I think it would be a murder charge.
Armed gang violence. What's going on in Liverpool?
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,138
- Location
- Around Town
Sitting on that case will be grim
Click on the link and look at innocent little Olivia's face, so full of joy and love. She was killed over drugs, money, turf or whatever, it's totally heart breaking.
What has society become? We thought we were better than this.
Liverpool shooting: Victim named as Olivia Pratt-Korbel
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was shot as she stood behind her mother who was fighting to close the front door.
www.bbc.co.uk
What has society become? We thought we were better than this.
I could be mistaken but haven’t ‘Googled’ to be sure but I think there was nurse shot in a car park coming out of work a few years back. 2 youths having a shoot out and the nurse was an innocent victim, my memory tells me there was uproar as the shooter was only charged with manslaughter because he didn’t intend to kill anyone!!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Click on the link and look at innocent little Olivia's face, so full of joy and love. She was killed over drugs, money, turf or whatever, it's totally heart breaking.
Liverpool shooting: Victim named as Olivia Pratt-Korbel
Olivia Pratt-Korbel was shot as she stood behind her mother who was fighting to close the front door.www.bbc.co.uk
What has society become? We thought we were better than this.
People have seen this coming for decades, but the liberal classes would never relinquish their social experiments or consider them a failure.
That's across all of them, but with this being during the day, in public and at a definite known time the police have a much better starting point than in many.
Add in the fact a kid got killed and they'll probably have more resources to throw at it than most other cases (i'd imagine about now they're getting every bit of CCTV footage from the ares), add in any blood from the guy that was chased and they'll have DNA for a potentially very important witness.
I'd be surprised if they don't get an arrest for this, and I wouldn't be surprised if the guy that did it gets thrown under the bus by his own people (assuming gang related) just to lift the attention on them.
It was a murder.
This isn't the first time someone has killed the wrong person (young girl in a chip shop got shot a few years back), the intent was to kill someone, the action was taken to try and kill someone, it doesn't matter the wrong person died.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
I think 2 gang members were found guilty of murder last week when their friend was killed because they had gone with him for the purpose of commiting murder even if he wasn't the intended victim. Similar should apply in this instance I agree. They went to murder got the wrong person but the intent was to kill why be let off for getting the wrong target.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Currently the charge in England for killing someone accidentally, even if the actions of the killer were totally reckless, would be "Reckless Manslaughter" For it to be murder it would have to be the intention of the killer to kill a specific person or group of people. That's how I recall the law. I'd Google it but just know some politically correct **** from the Law Society or whatever, with every colour and creed pictorially shown, dumbed down so a worm could understand it, but with zero substance, will be found to wind me up
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,138
- Location
- Around Town
Man, 21, is charged with the murder of Tyson Fury's 31-year-old cousin
Liam O'Prey, of no fixed abode, has been remanded in custody and will appear at Manchester and Salford Magistrates' Court on Wednesday.
What is it then collateral damage ?
sounds like the guy who ran in their house just jumped in a black audi and left too... no doubt he will know who was chasing him.
someone should chop his hands and legs off for not sticking around and endangering other people in the first place.
Shame we don't have big crime families keeping the scum in check anymore
if you want to live that life style then man up and keep it away from the rest of society, probably some idiot who thinks he's a big man messing with the wrong people
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
We do, for example the "Adam's Family", otherwise known as the Clerkenwell Crime Syndicate. Liverpool had / have the "Black Caucus". Modern modus operandi differs a lot from the days of the Kray Twins unfortunately.
IANAL disclaimer, but I would think that if you are actively shooting at and chasing people then you are intending to commit murder, even if you hit the wrong target. It's not a situation where you can credibly claim that you were defending yourself, that the gun went off by accident or that you didn't intend to kill anyone.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Here's the definition of murder in English law, make of it what you will, personally I'd say, distasteful as it may be, the man who shot the child would have to be charged with reckless manslaughter and not murder, he presumably had no malice aforethought towards the child.
Administering pain relief see:
Withdrawal of treatment see:
The defence of necessity:
The defence of consent does not apply to murder:
Human being
The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact.
The actus reus of murder
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace.
Unlawful killing
Unlawful killing can be committed by an act or an omission. Therefore the case law relating to omissions found here will also be relevant to the law of murder. All unlawful killings are result crimes and thus causation must also be established.
Some killings may be classed as lawful. For example, killing in self-defence. Also when the death penalty was implemented, such state ordered executions would be classed as lawful. Soldiers and police may kill in the course of their duties but will be liable for murder if they go beyond their duty or use excessive force:
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact.
The actus reus of murder
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace.
Unlawful killing
Unlawful killing can be committed by an act or an omission. Therefore the case law relating to omissions found here will also be relevant to the law of murder. All unlawful killings are result crimes and thus causation must also be established.
Some killings may be classed as lawful. For example, killing in self-defence. Also when the death penalty was implemented, such state ordered executions would be classed as lawful. Soldiers and police may kill in the course of their duties but will be liable for murder if they go beyond their duty or use excessive force:
Also doctors may lawfully kill in limited circumstances:
Administering pain relief see:
Withdrawal of treatment see:
The defence of necessity:
The defence of consent does not apply to murder:
Human being
The second element of the actus reus of murder requires the victim to be a human being. This obviously excludes animals from the remit of murder but raises questions as to at what point does one become a human being and at what point does one cease to be a human being.
A foetus is not classed as a human being and therefore a person who kills a foetus can not be charged with murder:
A foetus is not classed as a human being and therefore a person who kills a foetus can not be charged with murder:
A foetus becomes a human being when it has been fully expelled from it mother and has an independent existence.
A person ceases to be a human being when their brain stem ceases to be active irrespective of whether they are being kept alive by artificial means:
A person ceases to be a human being when their brain stem ceases to be active irrespective of whether they are being kept alive by artificial means:
Disability now matter how extreme does not prevent a person being a human being see R v Inglis above.
In the Queen's Peace
The third aspect of the actus reus of murder excludes the killing of alien enemies in the time of war.
Mens rea of murder
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought. However this term is misleading in that it suggests some sort of ill will and pre-planning. Malice aforethought has been interpreted in the courts as meaning intention to kill and intention to cause GBH.
The third aspect of the actus reus of murder excludes the killing of alien enemies in the time of war.
Mens rea of murder
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought. However this term is misleading in that it suggests some sort of ill will and pre-planning. Malice aforethought has been interpreted in the courts as meaning intention to kill and intention to cause GBH.
The mens rea of murder covers not only direct intent, but also extends to oblique intent where the current test established in R v Woollin (case summary)applies. See further the lecture on intention.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,278
- Location
- The South
That's up there with blaming computer games and TV, it's completely horse **** especially considering gang and gun violence existed well before 10/12 years ago.
Although if you are going to blame <insert music genre here> music, then have you got the stats to back this up?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Further, this may well be the crux of any charge and case:
Mens rea - Intention
~~ Take the quiz on mens rea ~~
~~ try a word search or word scramble on mens rea ~~
~~ Play hangman on intention ~~
~~ Play arcade games on mens rea ~~
Mens rea in criminal law is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Most true crimes will require proof of mens rea. Where mens rea is not required the offence is one of strict liability. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.
Intention
Intention requires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of mens rea. A person who intends to commit a crime, can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly.
Intention differs from motive or desire (Per Lord Bridge R v
Moloney [1985] AC 905 Case summary). Thus, a person who kills a loved one dying from a terminal illness, in order to relieve pain and suffering, may well act out of good motives. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them having the necessary intention to kill see R v Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110 Case summary .
Intention can be divided into direct intent and oblique intent.
Direct intent:
The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. Eg D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result.
Oblique intent:
Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts are:
Subjective or objective test
The effect of s.8 was considered in:
Lord Bridge's test on oblique intent:
"First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."
However, R vMoloney left a problem with regards to the degree of probability required. This was considered in:
Mens rea - Intention
~~ Take the quiz on mens rea ~~
~~ try a word search or word scramble on mens rea ~~
~~ Play hangman on intention ~~
~~ Play arcade games on mens rea ~~
Mens rea in criminal law is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Most true crimes will require proof of mens rea. Where mens rea is not required the offence is one of strict liability. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.
Intention
Intention requires the highest degree of fault of all the levels of mens rea. A person who intends to commit a crime, can generally be said to be more culpable than one who acts recklessly.
Intention differs from motive or desire (Per Lord Bridge R v
Moloney [1985] AC 905 Case summary). Thus, a person who kills a loved one dying from a terminal illness, in order to relieve pain and suffering, may well act out of good motives. Nevertheless, this does not prevent them having the necessary intention to kill see R v Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110 Case summary .
Intention can be divided into direct intent and oblique intent.
Direct intent:
The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. Eg D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result.
Oblique intent:
Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts are:
- Should the test be subjective or objective?
- What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the defendant intended the result?
- Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer intention
Subjective or objective test
A subjective test is concerned with the defendant's perspective. In relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring from his actions. An objective test looks at the perspective of a reasonable person. Ie Would a reasonable person have foreseen the degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant's actions.
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition, intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However, originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent:
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition, intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However, originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent:
The effect of s.8 was considered in:
The House of Lords accepted a subjective test was applicable. However, the majority decision of the House of Lords was out of line with s.8 in that it was accepted that foresight of consequences being highly probable was sufficient to establish intent.(Lord Hailsham dissenting) a point which was taken and rectified in R vMoloney [1985] AC 905 (Case summary)
Lord Bridge's test on oblique intent:
"First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."
The degree of probability was still causing problems and the cases of R v Maloney and R v Hancock and Shankland were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in R v Nedrick which reformulated the test.
The authority of this test was questioned in Woollin. The House of Lords largely approved of the test with some minor modifications setting the current test of oblique intent:
The current test of oblique intent:
have you actually got any knowledge of drill music? it's all gangs fighting each other and creating beefs to stay relevant....
nothing like video games or rap music etc
how many drill artists got locked up for violent crimes like stabbings or shootings? seems like a lot of them
IIRC it's been ruled repeatedly in the past that if your intent to kill can be proven, say by chasing someone down with a gun and firing at them, or admistering a deadly poison to food/drink, it doesn't matter if you get the wrong person.
It's murder because your intent was to kill, the fact you killed the wrong person is largely irrelevant, likewise you equipped yourself with the means so it's not that it's spur of the moment and you've picked something up in anger (which might make it manslaughter).
For a similar case see this one, two people convicted of murder (32 years minimum), and a bunch of others who were rounded up and convicted of related offences when the police basically went after everyone, after a gang shot up a takeaway and killed a teenage girl when they missed their intended targets.