I know how and why it is applied.
Do you have some people on ignore maybe? I was replying to someone suggesting being a passenger in a drunk driver's car should warrant a murder charge.
Convicted of a murder they didn't commit
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
Do you have some people on ignore maybe? I was replying to someone suggesting being a passenger in a drunk driver's car should warrant a murder charge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
No sorry, I think I've started by replying to the wrong post, the one you were responding to, whatever happened on the phone its quoted the reply instead of the question.
I was responding to the same chap as you.
That confuses the thread a bit.
Might get charged with thread obfuscation by joint enterprise if I'm not careful.
I was responding to the same chap as you.
That confuses the thread a bit.
Might get charged with thread obfuscation by joint enterprise if I'm not careful.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,181
- Location
- London, UK
So the driver is part of an armed robbery gang but doesn't enter the bank, one or more of his colleagues shoot and kill people in the bank, he is also charged with their murder. You have a problem with this?
These guys set out to murder people that night or at the very least to fire weapons in public with zero concern for who might have got caught up in the gunfire be it rivals or innocent members of the public. I have no problem with them being charged with the crime that was committed even though they didn't pull the trigger on the gun that actually killed. It could easily have been one of their guns, they likely wanted their guns to kill. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Last edited:
Yes.
If murdering was part of a plan that the driver was party to they should be charged with conspiracy to murder.
I don't see how I can explain my position any more clearly - I think that a person should only be convicted of crimes they are guilty of. I don't care how convenient it might be to plant evidence, invent laws to legally convict people of crimes they're not guilty of or just simply skip trials entirely and have an official decree people guilty because reasons. At least that would be more honest than a fake guilty verdict being dressed up and declared legal. The outcome is the same but it would be less contemptuous towards the idea of justice.
The more traditional way of doing the same thing is planting evidence. Do you approve of that? Only when you're sure they're guilty, of course.
None of them murdered anyone. They were ambushed en route and one of them was killed. The others were convicted of his murder, which none of them played any part in and none of them planned.
Had they killed someone, they should have been charged with murder or conspiracy to murder and/or attempted murder depending on the evidence. Each person individually, dependent on their own actions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,181
- Location
- London, UK
Personally I don’t have an issue with a felony murder style law. I’m not aware of anyone condoning planting evidence or bypassing a trial by jury or have I missed something?
But this is nothing new. Yes this is the first conviction of this type but the underlying legal arguments are as old as the justice system. It is somthing called 'causation'. So if I did A which lead to B, then to C and then D which was the death of a person. Had I not done A would we have got to D?
"To establish causation it is first necessary to ask if the defendant in fact caused of the specified consequence of the offence, i.e. "but for what the defendant did would the consequences have occurred?". This is referred to as the ‘But For’ (or sine qua non) Test. If the result would not have occurred 'but for' what the defendant did, then the prosecution has established causation in fact."
Rv Pagett 1983 is an interesting case. The defendant had a gun and used a pregnant girl as a human shield. He fired at armed officers but missed. The armed officers returned fire hitting the pregnant girl killing her. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter of the pregnant girl whom he never shot at, he appealed and lost. The court stated "the defendant had done two dangerous acts which a sober and reasonable person would realise were likely to cause harm, firstly by firing at the officer and secondly by forcing the victim to shield him from return fire. Both of these acts had in fact contributed significantly to the victim’s death. The conviction of manslaughter was therefore upheld."
If I was on the jury and the defence argued to me that these gang members in the OP had fired at another gang, who returned fire. Me as a reasonable person could see that the consequence of that may be that someone is going to get shot and as a result killed. Which may not have happened if the original gang members had not opened fire. Im sure they will appeal the murder conviction, maybe it should be manslaughter? But the CPS decided that they have a good case for murder, charged them and went to trial, and the court agreed and they were found guilty of murder. This to me is the justice system doing its job. Sad that people who dont like the result start going down the lines of planting evidence and bypassing trail. None of that has happened here. Established legal arguements based on previous case law has been used by both the prosecution and defence, in a public trial which has been reported on by the media.
"To establish causation it is first necessary to ask if the defendant in fact caused of the specified consequence of the offence, i.e. "but for what the defendant did would the consequences have occurred?". This is referred to as the ‘But For’ (or sine qua non) Test. If the result would not have occurred 'but for' what the defendant did, then the prosecution has established causation in fact."
Rv Pagett 1983 is an interesting case. The defendant had a gun and used a pregnant girl as a human shield. He fired at armed officers but missed. The armed officers returned fire hitting the pregnant girl killing her. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter of the pregnant girl whom he never shot at, he appealed and lost. The court stated "the defendant had done two dangerous acts which a sober and reasonable person would realise were likely to cause harm, firstly by firing at the officer and secondly by forcing the victim to shield him from return fire. Both of these acts had in fact contributed significantly to the victim’s death. The conviction of manslaughter was therefore upheld."
If I was on the jury and the defence argued to me that these gang members in the OP had fired at another gang, who returned fire. Me as a reasonable person could see that the consequence of that may be that someone is going to get shot and as a result killed. Which may not have happened if the original gang members had not opened fire. Im sure they will appeal the murder conviction, maybe it should be manslaughter? But the CPS decided that they have a good case for murder, charged them and went to trial, and the court agreed and they were found guilty of murder. This to me is the justice system doing its job. Sad that people who dont like the result start going down the lines of planting evidence and bypassing trail. None of that has happened here. Established legal arguements based on previous case law has been used by both the prosecution and defence, in a public trial which has been reported on by the media.
Amazes me anybody can live in the UK and believe differently.
You've definitely missed something, but there's no point in me repeating myself so I'll go at it from a different angle:
Why are you not condoning planting evidence? You're in favour of convicting people of crimes they didn't commit, so why quibble about the method of doing so?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,181
- Location
- London, UK
You are just being childish. If a felony murder law exists and taking part in criminal activity that then results in someone dying by one of the people you are conspiring to commit the crime with then you are being convicted of that crime, if what you did falls within that statute. You are attempting to confuse murder with felony murder. They aren't the same crime. You might believe that law shouldn't exist, fair enough.
You're evading the question. You're in favour of convicting people of crimes they didn't commit, didn't plan to commit, didn't intend to commit, had no part in the committing of, even crimes that occurred somewhere else that they didn't even know about until afterwards. So what reason would you have for objecting to falsifying evidence in order to secure a conviction? The goal is the same - a convenient conviction because you've decided they're guilty of something but you can't prove it. So why quibble about the method used to reach that goal? Or do you quibble about it? You've never said you're opposed to falsifying evidence in order to secure a conviction you want.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
I know someone who got 2 years recording a fight (to the death nearly) and distributing the video amongst others. Wasn’t directly involved but was there.
If they were convicted for something they did, I'm fine with that. Distributing the video. Being involved in planning the fight, if they were. Something they did.
If they were convicted for something they didn't do, I'm not fine with that.
It's that simple IMO.
A scenario for you, or anyone else:
Persons A, B and C plan to vandalise a building for some political reason.
A does the vandalising, B videos it, C remains in the car around the corner, out of sight of the surveillance camera on the front of the building. Engine running, ready to get them away quickly if needed. It's C's own car.
Person D comes along and decides to steal the car. D has no connection to the vandalism plan. No connection to A, B or C. D drags C out of the car and drives off with it. C hits their head badly when they fall and dies. Neither A nor B were in any way involved in the theft of the car or the death of C. They weren't even present. They didn't even know what had happened until later.
Do you consider A and B guilty of stealing C's car and murdering C despite the fact that they did neither thing and hadn't planned to do either thing and weren't present?
Do you consider C guilty of stealing their own car and murdering themself?
If not, why not? sine qua non and all that. Besides, they were bad'uns so it doesn't matter how they get convicted, just that they do. Ends justifies the means.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
I'm not sure of the full story but they got 2 years.