,071
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sandstone wrote: »
    Bradley should never have been loose on the public.
    violent people like this i'd happily see locked up for life.

    This is something I whole heartedly agree with.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,664
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well you assume wrong then. I didn't say he would have definitely got his phone back

    Yes you did. I even quoted it, but as you've omitted it from your later post, just for clarity, #125:
    But Grant wouldn't have lost everything that he has. He would have gotten his phone back for certain, you can't say he probably would be free to commit another offence because nobody knows how it would have gone.

    So we don't know if Bradley would have offended again, despite all evidence saying he would, but we DO know Grant would have got his phone back. For certain.
    I also am not blaming the victim of the particular crime he was imprisoned for, I'm blaming the person that sunk a knife into a man five times. He is not the victim of THAT crime, he is the criminal.

    Grant sunk a knife into Bradley five times because he had just been stabbed in the eye.
    What is abhorrent is people thinking they can take the law into their own hands and stab people five times. This whole situation would have been avoided if he had engaged his brain before deciding to go after him. Instead, he made a decision to act like a tit and has been arrested and improsoned for a crime he committed. Yes I feel sympathy because he lost his sight and his son was mugged but his actions have caused his punishment. He's been man enough to admit to his crime and accept his punishment so good on him. But he did stab the man five times, that did lead to his death and because of that, the judicial system that apparently doesn't work has put him in prison.

    The whole situation would have been avoided if Bradley had not mugged Grant Jr. It would have been avoided if he had returned the stolen phone when told to. It would have been avoided if he had resisted the urge to stab Grant Sr in the eye. His death was self-inflicted and well-deserved. Your consistent referring to Grant as a 'tit' is nauseating - he was a man reacting to extraordinary circumstances, in the imperfect way that humans do . If you truly cannot see this as an outrageous miscarriage of natural justice, then frankly I pity you.
  • FlibustierFlibustier Posts: 994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    motsy wrote: »
    The mugger would have only got a light sentence and a fine and told not to do it again so the real victim in all this is his victim who took matters into his own hands.
    Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson's character in the Death Wish films had the right idea.

    That's why those films are cult classics. If the police can't legally tell a neighbour to stop playing his stereo on full blast at 3am, why chance would they have catching a thief?
  • Hollie_LouiseHollie_Louise Posts: 39,760
    Forum Member
    kaybee15 wrote: »
    Yes you did. I even quoted it, but as you've omitted it from your later post, just for clarity, #125:

    Then if that is the case I apologise. I haven't typed what I initially meant to.
    Grant sunk a knife into Bradley five times because he had just been stabbed in the eye.

    In a situation he could have avoided by calling the police.
    The whole situation would have been avoided if Bradley had not mugged Grant Jr. It would have been avoided if he had returned the stolen phone when told to. It would have been avoided if he had resisted the urge to stab Grant Sr in the eye. His death was self-inflicted and well-deserved. Your consistent referring to Grant as a 'tit' is nauseating - he was a man reacting to extraordinary circumstances, in the imperfect way that humans do . If you truly cannot see this as an outrageous miscarriage of natural justice, then frankly I pity you.

    I've never said it wouldn't have been avoided if his son hadn't been mugged. I've expressed my sympathy to his son as I've been mugged, it's not nice.

    In al likelihood, if he had called the police like he should have done he would have his phone back. How would the mugger be able to deny it's his son's phone if the dad was stood there ringing it in front of the police?

    His death wasn't self inflicted, unless you're telling me he stabbed himself five times? I don't need your pity but thanks for extending it to me. Grant admits he was responsible for the death, it is his fault, he pleaded guilty so I'm not quite sure how it can be a miscarriage of justice.

    He knows he's done wrong, god knows why people on the net can't see it too.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As the old joke goes.

    "He ran onto my knife five times .... backwards"
Sign In or Register to comment.