Police officer accidentally strangles lover
- Thread starter bainbridge
- Start date
I believe the facts as evidenced by the technology investigation, the autopsy and the coroner, which all indicate that an argument happened, which by very nature must have been heated. It's not like they were sat in the car sipping champagne and he smashed her head over the dash board...
Let's not forget, she too was a bare faced liar.
"For loss of control to be considered, there has to have been a qualifying trigger, the text to Martha Brehmer revealing the affair in this case, and someone of the same sex and age as the defendant with a normal degree of tolerance would have reacted in the same way."
So it's clearly not a qualifying trigger, because no-one with a normal degree of tolerance straight up kills someone for doing that. Incredible that the judge thought this was met at all.
Did you read the whole dialogue? The judge provides his mitigation to the loss of control trigger.
Yes, I thought it was ********.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
That's a very generalising and offensive comment. I've been a cop for twenty years and I've met one, maybe two.
This is one of those things people say because they've heard it from a mate who's brother's ex-girlfriend's dad is an ex-PC.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
Just replying to the first comments..They always choose the worst picture to push the public opinion a certain way...
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Your not the general public are you Sherlock ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
First hand , they were also called Black Rats in the Met .
I directly quoted and replied to your exact argument and said nothing about you. That's not ad hominem.
If the judge didn't count it as a qualifying trigger, the sentence would have had to have been lower because it would have to be counted as involuntary manslaughter rather than voluntary manslaughter (given the not guilty verdict for murder).
I just don't understand 
11 people were sweet talked around his attempted buying of rope after her threatening to confess to his wife, around accidental fatal compression of the neck, around him factory resetting his phone... beyond reasonable doubt ??
Were the prosecutors just ****? Defence got the jury with mitigation and character? Are transcripts ever released?
11 people were sweet talked around his attempted buying of rope after her threatening to confess to his wife, around accidental fatal compression of the neck, around him factory resetting his phone... beyond reasonable doubt ?? Were the prosecutors just ****? Defence got the jury with mitigation and character? Are transcripts ever released?
I just don't understand
Were the prosecutors just ****? Defence got the jury with mitigation and character? Are transcripts ever released?
It does sound dubious. I'm wondering what the jury were told that we haven't been told. Or how they were told it - our court system does depend a lot on the relative skill of defence and prosecution.
Huh. The law on this is a mess.
It's meant to be clear enough:
Intended to kill (or do potentially fatal harm), was in control of themself, killed - murder.
Intended to kill (or do potentially fatal harm), was not in control of themself, killed - voluntary manslaughter.
Did not intend to kill, killed due to taking an unreasonable risk with someone else's life - involuntary manslaughter.
But the devil is in the details, so it's bound to be a bit messy especially when you're assessing it without having the relevant details.
It could be argued that excessive clarity is often an indicator of bad law because reality isn't neat. For example, a law banning the showing of a swastika. Sounds simple enough. No mess there. But what about all the swastikas not connected with the Nazis? Need to make the law messier by adding a further requirement - banning Nazi swastikas. But what exactly is a Nazi swastika? Need to make the law messier by adding a definition, but that comes with its own mess. If the definition is completely clear and precise, actual Nazis displaying a Nazi swastika for Nazi purposes would just have to change a small detail and it would be OK under the law. If the definition isn't completely clear and precise, it will include swastikas used for other reasons. Then there's education. Showing a Nazi swastika in the context of teaching history should be legally very different to showing a Nazi swastika in order to promote Nazism, glorify Hitler or whatever (the Count Dankula case sets a horrifying precedent that "context and intent are irrelevant", which is an extremely dangerous idea). Then there's education. Not a typo - what counts as education? Teaching people that Nazism is a great and glorious thing, blah blah blah, is education in one sense. Need to make the law messier defining what education means in the context of the initially simple but now very messy law banning the showing of a swastika.
I just don't understand
Were the prosecutors just ****? Defence got the jury with mitigation and character? Are transcripts ever released?
All of those are easily explainable as such to provide reasonable doubt. The transcripts were all released on each day of the trial.
When seen together I find that hard to believe.
Thank you. How do I find these?