|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 13, 2023 22:00:58 GMT
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY ?.........They all should have been jailed for life at the very least....... The police do their level best to catch these oxygen theives and then are let down by our woke HR abiding idiots of the judiciary FFS.......Who in their right mind would want to be a copper these days?
Shocking moment Bandidos biker gang members killed motorcyclist for wearing rival 'colours' on quiet Devon road they considered their 'turf' as they are jailed for total of 20 years bullshit abiding Judiatury David Crawford, 59, was mowed down and dragged by van on May 12 last year Three members from a rival gang 'deliberately targeted' him, the court heard The leader was jailed for 12 years Friday, with the other two getting four years
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2023 22:21:37 GMT
I don't know why they could not prove murder in that case. Even if murder cannot be proven, the sentence for manslaughter can be life, if the judge says so.
It seems people with murderous intent should use a vehicle as weapon of choice, then they have a fair chance of literally getting away with murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 13, 2023 22:28:58 GMT
I don't know why they could not prove murder in that case. Even if murder cannot be proven, the sentence for manslaughter can be life, if the judge says so. It seems people with murderous intent should use a vehicle as weapon of choice, then they have a fair chance of literally getting away with murder. It must be soul-destroying for our police these days mate |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 13, 2023 23:13:48 GMT
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY ?.........They all should have been jailed for life at the very least....... The police do their level best to catch these oxygen theives and then are let down by our woke HR abiding idiots of the judiciary FFS.......Who in their right mind would want to be a copper these days?
Shocking moment Bandidos biker gang members killed motorcyclist for wearing rival 'colours' on quiet Devon road they considered their 'turf' as they are jailed for total of 20 years bullshit abiding Judiatury David Crawford, 59, was mowed down and dragged by van on May 12 last year Three members from a rival gang 'deliberately targeted' him, the court heard The leader was jailed for 12 years Friday, with the other two getting four years
They are a worldwide organisation founded in America.
Loads of evil comes from that country. This is just an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 14, 2023 2:18:34 GMT
"Parry, sentenced to longer in prison because of his 'significant, if not leading, role' in the joint enterprise!"
The 'joint enterprise' being a set of behaviours that would very likely result in the death of a targeted person.
Or to put in another way, the joint enterprise was a murder.
It's hard to fathom why deliberately driving into a person who is not obstructing you would not be counted as attempted murder
|
|
Equivocal
Full Member
Posts: 388
Member is Online
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 14, 2023 6:53:22 GMT
I don't know why they could not prove murder in that case. Even if murder cannot be proven, the sentence for manslaughter can be life, if the judge says so. It seems people with murderous intent should use a vehicle as weapon of choice, then they have a fair chance of literally getting away with murder. . When asked why he struck the rear wheel of the Kawasaki motorbike on the A38 on-slip at St Budeaux, Parry replied: "I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to knock him off into the verge."
"Why?" asked Mr Brunton.
"I don't know. I lost all me common sense. I just didn't use my common sense" answered Parry.
That's as close to admitting murder as anything I've ever read. (Can't say I can see joint enterprise, though.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 11:16:47 GMT
I don't know why they could not prove murder in that case. Even if murder cannot be proven, the sentence for manslaughter can be life, if the judge says so. It seems people with murderous intent should use a vehicle as weapon of choice, then they have a fair chance of literally getting away with murder. . When asked why he struck the rear wheel of the Kawasaki motorbike on the A38 on-slip at St Budeaux, Parry replied: "I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to knock him off into the verge."
"Why?" asked Mr Brunton.
"I don't know. I lost all me common sense. I just didn't use my common sense" answered Parry.
That's as close to admitting murder as anything I've ever read. (Can't say I can see joint enterprise, though.)
Not it is not. It's saying what your dodgy lawyer told you to say in order to lessen the charge. He's saying he had a fit, as in he is mental. There is therefore no intention to do it, like it just happened. |
|
Equivocal
Full Member
Posts: 388
Member is Online
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 14, 2023 11:29:31 GMT
Beggars belief. When asked why he struck the rear wheel of the Kawasaki motorbike on the A38 on-slip at St Budeaux, Parry replied: "I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to knock him off into the verge."
"Why?" asked Mr Brunton.
"I don't know. I lost all me common sense. I just didn't use my common sense" answered Parry.
That's as close to admitting murder as anything I've ever read. (Can't say I can see joint enterprise, though.)
Not it is not. It's saying what your dodgy lawyer told you to say in order to lessen the charge. He's saying he had a fit, as in he is mental. There is therefore no intention to do it, like it just happened. If you had in mind the partial defence of temporary loss of control, it doesn't work that way. He clearly intended to drive his van at the victim; the fact he saw red before doing so is of no assistance to him whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 11:34:59 GMT
Not it is not. It's saying what your dodgy lawyer told you to say in order to lessen the charge. He's saying he had a fit, as in he is mental. There is therefore no intention to do it, like it just happened. If you had in mind the partial defence of temporary loss of control, it doesn't work that way. He clearly intended to drive his van at the victim; the fact he saw red before doing so is of no assistance to him whatsoever. Indeed, but he is not admitting that. He is denying like hell he had any mens rea at all. I've seen this tactic used millions of times. |
|
Equivocal
Full Member
Posts: 388
Member is Online
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 14, 2023 11:45:31 GMT
If you had in mind the partial defence of temporary loss of control, it doesn't work that way. He clearly intended to drive his van at the victim; the fact he saw red before doing so is of no assistance to him whatsoever. Indeed, but he is not admitting that. He is denying like hell he had any mens rea at all. I've seen this tactic used millions of times. It's not a denial of mens rea. A denial of mens rea would be something like, "I meant to frighten him, not hit him". Not that anyone with any common sense would be likely to believe that.
The intent (mens rea) here is intending to drive a van at a victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 12:04:24 GMT
Indeed, but he is not admitting that. He is denying like hell he had any mens rea at all. I've seen this tactic used millions of times. It's not a denial of mens rea. A denial of mens rea would be something like, "I meant to frighten him, not hit him". Not that anyone with any common sense would be likely to believe that.
The intent (mens rea) here is intending to drive a van at a victim.
Yes it is a completely pathetic excuse and hence there is complete lack of remorse and therefore one such person the judge should throw the book at. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 14, 2023 12:57:33 GMT
I don't know why they could not prove murder in that case. Even if murder cannot be proven, the sentence for manslaughter can be life, if the judge says so. It seems people with murderous intent should use a vehicle as weapon of choice, then they have a fair chance of literally getting away with murder. In murder trials the Crown has to prove to the Jury that the alleged killer or killers had " Intended " to kill that person it was not accidental, that is where mens rea as already mentioned comes in which means basically " Guilty Mind Intent " obviously the Jury were not convinced of that, I personally think their decision based on the evidence they were shown and told is ludicrous. Quite often the CPS in cases like this charge the accused with two offences, Murder and an alternative charge of Manslaughter which they did just in this case they cannot prove intent, the CPS refused to accept a guilty plea offered to Manslaughter and went for Murder but the Jury were not convinced of that |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 13:01:35 GMT
Plastic Hells Angels. Murderous Guppies pretending to be Sharks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 14, 2023 13:09:00 GMT
The intent (mens rea) here is intending to drive a van at a victim.
I agree. The intent to drive a van at a motorcyclist is indistinguishable from the intent to kill him. Putting a line between the two is like trying to argue that stabbing a man in the chest with a six inch knife is distinct from trying to kill him. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 14, 2023 13:09:04 GMT
Where was the court case tried?
|
|
