Police officer accidentally strangles lover

Hotwired · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:10

d_brennen said:
Haven't read the story but does it not set precedent that you can casually arrange to meet and strangle someone then say "didn't mean them to die". Asking for a friend

How ok are you with admitting manslaughter and defending lack of intent.

The guy isn't free to go anywhere but jail.

potatolord · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:12

bainbridge said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-54693540

So the officer has been cleared of murder, yet he accidentally strangled her during an argument. He's admitted applying pressure to her neck but didn't realise she was poorly when he left her in the car.

I only know what's in the article but it stinks to me.

He admitted manslaughter and will be sentenced for that. The burden of proof of intent is often hard to meet.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a heavy custodial sentence for manslaughter. Judges normally take a dim view of strangling ex-lovers- no matter how accidental it may be.

bainbridge · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:13

Dis86 said:
They did go with a murder charge. He was found not guilty.

My mistake I didn't read the article properly. I guess he had a fantastic lawyer!

200sols · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:14

cheesyboy said:
I think we can all reason that, whatever the law has decreed, a layman would call it murder.

The jury of lay people obviously didn't call it murder.

Hotwired · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:16

cheesyboy said:
I think we can all reason that, whatever the law has decreed, a layman would call it murder.

No we can't.

A jury, barring some miracle of selection, is 12 laymen and a majority of them didn't call it murder.

cheesyboy · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:19

200sols said:
The jury of lay people obviously didn't call it murder.

Hotwired said:
No we can't.

A jury, barring some miracle of selection, is 12 laymen and a majority of them didn't call it murder.

You both literally quoted the "despite what the law has said" bit, and still answered with "but the law said"

robfosters · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:20

builder22 said:
just meant the husband of the woman he was having an affair with was also a policeman

Apologies, I misunderstood

Hotwired · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:25

cheesyboy said:
You both literally quoted the "despite what the law has said" bit, and still answered with "but the law said"

What are you on.

The guy was accused of murder by "the law" and people who are not "the law" as in the jury of lay people said no.

200sols · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:27

cheesyboy said:
You both literally quoted the "despite what the law has said" bit, and still answered with "but the law said"

The article doesn't say the jury were directed by the law (the judge) to return a not guilty verdict therefore we can assume based on the evidence a jury of laymen found him not guilty of murder.

Angilion · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:29

cheesyboy said:
I think we can all reason that, whatever the law has decreed, a layman would call it murder.

No, we can't. A person who knows nothing about the case and believes what they're told to believe without thinking about it would certainly call it murder, but that's not everyone.

For example, what were the injuries? Do you know? Did you try to find out? The injuries would provide evidence of how the death happened, which should be considered extremely relevant. Do the injuries contradict his account of what happened? Do you know what his account of what happened is? If not, why not?

It's easy to make conclusions based on ignorance, which is why many people do it. But not all people. So your statement isn't true. What also shows that your statement isn't true is that the jury, who were probably all not police officers or legal experts, decided it wasn't murder. So "laymen" who saw and heard evidence didn't call it murder.

james.miller · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:29

Dis86 said:
Motive doesn't equate to intent.

Angilion said:
Motive is not the same thing as intent.

I didnt say they were the same, i pointed out he had a motive. But sure, he never intended to kill her when he strangled her. ahuh. yup. Brain injury caused by neck compression. Just how hard do you have to strangle somebody to do that?

Angilion · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:33

potatolord said:
He admitted manslaughter and will be sentenced for that. The burden of proof of intent is often hard to meet.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a heavy custodial sentence for manslaughter. Judges normally take a dim view of strangling ex-lovers- no matter how accidental it may be.

"strangling" probably isn't the right word here as "strangle" generally refers to a specific action that would almost certainly qualify as indicating intent to kill in this context.

cheesyboy · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:33

Hotwired said:
What are you on.

The guy was accused of murder by "the law" and people who are not "the law" as in the jury of lay people said no.

200sols said:
The article doesn't say the jury were directed by the law (the judge) to return a not guilty verdict therefore we can assume based on the evidence a jury of laymen found him not guilty of murder.

Angilion said:
No, we can't. A person who knows nothing about the case and believes what they're told to believe without thinking about it would certainly call it murder, but that's not everyone.

For example, what were the injuries? Do you know? Did you try to find out? The injuries would provide evidence of how the death happened, which should be considered extremely relevant. Do the injuries contradict his account of what happened? Do you know what his account of what happened is? If not, why not?

It's easy to make conclusions based on ignorance, which is why many people do it. But not all people. So your statement isn't true. What also shows that your statement isn't true is that the jury, who were probably all not police officers or legal experts, decided it wasn't murder. So "laymen" who saw and heard evidence didn't call it murder.

"We asked 100 people on the street if it was murder to strangle your lover to death after she revealed your affair to your wife"

How many do you think would call it murder?

Hotwired · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:37

cheesyboy said:
"We asked 100 people on the street if it was murder to strangle your lover to death after she revealed your affair to your wife"

How many do you think would call it murder?

So you want to revise your position.

Create a disgusting strawman of people extremely ignorant to the case facts and tell them to make a snap decision.

And throw the decision of the 12 laypeople who were given the evidence, into the bin.

Quality argument.

200sols · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:39

Hotwired said:
So you want to revise your position.

Create a disgusting strawman of people extremely ignorant to the case facts and tell them to make a snap decision.

And throw the decision of the 12 laypeople who were given the evidence, into the bin.

Quality argument.

Scrap juries, just ask 100 people off the street if they are guilty.

Angilion · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:43

james.miller said:
I didnt say they were the same, i pointed out he had a motive.

In direct response to this:

Angilion said:
So they couldn't prove he intended to kill her. That's not especially suspicious. It's not always possible to prove intent.

You wrote this and only this:

james.miller said:
True, i mean she only exposed their affair to his wife. No motive there lol.

So yes, you did say that motive and intent are the same.

But sure, he never intended to kill her when he strangled her. ahuh. yup. Brain injury caused by neck compression. Just how hard do you have to strangle somebody to do that?

What evidence do you have that he strangled her? Why did the jury not see that evidence or dismiss it?

cheesyboy said:
"We asked 100 people on the street if it was murder to strangle your lover to death after she revealed your affair to your wife"

How many do you think would call it murder?

You've just provided a perfect example of what I mentioned before:

Angilion said:
[..] A person who knows nothing about the case and believes what they're told to believe without thinking about it would certainly call it murder [..]

If you did what you suggested and deliberately gave false or misleading information to people and told them to make conclusions from it, at least a great majority of them would make the conclusions you wanted them to make. That's the point of giving false or misleading information to people. It's one of the ways to make a "study" to falsify "evidence" to support a preconceived position. It's very commonly done for the simple reason that it works.

cheesyboy · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:45

Hotwired said:
So you want to revise your position.

Create a disgusting strawman of people extremely ignorant to the case facts and tell them to make a snap decision.

And throw the decision of the 12 laypeople who were given the evidence, into the bin.

Quality argument.

200sols said:
Scrap juries, just ask 100 people off the street if they are guilty.

I'm not suggesting that he should be treated in the eyes of the law as a murderer. That's why I said to discount the law at the start of this. The law failed its chance at that.

My point is that morally he is a murderer. We don't take our morals from law, as that would be insane.

james.miller · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:45

Hotwired said:
So you want to revise your position.

Create a disgusting strawman of people extremely ignorant to the case facts and tell them to make a snap decision.

And throw the decision of the 12 laypeople who were given the evidence, into the bin.

Quality argument.

which case facts are important? that he was a serial cheater? that a previous lover said he 'groomed women'? doesnt that just make him look worse?

Angilion said:
You wrote this and only this:

james.miller said:

True, i mean she only exposed their affair to his wife. No motive there lol.

Click to expand...

So yes, you did say that motive and intent are the same.

No i didnt, you read it wrong. It's exactly as i stated, he had a motive. Motive is not the same as intent. I did not say it was, nor did i imply it.

potatolord · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:51

Angilion said:
"strangling" probably isn't the right word here as "strangle" generally refers to a specific action that would almost certainly qualify as indicating intent to kill in this context.

What about "throttling"?

Angilion · 27 Oct 2020 at 18:52

james.miller said:
[..] No i didnt, you read it wrong. It's exactly as i stated, he had a motive. Motive is not the same as intent. I did not say it was, nor did i imply it.

That would be true if your comment is taken out of the context you chose to put it in - a direct and sole reply and rebuttal to a comment about intent, not motive. I didn't read it wrong. I read it in context. Context which this forum removes when quoting.