Obelix Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 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. Thankfully your opinion wouldn't count for very much in a court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Are we not allowed to express our disapproval of our currant laws and present alternatives for discussion? You've been very vague in your dissaproval - you haven't said specifically what you think is wrong with the law as it stands nor have you offered any alternatives. It's a bit rich to start bleating about not being allowed to say anything when you haven't even said anything. 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. If you think shooting a man who's running away from you is a noble deed you are a morally corrupt individual. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 20:37 ---------- 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. He didn't get sentenced for murder. Make some effort for crying out loud. The British legal system isn't the laughing stock of the world; many nations model their own system on ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 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 ---------- Tony Martin shot a fleeing man in the back. Martin deserved everything he got I'm afraid. No doubt 999tigger will be along shortly to challenge your wisdom, Obelix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 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? It doesn't take a genius to work that out. 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? How many people do you know that were punched in those precise circumstances that serviced, if the yob did it again to the same man in the same place the result would be the same, it wasn't an accident, the intent was to cause serious harm or death, only a thicko would think the victim wasn't going to fall back onto the busy road. ---------- Post added 27-02-2014 at 20:40 ---------- 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. I know, you really don't get this expressing an opinion thing do you, unlike you I am not a parrot that just repeats what they have been told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Not in my opinion, in my opinion he did the world a favour, Shooting a man in the back - a man who is no threat to you and is running away is an act of moral cowardice and depravity on a par with killing children in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 No doubt 999tigger will be along shortly to challenge your wisdom, Obelix. I wouldn't say I have wisdom as such, this isn't really a tricky thing to understand is it once you cut away the tendancy to hyperbole :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Thankfully your opinion wouldn't count for very much in a court case. Of cause it would if I was on the jury, you do understand that anyone of us could be called for jury service and we can all vote for political parties that support our opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I know, you really don't get this expressing an opinion thing do you, unlike you I am not a parrot that just repeats what they have been told. I get it very well. You have a right to hold and express your opinion - and I have a right to point out that it's reactionary, ill - informed and inconsistent and shows clear evidence of poor thinking skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I wouldn't say I have wisdom as such, this isn't really a tricky thing to understand is it once you cut away the tendancy to hyperbole :-) I'm sure there's an irony hidden away somewhere in that statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Of cause it would if I was on the jury, you do understand that anyone of us could be called for jury service and we can all vote for political parties that support our opinions. Yeah, but what are the odds of finding eleven other individuals with such ill informed views as your good self? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.