welsh1 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 For a charge of murder to be found the prosecution has to be able to prove that the act of killing some body was indeed premeditated . If not premeditated then it is not murder . Premeditation can be some body saying I am going to kill you and then push that person over and he hits head on the ground and dies , that's murder ,it was premeditated . Or premeditation can be a well planned complex plan to kill some body , the fact that it was planned is premeditated and is murder . Harnser One of the points of murder that has to be shown is , With intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. That officer by shooting him in the head showed a fair bit of intent to kill. Your scenario about pushing someone over is fraught with difficulties as it has to be proved at the time the person was pushed over the intent was there to kill or cause gbh,and that is why a lot of these one punch deaths are reduced to manslaughter as the intent to kill has to be proved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 No, just intent to kill or commit GBH Isn't intent to kill premeditation ? I intend to kill him , premeditation . Harnser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truflex Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Murder or not hardly a great loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini52 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 i can see the issue with shooting first asking later but in my OPINION i think its a case of the removal of a bad egg... i think there is plenty more that could do with the same fate .. the only reason to carry a gun in his case was to shoot someone .. that could have been a innocent child in the way someone's mum dad or another scum bag plus how many lives has he affected by dishing out coke right or wrong taking 8 shots at the bloke if you play with fire you get burnt ...i don't want to be at the end of a firearms officer 's barrel so i don't sell drugs or hold illegal weapons or basically be a gangster Totally agree with your comments,as said if you play with fire you may well get burned,if you have access to illegal firearms be prepared,you may well be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Murder or not hardly a great loss. Not the point at all we have appointed plod as protectors and upholders of the law , not judge jury and executioners rolled into one, and to cap all as seen here the gullible plod can do no wrong merchants support the fact that plod will lie about their actions reasons and intent, should the brown stuff hit the fan. KW http://azellerodneyinquiry.independent.gov.uk/docs/E7_v_Holland_ARI_Judgment_2014.02.27.pdf Edited July 31, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 On the plus side they do get a decent pension. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Carrying or being in possession of a firearm to go about your lawful or unlawful business does not carry an automatic death sentence as far as I am aware, armed response police officers are supposed to be fully trained to deal proportionately with incidents and by a rigorous selection process have an identified strength of character together with sufficient presence of mind and self-control to exercise a level of force proportionate to the perceived threat. Which does not seem to be the case in this instance. I remember a long time ago when several officers pumped fifteen or more rounds into a mini that was being driven by an unarmed suspect look-a-like! I would hate to be pulled over in the car completely unaware of perhaps other events to hear, Police Stop, BANG, BANG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 One of the points of murder that has to be shown is , With intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. That officer by shooting him in the head showed a fair bit of intent to kill. Your scenario about pushing someone over is fraught with difficulties as it has to be proved at the time the person was pushed over the intent was there to kill or cause gbh,and that is why a lot of these one punch deaths are reduced to manslaughter as the intent to kill has to be proved. Many years ago I attended a murder trial where A young man was charged with murder . The scenario was in a local pub when the defendant was in an argument with another lad . It got to name calling and pushing and shoving . The defendant took a swing at the other lad and pushed him saying in a very loud voice ( according to several witnesses ) I Am going to kill you , you b........ He then pushed the other lad ,who fell backwards and banged his head on the bar . The young man died a couple of days later and the other lad was charged with murder . After a long trial because of all the legal submissions that went on for ever the lad was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment . The young lad appealed his conviction for murder and was turned down . Harnser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Many years ago I attended a murder trial where A young man was charged with murder . The scenario was in a local pub when the defendant was in an argument with another lad . It got to name calling and pushing and shoving . The defendant took a swing at the other lad and pushed him saying in a very loud voice ( according to several witnesses ) I Am going to kill you , you b........ He then pushed the other lad ,who fell backwards and banged his head on the bar . The young man died a couple of days later and the other lad was charged with murder . After a long trial because of all the legal submissions that went on for ever the lad was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment . The young lad appealed his conviction for murder and was turned down . Harnser So intent was shown by the lad shouting out for all to hear that he was going to kill him. If they had just had handbags at dawn and one pushed the other over without stating he was going to kill him, and he died then it is possible to show there was no intent to kill or commit gbh and it would be manslaughter. As i was saying a lot depends on intent at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm thinking it must be very substantial new information - possibly from the officer himself - that warrants going back to a nine year old case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Murder or not can't say that I would want the job! make the wrong split second decision and you could be put away for life or you or one of your mates could be shot dead! How many people on here can say they haven't flinched when sitting in a hide and seeing something move in the corner of there eye that turn out not to be what they are after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted July 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) It didn't take long, they interviewed a firearms officer last night. She said people would not join armed response if they could be charged with murder, what do they want immunity from prosecution. Its just as well the police here don't do similar or we would have no police. Does anyone think the police should be immune from prosecution . ? Or should they be accountable to the law like the rest of us. ? As for police bashing, I don't see how expecting the police not to break the law and be accountable when they do is police bashing. Edited July 31, 2014 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) It didn't take long, they interviewed a firearms officer last night. She said people would not join armed response if they could be charged with murder, what do they want immunity from prosecution. Its just as well the police here don't do similar or we would have no police. Does anyone think the police should be immune from prosecution . ? Or should they be accountable to the law like the rest of us. ? They uphold the law , they are not above it, if they think they should be allowed to kill with impunity they would be best not applying. KW Edited July 31, 2014 by kdubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm not going to get involved in slagging off the fuzz as i actually know which Agency is to blame for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 So intent was shown by the lad shouting out for all to hear that he was going to kill him. If they had just had handbags at dawn and one pushed the other over without stating he was going to kill him, and he died then it is possible to show there was no intent to kill or commit gbh and it would be manslaughter. As i was saying a lot depends on intent at the time. This was a very sad case all round both for the dead lads family and for the family of the accused . I got to know the lad serving life quite well and he was a decent young man with no previous criminal history . He served 8 years of his sentence and was given parole at his first application . He was paroled and is on licence for life . Had he not said I am going to kill you (this was the intent or premeditation ) he would have been tried for manslaughter and would have been given a 5 year sentence . Harnser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted July 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm not going to get involved in slagging off the fuzz as i actually know which Agency is to blame for this. Blame for what. ? And who is slagging off the police. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Blame for what. ? And who is slagging off the police. ? Hadn't read thread properly. In hindsight an innapropriate attempt to lighten the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Hadn't read thread properly. In hindsight an innapropriate attempt to lighten the mood. no harm lightening the mood why not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Just my 2 pence worth but 8shots 6hits and 4 head shots that officer had it weapon drawn and was prepared sound like he got abit carried away in the moment he could have used non lethal force maybe a couple of shots to the shoulder do put him down. John A nice thought, unfortunately wounded men can and do shoot back if they are actually holding a gun . Certain drugs also make it very hard to totally incapacitate. I think the phrase is "shot to stop" because the other one got bad press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 A nice thought, unfortunately wounded men can and do shoot back if they are actually holding a gun . Certain drugs also make it very hard to totally incapacitate. I think the phrase is "shot to stop" because the other one got bad press The report say the shots after the initial shot including the fatal 4th shot where "unjustified" where does that fit in with shot to stop? he was down after the first wound, the trajectory patterns prove that as stated by ballistic experts (other than those on here!) KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 I trust that he will get a fair trial and we should then abide by the verdict - whichever way it goes. The Police Officer might be a bad apple or he might be innocent. The Jury has not heard the case, nor retired to consider their verdict. Sometimes, on PW, we tend to jump straight to the verdict, without letting facts cloud the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 The bit a lot of people seem to misunderstand is the fact the in law, believing something is the case is not a defence. Just try "I honestly thought it was a 40mph limit" and see where it gets you. I am afraid that the situation is in the eyes of the law the sme for armed police. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Just an afterthought, but what has this guy been doing for the past nine years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Just an afterthought, but what has this guy been doing for the past nine years? Suffering from stress I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Suffering from stress I'd imagine. Well poor him then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts