London shooting
-
David Wulff wrote: The officers were charged with unlawful killing, a criminal charge. Regardless of the fact that was later overturned because they did not in fact break the law, that still stood as a criminal charge against them which, if it was not overturned, would have resulted in criminal prosecution the same as with any member of the public. Of course. How does that contradict anything I have said? David Wulff wrote: Unfortunately, deliberate lethal force is not considered reasonable force, it is excessive and gratuitous force. So if you shoot someone and they lived, you're fine, but if you shoot someone and they die, you will go to jail for murder. Total nonsense. Read the last link I gave: If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. It surprises me that you can be so wrong on this. The law on these matters has been broadly the same for centuries. If you need to kill someone in order to prevent them killing, then "deliberate lethal force" is reasonable. Of course, whether you really did need to kill someone is a matter to be assessed in each case. Reading between the lines, it seems that you have a problem with this case by case approach and 1) want a blanket rule, 2) seem to believe that the existing law does involve blanket rules. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: Your attempts to make something of this common law-statute law distinction are just confused. I am *not* trying to make anything out of any distinctions here, I merely gave definitions were you asked for them. If the definition called for it, I stated it, period. You are the one who is trying to drag those out and make some sort of point at/with/for/against them. :confused: John Carson wrote: The CPS does prosecute for criminal breaches of the common law, just as it prosecutes for criminal breaches of statute law Exactly what I said, so I don't know why you quoted then repeated me for a second time. John Carson wrote: Happily, they are not the incompetent fools that your claims would imply. *sigh* If you refuse to read what I right John, there isn't a lot I can say. We've already covered that manslaughter is not illegal, so why do you keep trying to say it is? If you're not breaking the law, it can't be illegal... no? Or maybe I should write to the CPS and let them know that actually they have it wrong and really they are letting criminals walk free? As it happens the difference between manslaughter or murder makes a very big difference. John Carson wrote: You are never automatically charged with anything nor is there any rule that can guarantee that you are not charged. It is a matter of the evidence. We are talking about criminal charges, and if you have carried out an unlawfull killing unless no one finds out about it then you will be charged and there are automatic penalties. The courts can find you innocent based on the evidence, as they have in Stanley's case, but the charges are still made. John Carson wrote: I did not say that the police "were never charged". The lack of logic in your arguments flabbergasts me. Did you not say any of these things then? " Police are very rarely charged, let alone convicted. " " If police are involved, my strong impression is that they very much get the benefit of the doubt. " " The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. " Because the first one states it outright and the others clearly imply it IMO.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler ::
-
John Carson wrote: Your attempts to make something of this common law-statute law distinction are just confused. I am *not* trying to make anything out of any distinctions here, I merely gave definitions were you asked for them. If the definition called for it, I stated it, period. You are the one who is trying to drag those out and make some sort of point at/with/for/against them. :confused: John Carson wrote: The CPS does prosecute for criminal breaches of the common law, just as it prosecutes for criminal breaches of statute law Exactly what I said, so I don't know why you quoted then repeated me for a second time. John Carson wrote: Happily, they are not the incompetent fools that your claims would imply. *sigh* If you refuse to read what I right John, there isn't a lot I can say. We've already covered that manslaughter is not illegal, so why do you keep trying to say it is? If you're not breaking the law, it can't be illegal... no? Or maybe I should write to the CPS and let them know that actually they have it wrong and really they are letting criminals walk free? As it happens the difference between manslaughter or murder makes a very big difference. John Carson wrote: You are never automatically charged with anything nor is there any rule that can guarantee that you are not charged. It is a matter of the evidence. We are talking about criminal charges, and if you have carried out an unlawfull killing unless no one finds out about it then you will be charged and there are automatic penalties. The courts can find you innocent based on the evidence, as they have in Stanley's case, but the charges are still made. John Carson wrote: I did not say that the police "were never charged". The lack of logic in your arguments flabbergasts me. Did you not say any of these things then? " Police are very rarely charged, let alone convicted. " " If police are involved, my strong impression is that they very much get the benefit of the doubt. " " The police are never found guilty of a criminal offence. " Because the first one states it outright and the others clearly imply it IMO.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler ::
This will be my last reply. Your lack of comprehension, illogic and denial of your earlier statements make it clear that you are unable to come to a rational understanding of this issue. David Wulff wrote: I am *not* trying to make anything out of any distinctions here, I merely gave definitions were you asked for them. This is just bullshit. First, I never asked for definitions. Second, you earlier wrote: There is only one problem with your interpretation of the CPS's rule... at what point in the law does it define manslaughter or murder as being illegal? It isn't - it can be, but it isn't by definition in law - it is merely involuntary or voluntary homicide. It is only illegal under common law which is for the judges to decide based on precedent. Incoherent though these remarks are, it is plain that you distinguish between being "illegal under common law" (which you claim murder and manslaughter are) and plain "illegal" (which you claim murder and manslaughter are not). Thus you make a big distinction between the common law and statute law. David Wulff wrote: We've already covered that manslaughter is not illegal, so why do you keep trying to say it is? Because it is a fact. Just like it is a fact that Southampton has a lower population than London. People have been going to jail on account of this fact since before either of us was born. I really tire of repeating obvious facts only to have you reject them with defiant ignorance. Here is a link to a Home Office report: At present in English law there are two general homicide offences - murder and manslaughter. The most serious, murder, requires proof of an intention to kill or cause serious injury. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as provocation or diminished responsibility, then the offence is one of manslaughter - often referred to as “voluntary manslaughter”. However, if someone kills but did not intend to cause death or serious injury but was blameworthy in some other way, then this is often referred to as “involuntary manslaughter”. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/invmans.html#The%20Law[^] No doubt you will now wish to say that this is the common law, so it isn't illegal. Then you will say that you are not making any distinction between the
-
Stan Shannon wrote: You pick a state, and make it responsible. If that choice was wrong than you pick another, and another, until finally you get the right one. How many innocent families are you going to kill along the way? I thought thats the reason we dont like these people, because they kill innocent people indiscriminately? If America parked big aircraft carrier off the coast of a Australia, and said hey "like our shinny planes? we think you should change your style of government" most of us would be a little reluctant to do what we are told. Its just human nature. If they started bombing our cities I would be literally terrified that my family or friends might be killed or my house destroyed or my ability to earn money and feed my family taken away from me etc etc. And what would George Bush say? Something along the lines of God and freedom. If you try and generalise the situations a bit there is really no difference between the two sides. The only solution I can come up with is taking away the desire these groups have to harm the west. That is really the only way this situation can be resolved. Indisputable proof that there is no God would be a good start.
Josh Gray wrote: The only solution I can come up with is taking away the desire these groups have to harm the west. I would be perfectly happy to try that if I knew what it meant. You're assuming, I suppose, that this essentially means kow towing to the Islamic world's demands concerning Israel. OK, to what extent? If push comes to shove do we help them destroy Isreal? Or, does it mean that we try to create an international socialist utopia, were the wealth of the west is poured into every back water country on the planet to commit every resource we have to the utter elimination of poverty aroung the globe? But what if the real reason they wish to harm the west is because it is the west. What do we do then? Give up? Josh Gray wrote: Indisputable proof that there is no God would be a good start. Or indisputable proof that there is. However, I don't think either is likely to happen. In any case, it would require an overt act of secular imperialism to enforce such a belief. And I think that is as much as anything the source of Islam's fears about the west - secular imperialism. Islam is still a 'wild' religion and has no desire to join its domesticated cousin, Christianity, as the happy pet of secularism. Josh Gray wrote: How many innocent families are you going to kill along the way? I thought thats the reason we dont like these people, because they kill innocent people indiscriminately? If America parked big aircraft carrier off the coast of a Australia, and said hey "like our shinny planes? we think you should change your style of government" most of us would be a little reluctant to do what we are told. Its just human nature. If they started bombing our cities I would be literally terrified that my family or friends might be killed or my house destroyed or my ability to earn money and feed my family taken away from me etc etc. And what would George Bush say? Something along the lines of God and freedom. If you try and generalise the situations a bit there is really no difference between the two sides. I understand all of that. But again, I think it is perfectly legitimate to relate the issue back to WWII. We indiscriminantly killed millions of civilians to defeat fascism. Most of those people were just as innocent as the average Muslim is today, yet they were ultimately the power behind the evil, and we were absolutely justified in raining death down upon them. This situation
-
Josh Gray wrote: The only solution I can come up with is taking away the desire these groups have to harm the west. I would be perfectly happy to try that if I knew what it meant. You're assuming, I suppose, that this essentially means kow towing to the Islamic world's demands concerning Israel. OK, to what extent? If push comes to shove do we help them destroy Isreal? Or, does it mean that we try to create an international socialist utopia, were the wealth of the west is poured into every back water country on the planet to commit every resource we have to the utter elimination of poverty aroung the globe? But what if the real reason they wish to harm the west is because it is the west. What do we do then? Give up? Josh Gray wrote: Indisputable proof that there is no God would be a good start. Or indisputable proof that there is. However, I don't think either is likely to happen. In any case, it would require an overt act of secular imperialism to enforce such a belief. And I think that is as much as anything the source of Islam's fears about the west - secular imperialism. Islam is still a 'wild' religion and has no desire to join its domesticated cousin, Christianity, as the happy pet of secularism. Josh Gray wrote: How many innocent families are you going to kill along the way? I thought thats the reason we dont like these people, because they kill innocent people indiscriminately? If America parked big aircraft carrier off the coast of a Australia, and said hey "like our shinny planes? we think you should change your style of government" most of us would be a little reluctant to do what we are told. Its just human nature. If they started bombing our cities I would be literally terrified that my family or friends might be killed or my house destroyed or my ability to earn money and feed my family taken away from me etc etc. And what would George Bush say? Something along the lines of God and freedom. If you try and generalise the situations a bit there is really no difference between the two sides. I understand all of that. But again, I think it is perfectly legitimate to relate the issue back to WWII. We indiscriminantly killed millions of civilians to defeat fascism. Most of those people were just as innocent as the average Muslim is today, yet they were ultimately the power behind the evil, and we were absolutely justified in raining death down upon them. This situation
Stan Shannon wrote: You're assuming, I suppose, that this essentially means kow towing to the Islamic world's demands concerning Israel. I think we should look more to the long term. I believe that hard line religious indoctrination occurs in every religion and this is why there are groups within every religion willing to destroy the others with the complete belief that they are acting in their gods name. To my mind this is the real problem and can only change over a long period of time. What people from both sides need is better education and communication which will develop more understanding and acceptance. Lets put the bible, the corran and whatever other books drive people to kill each other in the name of god in the fiction section of the library where they belong. Stan Shannon wrote: But again, I think it is perfectly legitimate to relate the issue back to WWII. I disagree. Its a very different situation and requires a different approach. Military might is not a blanket solution for all conflicts. Look at Vietnam. I enjoy reading your views and I will read any further replies you make but I am going to leave it there. Im happy to disagree.