Five teenagers who "tortured" a 15-year-old boy to death have been sentenced to life in prison.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:36 pm

First topic message reminder :

Kai Fisher-Dixon, Shuayb Mahomud, Tremayne Gray, Omarion Stephens and Abdulqaliq Mohamed attacked Jacob Abraham in Waltham Cross in December.

The boys, all aged 15 and from Enfield, north London, denied murder but were found guilty by a jury after a five-week trial at St Albans Crown Court.

Five teenagers who "tortured" a 15-year-old boy to death have been sentenced to life in prison. - Page 2 _102727627_abrahamkillers

Five teenagers who "tortured" a 15-year-old boy to death have been sentenced to life in prison. - Page 2 _102727627_abrahamkillers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-44987281

The judge said: "The purpose was to punish him [Jacob] by the deliberate infliction of serious pain and humiliation, but to leave him alive.

"That was what I meant when I used the word torture in the course of the hearing and I do not shrink from it."

WTF!!!???

'...he was stabbed eight times in an alleyway behind his home...'

Stabbed EIGHT times... but the judge thinks that there was no intent to kill him...!!!???

by Original Quill Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The operative word is "soon". It's an American site as of the present. "Butt out" was not a persuasive point when nicko said it, and it's not a proper retort for you to use. It's a scared person who has no other answer, trying to censor discussion because he's frustrated and losing.

It's not American. Forumotion is not American.

Forumotion, although it advertises a presence only on the Internet, is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Trust me...it is American. It is essentially a universal utility, so it is not representative of the locations of any of its direct subscribers. Those subscribers are the ones whose locations are traditionally thought of as the 'home' of a site.

Many sites are British. For example, Female First is a site founded by Stephen and Susan Reay, operating as Play 2 Win Limited, a UK Limited Company, Company number: 4288400. Its registry address is 69-71 Gerard Street, Ashton-In-Makerfield, Wigan, Lancashire, WN4 9AG, United Kingdom. (I use a totally neutral example for illustrative purposes only.) Other sites are associated with other countries. Of course, the US is origin of many sites, this one among them.

This site is situated in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area of the State of Texas. Should the owner choose to relocate it's registry to a British address, perhaps he may. In the meantime, that has not happened.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not quite... if it was proven that there was no intent to kill, then they would not have been found guilty of MURDER!!!

The judge gave his 'opinion' that there was maybe no intent... but the jury found them guilty of murder!!!

The jury decide... the judge is there to preside over proceedings and to deliver sentencing...!

Sorry tommy, that's a misstatement of the law. The crime is broken into three categories: manslaughter, murder (2nd degree) and premeditated murder (1st degree). The third category requires pre-cogitation, or some preconception indicating planning and intent.

The Court specifically found to the contrary on pre-cogitation. The Court found an intent to injure and scare the boy. You can't be injured or scared if you're dead. So the intent found by the Court was inconsistent with premeditated murder.

We don't have US law here... in England & Wales, murder means murder!

by Original Quill Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sorry tommy, that's a misstatement of the law. The crime is broken into three categories: manslaughter, murder (2nd degree) and premeditated murder (1st degree). The third category requires pre-cogitation, or some preconception indicating planning and intent.

The Court specifically found to the contrary on pre-cogitation. The Court found an intent to injure and scare the boy. You can't be injured or scared if you're dead. So the intent found by the Court was inconsistent with premeditated murder.

We don't have US law here... in England & Wales, murder means murder!

The origin of US criminal law is British law. Even after the creation of the American nation, courts here continued to follow British rulings, deviating only where noted.

British manslaughter and homicide are defined by common law, although several aspects have been addressed/altered by statute. In the main, US codified law is that of its predecessor, British law.

True, as times progress, American state law has taken different paths, as we have unique situations. Sometimes British law has followed us. But it's the same basic body of law. Here:

NOLO wrote:What is Murder?
The crime of murder is the killing of one human being by another that is:

intentional (an accidental killing is usually not murder, except in cases of felony murder)

unlawful (as opposed to the lawful killing by a police officer of a suspect during a shoot-out, for example), and
done with “malice aforethought.”

Malice aforethought, which is sometimes erroneously called “premeditation” (a type of malice aforethought), describes a state of mind or actions that evidence an:

intent to kill
intent to inflict very serious, or “grievous,” bodily harm
extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life, or
intent to commit a dangerous felony (which accidentally results in the death of another).

Although the law on murder varies from state to state, most states recognize common degrees of murder. Murder includes premeditated murder (first degree murder), unpremeditated murder where the defendant intended to inflict grievous bodily harm (second degree murder), and felony murder (death caused during the commission of a dangerous felony).

Here are some examples of these common types of murder:

First degree murder. A deliberate, premeditated killing is generally considered a first degree murder. Where the defendant planned the killing (as in a poisoning), she will usually be charged with first degree murder. The Los Angeles district attorney charged O. J. Simpson with two first degree murder counts in the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and another person. The district attorney brought the first degree murder charges based on crime scene evidence, including a bloody glove, and on evidence that Simpson allegedly spied on his wife prior to the killings. Such evidence could have indicated a plan or premeditation to commit the crimes.

Second degree murder. In the widely-reported shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the prosecutor in Seminole County, Florida, charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with second degree murder. The reason that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman with second degree murder is that Zimmerman shot Martin and there is no evidence that the killing was premeditated. To win a conviction of Zimmerman on the charge, the prosecutor will have to prove to the jury that Zimmerman intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Martin.

Felony murder. Let’s assume by way of example that Bonnie and Clyde rob a bank. Clyde shoots and kills the guard during a confrontation. Clyde is charged with first degree murder and Bonnie is charged with felony murder because the guard died during Bonnie’s participation as an accomplice in committing the dangerous felony of armed robbery. Now let’s assume instead that Bonnie waits behind the wheel of the getaway car while Clyde robs the bank. After the robbery, Clyde jumps into the car and Bonnie speeds off, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian. Both Bonnie and Clyde are charged with felony murder, again because they accidentally killed the pedestrian while committing a dangerous felony.

Aggravating circumstances. Murder committed under certain circumstances, such as by laying in wait, or murder targeting a person in a particular position, such as a police officer, judge, or firefighter, can lead to a more severe sentence, including the death penalty.

What is Manslaughter?

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of one human being by another without malice aforethought.

There are several types of manslaughter, including:

Involuntary manslaughter. This often refers to unintentional homicide from criminally negligent or reckless conduct. It can also refer to an unintentional killing through commission of a crime other than a felony. In November 2012, a Las Vegas jury found a man guilty of involuntary manslaughter for a single punch to a fellow casino patron who died when he hit his head as he fell.

Voluntary manslaughter. When a murder charge is reduced to manslaughter due to mitigating circumstances, such as heat of passion or diminished capacity, the reduced charge is sometimes voluntary manslaughter.

Vehicular manslaughter. When this crime is charged, the driver had no intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm but operated a vehicle with criminal negligence (also called “gross negligence”) or during the commission of a misdemeanor and caused another’s death. This charge can include accidental killing by a drunk driver. If the accidental death occurred during the commission of a felony, the charge may be raised to felony murder (discussed above).

Intoxication no defense to manslaughter. Where an intoxicated person acts with criminal negligence and causes the death of another, the intoxicated person may be charged with manslaughter. The fact that the person was too intoxicated to intend to kill or even seriously injure another is no defense, because manslaughter does not require intent to kill.

Basically, all English speaking countries follow the same taxonomy. Why reinvent the wheel?

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:48 pm

Wrong...!

You are quoting US law again... which is not the same as law in England & Wales...!

Here, murder is murder...!

And they were charged with it by the police... prosecuted for it by the CPS in the court... and found guilty of it by the jury...!!!

by Raggamuffin Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:48 pm

In England, murder is either the intent to kill someone or to cause them serious injury and the victim dies. Even if they didn't intend to kill him, they certainly intended to cause him serious injury, from which he died. Therefore, it was murder.

by Tommy Monk Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:20 pm

Yes Raggs... and it was PREMEDITATED!!!

The judge added his 'opinion'... but it was irrelevant to the verdict reached by the jury of guilty of murder... and I think he was wrong to say that the luring of someone to a preplanned violent attack and stabbing them 8 times in cold blood, was not with intent to kill them...

If they had just beat him up a bit and he had died, then it could well be argued as the case that there was no intent to kill... but knife attack and stabbing him 8 times shows otherwise...!

by Ben Reilly Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:59 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Do you live her Quill, no, so butt out !

Um...nicko, this is an American site. You are the guest. But of course you are always welcome, so I won't tell you to "butt out". American sites are known for free speech and proper debate.

Again, my point to tommy is to make a proper argument. If he wants to generalize, he certainly can. He must present a quantitative argument.

It's not American - the person who runs it is, and he could be in the UK soon, so you butt out. You don't have priority just because you're American.

Actually besides any of that, we are ALL guests here, wherever we are from.

Hell, to go even further, I have to abide by the rules as well.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:In England, murder is either the intent to kill someone or to cause them serious injury and the victim dies. Even if they didn't intend to kill him, they certainly intended to cause him serious injury, from which he died. Therefore, it was murder.

It's the same in America. In the first case (premeditation) it is called first degree murder, and in the second case (not premeditated) it is called second degree murder.

The Judge putting in that finding of fact about prior intent was relevant because England follows the same reasoning as America. Basically he is following the same legal template as in American, distinguishing between first degree and second degree. Premeditation is addressed for a reason.

The only real difference between England and America, is England does not have the death penalty whereas some states in America do. But the judge slapped the maximum on the boys, indicative of the strongest penalty he could impose.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:33 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes Raggs... and it was PREMEDITATED!!!

The judge added his 'opinion'... but it was irrelevant to the verdict reached by the jury of guilty of murder... and I think he was wrong to say that the luring of someone to a preplanned violent attack and stabbing them 8 times in cold blood, was not with intent to kill them...

If they had just beat him up a bit and he had died, then it could well be argued as the case that there was no intent to kill... but knife attack and stabbing him 8 times shows otherwise...!

But no one stood up and declared it was premeditated. The Judge said the intent was to scare and injure, not murder. That is directly contrary to premeditation. And the jury obviously didn't say it was premeditated...didn't say anything, in fact, only murder. Even Raggs admits that there are two kinds...only the intentional murder being premeditation.

There's no basis in any findings of fact that it was premeditated. The judge has ruled.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:41 pm

Quill... you don't get it at all...!

Here in England & Wales, there is only 1 category of murder... and that is murder!

And the jury found them guilty of it...!

What Raggs said was that our 1 category of murder covers the intentional killing of somene as well as the killing of someone by inflicting intentional serious injury to someone that is likely to cause their death regardless of their claim of whether there was or wasn't intent to kill...!

The jury found them guilty of murder!

It is my opinion that they had intent... the judge gave his 'opinion' that they didn't intend to kill him... I think he is wrong and I'm entitled to my opinion!

But either way they are still guilty of the single category of murder that we have here...!

by Original Quill Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... you don't get it at all...!

Here in England & Wales, there is only 1 category of murder... and that is murder!

And the jury found them guilty of it...!

What Raggs said was that our 1 category of murder covers the intentional killing of somene as well as the killing of someone by inflicting intentional serious injury to someone that is likely to cause their death regardless of their claim of whether there was or wasn't intent to kill...!

The jury found them guilty of murder!

It is my opinion that they had intent... the judge gave his 'opinion' that they didn't intend to kill him... I think he is wrong and I'm entitled to my opinion!

But either way they are still guilty of the single category of murder that we have here...!

What can I say, tommy. You are wrong.

The judge put it in the record that the crime was other than intentional. That distinction was for a reason. Under English law, murder can be an intention to kill or an intention to commit grievous bodily harm, resulting in death.

Whether they use the terms, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc., or not, it's the same as 1st or 2nd degree. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:31 pm

We don't have 1st/2nd degree murder here in English law...!

Here it is either murder... or not murder... and they were found guilty of murder by the jury!

And as the attack was not after a random chance encounter, but a pre planned set up where they lured the victim to scene and for the sole purpose of launching the brutal knife attack on him... it can only be concluded that the attack was premeditated...

The jury decide the verdict... not the judge... and it was murder!!!

by Original Quill Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:We don't have 1st/2nd degree murder here in English law...!

Here it is either murder... or not murder... and they were found guilty of murder by the jury!

And as the attack was not after a random chance encounter, but a pre planned set up where they lured the victim to scene and for the sole purpose of launching the brutal knife attack on him... it can only be concluded that the attack was premeditated...

The jury decide the verdict... not the judge... and it was murder!!!

The attack was premeditated, the murder was unintended. The plan was intended to do grievous bodily harm. It's the same thing as 2nd degree murder. Like I say, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

by Tommy Monk Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:26 pm

Not in English law it isn't...!

How many times can someone stab someone else, and kill them by those stab injuries, before it is recognised as intent to kill them...?

8?

10?

15?

20?

100?

'Oh I just chopped off his head to hurt him... I never meant to kill him...'...?

'Oh I just doused him in petrol and set fire to him to teach him a lesson and to cause GBH... I never meant to kill him...'...?

'Oh I just threw him off the top of the 20 story block to scare him... I never meant to kill him...'...?

Listen you idiot... in this country, when a gang launch a preplanned extreme violent attack on someone, armed with knives, and stab them 8 times... there is no validity in the subsequent claim from the attackers that 'they didn't mean to kill him'...!!!

The law here in this country is clear!!!

The jury delivered the verdict of guilty of murder!!!

The judge offered 'his opinion' which had no bearing on the jury verdict!!!

by Original Quill Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:49 am

Tommy Monk wrote:The judge offered 'his opinion' which had no bearing on the jury verdict!!!

Judges don't offer opinion unless it counts, twerp. You just don't know what is going on, that's all.

by Tommy Monk Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:40 pm

His opinion didn't count towards anything... only the evidence and the jury counted towards the verdict... which was guilty of murder...!

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:41 am

Tommy Monk wrote:His opinion didn't count towards anything... only the evidence and the jury counted towards the verdict... which was guilty of murder...!

The judge was declaring which form of homicide it was, probably for sentencing purposes.

You are as ignorant as you are short, tommy. Nothing happens for nothing in a record trial.

You remind me of some ignoramus putting together a gas water heater: Meh...these leftover parts don't count towards anything...

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:31 am

The attack was premeditated, and even if the intention wasn't to cause death, it's fairly obvious that such an attack may well cause death. That's why it was murder. What is good is that they all got sent down for murder rather than just the two who actually stabbed him.

by nicko Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:26 am

Quill, I once took a Norton m/c engine down, putting back together, I found a small Bolt and a rubber washer left over. I rode that Bike for over a thousand miles with no problems ...

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:32 pm

nicko wrote:Quill, I once took a Norton m/c engine down, putting back together, I found a small Bolt and a rubber washer left over. I rode that Bike for over a thousand miles with no problems ...

That's good for you, but I wouldn't feel so safe, myself. I'd advise not going over 30 mph until I figured out where the bolt and washer came from. Rolling Eyes

Is there such a thing as playing Russian Roulette with a Norton?

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The attack was premeditated, and even if the intention wasn't to cause death, it's fairly obvious that such an attack may well cause death. That's why it was murder. What is good is that they all got sent down for murder rather than just the two who actually stabbed him.

You're making the same mistake that tommy is making, namely: ignoring the distinctions in English law. In England, the top two tiers of homicide are murder, (1) intentional, and (2) egregious assault leading to death. The same legal distinction prevails in America, but they are simply called 1st degree and 2nd degree murder.

The English probably used different verbiage because America has the death penalty, and 1st degree is usually synonymous with death. But that's just speculation.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The attack was premeditated, and even if the intention wasn't to cause death, it's fairly obvious that such an attack may well cause death. That's why it was murder. What is good is that they all got sent down for murder rather than just the two who actually stabbed him.

You're making the same mistake that tommy is making, namely: ignoring the distinctions in English law. In England, the top two tiers of homicide are murder, (1) intentional, and (2) egregious assault leading to death. The same legal distinction prevails in America, but they are simply called 1st degree and 2nd degree murder.

The English probably used different verbiage because America has the death penalty, and 1st degree is usually synonymous with death. But that's just speculation.

I'm not making any mistakes. Are you saying the CPS and the court were mistaken?

I already told you - murder can include an assault on someone where that person dies. You're the one who doesn't understand English law. Why don't you just accept that you don't know everything? Stick to American law.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're making the same mistake that tommy is making, namely: ignoring the distinctions in English law. In England, the top two tiers of homicide are murder, (1) intentional, and (2) egregious assault leading to death. The same legal distinction prevails in America, but they are simply called 1st degree and 2nd degree murder.

The English probably used different verbiage because America has the death penalty, and 1st degree is usually synonymous with death. But that's just speculation.

I'm not making any mistakes. Are you saying the CPS and the court were mistaken?

I already told you - murder can include an assault on someone where that person dies. You're the one who doesn't understand English law. Why don't you just accept that you don't know everything? Stick to American law.

You are floundering, now. Repeating my answer so you don't look bad...adding loopy adjectives and insults.

T'would be more honest if you simply said, 'I agree'.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not making any mistakes. Are you saying the CPS and the court were mistaken?

I already told you - murder can include an assault on someone where that person dies. You're the one who doesn't understand English law. Why don't you just accept that you don't know everything? Stick to American law.

You are floundering, now. Repeating my answer so you don't look bad...adding loopy adjectives and insults.

T'would be more honest if you simply said, 'I agree'.

You're the one who's floundering. You are talking about American law, but this case was in the UK, and it comes under English law. We do not have first and second degree murder. I've explained it to you twice now, but you don't seem to get it.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:His opinion didn't count towards anything... only the evidence and the jury counted towards the verdict... which was guilty of murder...!

The judge was declaring which form of homicide it was, probably for sentencing purposes.

You are as ignorant as you are short, tommy. Nothing happens for nothing in a record trial.

You remind me of some ignoramus putting together a gas water heater: Meh...these leftover parts don't count towards anything...

There is only one category of murder in English law!

How many times do I have to explain this to you...?

It is you who is ignorant here!

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The judge was declaring which form of homicide it was, probably for sentencing purposes.

You are as ignorant as you are short, tommy. Nothing happens for nothing in a record trial.

You remind me of some ignoramus putting together a gas water heater: Meh...these leftover parts don't count towards anything...

There is only one category of murder in English law!

How many times do I have to explain this to you...?

It is you who is ignorant here!

Exactly. The "severity" of the murderous crime is dealt with via the sentence.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:20 pm

I wonder if the ones who didn't actually do the stabbing thought they'd get away with it. They might have done, but thankfully they were held just as responsible. No doubt they thought that just "being there" wasn't enough. Did they try to claim that they didn't know what would happen when they lured him to the scene? I bet at least one of them did.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

There is only one category of murder in English law!

How many times do I have to explain this to you...?

It is you who is ignorant here!

Exactly. The "severity" of the murderous crime is dealt with via the sentence.

See, you're just playing word games. If there's only one category of murder, it must be intentional taking of a life. So, you have got to be saying that 'grievous bodily harm causing death' is not murder. Well you are wrong:

Wiki wrote:Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought although it required neither malice nor premeditation.

Okay tommy, but heres the part you want to leave out:

Wiki wrote:Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice",

So there are two possibilities for murder: (1) intentional murder (or malice aforethought); and (2) murder by transferred malice. One, and another one, are not one...tommy you failed 3rd grade arithmetic, too, didn't you?

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly. The "severity" of the murderous crime is dealt with via the sentence.

See, you're just playing word games. If there's only one category of murder, it must be intentional taking of a life. So, you have got to be saying that 'grievous bodily harm causing death' is not murder. Well you are wrong:

Wiki wrote:Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought although it required neither malice nor premeditation.

Okay tommy, but heres the part you want to leave out:

Wiki wrote:Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. This is called "transferred malice",

So there are two possibilities for murder: (1) intentional murder (or malice aforethought); and (2) murder by transferred malice. One, and another one, are not one...tommy you failed 3rd grade arithmetic, too, didn't you?

No Quill. There is one category, but that can include an assault which results in death. Do you get it now? It seems that this case was such an example.

An assault which results in death can also be classed as manslaughter - it depends on the circumstances, and it's up to the CPS to decide what the accused should be charged with.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill. There is one category, but that can include an assault which results in death.

Opps...you just named two. You "included" a second alternative.

I'll leave it to you and tommy to teach each other math.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill. There is one category, but that can include an assault which results in death.

Opps...you just named two. You "included" a second alternative.

I'll leave it to you and tommy to teach each other math.

Which bit do you not get Quill?

Indeed, an assault which results in death can be classed as manslaughter, but it can also be classed as murder. It's up the CPS and the jury, if they're given a choice.

For example, there was a case in London in 2010 where a gay man was attacked, stamped on, and kicked, and later died. His attackers were unfortunately convicted of manslaughter, but they could have been charged with murder too. It's a pity they weren't IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/16/trafalgar-square-guilty-attack-gay-man

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:14 pm

"Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales... in which one person kills another with intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury..."

They were found guilty of murder!

by Original Quill Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:22 am

Tommy Monk wrote:"Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales... in which one person kills another with intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury..."

They were found guilty of murder!

Either (1) death, or (2) serious injury [leading to "killing another"]. See, like Raggs, you too admit that there are two causative paths within the crime.

Been nice discussing this with you.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:19 am

We have said that from the start you fool!!!

That is the criminal definition of murder here in England!!!

Killing someone with intent to kill, and inflicting serious enough injuries to actually kill them... is the same here as killing someone by intentionally inflicting serious enough injuries to them that could kill them...!

It doesn't matter that the defendants claimed to have not intended to kill him... it's still the same category of murder that applies, as it would be if they had admitted that they had intended to kill him...!!!

Murder!

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:12 am

I don't know what the issue is here. It was murder, even though the intention might not have been to kill him. However, if you stab someone several times, you could reasonably expect them to die.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know what the issue is here. It was murder, even though the intention might not have been to kill him. However, if you stab someone several times, you could reasonably expect them to die.

You're right. You guys have got to figure out what you are saying. I'm just relating what the law is. Either you don't like the law, or what??? The Judge properly applied the law.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:13 pm

The law says it is murder... not 2nd degree murder, which doesn't exist here...!

by Victorismyhero Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:20 pm

anyhow...the kid killed was into the "gang thing " as well wasnt he, he wasnt an "innocent victim??

sooooo

as long as these killings stay "in house" and dont affect tyhe general population, AND, it has to be said stay within those cess pits known as cities, why shouold i give a flying fck???

let em kill one another off then mop up the remainder

Five teenagers who "tortured" a 15-year-old boy to death have been sentenced to life in prison. - Page 2 2190311264

Five teenagers who "tortured" a 15-year-old boy to death have been sentenced to life in prison. - Page 2 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know what the issue is here. It was murder, even though the intention might not have been to kill him. However, if you stab someone several times, you could reasonably expect them to die.

You're right. You guys have got to figure out what you are saying. I'm just relating what the law is. Either you don't like the law, or what??? The Judge properly applied the law.

I know he did. You're the one making a right Horlicks of this thread.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're right. You guys have got to figure out what you are saying. I'm just relating what the law is. Either you don't like the law, or what??? The Judge properly applied the law.

I know he did. You're the one making a right Horlicks of this thread.

I side with the Judge. He did it right.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The law says it is murder... not 2nd degree murder, which doesn't exist here...!

I agree. The Judge properly stated it...intent to cause serious harm, resulting in murder. However, it's identical to 2nd degree murder in this and many other countries.

by Tommy Monk Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:23 am

Not here it isn't... it's just murder!

Because the claim of 'I didn't mean to kill them' means nothing here when they have killed someone by intentionally inflicting deadly serious injuries to them, injuries of such a serious nature, that it is unbelievable that anyone could think that the injuries would not result in death!!!

They were guilty of this...

This is why the judge got it wrong in saying that he believed they didn't intend to kill him... because they had already been found guilty of deliberately inflicting enough deadly injuries to him that they would have known would most likely kill him!!!

If they chopped off his head and claimed they didn't mean to kill him, and that they didn't know chopping off someones head would kill them... would you think that was showing no intent to kill him...!?

Of course not!!!

And the same applies here to the injuries that they did inflict!!!

Deadly serious enough that it goes way beyond the realms of 'didn't mean it'...!!!

by Original Quill Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Not here it isn't... it's just murder!

Because the claim of 'I didn't mean to kill them' means nothing here when they have killed someone by intentionally inflicting deadly serious injuries to them, injuries of such a serious nature, that it is unbelievable that anyone could think that the injuries would not result in death!!!

They were guilty of this...

This is why the judge got it wrong in saying that he believed they didn't intend to kill him... because they had already been found guilty of deliberately inflicting enough deadly injuries to him that they would have known would most likely kill him!!!

If they chopped off his head and claimed they didn't mean to kill him, and that they didn't know chopping off someones head would kill them... would you think that was showing no intent to kill him...!?

Of course not!!!

And the same applies here to the injuries that they did inflict!!!

Deadly serious enough that it goes way beyond the realms of 'didn't mean it'...!!!

The Judge properly stated it...intent to cause serious harm, resulting in murder. Same thing as 2nd-degree elsewhere.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not here it isn't... it's just murder!

Because the claim of 'I didn't mean to kill them' means nothing here when they have killed someone by intentionally inflicting deadly serious injuries to them, injuries of such a serious nature, that it is unbelievable that anyone could think that the injuries would not result in death!!!

They were guilty of this...

This is why the judge got it wrong in saying that he believed they didn't intend to kill him... because they had already been found guilty of deliberately inflicting enough deadly injuries to him that they would have known would most likely kill him!!!

If they chopped off his head and claimed they didn't mean to kill him, and that they didn't know chopping off someones head would kill them... would you think that was showing no intent to kill him...!?

Of course not!!!

And the same applies here to the injuries that they did inflict!!!

Deadly serious enough that it goes way beyond the realms of 'didn't mean it'...!!!

The Judge properly stated it...intent to cause serious harm, resulting in murder. Same thing as 2nd-degree elsewhere.

Wrong again.

by Tommy Monk Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:12 pm

No... it is the same as intentionally killing... murder... one category!

by Original Quill Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... it is the same as intentionally killing... murder... one category!

Sorry, tommy. The Judge disagrees with you...says it was not intent to kill, but deadly brutality, or transferred malice.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:No... it is the same as intentionally killing... murder... one category!

Sorry, tommy. The Judge disagrees with you...says it was not intent to kill, but deadly brutality, or transferred malice.

It was still murder.

by Original Quill Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sorry, tommy. The Judge disagrees with you...says it was not intent to kill, but deadly brutality, or transferred malice.

It was still murder.

As the Judge properly ruled.

by Tommy Monk Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:17 pm

The jury decided... not the judge... he merely gave his opinion, which was wrong...!

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It was still murder.

As the Judge properly ruled.

As the jury decided.

by Sponsored content