Inquest of Jean Charles

It's kind of pointless when the most "negative" result that can be gained is an open verdict. All the other stuff has been taken off the table.

My law teahcer says that unlawful killing was taken off the table because there wasn't enough evidence for that, there was not enough tom prove INTENTION.

Why not let the "jurors" decide?

What the current situation does is if they think the police officers are lying through their... teeth, all they can deliver is an open verdict.

It's an inquest, not a court.

No idea what the real differences are, but all an inquest can do is erm... no idea. What CAN an inquest do?

Decide how he died.

And emotions and intention are things that can be taken into account, intention is what makes the difffrence between murder and manslaughter.

No. You can still be found guilty of murder even if you say that you didn't do it.

If you run at someone (pre-mediating it first) and cause death or GBH, that is enough too prove the intention for murder. Except if they survive you'll be done for GBH or attempted murder.
Though there are some defences, like provocation, diminished responsibility, self-defence and insanity amongst others.

@ Lampy the other defence are pretty obvious but she wont know what DR (diminshed responsibility) is. Explain it in laymans terms.

ps have you hot your exam in January on this or is it in June?

What is an inquest

[quote=Naz]@ Lampy the other defence are pretty obvious but she wont know what DR (diminshed responsibility) is. Explain it in laymans terms.

ps have you hot your exam in January on this or is it in June? [/quote]

OK in English it means that you have something abnomral with your mind that caused you to kill. By the way, that doesn't mean you're mad.

My exam is in hot in June, because it's hot at that time, and in January our sweat will make it hot. Just kidding! It's in June.

[quote=The Lamp][quote=Naz]@ Lampy the other defence are pretty obvious but she wont know what DR (diminshed responsibility) is. Explain it in laymans terms.

ps have you hot your exam in January on this or is it in June? [/quote]

OK in English it means that you have something abnomral with your mind that caused you to kill. By the way, that doesn't mean you're mad.

My exam is in hot in June, because it's hot at that time, and in January our sweat will make it hot. Just kidding! It's in June.[/quote]

and....(you missed a crucial bit, when is it avaliable? Think of this as revision :D)

To all you lawyer types: will the final verdict have much credibility?

Why wouldnt it?

No idea.

But I do expect there be claims of whitewash afterwards from those that disagree, so I thought I would get some semi-informed opinions before-hand.

To my knowledge the general public are in agreement that there is something whiffy about what happened hence why they are having an inquest. The police force cannot be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as they are an exempt body under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate homicide Act 2007 (if i remember correctly). Any individual cannot be guilty as there is no one person to blame. They can and were found guilty for breaching health and safety regulations and failing to protect the public. All this inquest is going to do is determine how he died. Now if the jury determines the police force were responsible for Jean Charles de Menezez death and it was the result of their actions thats cause his death then it makes then look bad in front of the public. Ppl will lose trust.

But currently their only options are "lawful killing" and an "open verdict". They cannot determine that the police force were responsible.

Exactly

I dont know if you rememeber the famous case of Stephen Lawrence. The never found the men that killed him and the
Metropolitan police forced was branded institutionally racist. They also had an inquest for him i think. Not sure what the outcome was.

Stephen Lawrence

[quote=Naz][quote=The Lamp][quote=Naz]@ Lampy the other defence are pretty obvious but she wont know what DR (diminshed responsibility) is. Explain it in laymans terms.

ps have you hot your exam in January on this or is it in June? [/quote]

OK in English it means that you have something abnomral with your mind that caused you to kill. By the way, that doesn't mean you're mad.

My exam is in hot in June, because it's hot at that time, and in January our sweat will make it hot. Just kidding! It's in June.[/quote]

and....(you missed a crucial bit, when is it avaliable? Think of this as revision :D)
[/quote]

How do you mean? It's only available for murder, when the abnormality (e.g. learning difficulties, abuse, depression etc) caused you to lose responsibility. I'm trying to stay speaking in English.

[quote=The Lamp][quote=Naz][quote=The Lamp][quote=Naz]@ Lampy the other defence are pretty obvious but she wont know what DR (diminshed responsibility) is. Explain it in laymans terms.

ps have you hot your exam in January on this or is it in June? [/quote]

OK in English it means that you have something abnomral with your mind that caused you to kill. By the way, that doesn't mean you're mad.

My exam is in hot in June, because it's hot at that time, and in January our sweat will make it hot. Just kidding! It's in June.[/quote]

and....(you missed a crucial bit, when is it avaliable? Think of this as revision :D)
[/quote]

How do you mean? It's only available for murder, when the abnormality (e.g. learning difficulties, abuse, depression etc) caused you to lose responsibility. I'm trying to stay speaking in English.
[/quote]

Yeah thats what i was trying to get at. I would give you a gold sticker but i dont have one so have a smiley instead 😃

Self defence?

Otherwise, there would need to be something wrong on your side too to act as such.

If that person was about to attack you and you use reasonable force then yeah you can rely on the defence of self defence.

If that person is not about to launch at you with a knife or fist then no you cant kill them and claim self defence.

who are you trying to kill anyway?

[quote=Naz]If that person is not about to launch at you with a knife or fist then no you cant kill them and claim self defence. [/quote]

Unless you decide to plant some evidence too...

or you are a woman in a (potentially?) abusive marriage. Here you can use the argument to leave the house, go to B & Q, come back with some tools and then use them. You were too fearful to walk away or something... though not all juries will buy it.

(men could in the past argue the wife was nagging them, but I think that was repealed earlier this year.)

[quote=You][quote=Naz]If that person is not about to launch at you with a knife or fist then no you cant kill them and claim self defence. [/quote]

Unless you decide to plant some evidence too...

or you are a woman in a (potentially?) abusive marriage.

(men could in the past argue the wife was nagging them, but I think that was repealed earlier this year.)[/quote]

I think your talking about provocation there. Ive only come across cases where women have been physically abused by their husbands and after years of abuse they have finally plucked up the courage and killed their husbands. The women in those cases were unsuccessful at pleading provocation because of the cooling off period (it was premeditated). There was this one case where a husband had come home drunk, beat his wife then went to sleep. She went out got some petrol poured it over him and set him on fire. She got sent down because her actions were thought out and not immediate.

There was only one case of a man pleading provocation after his baby kept crying constantly and he tried to shut it up by chucking it across the room. I cant remember whether he was successful or not.

[quote=wednesday][quote=Naz]who are you trying to kill anyway?[/quote]

general knowledge

😃 (for future references)?[/quote]

Wednesday i didnt have to down at the violent type 😂
In that case im not saying anymore. I dont want to be part of your conspiracy lol.

The women in those cases were unsuccessful at pleading provocation because of the cooling off period (it was premeditated).

There was a law change earlier this year to make it easier to claim that. The same laws change got rid of nagging as a valid provocation.

(I do find the concept of murdering someone over being nagged as kid of funny.)

[quote=You]

The women in those cases were unsuccessful at pleading provocation because of the cooling off period (it was premeditated).

There was a law change earlier this year to make it easier to claim that. The same laws change got rid of nagging as a valid provocation. [/quote]

Ive not looked at criminal law for about 2 1/2 year ago. So i wouldnt know of any changes.

[quote] (I do find the concept of murdering someone over being nagged as kid of funny.)[/quote]

Ditto

[quote=wednesday]*Naz: It's honestly just for genral knowledge... I have no affiliation towards killing OTHERS. I'm TOO much of a hippie to accept killing, I think. [/quote]

I was only joking. Never mind.

[quote=Naz][quote=You][quote=Naz]If that person is not about to launch at you with a knife or fist then no you cant kill them and claim self defence. [/quote]

Unless you decide to plant some evidence too...

or you are a woman in a (potentially?) abusive marriage.

(men could in the past argue the wife was nagging them, but I think that was repealed earlier this year.)[/quote]

I think your talking about provocation there. Ive only come across cases where women have been physically abused by their husbands and after years of abuse they have finally plucked up the courage and killed their husbands. The women in those cases were unsuccessful at pleading provocation because of the cooling off period (it was premeditated). There was this one case where a husband had come home drunk, beat his wife then went to sleep. She went out got some petrol poured it over him and set him on fire. She got sent down because her actions were thought out and not immediate.

There was only one case of a man pleading provocation after his baby kept crying constantly and he tried to shut it up by chucking it across the room. I cant remember whether he was successful or not.

[/quote]

Yeah, Ahluwalia, but battered women can claim DR instead. Plus cummalative provocation, may be conisdered.

I think that guy WAS successful. BUGGER! There was this guy who killed someone who was innocently walking towards him, becasue he thought he was gonna be attakced, he was allowed the defence. Mad or what?

"Open Verdict" and claims of a whitewash. Who'da thunk it?

Mmmm... I'm looking forward to see exactly what changes have been and will be implemented in response to the outcome.

This whole thing is just atrocious IMO. The way the officers lied and colluded is just unbelievable. Right from the top I think this force needs serious changes, but unfortunately I don't think that will happen. Hopefully loads of heads will roll in the coming weeks.