If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
'How is this not murder?'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Article and here.
What kind of people do we have serving on juries? Some people are clearly too stupid to serve on a jury, I cannot see how this disgusting act can be confused for manslaughter, it’s murder plain and simple and those responsible deserve to spend their entire lives in jail. This is not 'justice' and is a complete insult to an innocent person kicked to death in a really horrible murder.
What kind of people do we have serving on juries? Some people are clearly too stupid to serve on a jury, I cannot see how this disgusting act can be confused for manslaughter, it’s murder plain and simple and those responsible deserve to spend their entire lives in jail. This is not 'justice' and is a complete insult to an innocent person kicked to death in a really horrible murder.
0
Comments
If you go out with the definate intention to harm and video the harming then you deserve a long sentance.
And how can you kick someone repeatedly in the head and then be surprised they die?
If you intend to commit murder or GBH then if your victim dies you are a murderer. Which is what makes this decision more baffling.
I expect the media aren't reporting some crucial facts. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, I've come across biased media reporting so many times I wonder if we were in the same courtroom as each other half the time.
I think I've misinterpretated the article slightly wrong here, but:
to me what they did was murder. Yes, they never intended to kill the man, but they did end up killing him. And it wasn't like it's a car crash or anything similar to that - they could've prevented what happened to him (unlike with some crashes, explosions, etc) by not doing stuff like this in the first place.
And yeah, I am probably talking crap here, but that's my opinion
If I push someone over in an argument, and he bangs his head and dies, then it is not murder, despite me pushing him. If, on the other hand, I push him over and then jump on his head ten times, then it would be murder.
You have to intend to cause serious physical harm for it to be murder.
Given that on the media facts is looks an obvious case of GBH with intent, therefore murder, I find the decision bizarre. Which almost certainly makes me think there are a lot of facts not mentioned in the media reporting.
I hope you're right and that there is something we don't know about this case because if there isn't this is a very disturbing decision.
I do suspect that the media have omitted certain key facts, simply because they always do. The media love to paint the prosecution case as the truth, and always demonise the defendant before reporting his case with a huge side order of sarcasm.
Thanks
I also find the decision bizzare...
Maybe it'll become clearer after they're sentenced.
If you can't get out of jury duty you must be an idiot.
not really just say you hate minorities and discriminate against everyone
She ws the only one who found the man guilty, DESPITE the evidence.
Also, these youth's should be made to walk into Iraq. Wearing a US Flag shirt. Without weapons.
And stand in the middle of the street until they die.
That's right, I am.
Not only do i not believe in society, if I did I wouldn't do anything about it. Why would I? As far as I am concerned I am only a member of groups that I voluntarily sign up to, not ones forced on me by socipaths.
Best reply to Klintock ever.
Pretty good I admit. :thumb:
When the attack took place and it was first reported, it was reported as a "Gay hate crime". There were big newspaper headlines saying "Killed for being Gay".
Now with is it shows he wasn't killed for being gay, but part of an extreme game of happy slapping and 8 other people were attacked that night, not all gay it seems.
Now I think this crime is heinous and terrible. I also think attacking someone just for their sexuality and what have you is terrible.
But doesn't this just prove the media going for the sensational report and the inaccuracies in reporting?
The motive for the attack was completely different to what was reported when it happened.
It just makes me think.
I think its very curious they have suggested it wasnt a homophobic attack, there was supposed to homophobic abuse said at the time of the attack. And the judge hasnt ruled out adding it in when he sentances them.
It seems that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the person easily could have been a straight men, a black man, an asian man or whatever.
I didnt notice that myself, in fact the BBC coverage I heard expressly said the opposite.
I don't know so much, it's getting harder to get out of it.
Bizarrely, they even make judges and solicitors sit on them now. My boss was on jury service for two pointless weeks, given we know most of the barristers and half the clients that appear in Carlisle.
And?
Were you in Court? Did you hear all the evidence?
No? Well shut up then, because you don't know what the evidence was, or why she chose to think him guilty.
Besides, that's why you have 12 people on a jury. Because some people will see things differently.
Caller two was asked out of nowhere by Bill turnbull, "there was some suggestion with a previous caller that there may have been a plane around, have you heard anything like that."
Almost word for word. Far too keen.
IT is wonderful, because it does exactly that. Last week's about the "hijacked plane" was splendid.
Yeah, but thats Breakfast, its always fairly rubbish, no one takes it totally seriously, if they wanted serious news they'd be listening to Today on radio 4.
So, I can't judge things if I wasn't there. Ok.
The point is, she has always maintained men are guilty of rape all the time. Regardless of evidence. She is a very strong femenist, who regards women as superior in every way.
It's like Asking Hitler to judge a jew.