Whaley Bridge (UK) - attempted burglary / shooting

[200sols]

Yes...and you understand that beforehand means before the murder? Right? So that can be 30 seconds, a minute, an hour.

I don't think it's reasonable to think much planning has occurred in 30 seconds but if that's your understanding of it then so be it.

Still waiting for your claim re premeditation and the law being quite clear. If the law is clear surely you can provide evidence.

No but if you don't premeditate it then it's manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary depending on the circumstances). The law is quite clear on that.

 

[Dis86]

I don't think it's reasonable to think much planning has occurred in 30 seconds but if that's your understanding of it then so be it.

Still waiting for your claim re premeditation and the law being quite clear. If the law is clear surely you can provide evidence.

You don't think? Pretty sure I can go and fetch a weapon in 30 seconds.

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Clearly states there has to be an intention to kill them. As stated already, intention and premeditation are synonyms.

 

[200sols]

You don't think? Pretty sure I can go and fetch a weapon in 30 seconds.

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Clearly states there has to be an intention to kill them. As stated already, intention and premeditation are synonyms.

No intent and premeditation are not the same. Intent can be formed on the spot in the spur of the moment whereas premeditation requires prior planning. Premeditation indicates a time span between the planning of the event and the actual event.

You will find in the sentencing guidelines a significant degree of planning or premeditation is an aggravating factor and lack of premeditation is a mitigating factor.

Aggravating factors are things that make an offence even more serious and increase the minimum term. These
include:
 a significant degree of planning or premeditation;
 the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age or disability;
 mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death;
 the abuse of a position of trust;
 the use of duress or threats to enable the offence to take place;
 the fact that the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty; and
 concealing, destroying or dismembering the body.

Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:
 an intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than to kill;
 lack of premeditation;
 the offender suffering from a mental disorder or mental disability which lowered his degree of blame;
 the fact that the offender was provoked (for example, by prolonged stress);
 the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence;
 a belief by the offender that the murder was an act of mercy; and
 the age of the offender

 

[Dis86]

Premeditation implies nothing of the sort hence why, by your own admission, there is an impact on sentences for long/longer planning.
There is absolutely nothing, even in your second section, that says premeditation cannot be 5 seconds.

 

[Stu999]

Can you take this to DMs?

 

[Rainmaker]

Can you take this to DMs?

Are you new here? At least they're related to the OP for a change...

 

[200sols]

Premeditation implies nothing of the sort hence why, by your own admission, there is an impact on sentences for long/longer planning.
There is absolutely nothing, even in your second section, that says premeditation cannot be 5 seconds.

So the fact a mitigating factor of murder sentencing is a 'lack of premeditation' means nothing to you? Nor the fact despite you claiming the law is quite clear re premeditation you seemingly can't find a single source to back it up.

 

[Dis86]

So the fact a mitigating factor of murder sentencing is a 'lack of premeditation' means nothing to you? Nor the fact despite you claiming the law is quite clear re premeditation you seemingly can't find a single source to back it up.

Literally posted multiple...

I'll give you a couple of scenarios to see if you can finally understand.

You're in an incident of road rage where someone's cut you up and you gesticulate that they're a ******. They've immediately pulled across the front of you, grab a wheel wrench from their boot, smashed your window and caved your skull in. All of that happens in about 30 seconds. Premeditated? Yes. They pulled across the front of you. They grabbed an item from their car to use as a weapon. They broke through your window. They broke through your skull.

You're in an incident of road rage where someone's cut you up and you gesticulate that they're a ******. They've found your address using your registration that night. They scope out your address and start to find the patterns of when you're in or out. They buy petrol. They wait until you're in an asleep. They pour petrol through your letterbox and light it. You die of smoke inhalation. Premeditated? Yes. Longer timescale and more planning.

One shows lack of premeditation (or planning) and the other shows a lot, but both still show it. Which would carry the longer sentence?

 

[Stu999]

At least they're related to the OP for a change...

Yeah, but it’s literally just going back and forth over semantics. Neither of them is going to back down and regardless it doesn’t matter until this goes to trial.

 

[200sols]

Literally posted multiple...

Literally you haven't. You linked to the CPS which didn't mention premeditation once, you've had the mens rea of murder in England quoted to you twice and ignored it. One of your examples shows intent, the other shows intent and premeditation. Both are murder.

 

[Narj]

I remember when my grandparents were burgled for a second time. My grandfather wanted to deal with those responsible because it traumatised my nan so badly. I think he had an idea who did it but the police did naff all.

It really enrages me to see how the police deal with burglaries in general these days. It’s one of the most violating crimes you can commit.

Once the police abandon their obligations, don’t be surprised when people take matters into their own hands.

 

[hurfdurf]

I really don't think I'd stop caring about a family member or friend if I found out that they were a criminal. Would I be defending the guy that shot them? Perhaps not, but I'd certainly still love them.

It would also depend on the type and severity of the crime, but burgularly, I could cope.

There are some kinds of crime that are indeed personally forgivable in that they wouldn’t over ride personal experience or familial love sure in private, but to celebrate him in public and claim he “dindu nuffink”, when he has essentially forced someone to murder someone (that someone being the cretin himself) in self defence, is a different story.

 

[hurfdurf]

Once the police abandon their obligations, don’t be surprised when people take matters into their own hands.

Good thing they haven’t then

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I love a good* GD thread where non-qualified Dis people provide their expert** opinion on legal matters in spite of the pushback by other folks who actually do have qualifications ***

* there are none

** they are not

*** they are qualified but also potentially wrong but, on balance, more likely to have an informed view.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

There are some kinds of crime that are indeed personally forgivable in that they wouldn’t over ride personal experience or familial love sure in private, but to celebrate him in public and claim he “dindu nuffink”, when he has essentially forced someone to murder someone (that someone being the cretin himself) in self defence, is a different story.

Is that what they said?

 

[Dis86]

I love a good* GD thread where non-qualified Dis people provide their expert** opinion on legal matters in spite of the pushback by other folks who actually do have qualifications ***

* there are none

** they are not

*** they are qualified but also potentially wrong but, on balance, more likely to have an informed view.

Irony, thy name is mags.

Had he murdered anyone yet mags? Convicted him have we?

 

[Angilion]

Or, maybe rather than wanting to kill anyone who sets foot on their grass if they fancy it, most of these people you mention just hear a catchy term like ‘Castle Doctrine’ without actually realising our existing laws are pretty much the same?

Maybe, maybe not. Ignorance doesn't usually make a good defence. I generally tend to take people at their word regarding their own opinions rather than assuming that most of them have no idea what they're talking about and mean something completely different to what they're saying.

Just read the thread after a 6hr drive so quite possible I missed a post or 2 but can you point me to the posts ‘openly advocating for people to have the right to kill on sight anyone on their property’

A quick few from ~30 seconds looking:

Personally I think if someone breaks into your house they should leave their rights at the door, but shooting them is always going to be a difficult one to explain, and, like the Tony Martin case, it wouldn't surprise me if they were running away at the time...

Hard luck. He would still be alive if they hadn't been there up to no good.
Couldn't give a poo about them

Nobody blames the tiger when an idiot climbs into his enclosure

It's a normal position to take. It's also not new. It's the old concept of outlawry, just less organised and official. When England had the concept of outlawry, only a court could declare a person outlaw.

(if anyone is interested and wants a quick summary - an outlaw is outside the law. So they have no rights. That's what it means.)

 

[Thekwango]

A quick few from ~30 seconds looking:

I don’t think those posts are advocating kill on sight just for being on someone’s property.
They’re talking about an instance where these people aren’t just ‘on their property’ - they’ve clearly gone to commit a crime.

 

[Brazo]

Maybe, maybe not. Ignorance doesn't usually make a good defence. I generally tend to take people at their word regarding their own opinions rather than assuming that most of them have no idea what they're talking about and mean something completely different to what they're saying.



A quick few from ~30 seconds looking:






It's a normal position to take. It's also not new. It's the old concept of outlawry, just less organised and official. When England had the concept of outlawry, only a court could declare a person outlaw.

(if anyone is interested and wants a quick summary - an outlaw is outside the law. So they have no rights. That's what it means.)

None of those posts are advocating kill on sight. You have completely misread the thread.