• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
The Grey Man

Guilty of nothing

Recommended Posts

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/

Big story in South Manchester for some months.

Not quite clear if any conviction for anything. Yet theres a dead boy.

Hale..rich..versus Burnage lower middle class/ working class.

I am not citing the names. I dont see it that way, although respect others views to say otherwise.

With the young lad Yousefs dad on this.

Another wasted life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this was discussed here awhile back. Eye brows were raised when the two were charged with murder but then let out on bail. I don't have any sympathy for the dead boy, he went armed with a knife to rob a drug dealer. But the other two should have and would have got a manslaughter conviction if they weren't little rich boys. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both drew knives and one ends up dead.

I can understand not being done for murder but not guilty of manslaughter - seems a bit odd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knives

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186911/Knives_and_offensive_weapons_information_GDS_FAQ.pdf

 

Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 respectively provide for offences of having an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse and having an article with blade or sharply pointed in a public place without lawful authority or good reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JFK said:

both drew knives and one ends up dead.

I can understand not being done for murder but not guilty of manslaughter - seems a bit odd.  

Oddly I think justice may have been done.

They were mates all playing the same game. It could probably just as equally have been boy 1 that got stabbed.  Pretty unlucky.

What would be gained from sending them to prision..? I expect they’re all pretty shook up as it is. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Protest outside court during sentencing.

What could go wrong ? 

Careful now, someone's feelings could get seriously hurt.

On a less frivolous note - obviously referring to the two young innocent men as murderers could end up with the protesters facing a libel charge. But would the two injured parties want to risk the libel lottery to clear their reputations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant suss this out.

Even in case where you get mate arsing around and one ends up dead due to knocking their head, you always get a GBH or manslaughter charge,

He should have been charged with man slaughter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, spygirl said:

I cant suss this out.

Even in case where you get mate arsing around and one ends up dead due to knocking their head, you always get a GBH or manslaughter charge,

He should have been charged with man slaughter.

 

Yes, I believe he was stabbed in the heart, not an easy thing to do and hardly accidental. Reminds me of the wealthy oxford medical student who stabbed her boyfriend, but she at least got a suspended sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

I cant suss this out.

Even in case where you get mate arsing around and one ends up dead due to knocking their head, you always get a GBH or manslaughter charge,

He should have been charged with man slaughter.

 

The defence wasn’t that they were “arsing around” so it shouldn’t count, the defence was a plea of self-defence. A self-defence claim is a blanket defence if upheld. It NEVER commutes a murder charge to manslaughter in English law. If a self-defence plea is accepted by the jury you are always entirely cleared of that charge.

Nothing odd about this at all from a legal point of view, standard for hundreds of years.

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

I cant suss this out.

Even in case where you get mate arsing around and one ends up dead due to knocking their head, you always get a GBH or manslaughter charge,

He should have been charged with man slaughter.

I think manslaughter is an option subsequent to a murder charge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Panther said:

I think manslaughter is an option subsequent to a murder charge

A murder charge can be commuted to man slaughter with certain pleas, most commonly diminished responsibility. Not for a plea of self-defence though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

The defence wasn’t that they were “arsing around” so it shouldn’t count, the defence was a plea of self-defence. A self-defence claim is a blanket defence if upheld. It NEVER commutes a murder charge to manslaughter in English law. If a self-defence plea is accepted by the jury you are always entirely cleared of that charge.

Nothing odd about this at all from a legal point of view, standard for hundreds of years.

Im not sure.

Ive had a google. Most self defence tends to be when people's property is invaded.

The attack was in the open and the attacker had the option to run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Im not sure.

Ive had a google. Most self defence tends to be when people's property is invaded.

The attack was in the open and the attacker had the option to run.

 

I guess the issue is the prosecution went in with the wrong charge from the start.   If it was manslaughter they shouldn’t have tried to send him down for murder.

I expect this “screw up” went something like this:

Police:  We want to do the lad for manslaughter for killing his mate.

CPS:  No,  there’s a lot of public focus on knife crime at the moment..  do him for murder so we can make an example of him

Jury: Well,  it wasn’t really murder because he was attacked by the “victim”..   with no other option available it has to be self defence

Result:  Media reporting kids with knives stab people and get off scot free.

I’m not particularly interested in either the story, the people or the politics..  but I expect that was what happened.

Edited by Libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Im not sure.

Ive had a google. Most self defence tends to be when people's property is invaded.

The attack was in the open and the attacker had the option to run.

 

There is literally nothing in the rules regarding of self-defence that requires the defendant to be indoors. You don’t even need to be defending yourself, it can be defence of another person or even someone else’s property. 

Whether the jury was correct to accept the plea of self-defence on the facts of the case, is a matter of fair speculation. The fact is that with a plea of “not guilty by way of self-defence” to a murder charge, the court can ONLY find guilty or not guilty, there is no scope in law to accept self defence and still find the defendant guilty of some lesser crime. To propose otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Sometimes the law is arguably fucking stupid with these defences. After the titanic sank, prosecutions were brought against some survivors for pushing others back in the water when they tried to climb into the life boats. It seems reasonable to believe the defendants were trying to prevent the boats being swamped and everyone drowning. Some entered a plea of self defence, some entered a plea of necessity. The court found that the necessity defence was invalid as you can’t argue necessity to privilege one life over another and sent the defendants down for murder. Other defendants plead self-defence and it was held to be valid and they were acquitted. A common sense assessment would expect the law to treat people who had acted the same in the same situation roughly the same despite the specific phrasing of their motivations. No, same actions, slightly different legal rationalisations, devastating outcomes for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hail the Tripod said:

There is literally nothing in the rules regarding of self-defence that requires the defendant to be indoors. You don’t even need to be defending yourself, it can be defence of another person or even someone else’s property. 

Whether the jury was correct to accept the plea of self-defence on the facts of the case, is a matter of fair speculation. The fact is that with a plea of “not guilty by way of self-defence” to a murder charge, the court can ONLY find guilty or not guilty, there is no scope in law to accept self defence and still find the defendant guilty of some lesser crime. To propose otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Sometimes the law is arguably fucking stupid with these defences. After the titanic sank, prosecutions were brought against some survivors for pushing others back in the water when they tried to climb into the life boats. It seems reasonable to believe the defendants were trying to prevent the boats being swamped and everyone drowning. Some entered a plea of self defence, some entered a plea of necessity. The court found that the necessity defence was invalid as you can’t argue necessity to privilege one life over another and sent the defendants down for murder. Other defendants plead self-defence and it was held to be valid and they were acquitted. A common sense assessment would expect the law to treat people who had acted the same in the same situation roughly the same despite the specific phrasing of their motivations. No, same actions, slightly different legal rationalisations, devastating outcomes for some.

Not, I did not mean in their property. I meant having no other option than attacking or fighting back.

The stabbing took place outside.

The attack had an option to run away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By The Masked Tulip
      Was sat on a park bench with her boyfriend last night in local park.
      Stabbed so hard in her back by 2 males that the knife broke and stayed in her.
      No description given by police. Been watching some news reports and there seems to be a worrying disinterest in any description of the attackers other than that they were male.
      Anyone heard anything more about this murder?

       
    • By The Masked Tulip
      More news coming out about this. Nothing was stolen. Possible sexual motive claimed.
      But one lady was decapitated. The other appears to have someone attempt to decapitate her.
      Their murders were videoed and apparently on social media.
      Clearly this was an islamic terrorist attack.
      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8021866/backpackers-beheaded-in-morocco-mountains-were-executed-by-terrorists-security-sources-claim/
      Didn't Ryanair fire alot of its Dutch staff today for refusing to rellocate to Morocco?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.