Home Politics & Debate
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.

'How is this not murder?'

Former MemberFormer 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.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe because their intentions were not to kill anyone, therefore it's manslaughter, not murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its also about time we start naming and shaming these scum bags
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    not normally one to say this but utter cunts they deserve at least 20 years in prison
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal16 wrote:
    Maybe because their intentions were not to kill anyone, therefore it's manslaughter, not murder.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm surprised too, which immediately makes me think that the media have neglected to publish a vast swathe of evidence.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal16 wrote:
    Maybe because their intentions were not to kill anyone, therefore it's manslaughter, not murder.

    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
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're kind of talking crap.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
    Juries are demented at the best of times, to be quite honest. How many decisions they make based on how they like the barrister or the defendant is quite unreal.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    You're kind of talking crap.

    Thanks :p
    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 also find the decision bizzare...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True although I'm struggling to think of factors the media could have left out which would make this manslaughter and not murder...

    Maybe it'll become clearer after they're sentenced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Juries are demented at the best of times, to be quite honest.

    If you can't get out of jury duty you must be an idiot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    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
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I know a man who's femenist (REALLY femenist... she actually HATES men...) sister got to do Jury duty on a rape trail.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    If you can't get out of jury duty you must be an idiot.
    And if you don't want to help moral society function, you're a selfish person. Society and peace require goodwill and sometimes, sacrifice. Social justice requires public participation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And if you don't want to help moral society function, you're a selfish person. Society and peace require goodwill and sometimes, sacrifice. Social justice requires public participation.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    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.
    Yes, I read some of your posts. You are child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    trinity1 wrote:
    Yes, I read some of your posts. You are child.

    Best reply to Klintock ever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I read some of your posts. You are child.

    :lol:
    Best reply to Klintock ever.

    Pretty good I admit. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actual I was gonna start a post abou tthis incident but thought better not but anyway, here is something I noticed.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    The motive for the attack was completely different to what was reported when it happened.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how its come out now, the man was a victim of a random attack by a group of youths determined to attack people. They got their kicks from it and engaed in the activity of filming attacks on video. It was not the first time they had done this and this man wasn't the only victim on the night.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes, interesting. I noticed the immediate desrire of BBC breakfast presenters to make a terrorist / airplane connection with the Hemelhempstead fire. They are slaves. And they have their favourite themes. And they are a business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    trinity1 wrote:
    yes, interesting. I noticed the immediate desrire of BBC breakfast presenters to make a terrorist / airplane connection with the Hemelhempstead fire. They are slaves. And they have their favourite themes. And they are a business.

    I didnt notice that myself, in fact the BBC coverage I heard expressly said the opposite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    If you can't get out of jury duty you must be an idiot.

    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.
    Teh-Gerbil wrote:
    I know a man who's femenist (REALLY femenist... she actually HATES men...) sister got to do Jury duty on a rape trail.

    And?
    She ws the only one who found the man guilty, DESPITE the evidence.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    I didnt notice that myself, in fact the BBC coverage I heard expressly said the opposite.
    The fire started at around 6, i was watching bbc breakfast from 6.15-7. They were taking callers from the public. caller one said it was near the airport. No more than that. Bill turnbull asked if there had been any witnessing of a plane before the explosion. caller said no.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you ever seen Broken News on BBC2?

    IT is wonderful, because it does exactly that. Last week's about the "hijacked plane" was splendid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    trinity1 wrote:
    The fire started at around 6, i was watching bbc breakfast from 6.15-7. They were taking callers from the public. caller one said it was near the airport. No more than that. Bill turnbull asked if there had been any witnessing of a plane before the explosion. caller said no.

    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.

    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.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Kermit wrote:
    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.