Guys can you click on the links and let us know what you think.
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
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.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
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.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
No. You can still be found guilty of murder even if you say that you didn't do it.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
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.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
@ 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?
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
What is an inquest
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
and....(you missed a crucial bit, when is it avaliable? Think of this as revision :D)
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
To all you lawyer types: will the final verdict have much credibility?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Why wouldnt it?
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
But currently their only options are "lawful killing" and an "open verdict". They cannot determine that the police force were responsible.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
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
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
Self defence?
Otherwise, there would need to be something wrong on your side too to act as such.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If that person was about to attack you and you use reasonable force then yeah you can rely on the defence of self defence.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
who are you trying to kill anyway?
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
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.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Ive not looked at criminal law for about 2 1/2 year ago. So i wouldnt know of any changes.
Ditto
I was only joking. Never mind.
No not the gum drop buttons! – Gingy
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?
“Before death takes away what you are given, give away whatever there is to give.”
Mawlana Jalal ud Din Rumi
"Open Verdict" and claims of a whitewash. Who'da thunk it?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
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.
Pages