When is murder murder

[Marx]

The average time served for killing someone used to be seven years. I doubt it has changed that much over the last twenty years.

[ricgem2002]

The average time served for killing someone used to be seven years. I doubt it has changed that much over the last twenty years.

depends on what they were charged with manslaughter probably, murder and they got life and before the changes was 15 years

[Obelix]

It's been life ever since the 1960's when it replaced death.

 

The amount of time you spend inside varies, but you are always sentenced for the rest of your life, it just depends on how you behave as to where you get to live.

[runningman1]

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

 

To point out the obvious fact that this man is not a murderer. Anyone who thinks he is knows nothing about the case or doesn't understand what murder is.

[Obelix]

Go on then tell us why it's not murder?

[sgtkate]

To point out the obvious fact that this man is not a murderer. Anyone who thinks he is knows nothing about the case or doesn't understand what murder is.

 

I think most of us are discussing whether intentionally driving a car at high speed at someone on the side of the road gives enough intent to make it murder. The jury didn't think so, but that doesn't mean they were right. I'd suspect the vast majority of those jurors believe he's guilty of murder, but felt the evidence fell just short of proving it.

 

You have to prove intent based on likelihood and probabilities. Effectively, in laymans would an average person in the same situation have believed they were trying to kill him or cause serious harm and for me it's the bit highlighted that is key. He MUST have been intending to seriously hurt the police officer as it wasn't in doubt in the court case that he intended to drive at him.

 

On the flip side, manslaughter is based around negligence. You could argue that driving fast and killing someone on the side of the road was negligent and not intentional. Therefore not murder.

 

The key part as I've already said, is that the court agreed he DECIDED to drive at the PC on the side of the road. Therefore we have to consider whether an average person carry out the same actions would reasonably believe that hitting the PC at high speed would serious hurt or kill him. I'd say yes, therefore it's very borderline murder.

 

There may well be more in the court case that hasn't come out in the press yet, but unless you were sat in court room (were you?) then you are unlikely to know anymore of the key facts than anyone else.

[Obelix]

IF you intend to cause someone serious injury (such that it passes from actual harm to grevious bodily harm) and they die, then that is murder.

 

Having seen the video, it seems to be clear that his actions were going to cause such harm, but we cannot tell what the intent was. Was he swerving to avoid the stinger and didn't realise the copper wasn't going to move. Was he making the copper move and never meant to hit him? If there is no mens rea to cause harm then it gets a bit grey. Either way, it's still manslaughter and he's going to do life.

[Solitaire]

To point out the obvious fact that this man is not a murderer. Anyone who thinks he is knows nothing about the case or doesn't understand what murder is.

 

Then please do enlighten us.

[Jonny5]

The only reason I can think of for it not being murder is that the accused was/is too thick to realise that running a truck into someone is probably going to kill them.

 

I think people such as this that are overwhelmingly stupid and incapable of knowing what the consequences of their actions are might be more dangerous than pre-meditated murderers.

[sutty27]

I think most of us are discussing whether intentionally driving a car at high speed at someone on the side of the road gives enough intent to make it murder. The jury didn't think so, but that doesn't mean they were right. I'd suspect the vast majority of those jurors believe he's guilty of murder, but felt the evidence fell just short of proving it.

 

You have to prove intent based on likelihood and probabilities. Effectively, in laymans would an average person in the same situation have believed they were trying to kill him or cause serious harm and for me it's the bit highlighted that is key. He MUST have been intending to seriously hurt the police officer as it wasn't in doubt in the court case that he intended to drive at him.

 

On the flip side, manslaughter is based around negligence. You could argue that driving fast and killing someone on the side of the road was negligent and not intentional. Therefore not murder.

 

The key part as I've already said, is that the court agreed he DECIDED to drive at the PC on the side of the road. Therefore we have to consider whether an average person carry out the same actions would reasonably believe that hitting the PC at high speed would serious hurt or kill him. I'd say yes, therefore it's very borderline murder.

 

There may well be more in the court case that hasn't come out in the press yet, but unless you were sat in court room (were you?) then you are unlikely to know anymore of the key facts than anyone else.

 

That might be the mitigating circumstance, he must fall well below average, apparently he has been drinking alcohol and taking drugs since the age of six, which in its self is unbelievable, but if it is true he is very likely to have seriously diminished brain capacity, he is the product of a bad childhood, the question is can he be rehabilitated or has the damage caused by drugs and alcohol made him unrepairable.