• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Car park killer avoids jail term"

Collapse

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Mailmannz, do you still get grazed knuckles?
    Only when giving your momma some action spod :rollin

    Mailman

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Personally I think any time someone causes death through a deliberate act, there should be a custodial sentence, even if its only a short period, to make it clear to them that they are guilty of a crime. I bet the perpetrator is, even now, saying to herself "I didn't really do anything wrong, otherwise they'd have put me in prison", and before long that will have changed to "I was in the right, the bitch deserved what she got".

    When you consider that people can be (and regularly are) put in prison for causing death negligently (i.e. they had no intent to cause harm to anyone, but they did not take reasonable care to prevent the harm occurring), then it seems unfair that someone who deliberately sets out to harm someone else gets a lesser sentence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    She never shot at them
    That makes it even worse. I don't condone using weapons to make threats, but in this case it was clearly an example of an essentially decent woman "acting out of character" in order to protect her property against a gang of yobbos.

    Between these two cases, which one is more deserving of prison?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    the judge was only too happy to lock the teacher away who dared to fire an air gun at local yobs
    She never shot at them. She threatened them with a loaded air pistol, them "fired" it into the ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Notice that laws of England bit?

    It was in Scotland, we've got a different system up there. As far as I'm aware English law doesn't apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Some more than others!

    Mailmannz, do you still get grazed knuckles?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    See Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol 4, Chap 14, William Blackstone

    And, if two or more come together to do an unlawful act against the king's peace, of which the probable consequence might be bloodshed; as to beat a man, to commit a riot, or to rob a park; and one of them kills a man; it is murder in them all, because of the unlawful act, the malitia praecogitata, or evil intended beforehand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    When involved in a fight there are certain things you simply don't do because, even in a state of anger, you know that it could have very serious consequences, and kicking someone in the head is taboo.
    Wage,

    When humans are faced with situations that make them excessively aggressive parts of their brain that deal with "reason" are switched off. This is a throw back to the days we were all monkeys (part of the flight or fight reaction and triggered when there is no way out).

    Unfortunately even though society has moved on, and this woman had a way out of the confrontation, we are still essentially monkeys at heart
    Regards

    Mailman

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Whether or not the woman had a heart condition the assailant should be charged with murder. If she hadn't been attacked she wouldn't have died.
    Quite. This is not a case of two burly guys arguing over a pint and having a tussle. Repeatedly kicking someone in the head is not an accident; it's serious. When involved in a fight there are certain things you simply don't do because, even in a state of anger, you know that it could have very serious consequences, and kicking someone in the head is taboo. The woman clearly intended to cause her victim serious harm, otherwise she would have satisfied herself with some hair pulling and slapping.
    If, in a fight, you attempt to bottle someone, is it an excuse to claim you didn't intend to harm them? Of course not; it's another example of an action that you know will cause a serious injury.

    There is simply no excuse for this kind of behaviour.
    My God, did Spod actually say that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    It was at least an intention to commit GBH which unfortunately resulted in death and probably counts as manslaughter at least.
    She got manslaughter (The scottish version, culpable homocide). Different laws in Scotland.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Kicking someone three times on the ground is likely to result in serious injury, any victim over about 50 is likely to be at a good risk of death from such treatment - that seems to be common sense.

    It was at least an intention to commit GBH which unfortunately resulted in death and probably counts as manslaughter at least.

    Custodial sentence should have applied, lets hope the next person she has a little disagreement with in a car park is a judge!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Obviously I'm not an expert on the law, so I can't say what or what not this is - but in my mind this, horrible as it is, doesn't strike me as being murder in the sense I understand it.

    She's commited a horrendous act, which apparently is completely out of character (Resorting to violence), which she has shown genuine remorse for, if the judge is correct. I would say she should get some sort of custodial sentence personally. But I wouldn't say she commited murder from what I've read so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Someone I know (who qualified as a barrister) likes to quote the phrase "you must take your victim as you find him" which I gather means that if someone has a glass jaw and dies from a single punch that wouldn't have harmed someone else, that's the puncher's bad luck; he is guilty of manslaughter.

    It looks like the victim being susceptible doesn't affect whether or not you are guilty, but does affect the sentence you get.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Until recently, any killing, even accidental, that occurred during the course of or as a direct result of a felony was automatically classed in common law as murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    If you repeatedly kick someone in the head, you are trying to kill them!

    Whether or not the woman had a heart condition the assailant should be charged with murder. If she hadn't been attacked she wouldn't have died. There is simply no excuse for this kind of behaviour.

    Spod.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X