When is murder murder

[apelike]

After the sentence was passed, the judge revealed to the jury that the passenger had claimed the driver had said "Watch this" before he drove at the policeman. ie indicating he knew exactly what he was doing. But this was not presented to the jury by the prosecution.

 

I think that is classed as "hearsay" which is not usually admittable as evidence as its quite complex to determine.

[Gamston]

I think that is classed as "hearsay" which is not usually admittable as evidence as its quite complex to determine.

Reminds me of the words "Let him have it"

[nomoney]

If you take a life in theses circumstances,then you pay with yours,when he gets out in say 10years for being a good boy,he will only do the same again.

I now believe in a eye for a eye.

[monkey104]

I think that is classed as "hearsay" which is not usually admittable as evidence as its quite complex to determine.

 

If the drivers words were repeated to a third party by the passenger then that third party repeating it would be hearsay.

As the passenger was present when the words were spoken and he has recalled them, then that is admissible in court, however I am not sure why the comment was not allowed in court in this instance.

[Olive]

If the drivers words were repeated to a third party by the passenger then that third party repeating it would be hearsay.

As the passenger was present when the words were spoken and he has recalled them, then that is admissible in court, however I am not sure why the comment was not allowed in court in this instance.

 

Interesting.

 

I wonder why the judge felt it was necessary to make a point of after the trial as well?

[Solitaire]

If you take a life in theses circumstances,then you pay with yours,when he gets out in say 10years for being a good boy,he will only do the same again.

I now believe in a eye for a eye.

 

Unfortunately it'll leave the world blind

Edited March 24, 2016 by Solitaire

[ricgem2002]

The average term that a killer served in jail for killing someone regardless of which charge was brought, was seven years.

not for murder now if you want to prove me wrong go ahead

[apelike]

 

Unfortunately it'll leave the world blind

 

No, it would leave the world with one eye..

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2016 at 02:15 ----------

 

As the passenger was present when the words were spoken and he has recalled them, then that is admissible in court, however I am not sure why the comment was not allowed in court in this instance.

 

What was the aim of the person who made the statement?

 

It could be used to help diminish the responsibility of that passenger (common enterprise) and therefore may not be true.

Edited March 24, 2016 by apelike

[blake]

There has to be intention to kill, not merely criminal disregard.

 

this is just not true. For murder to be murder, there has to be malice aforethought, but malice aforethought and a specific intention to kill are not necessarily the same thing.

 

for murder to be murder, the intent can be just to cause serious harm to somebody. It doesn't have to be a specific intention, to kill somebody.

 

if I stab somebody once (as opposed to about 50 times), then I might have no intention to kill them. But a person can still die, from a single stab wound. If I stab somebody once with malice aforethought and they die, then that's murder. It doesn't matter that I only intended to wound them, but that I didn't intend to kill them.

 

murder can even be murder if somebody with malice aforethought intends to inflict serious harm to one person, but that original person isn't harmed, and another person is killed instead. For example, I could be in a dark room and thinking I have stabbed Joe. But I didn't stab Joe. I made a mistake, and stabbed Jim instead, thinking it was Joe. I might not want have specifically intended to kill either Joe, or Jim. I might have only wanted to just stab Joe and not kill him. But that doesn't matter. So long as I with malice aforethought was prepared to inflict serious harm on Joe, it's murder, just the same.

[sgtkate]

this is just not true. For murder to be murder, there has to be malice aforethought, but malice aforethought and a specific intention to kill are not necessarily the same thing.

 

for murder to be murder, the intent can be just to cause serious harm to somebody. It doesn't have to be a specific intention, to kill somebody.

 

if I stab somebody once (as opposed to about 50 times), then I might have no intention to kill them. But a person can still die, from a single stab wound. If I stab somebody once with malice aforethought and they die, then that's murder. It doesn't matter that I only intended to wound them, but that I didn't intend to kill them.

 

murder can even be murder if somebody with malice aforethought intends to inflict serious harm to one person, but that original person isn't harmed, and another person is killed instead. For example, I could be in a dark room and thinking I have stabbed Joe. But I didn't stab Joe. I made a mistake, and stabbed Jim instead, thinking it was Joe. I might not want have specifically intended to kill either Joe, or Jim. I might have only wanted to just stab Joe and not kill him. But that doesn't matter. So long as I with malice aforethought was prepared to inflict serious harm on Joe, it's murder, just the same.

 

That's not criminal disregard. Criminal disregard for life would be wandering around a busy shopping centre wearing a blindfold swinging a machete. You have no way of knowing whether you'd hit and hurt someone or not and I'm wondering what you'd be charged with under UK law. My gut would say manslaughter, but I'm not 100%...