ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 No it wasn't. The man who threw the punch neither intended to kill the victim, nor to have good reason to believe that a punch would kill him. Tony Martin shot a man in the back with a weapon he had picked up with intent. He knew full well that a likely consequence of shooting someone is killing them. No comparison. Being to thick to understand that aggressively punching an older man into a busy road isn't a very good excuse. Tony Martin was the victim of the do gooder society which seams intent on protecting the rights of violent criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 No I'm not wrong, a lawyer from Chambers stated this very fact on the radio yesterday re. GBH, regardless of it being pre-meditated. The consequences were this GBH assault resulted in a death. Premeditation means that a course of action is considered before the guilty act in such a way as to likley increase the success of the action, or to evade escape. Deciding on the spur of the moment to slug someone isn't premeditiation There are two types of GBH, section 18 and section 20 offences. s18 requires intent to do so, s20 doesn not. Neither of them as a component of the offence require premeditation to the act. For a murder case to stand, there must be clear intent to kill (R v Matthews & Alleyne) or there must be clear intent to commit GBH and there must also be clear knowledge and foresight that death is a likley outcome - there must be clear intent (R v Moloney). Now there was no premeditation and there was little liklehood that a single punch would result in death. As such there is no way that a murder charge will stand, and manslaugher was the correct offence to charge with. As to the length of the sentence, he did plead guilty as soon as possible and so gets a 50% discount on the sentence, so that does mean the original sentence was eight years which would be more like what was expected - but the press never seem to mention that as it's not as sensational is it. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 20:17 ---------- Being to thick to understand that aggressively punching an older man into a busy road isn't a very good excuse. Tony Martin was the victim of the do gooder society which seams intent on protecting the rights of violent criminals. Tony Martin shot a fleeing man in the back. Martin deserved everything he got I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I was repsonding to tinfoil hat and the question he raised. Thats why I quoted it. You carry on with the cripplefight. maybe one of you might look at the law on murder, its not hard and pretty interesting. Things like intent and pre-mediation all have specific meanings and are covered by case law. Forgive me, you're the one denouncing the contributions of others (based on law), yet you're the worst armchair lawyer I've ever encountered. The facts we know are: i) The police and CPS considered the charge. ii) They charged him with manslaughter, not murder, because the facts of the incident supported it. iii) He was convicted and sentenced according to current sentencing guidelines. iv) I'm sure 'cripple fight' is a particularly offensive phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Being to thick to understand that aggressively punching an older man into a busy road isn't a very good excuse. The law is pretty clear on what constitutes manslaughter and what constitutes murder. If you think the law is wrong, campaign to change it. Tony Martin was the victim of the do gooder society which seams intent on protecting the rights of violent criminals. Tony Martin shot a man who was running away. He was a violent criminal, just like this guy who punched someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 People being felled by a punch is common, people dying from being felled by a punch is rare. The circumstances around that punch are rare, in fact the only person ever to be punched in those precise circumstances was killed. I would bet money that it could easily be replicated time after time and each time the victim would die. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 20:25 ---------- I don't think you've grasped the meaning of pre-meditated. Its easy to grasp, you think about it and then do it. premeditate Think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand. Thats what the thug did, he thought about it and then carried out the violent attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The circumstances around that punch are rare, in fact the only person ever to be punched in those precise circumstances was killed. Yes - what's your point? In law the charge was manslaughter and the defendant pleaded guilty. Are you suggesting the charge should have been different or that the law should be changed? I would bet money that it could easily be replicated time after time and each time the victim would die. Then you're clearly lacking in knowledge - or making wild suppositions. Possibly both. Besides - so what? What difference are you saying it makes to anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 poppet and boyfriday are either of you lawyers? Its all very well talking about what you think the law should be, but please dont present opinion as fact. If you are going to state fact, then back it up. Lots of this thread is pretty needless and a lot of the stuff wouldnt be posted if people had familiaried themselves with an understanding of the laws on murder. Thats why the lawyers dont get involved. Are we not allowed to express our disapproval of our currant laws and present alternatives for discussion? ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 20:31 ---------- Tony Martin shot a fleeing man in the back. Martin deserved everything he got I'm afraid. Not in my opinion, in my opinion he did the world a favour, the thug that killed an innocent man will hopefully one day meet the same fate as the criminal that terrorised Tony Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Its easy to grasp, you think about it and then do it. premeditate Think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand. Thats what the thug did, he thought about it and then carried out the violent attack. With respect you're making yourself look silly - dictionary definitions and legal definitions are very different things. Legally speaking premeditation revolves around things like planning, making preparations (weapons, for example), working out an escape plan etc. This assault was not premeditated. It was spur of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The law is pretty clear on what constitutes manslaughter and what constitutes murder. If you think the law is wrong, campaign to change it. I know, its doesn't change the fact that I disagree with it though. Tony Martin shot a man who was running away. He was a violent criminal, just like this guy who punched someone. Not in my opinion, Tony Martin was a victim of a society that cares more about the rights of the criminal, than the rights of their victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The British legal system is the laughing stock of the world. Ridiculous that the scrote in question got such a pitifully short sentence for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.