When is murder murder

[sutty27]

By driving at the policeman by the side of it?

 

If he was aware enough of the dark, flat and relatively narrow stinger on the dark tarmac surface to try and avoid it, he can't have been unaware of PC Philips in his day-glo yellow hi-vis coat beside it at the side of the road

That it is.

 

I agree and if I had been on the jury I would have been happy to convict him for murder, not sure if the jury had that choice though.

[alchresearch]

Maybe murder would have been an unsafe conviction and led to an appeal that might have got him off.

 

While its frustrating that we can't call this killer a murderer in the technical sense, at least he's got 20 years. Lets just hope he serves it all.

 

And a life ban for motoring? Oooh I bet that's upset him loads and will surely stop him driving when he's released.

[pattricia]

Looks like he had a good lawyer (free) who advised him exactly what to say. !

[ricgem2002]

Looks like he had a good lawyer (free) who advised him exactly what to say. !

that's the thing about this country even if your poor you still have a right to legal representation. this is in no way taking away the outcome of his actions which he has been found guilty of and charged accordingly

[sgtkate]

By driving at the policeman by the side of it, instead of the flat, low and unobstructed central reservation?

 

If he was aware enough of the dark, flat and relatively narrow stinger on the dark tarmac surface to try and avoid it, he can't have been unaware of PC Philips in his day-glo yellow hi-vis coat beside it

 

But the argument could well have been, yes I swerved to avoid the stinger and the PC happened to be in the way. If that was the argument used then you'd have to prove it wasn't true which I'd suggest was impossible, hence the manslaughter verdict. To me it almost doesn't matter the words of the charge, what mattered was the sentence and that appears to be quite a strong one.

 

However, gut feel, yeah he blatantly drove at the copper making it murder. Hard to prove though.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 09:59 ----------

 

Looks like he had a good lawyer (free) who advised him exactly what to say. !

 

Sometimes it's hard to accept but innocent people get wrongly convicted too and our law has to remember that. I think the balance is roughly right, but there will always be cases that make you clench your fists about access to legal assistance. However, I wouldn't change it.

[milquetoast1]

But the argument could well have been, yes I swerved to avoid the stinger and the PC happened to be in the way. If that was the argument used then you'd have to prove it wasn't true which I'd suggest was impossible, hence the manslaughter verdict. To me it almost doesn't matter the words of the charge, what mattered was the sentence and that appears to be quite a strong one.

 

However, gut feel, yeah he blatantly drove at the copper making it murder. Hard to prove though.

 

Sometimes it's hard to accept but innocent people get wrongly convicted too and our law has to remember that. I think the balance is roughly right, but there will always be cases that make you clench your fists about access to legal assistance. However, I wouldn't change it.

 

^^ This

 

Agree 100%

[sutty27]

But the argument could well have been, yes I swerved to avoid the stinger and the PC happened to be in the way. If that was the argument used then you'd have to prove it wasn't true which I'd suggest was impossible, hence the manslaughter verdict. To me it almost doesn't matter the words of the charge, what mattered was the sentence and that appears to be quite a strong one.

 

However, gut feel, yeah he blatantly drove at the copper making it murder. Hard to prove though.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 09:59 ----------

 

 

Sometimes it's hard to accept but innocent people get wrongly convicted too and our law has to remember that. I think the balance is roughly right, but there will always be cases that make you clench your fists about access to legal assistance. However, I wouldn't change it.

 

The problem is that at age 39 when he is due out of prison will he be a better person or will he kill someone else within 3 weeks of leaving prison as he did on this occasion.

Its a crazy situation when people with the long list of criminal convictions and clearly unable to function in society are allowed to roam free.

[runningman1]

This was obviously not murder and quite obviously manslaughter. The man is not a murderer.

[sgtkate]

The problem is that at age 39 when he is due out of prison will he be a better person or will he kill someone else within 3 weeks of leaving prison as he did on this occasion.

Its a crazy situation when people with the long list of criminal convictions and clearly unable to function in society are allowed to roam free.

 

Fair point. I was trying to see if he was put on license for the rest of his life, or at least for a loner period than the 20 years. Can't find that info out there.

 

However just see this paragraph:

 

'The judge recognised Williams did not deliberately attempt to cause serious harm, but did deliberately drive the car at PC Phillips.' This makes me even more grumpy as how can he have not meant to cause serious harm driving at someone at high speeds as shown in the photo? As I say, there are cases that make you clench your fists, but the law has to prove intent...surely dubious in this case that intent wasn't shown by Williams actions?

[Stoned]

This was obviously not murder and quite obviously manslaughter. The man is not a murderer.

 

Oooh i wonder what the intention of this post is. Hmmm let me think.