Do you recognise these student rioters?

ColdAsIce said:
Not sure what the debate is here? Attempted murder is exactly what the police should be pushing for!
Click to expand...

What they should do is ship him off to some third world country and he can spend time learning what a truly hard life is rather than what he perceives as being harshness to his life. Then he might realise just how stupendously lucky he is in his life.
 
The maximum sentence imposed by a court for manslaughter is life, just the same as murder.

The Courts must impose a life sentence on any individual convicted of murder. This is the only sentence available for such a conviction.
 
Tombstone said:
What they should do is ship him off to some third world country and he can spend time learning what a truly hard life is rather than what he perceives as being harshness to his life. Then he might realise just how stupendously lucky he is in his life.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid argument really, as it is entirely not balanced. I don't agree with the protesters at all but to somehow suggest they don't have a right to do it because there are worse off people in the World, in entirely different circumstances, is stupid.
 
And the guy that drives 33 through a 30 limit outside the school at kicking out time - hurting no-one.

He knew he was breaking the law. It's only fluke no-one was killed by his 'crazy illegal actions'. So I guess yet another 'attempted murder'?

:/
 
ColdAsIce said:
Do we now need a signed confession of intent before anyone can be charged with attempted murder now?
Click to expand...

It's foolish to charge someone with a crime that is erroneous or even hard to prove. You charge for what you can convict. I fail to see how they can convict for attempted murder for this.
 
vonhelmet said:
I'll thank you for proving that he attempted to murder someone.

All we know is he attempted - and succeeded in - throwing a fire extinguisher off a building.
Click to expand...

So attempted manslaughter it is. A (as far as I know unused conviction) but a possible one.
Unfortunately, all the relevant journals are on jstor or westlaw.

vonhelmet said:
It's foolish to charge someone with a crime that is erroneous or even hard to prove. You charge for what you can convict. I fail to see how they can convict for attempted murder for this.
Click to expand...

The CPS often charge for one crime and offer another in response of a guilty plea. Therefore it'd be foolish to initially charge with a lighter crime if they had to then offer an even lighter crime to convict.

We're also forgetting that the mens rea for attempted murder, iirc, is to cause death or grievously bodily harm.
 
Last edited:
Ahleckz said:
That's a stupid argument really, as it is entirely not balanced. I don't agree with the protesters at all but to somehow suggest they don't have a right to do it because there are worse off people in the World, in entirely different circumstances, is stupid.
Click to expand...

Depends on who you are.

I dont complain about things in my life, why should I when I am so fortunate compared to most. Just my own personal view of life, not everyone will agree of course.
 
britboy4321 said:
And the guy that drives 33 through a 30 limit outside the school at kicking out time - hurting no-one.

He knew he was breaking the law. It's only fluke no-one was killed by his 'crazy illegal actions'. So I guess yet another 'attempted murder'?

:/
Click to expand...

Unless he drove his car into a group of people who were on the pavement and just managed to move out of the way in time it's still not the same.
 
britboy4321 said:
And the guy that drives 33 through a 30 limit outside the school at kicking out time - hurting no-one.

He knew he was breaking the law. It's only fluke no-one was killed by his 'crazy illegal actions'. So I guess yet another 'attempted murder'?

:/
Click to expand...


But if the guy driving the car at 33 is aiming at people walking on the pavement as long as he doesnt hit anyone its ok?
 
Bumhug said:
But if the guy driving the car at 33 is aiming at people walking on the pavement as long as he doesnt hit anyone its ok?
Click to expand...

The important thing is intent. There is no way in a court of law it would ever be proved that he intended specifically to kill someone (so, not to hurt them slightly, not to scare them, not to 'have a laugh in the heat of the moment', NOT 'it may kill someone but probably not, and I don't care I'm doing it' - THAT'S NOT ENOUGH for an attempted murder conviction). Nope - for the case to win, it needs to be PROVED beyond reasonable doubt at that point the kid suddenly thought out of the blue .. 'now is a good time to kill a random human being. Not just hurt or scare, but to kill another human being'.

It just wouldn't get through the court his defence would destroy it, and the scumbag would be LET OFF COMPLETELY. Nope, as someone said, they need to go for something lighter. The police will know this - I think as someone said they're just employing scare tactics ..
 
Last edited:
britboy4321 said:
The important thing is intent. There is no way in a court of law it would ever be proved that he intended specifically to kill someone
Click to expand...

a quick look on wiki (yeah it's wiki but it backs it up with several cases) says that for murder the intent can also be to cause GBH not just to kill.

The mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of murder is either an intention to kill (per the 2004 binding case of R v Matthews & Alleyne[7]) or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (R v Moloney[8], R v Hancock & Shankland[9], and R v Woollin[10]). In Moloney, Lord Bridge was clear that, for the defendant to have the mens rea of murder, there must be something more than mere foresight or knowledge that death or serious injury is a "natural" consequence of the current activities: there must be clear evidence of an intention. This intention is proved not only when the defendant's motive or purpose is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (direct intent), but when death or grievous bodily harm is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's act (indirect or 'oblique' intent).
Click to expand...
 
Ahleckz said:
Why? The Judge would probably allow the jury to rule upon an alternative charge. Attempted GBH would be the obvious one.
Click to expand...

OK fair enough. I'm just saying 'attempted murder' hasn't got a hope basically so don't bother wasting the courts time (and - ahem - the public money it will cost)..
 
Tefal said:
it's more akin to a kid throwing a firework into a group of people.
Click to expand...

Would you help re-enact that Tefal ?

I will throw a firework from a rooftop at you then, for comparison, hoy a fire extinguisher at you as well.

You can post the results back here either by blinking from your hospital bed or via a ouija board. ;)
 
britboy4321 said:
OK fair enough. I'm just saying 'attempted murder' hasn't got a hope basically so don't bother wasting the courts time (and - ahem - the public money it will cost)..
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unfortunately I can't for the life of me remember the test case for attempted murder. That may clear up this debate. But I agree with you that it would be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an intention. But, all a prosecution has to do is plant the seed in the jurors mind so you never know. It's much easier to plant a weed than to dig it out. ;).

If it does go to Court, I'll suspect it'll go in as attempted GBH or something and then the guy will be offered a plea of attempted aggregated assault or the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom