RootsBooster Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The facts that we had at the time were A) Footage of the offence. B) Police statement/appeals about the offence. A) showed a powerfully built man striking a young girl with full force at the back of the head in a manner that could have caused death to result. A) Showed the man turning away to walk off as he was in the process of striking her. A) Showed no attempt to ascertain whether the victim was dead or alive A) Showed no interest in whether the victim was alive or dead B) Asked for information in identifying the offender and referenced no other offence committed nearby or made any suggestion they were looking for witnesses to any related incident. Based on that very clear evidence we pretty much all came to a conclusion that the possible taking of her life was unjustified in the extreme. Had the victim done the most unimaginable wrong to the perp that might in some way explain his actions then A) does not tally. The posters called it correctly and on the basis of the very strong evidence before them. Nobody has claimed or suggested that it was justified. EDIT: What exactly do you mean by "does not tally" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Nobody has claimed or suggested that it was justified. So there was no point waiting for the chaps pathetic excuse before expressing a desire for him to be brought to justice, so gnvqsos was out of order. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So there was no point waiting for the chaps pathetic excuse before expressing a desire for him to be brought to justice, so gnvqsos was out of order. End of. As stated earlier, if it turned out that she had done something similar or worse to him or someone else first, some peoples' comments would have been different, which was the issue we were discussing. The CCTV footage shows nothing before the attack because neither the victim or attacker was in frame. What exactly was GNVQSOS "out of order" for? So far you also seem to have fallen for Smithy's troll seed, when he suggested that GNVQSOS thought the attack might be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 As stated earlier, if it turned out that she had done something similar or worse to him or someone else first, some peoples' comments would have been different, which was the issue we were discussing. The CCTV footage shows nothing before the attack because neither the victim or attacker was in frame. What exactly was GNVQSOS "out of order" for? So far you also seem to have fallen for Smithy's troll seed, when he suggested that GNVQSOS thought the attack might be justified. I've laid out very clearly my views which I think are shared by all of those who objected in the strongest terms to this individuals actions without the need for knowledge of his "motive" on the basis of the evidence we had. I stand by that based on the evidence available at the time and it would by nice if gnvqsos just said "sorry guys, called it wrong" and then we could stop flogging this dead horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, an estimated 1.2 million British women experience domestic abuse a year. Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, said, "Domestic violence is a hidden emergency for over a million women in Britain every year who call out for urgent help but are not properly heard. “ Earlier in July, in a speech to women’s groups and criminal justice workers in London, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer warned that nine in 10 rapes and other serious sexual assaults go unreported due to the victims’ distrust of the UK criminal justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've laid out very clearly my views which I think are shared by all of those who objected in the strongest terms to this individuals actions without the need for knowledge of his "motive" on the basis of the evidence we had. I stand by that based on the evidence available at the time and it would by nice if gnvqsos just said "sorry guys, called it wrong" and then we could stop flogging this dead horse. I keep asking you, what do you actually think that he got wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I keep asking you, what do you actually think that he got wrong? He chided people on their views based on a hypothetical motive that would render those views erroneous. No such hypothetical motive existed based on the evidence in our possession. He called it wrong. Not the end of the world, admit it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 He chided people on their views based on a hypothetical motive that would render those views erroneous. No such hypothetical motive existed based on the evidence in our possession. He called it wrong. Not the end of the world, admit it and move on. He didn't though did he. He said nothing about anyone's views being wrong in the case of a motive being present. However, this was never the reason that I joined the debate and I will leave it at that and move on. My original comments were to do with Mr Smith/maxmaximus's suggestion that GNVQSOS thought that the attack may have been justifiable, several posters fell for this slight of discussion, particularly PeteMorris who made assumptions about GNVQSOS's views on the matter, due to Mr Smith/maxmaximus's misdirecting post. Smithy even tried backpedalling and twisting things again on the previous page, where his last resort became "troll" insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 He didn't though did he. He said nothing about anyone's views being wrong in the case of a motive being present. Yes that's exactly what he said. All these comments are made with little reference to the motivation of the assailant.At first glance it does look reprehensible but there must have been some motive for this attack.With little knowledge of the details comments must be both premature and foolhardy. Even he's given up defending what was a minor bit of forum one upmanship that's turned a bit sour. You've belatedly backed the wrong side in a long concluded argument. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Yes that's exactly what he said. Even he's given up defending what was a minor bit of forum one upmanship that's turned a bit sour. You've belatedly backed the wrong side in a long concluded argument. Let it go. Well I did, then you had to try and start it again. Where in that post does he say that people's views could be wrong? EDIT: and I haven't backed any side with this issue, I'm simply discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.