WTF is wrong with people?

BRASH said:
Did you actually read what I wrote? Maybe I should draw some wee pictures:facepalm::exit:.

The irrelevant part was aimed at Ruth's comment about it having to have been planned before hand - Quote - "it'll be hard to establish that he deliberately set out before the incident to kill someone." In the circumstances being discussed, this IS irrelevant because there is no requirement to prove this as a matter of necessity in this case (or in any other Murder). The point being it does not have to be planned.

Trust me, I know what it entails to have to prove a Murder, intent etc (albeit it's slightly different north of the border). I'll leave you to do the research if you feel so inclined. I had cause to do it some time ago and do not wish to do so again.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you've had whatever experiences you've had, but intent has to be there under English/Welsh law.

Murder

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
  • of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
  • unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
  • any reasonable creature (human being);
  • in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
  • under the Queen's Peace;
  • with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)
Now you can be as "Brash" as you like, those are the points the CPS will work to, and why many people who deserve a murder conviction are tried for Manslaughter instead.

The above was copied and pasted from HERE, and not made up by me, which I'm sure will come as a disappointment to many.
 
viv1969 said:
I'm sorry you've had whatever experiences you've had, but intent has to be there under English/Welsh law.

Murder

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
  • of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
  • unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
  • any reasonable creature (human being);
  • in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
  • under the Queen's Peace;
  • with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)
Now you can be as "Brash" as you like, those are the points the CPS will work to, and why many people who deserve a murder conviction are tried for Manslaughter instead.

The above was copied and pasted from HERE, and not made up by me, which I'm sure will come as a disappointment to many.
Click to expand...


Never said intent didn't have to be there under English law. What I said was your interpretation that he set out with the intention of killing someone was wrong. Maybe you just worded it poorly, maybe you're just thick:p
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Never said intent didn't have to be there under English law. What I said was your interpretation that he set out with the intention of killing someone was wrong. Maybe you just worded it poorly, maybe you're just thick:p
Click to expand...

Yes ok...I worded it badly. Certainly not afraid to admit that.
Do you have to be such an asswipe about everything?
Were you locked in a cupboard as a kid or is is just a gift?
 
viv1969 said:
Do you have to be such an asswipe about everything?
Click to expand...

Yes!!:D It's what makes me, me......................and oh, it's @rsewipe, ass is a Yank term. No need to thank me;)
 
BRASH said:
Did you actually read what I wrote? Maybe I should draw some wee pictures:facepalm::exit:.

The irrelevant part was aimed at Ruth's comment about it having to have been planned before hand - Quote - "it'll be hard to establish that he deliberately set out before the incident to kill someone." In the circumstances being discussed, this IS irrelevant because there is no requirement to prove this as a matter of necessity in this case (or in any other Murder). The point being it does not have to be planned.

Trust me, I know what it entails to have to prove a Murder, intent etc (albeit it's slightly different north of the border). I'll leave you to do the research if you feel so inclined. I had cause to do it some time ago and do not wish to do so again.
Click to expand...

I think I know what Ruth was getting at. I believe she was suggesting that: Was the killing something that was planned in advance, or did the individual suddenly flip out, loose it completely and kill the victim by mistake.

Evidence of planning to kill someone (pre-meditated) is certainly good grounds to support a charge of Murder and negates Manslaughter.

Manslaughter and Murder are two entirely different offences and both require different points to prove.
So if I have understood. Ruth correctly in this context Murder / Manslaughter, or even Culpable Homicide North of the border, can at times be very challenging and difficult to prove. I believe that is what she was suggesting. Of course I could be wrong.

Perhaps you would care to share your experience with us?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
and kill the victim by mistake.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that TBH (yes I know its defence under law)
but if you repeatedly stab someone, in a vital area, there is a good chance that you know they are going to die.
If the intention is only to wound then a slash across the face will do it.
 
BRASH said:
Yes!!:D It's what makes me, me......................and oh, it's @rsewipe, ass is a Yank term. No need to thank me;)
Click to expand...

No flies on you.
(Well....not many).
:p
 
BRASH said:
No offence like but I certainly would not.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. 20 years in the forensic arena and working within the Criminal Justice system I feel the same. Retired from it now.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I don't buy that TBH (yes I know its defence under law)
but if you repeatedly stab someone, in a vital area, there is a good chance that you know they are going to die.
If the intention is only to wound then a slash across the face will do it.
Click to expand...
Don't forget there may be a "I feared for my own safety" deffence put forward yet. Was the victim out of the car and if so why?
Horrible and frightening to think people have knives in cars with them. Thank god for the gun laws in the UK.
 
I hardly think a 79 year old poses a threat physically.
Legal requirement to stop and communicate with other parties (or their owners) following collision involving a motor vehicle

I experience road rage on a regular basis, it seems that the mere presence of another vehicle on the public highway is enough to trigger this. Recently on the Salisbury ring road, I'm in a traffic queue on the outer lane, a bus stops on the inner lane and immediately two 4X4 drivers try to change lanes. As others have pointed out these vehcles are disliked because drivers tend to think ownership of such a car gives you the right to force other users off the road. So I stop to let the first out, the second gives a barrage of repeated horn blasts and light flashing once he/she is behind me

I'm in favour of castrating violent criminals to ensure bad genes are not passed to the next generation. news bulletins are saying "following a minor collision between two motor vehicles...."
 
shapeshifter said:
Don't forget there may be a "I feared for my own safety" deffence put forward yet. Was the victim out of the car and if so why?
Horrible and frightening to think people have knives in cars with them. Thank god for the gun laws in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes he was with good reason, he had just unfortunately hit the rear of the suspects car, causing apparently minor damage, the only reason I can think of someone getting
paranoid over that is due to these idiots who cause accidents on purpose for the PI claims etc. But where the incident happened is a reasonably fast road and I have been told that the suspect stopped suddenly, not seen any reports say that but local knowledge sometimes finds out first.

It is a sad world we live in, on Friday I stopped at a local Tesco express near a busy railway station, as I started the car to leave a guy tapped on the window, he was parked behind
me and his car wouldn't start, did I have any jump leads. I did and we got the car going and off he went (n)
Had this happened in a remote car park I would have left him there, no way would I get out of the car for any reason, being female and on my own, even though he had his wife in
the car, sadly that is the way things have gone, the genuine people suffer.
 
shapeshifter said:
Don't forget there may be a "I feared for my own safety" deffence put forward yet. Was the victim out of the car and if so why?
Horrible and frightening to think people have knives in cars with them. Thank god for the gun laws in the UK.
Click to expand...

The law permits the use of reasonable force in self defence, subject to other criteria, but it's highly unlikely that a much younger man could justify the use of a weapon against an unarmed 79 year old, even if he could persuade the court that this man had 'attacked' him. Apart from anything else, disparity of force would be a major issue.

Why is frightening to think people may have a knife in their car? Knives are useful and I carry one nearly every day. It complies with the law, and I've never had the slightest inclination to misuse it, which would, potentially, make it an offensive weapon in any case.
 
shapeshifter said:
Don't forget there may be a "I feared for my own safety" deffence put forward yet. Was the victim out of the car and if so why?
Horrible and frightening to think people have knives in cars with them. Thank god for the gun laws in the UK.
Click to expand...

The UK has knife laws too.
Didn't really help this poor man did they?
 
kennethwfd said:
I hardly think a 79 year old poses a threat physically.
Click to expand...
Just before you stereotype too much, this was an active cyclist who had completed a 20 mile ride that day, then been out to officiate at an event. I'm pretty sure he was probably in better shape than me and many others.
 
MartynK said:
Why is frightening to think people may have a knife in their car? Knives are useful and I carry one nearly every day. It complies with the law, and I've never had the slightest inclination to misuse it, which would, potentially, make it an offensive weapon in any case.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough along with said jump leads, a Colman multitool and various other things so do I, found them all invaluable and various times.
A few years ago when my work meant a lot of late night driving I also carried something that I was told could be construed as an offensive weapon
by a policeman, who had stopped me to do a check. He said I should get one of those big maglites and keep that down by the seat, if used in defence
it wasn't classed as a weapon ;)
 
Gremlin said:
He said I should get one of those big maglites and keep that down by the seat, if used in defence
it wasn't classed as a weapon ;)
Click to expand...
The "proper way" to use a multi cell Maglite is to hold it at the bulb end and rest, the shaft on your shoulder for support,
( from there, its very easy to flip it over..... apparently ;) )
 
Cobra said:
The "proper way" to use a multi cell Maglite is to hold it at the bulb end and rest, the shaft on your shoulder for support,
( from there, its very easy to flip it over..... apparently ;) )
Click to expand...

Only what you've read, of course ;)
 
viv1969 said:
Neither is a baseball bat as long as you also carry the ball ;)
Click to expand...

I'll go along with what the nice PC told me if that's ok (y)
 
Cobra said:
The "proper way" to use a multi cell Maglite is to hold it at the bulb end and rest, the shaft on your shoulder for support,
( from there, its very easy to flip it over..... apparently ;) )
Click to expand...
Makes it harder to shove up someone's backside though ;)

Terrible terrible event. It would be very interesting to learn what drove this seemingly nice guy to go out of character like this and kill this man.
 
dejongj said:
Terrible terrible event. It would be very interesting to learn what drove this seemingly nice guy to go out of character like this and kill this man.
Click to expand...

We may never find out, he's been charged and appears in court tomorrow.
 
Gremlin said:
We may never find out, he's been charged and appears in court tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I just saw that on the news.
Charged, for the moment, with murder.
 
viv1969 said:
I just saw that on the news.
Charged, for the moment, with murder.
Click to expand...

I assume the court can acquit him of murder, but find him guilty of manslaughter? I'm not that familiar with English law.
 
Byker28i said:
Just before you stereotype too much, this was an active cyclist who had completed a 20 mile ride that day, then been out to officiate at an event. I'm pretty sure he was probably in better shape than me and many others.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic. as everybody knows apart from those who hate cyclists is that cyclists can do no wrong.

it appears that the other party was driving a classic car in pristine condition - I heard of a Morris Ital being sold for around £14,000 because about the only use it saw was to be driven to the testing station for it's MOT.

If this was the case,(classic car in pristine condition) then "the minor collision" would have devalued the car by £££ which would not be recoverable hence the road rage
 
Last edited:
MartynK said:
I assume the court can acquit him of murder, but find him guilty of manslaughter? I'm not that familiar with English law.
Click to expand...

Or he could do a deal for a lighter sentence !
I would imagine they must have good evidence to go with the murder charge
 
Last edited:
MartynK said:
I assume the court can acquit him of murder, but find him guilty of manslaughter? I'm not that familiar with English law.
Click to expand...

I thought murder is premeditited, the prosecuting counsel will try to prove that the defendant deliberately set out to end another's life.
Manslaughter is accidental which is why the defence counsel will try to convince the jury regarding mitigating circumstances regarding this incident and charge the defendant with manslaughter which carries a lower penalty
 
kennethwfd said:
If this was the case,(classic car in pristine condition) then "the minor collision" would have devalued the car by £££ which would not be recoverable hence the road rage
Click to expand...
The car would be repairable and easily restored to pre accident condition and the value wouldn't be altered.
 
kennethwfd said:
I thought murder is premeditited, the prosecuting counsel will try to prove that the defendant deliberately set out to end another's life.
Manslaughter is accidental which is why the defence counsel will try to convince the jury regarding mitigating circumstances regarding this incident and charge the defendant with manslaughter which carries a lower penalty
Click to expand...
Surely one stab wound could be construed as accidentally killed, not multiple. Once you get into multiple stab wounds that shifts the balance on the survival of the victim. I argue after a while the accused has a rough idea of what he is doing and what the outcome is likely to be.
 
kennethwfd said:
I thought murder is premeditited, the prosecuting counsel will try to prove that the defendant deliberately set out to end another's life.
Manslaughter is accidental which is why the defence counsel will try to convince the jury regarding mitigating circumstances regarding this incident and charge the defendant with manslaughter which carries a lower penalty
Click to expand...

Manslaughter can carry a lighter sentence, but the sentence of life is open to the court.
 
arclight said:
Is it OK if the ball is made of steel with spikes and attached to the bat by a chain ................ ;)
Click to expand...

That would make it a flail, and ever so slightly more illegal :lol:
 
nilagin said:
The car would be repairable and easily restored to pre accident condition and the value wouldn't be altered.
Click to expand...

Can classic paint be restored using "proper" bird poo proof paint or can only water based carp be used? Does anyone know exactly what the damaged car was? Not that any scenario makes the reaction acceptable or even understandable, just that even slight damage can make a huge difference to some classic cars' values.
 
He will be given a cell with sky TV, they will pay his rent until he gets out and then allowances for non job seeking

and he will study for a Phd in welding and Chinese .. the prison visitor will say what a marvellous man he is and social workers will clamber to take on such a prefect reformed person ........ he will get out, beat his girlfriend up for shagging his brother and then he will get into a car

Sorry I'm over generalising

£5 fine and an anger management course .. we live in a democracy
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Can classic paint be restored using "proper" bird poo proof paint or can only water based carp be used?
Click to expand...
I've never had any water based paint marked by bird poo, but the opposite on older cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top