Darren Pencille murder trial

Soldato
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Posts
4,694
Location
Wiltshire
"The Old Bailey also heard from Mr Pencille's mother that he had been treated for paranoid schizophrenia in his 20s. Ingrid Robertson said her son had a fear of crowded places and public transport".... the excuses are brilliant.

Our justice system is a joke, I bet he'll be out in ten years.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I imagine pulling a knife out will be enough to make them leave you alone. This was murder of the first degree and I find it completely baffling that people are defending someone who stabbed a man 18 times???!!

Pencille admitted he was going to kill Pomeroy after the initial altercation, the self-defence argument doesn't enter the equation.
Both those things are a threat to kill. Do you think both would be enough to prove intent and thus murder? If not, why not?
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
If he quickly signs up for a university course to be a surgeon he might get away with a suspended sentence, the precedent has already been set for non fatal stabbings and our whole country is quickly spiralling into a basket case anyway, then again by the time it reaches court they'll probably be classing murder as a mental illness that needs sympathy and understanding.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2009
Posts
300
I classify this as murder. It’s pre-meditated one Pencille declares “I’m going to kill this guy”. He’s already armed too.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Posts
1,893
Location
Hants, UK
Both those things are a threat to kill. Do you think both would be enough to prove intent and thus murder? If not, why not?
It could be argued that a man with a previous history of paranoid schizophrenia and a fear of public transport, armed with a deadly weapon and on a train, was deliberately setting the scene to spark a situation that would lead to the intentional murder of an innocent person, all under the guise of self-defence.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,305
There is no certainty that the victim was an aggressor at any point. Talking to someone, objecting to something, having an argument doesn't make someone an "aggressor" nor justify a violent response of any kind. If the victim had threatened him verbally then sure, but we don't know that.

I mean if someone on a train called you a ****, say and then went to the next train carriage you're allowed to go to the next carriage too and tell them you're not happy about what they just said and indeed tell them you think they're out of order etc..etc.. that doesn't make you an "aggressor" nor necessitate any physical response let alone use of a knife.

That may be true, but with the number of psychopaths wandering around these days, is it really worth confronting anyone to say you didn't like being spoken to like that. Even if you were extremely polite about it, which I'd suspect in this case the victim wasn't and wanted to give the bloke a piece of his mind.

I'd read about the story when it first happened and just assumed that this guy was stabbed from an argument. But after seeing the video the other day, as soon as the defendant walked off and the victim followed after him I was shouting out why would you go after him.

I'm quite of the opinion that if the victim had just stayed put that day, I'm sure he'd still be around today. And maybe it's a lesson to us all, no matter how angry you are at someone on the bus/train/whatever calls you a ****, just walk on by.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Oct 2010
Posts
1,073
That may be true, but with the number of psychopaths wandering around these days, is it really worth confronting anyone to say you didn't like being spoken to like that. Even if you were extremely polite about it, which I'd suspect in this case the victim wasn't and wanted to give the bloke a piece of his mind.

I'd read about the story when it first happened and just assumed that this guy was stabbed from an argument. But after seeing the video the other day, as soon as the defendant walked off and the victim followed after him I was shouting out why would you go after him.

I'm quite of the opinion that if the victim had just stayed put that day, I'm sure he'd still be around today. And maybe it's a lesson to us all, no matter how angry you are at someone on the bus/train/whatever calls you a ****, just walk on by.

BBC and SKY updating the story as the case goes on, SKY giving more critical quotes from passengers of victims behavior stern, stubborn and patronising, taunting him, special needs, doesn't sound good

Seems Pencille did say he was hearing voices etc so Pomeroy must have known he was mentally ill or something but still continued the argument

Normally you can tell if someone isn't 100% sane and make allowances if they don't behave as expected or come across rude or awkward

obviously doesn't deserve what happened to him but isn't blameless either and escalated the situation, pride cometh before a fall etc

IF things had gone differently and no stabbing had happened we may be reading a different story of man verbally assaulting a mentally ill / disabled man on a train with phone footage from passengers on social media, similar has happened before

Whats best for the individual is to walk away, not worth taking the risk getting involved in any incidents, but that not whats best for society as then we have people turning a blind eye to minor bad behavior and an escalation until a minority feel they can behave however they like and no one will challenge them, then we get to the point where it becomes impossible to challenge bad behavior because everyone has knives etc

One angle i haven't heard yet the failure of mental health services allowing it to get to this stage
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Mar 2007
Posts
3,875
It's just more evidence that it's not worth getting into an altercation with someone over petty things. So someone bumps into you, gets in your way, etc, who cares really? Also, most of the time people who are rude are ******** anyway, they're not going to learn their lesson by you having a go at them, so what's the point?

At best, if it's someone that looks half decent they might apologise, but it's unlikely. You're more likely to get an earful, and at worst you'll end up getting attacked like the victim did in this case. I'm not saying the victim is to blame, stabbing someone 17 times is awful and the guy should be locked up, but it's evidence that it's probably best to think bigger picture, let the small things go.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
i suppose it could be argued the victims actions were aggravating rather than aggressive but that's for the lawyers to sort

however back in the real world, if you follow somoene you've just argued with to another area with the sole intention of confronting them then that is an agressive act - at least in my opinion. dude that size stomps after you in a train carriage after an argument, unless he comes in wanting to hug and kiss it's going to be read by the other party as aggression.

Why though? It depends on the actions and what is said, he didn't appear aggressive... it is ridiculous to label someone aggressive by default simply because they happen to be big. Say he's polite and he's say a posh bloke and has gone through and said for example "excuse me but I think you were completely out of order there chap, I believe I'm owed an apology" - how is that aggressive? Just because he's big.

He might have been aggressive, we don't know for sure but his body language didn't seem to be an unless we know what he said then you can't conclude that he is. Otherwise what is your reasoning for it?

Again - just to be clear, back in the real world I'm not advocating that it is a good idea to follow the "roadman" person in the first place, I'm taking issue with the idea that it is an inherently aggressive act, that is still to be explained by either yourself or the other poster who have claimed it is.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
That may be true, but with the number of psychopaths wandering around these days, is it really worth confronting anyone to say you didn't like being spoken to like that. Even if you were extremely polite about it, which I'd suspect in this case the victim wasn't and wanted to give the bloke a piece of his mind.

Well that isn't what I'm questioning, see above, I'm objecting to the idea that it is inherently aggressive regardless of what has been said. I've not made a claim that it is a good idea so people quoting me to point that out or add that in are missing the point a bit, I don't think it is a good idea either.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
Why though? It depends on the actions and what is said, he didn't appear aggressive... it is ridiculous to label someone aggressive by default simply because they happen to be big. Say he's polite and he's say a posh bloke and has gone through and said for example "excuse me but I think you were completely out of order there chap, I believe I'm owed an apology" - how is that aggressive? Just because he's big.

He might have been aggressive, we don't know for sure but his body language didn't seem to be an unless we know what he said then you can't conclude that he is. Otherwise what is your reasoning for it?

Again - just to be clear, back in the real world I'm not advocating that it is a good idea to follow the "roadman" person in the first place, I'm taking issue with the idea that it is an inherently aggressive act, that is still to be explained by either yourself or the other poster who have claimed it is.
i've already explained my position and reasoning in the post you quoted.
if you follow somoene you've just argued with to another area with the sole intention of confronting them then that is an agressive act - at least in my opinion.

I'll beef it out a bit as i probably wasn't very clear - and just to be doubly clear, the following is just my own opinion.....

if i have just had a stand up argument with some dude and i walk off and he then follows me to the next train car a few moments later - posh accent or no, which is largely irrelevant as i'll almost certainly see them before i hear them as i'll be keeping my eyes peeled for them following me, then i am going to read that as them being aggressive and i will prepare myself for what may be coming next and his physically size 100% plays a part in that. a big, apparently capable chap following you down a train is more likely to appear aggressive than a one legged smurf. you can take issue with it me claiming it's an inherently aggressive act all you want, that doesn't change my opinion. the victims intentions may have been entirely honourable (though i kind of doubt that) but the act of following someone you don't know after a heated exchange is immediately an aggressive act (imo) - unless you somehow pre-emptively make a huge and obvious attempt to appear non agressive (no idea how you'd do that other then holding up a sign or having the train conductor anounce it (i jest btw). almost always the person being followed is going to treat that action as aggression. even more so when they are off their head. and even more so when the other person is considerably bigger than them. unfortunatley for the victim he learned the hard way that trying to wrong a right or prolong a needless altercation rarely leads to a happy ending.

the defendant will almost certainly have seen the victim coming towards him, long before he heard anything he had to say and therein lies the problem for the genuine person looking for a bit of closure or an apology - the stage, as it were, is set(in the mind of the defendant) before they get to open their mouth and usually by that stage there's not a huge amount they can say that will deviate it from that path, especially when dealing with 'roadman' types (i like that term btw - i'll be using it more even though i had to goolge it!). if someone sees a stranger they have just argued with (and that dude is considerably bigger than them) follow them they are almost always going to immediately deem that as aggression. more fool them if they don't.

but we are all moulded by our own life experiences and those are almost always going to be different so while i hope you understand what i'm saying it may well just be a case that we view this situation differently due to these differing life experiences.

finally, just for clarity for anyone trying to misinterpret the above (not you dowie - but some others seem to be shouting about victim blaming, i'm 100% not victim blaming)

i am not for one second trying to justify the defendants actions - he has no place in society but the world can be a crappy place inhabited by crappy people so while the victim did not in anyway deserve to be stabbed to death you simply cannot go round following someone you do not know after an argument to give them a piece of your mind much as we would all like to. well you can, but if you aren't prepared for what may happen then for god/buddha/**** sake don't do it. perhaps a sad lesson for those who may view the world as a nicer place than I.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Well firstly you don't know that the initial exchange was heated (at least not both ways) the victim here might well have been calm/polite there too while the defendant was perhaps aggressive. And again just because someone happens to be big doesn't mean they're inherently aggressive in any confrontation.

You could just as well argue that that guy is aggressive because he's complained to a waiter about a fly in his soup and after the waiter was dismissive or rude he's then got out of his table to go find the waiter again and request that he send the manager over...

I know it is your opinion but I think the reasoning for it is inherently flawed. An aggressive act is one which is violent or hostile, simply getting up in order to object to someone's behaviour or make a complaint to them isn't an inherently aggressive thing to do and if you happen to be a big person that doesn't change anything.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
Well firstly you don't know that the initial exchange was heated (at least not both ways) the victim here might well have been calm/polite there too while the defendant was perhaps aggressive. And again just because someone happens to be big doesn't mean they're inherently aggressive in any confrontation.
quite right, just because someone is big doesn't mean they are aggressive but the perception of the person on the 'receiving end' will be different depending on the size of the person - you'd surely agree with that? if i am 4' 2" and standing having a heated debate with, the person i am arguing with is very unlikely to perceive me as being aggressive. if i'm 6' 8" and having the same argument the other person may very well perceive it as aggressive. size plays a factor in people opinions of certain situations, especially confrontational ones.

You could just as well argue that that guy is aggressive because he's complained to a waiter about a fly in his soup and after the waiter was dismissive or rude he's then got out of his table to go find the waiter again and request that he send the manager over...
i wouldn't argue that at all. the fact you bring a silly comparison like that in highlights the differences in our life experiences. the perceived likelihood of ending up involved in a physical altercation in someones place of work over a heated debate is going to be much less than having a heated debated in a public area such as a train.

An aggressive act is one which is violent or hostile, simply getting up in order to object to someone's behaviour or make a complaint to them isn't an inherently aggressive thing to do and if you happen to be a big person that doesn't change anything.
violence or open hostlity isn't necessarily required. when someone deliberately tries to make another person feel intimidated or threatened, it's an act of aggression. that can be done without violence or hostility (althought doing it without hostility may well be difficult). a big dude lumbering after you on a train following a heated debate certainly fits the bill of making the other person feel intimidated and threatened, no violence or immediate hostility present at that stage.

edit: i'm still not victim blaming before some randomer decides to quote my post out of context.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
quite right, just because someone is big doesn't mean they are aggressive but the perception of the person on the 'receiving end' will be different depending on the size of the person - you'd surely agree with that? if i am 4' 2" and standing having a heated debate with, the person i am arguing with is very unlikely to perceive me as being aggressive. if i'm 6' 8" and having the same argument the other person may very well perceive it as aggressive. size plays a factor in people opinions of certain situations, especially confrontational ones.

No I don't agree with that - that's ridiculous tbh.. a 4' 2 person can be aggressive. Of course if you're say a massive 6'6 person and a 4'2 person is being aggressive towards you then you're probably not going to be too fearful of it even if the aggression is somewhat physical. But the aggressive act itself is independent of the size of the person.

A midget can be very aggressive if they want. They might not pose much of a threat physically but that is entirely separate.

i wouldn't argue that at all. the fact you bring a silly comparison like that in highlights the differences in our life experiences. the perceived likelihood of ending up involved in a physical altercation in someones place of work over a heated debate is going to be much less than having a heated debated in a public area such as a train.

It doesn't highlight anything re: life experiences, it was simply a manufactured scenario to demonstrate a principle/make a point. And again we don't know that there was a heated debate, as far as we know the victim might well have been entirely calm.

violence or open hostlity isn't necessarily required. when someone deliberately tries to make another person feel intimidated or threatened, it's an act of aggression. that can be done without violence or hostility. a big dude lumbering after you on a train certainly fits the bill of making the other person feel intimidated and threatened, no?

Well no, not necessarily. It can be (dependent on what is said etc..) but it isn't automatically and that is the point.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,068
Location
London
Been following this case, I thought it was a fairly clear cut and I think it will still end up that way though a few points...
  • What on earth was the victim thinking following him after their first altercation, especially as he was with his child?
  • He carried a knife with him - so at least some internet to harm
  • He straight up stabbed him in the neck FFS
  • He knew he'd done wrong after admitting to his Mrs on the phone/change his appearance
  • His mother's evidence might mitigate some of his actions but I still can't see him going free
 
Back
Top Bottom