Anti-Hunt protestor walks free

[Mungler]

Whiging and maoning - our justice system is flawed but it is the model that every other civilised country in the world models itself on - 12 ordinary people heard the story and delivered a sentence - as this is primarily a hunting site I can understand the opposition to the verdict - I actually find both sides pretty sad,ie, the ***** on horseback who flout the law at every meeting and the anoraks that try to stop them.

 

 

I don't actually consider myself "hunting biased".

 

The point I would make is that the pilot could have just turned the gyrocopter off and phoned the police. However, apparently the evidence from the pilot and from a "neutral" remote controlled plane enthusiast who was using the runway was that the deceased was 6' 2" tall and they were scared of him. The pilot said that he was in such fear of his safety (he thought there were some pro hunt bully boys on their way) that his desire to escape and take off justified his revving up the gyrocopter and attempting to take off.

 

It seems to me that getting struck by a gyrocopter blade at full revs would lead to certain death. I am not otherwise aware that running into a pro-hunt mob would result in certain death. Indeed, has anyone been killed at these pro/anti hunt run ins? Was his fear real and were his actions justified given all the circumstances? The jury went with him on majority.

 

Had he turned the gyrocopter off and phoned the police, would anyone have died? Answer, no.

 

Did anyone hear the pilot's words (captured on tape) immediately after carving into the deceased? "The tw4t didn't stand clear of it"

 

After the actual incident, I just couldn't imagine myself looking down on a man's dismembered and bloody corpse and saying those particular words. I think that goes to the character of the pilot. When you think of all of the words that would come to mind; "I'm sorry", "it was an accident", "oh my lord".

 

There we go.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mungler

[al4x]

I'm mixed in views on this one, part of me thinks the pilot should have done the right thing and part of me thinks the guy should have backed down rather than get his head split in two by a rotor blade. Obviously they were both there to cause trouble and the slight difference with this case I believe is that it was caught on video and the jury watched it a couple of times. I guess you assume someones sense of self preservation will make them get out of the way in time when they can see impending death approaching, when they don't this happens.

As for hunt people being charged for running down protesters if you do a little research and check a guy called Tom Worby he's an anti who died on a hunt my ex was on, run over by a horse box and in that the driver got off. There are a few other cases as well where the same has happened so this probably isn't far from the right decision.

[death from below]

I remeber a few years back witnessing at first hand a serious injury accident when a little kid ran into the path of a car - I was first to speak to the driver who mouthed words to the effect"The stupid little **** came out of nowhere" and continued for several minutes in that vain. The child thankfully lived after a week in hospital. The driver was a lovely bloke who had immediately gone into severe shock at the thought of him killing a child. His behaviour for the first few minutes was what could be described as out of order. He was in fact a father of children who had totally freaked out in the moment due to thinking he had killed the kid. I dealt with him on two occasions after that and you couldn't wish to meet a nicer bloke. It could have been a fatal accident and his initial spoutings would not have painted a pretty picture. As stated, I witnessed the collision and there was absolutely sod all he could have done to avoid the kid other than not have got out of bed that morning.

 

Our Jury system is flawed as we rely on normal people to often make sense of very abnormal stories - if I were to ever point a finger it would be at Crown court Barristers - it's nothing but a game to them and there behaviour and back handed shinanigans are something that still amazes me (Solicitors aren't a bad bunch though, the criminal ones anyway - not so keen on the ambulance chasers).

[kdubya]

I find it truly hilarious that you lecture me on the jury system having sat on one jury for just two weeks.

 

what I "lectured" you on was your inapt generalisation of all jury members remember your post saying that they were made up of unemployed or unemployable? bit sweeping was it not and WRONG, or are you so perfect that the guys who actually sat and listened to the case are seen as lessers for not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

Kw

[Mungler]

what I "lectured" you on was your inapt generalisation of all jury members remember your post saying that they were made up of unemployed or unemployable? bit sweeping was it not and WRONG, or are you so perfect that the guys who actually sat and listened to the case are seen as lessers for not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

Kw

 

 

My views of the jury system are not based on this case alone. They are based on 15 years of working in the legal services sector.

 

Obviously, your views of the system after sitting on a jury for 2 weeks differ from mine. That's your perspective. I do however look forward to taking a guided tour of a nuclear power station and then lecturing you on the subject of nuclear power.

[kdubya]

My views of the jury system are not based on this case alone. They are based on 15 years of working in the legal services sector.

 

Obviously, your views of the system after sitting on a jury for 2 weeks differ from mine. That's your perspective. I do however look forward to taking a guided tour of a nuclear power station and then lecturing you on the subject of nuclear power.

 

 

your statement regardless of your background was WRONG simple as, please be big enough to accept that or is it not simply as case of where their is blame their is a claim?

 

 

KW

[Mungler]

your statement regardless of your background was WRONG simple as,

 

 

Oh really?

[lord_seagrave]

Is it popcorn time, gentlemen?

 

:yp:

 

LS

[malkiserow]

Is it popcorn time, gentlemen?

 

:look:

 

LS

Is the seat next to you free? Pass the carton over M8 :yp:

[Mungler]

No gentlemen, there can be no further discussion or argument. Kdubya has actually sat on a jury for a whole 2 weeks and is able to impart and bestow his definitive view on the jury system operational under the English justice system. I am absolutely content to accept that he is entirely correct in his assessment and that I am neither qualified nor fit to proffer an opinion or view.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

Incidentally, if you stick "jury the unemployed and the unemployable" into Google you will see that there is some interesting research and commentary - including a paper from a Judge. Apparently I am not alone in my views or concerns. I guess these other people haven't had the benefit of Kdubya's experience and wisdom on the subject.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mungler

[al4x]

silly question here Mungler but if you reformed it in the way you suggest with professional Jurors wouldn't it just be like going up before magistrates and having them make the decision with the judge doing the sentencing?

[Mungler]

silly question here Mungler but if you reformed it in the way you suggest with professional Jurors wouldn't it just be like going up before magistrates and having them make the decision with the judge doing the sentencing?

 

It's heading that way anyway with Judge only trials >here<. I think there's a trial underway at the moment where some fairly "weighty" people are on trial and there are concerns about Jury nobling, but there could be a wider roll out because it's just cheaper - there's one judge who doesn't need anything explaining to him and so the trial will also be shorter.

 

I am a fan of the jury system, don't get me wrong, the point is the contents of the jury can be somewhat hit and miss. Mind you, anyone who works in the system knows that "Justice" is rather hit and miss at the best of times.

 

Anyway, don't ask me, you should be asking your legal and constitutional questions of Kdubya.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mungler

[tomhw100]

He was tried at Crown Court and cleared by a majority of 10 - 2 by the jury. Therefore the jury members are a bunch of twits and I hope the pilot crashes on his next flight, killing his passenger in the process. Hunt monitors are pathetic little hypocrites, they run to the police when it suits them and hide behind masks when it doesnt.

Verminous, odious cretins who deserve a good kicking every week :yp:

 

Im with you all the way!

[RC45]

I sat on a jury once, hope I never have to again.

 

Phil

[LEFTY478]

He was tried at Crown Court and cleared by a majority of 10 - 2 by the jury.

 

I believe the accused was acquitted of Manslaughter. Could it be that 10 members thought he was guilty of Murder, but that was not what he was charged with?

 

Genuine question.

[kdubya]

No gentlemen, there can be no further discussion or argument. Kdubya has actually sat on a jury for a whole 2 weeks and is able to impart and bestow his definitive view on the jury system operational under the English justice system. I am absolutely content to accept that he is entirely correct in his assessment and that I am neither qualified nor fit to proffer an opinion or view.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

Incidentally, if you stick "jury the unemployed and the unemployable" into Google you will see that there is some interesting research and commentary - including a paper from a Judge. Apparently I am not alone in my views or concerns. I guess these other people haven't had the benefit of Kdubya's experience and wisdom on the subject.

 

 

Ok then lets take it further you generalise about the quality of jurors, my experience showed me its not just the unemployed and unemployable who sit as jurors . but you have that belief and would rather have professional jurors, dangerous steps, and a sure way to a police state, maybe judge dread would apply to be all? ( bare in mind we have professional judges many of whom have little grasping of the real world) so why not go for COMPULSARY service, along with a simplifying of the judicial terms and a greater emphasis placed on the jury actually understanding the issue in front of them, it is after all "real" people who make up society not professionals living in utopia or cloud cuckoo land, so please keep real people as jurors.

 

KW

[Bagsy]

As has been said, this could have been avoided by the pilot switching off his engine. He didn't and someone died. Surely he must have been criminally negligent if nothing else?

[Mungler]

Ok then lets take it further you generalise about the quality of jurors, my experience showed me its not just the unemployed and unemployable who sit as jurors . but you have that belief and would rather have professional jurors, dangerous steps, and a sure way to a police state, maybe judge dread would apply to be all? ( bare in mind we have professional judges many of whom have little grasping of the real world) so why not go for COMPULSARY service, along with a simplifying of the judicial terms and a greater emphasis placed on the jury actually understanding the issue in front of them, it is after all "real" people who make up society not professionals living in utopia or cloud cuckoo land, so please keep real people as jurors.

 

KW

 

 

No KW, you are of course absolutely right.

 

After your 2 weeks stint on what must have been the best jury ever, you surely must know more about all of this than anyone. You are right - the jury system is infallable because you were on a jury for 2 weeks and your jury just rocked and got it all right.

 

Yes, following your whole 2 week experience you can and must now speak for the whole jury system. If you say it works, then that's good enough for me. In light of the overwhelming evidence you have put forward in the form of your 2 week stint of jury service and your cogent argument that I was just plain old "WRONG" - well, I just can't beat that. I'm out.

[kdubya]

No KW, you are of course absolutely right.

 

After your 2 weeks stint on what must have been the best jury ever, you surely must know more about all of this than anyone. You are right - the jury system is infallable because you were on a jury for 2 weeks and your jury just rocked and got it all right.

 

Yes, following your whole 2 week experience you can and must now speak for the whole jury system. If you say it works, then that's good enough for me. In light of the overwhelming evidence you have put forward in the form of your 2 week stint of jury service and your cogent argument that I was just plain old "WRONG" - well, I just can't beat that. I'm out.

 

 

OK then oh magnanimous one YOU made a statement you cant back up YOU made the association that unemployed people where not suitable to sit as jurors ( few thousand just shot out of corus in teeside might argue that point and perhaps a few unfortunate members of this forum may also be alarmed to hear that as unemployed they are lesser beings than your holy self)

 

You fail to see that 12 people sat and listened to events and WATCHED the death of the supporter (it was all caught on camera) before 10 came to the conclusion that the pilot acted in fear (that was his defence) and accidentally killed a man who was stood on a runway he should not have been on, and who in truth had put himself in harms way, some would say more fool him, sad but true

 

So good glad you are out, as you show you can give but not take it,and if you are truly representative of the "legal profession" with your sweeping classification of those unfortunate enough to be unemployed or in your view unemployable (more than a few over fifties who could buy and sell you out there on the scrap heap with this recession) we are in a bad way.

 

KW

[MC]

OK then oh magnanimous one YOU made a statement you cant back up YOU made the association that unemployed people where not suitable to sit as jurors ( few thousand just shot out of corus in teeside might argue that point and perhaps a few unfortunate members of this forum may also be alarmed to hear that as unemployed they are lesser beings than your holy self)

 

You fail to see that 12 people sat and listened to events and WATCHED the death of the supporter (it was all caught on camera) before 10 came to the conclusion that the pilot acted in fear (that was his defence) and accidentally killed a man who was stood on a runway he should not have been on, and who in truth had put himself in harms way, some would say more fool him, sad but true

 

So good glad you are out, as you show you can give but not take it,and if you are truly representative of the "legal profession" with your sweeping classification of those unfortunate enough to be unemployed or in your view unemployable (more than a few over fifties who could buy and sell you out there on the scrap heap with this recession) we are in a bad way.

 

KW

 

 

That just goes to prove the 10 people can be wrong and are basically ******* idiots then doesn't it. As has been said before why didn't the pilot just switch the engine off?

 

If it was the other way round and it was a hunt supporter who ran over an anti with a Range Rover there would have been hell to pay.

[Mungler]

OK then oh magnanimous one YOU made a statement you cant back up YOU made the association that unemployed people where not suitable to sit as jurors ( few thousand just shot out of corus in teeside might argue that point and perhaps a few unfortunate members of this forum may also be alarmed to hear that as unemployed they are lesser beings than your holy self)

 

You fail to see that 12 people sat and listened to events and WATCHED the death of the supporter (it was all caught on camera) before 10 came to the conclusion that the pilot acted in fear (that was his defence) and accidentally killed a man who was stood on a runway he should not have been on, and who in truth had put himself in harms way, some would say more fool him, sad but true

 

So good glad you are out, as you show you can give but not take it,and if you are truly representative of the "legal profession" with your sweeping classification of those unfortunate enough to be unemployed or in your view unemployable (more than a few over fifties who could buy and sell you out there on the scrap heap with this recession) we are in a bad way.

 

KW

 

 

Want some salt and pepper for that *massive* chip on your shoulder?

[Chard]

Ooh, I say

 

I'll pop the kettle on

[monkeymagic1969]

I bet it dont last this page before thread is locked

 

I hope not, as i am quite enjoying this

[Pepe]

I was going to say something but I better keep quiet. It just shows you what a complex subject this is.

[Supersonic]

Here's an even more entertaining read.....

 

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=63709

 

Nige