ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Someone else that was there, and in the courtroom. Lucky you. I wish that I was, I could then be as 101%, sure-fire, concrete certain as you. Congrat's.
I am certain the cop meant no harm
Someone else that was there, and in the courtroom. Lucky you. I wish that I was, I could then be as 101%, sure-fire, concrete certain as you. Congrat's.
I am certain the cop meant no harm
This forum has a history of delivering the verdict before the trial (and in one case where no trials ever took place) and getting it wrong.
Was he panicked, was he fearful? I don not know. Is he a racist? I do not know. Is he just hugely gung-ho? I do not know. Does he give a sh1t about anyone else in this world? I do not know.
I do not know and NOTHING anywhere, except being in the actual courtroom, would let me judge all of that.
I wish that everyone in this world did not jump to wild conclusions based on diddley-squat apart from tabloid headlines and internet babble.
I agree in principle but you have to ask yourself if this wasn't murder (or, at the very least, manslaughter) what is?
I think a possible difference there might have been the strong possibility that the driver was panicking, which makes it difficult to be sure they intended to kill, which means murder would be a tough verdict to return. I'm less sure that an experienced policeman, using techniques they had been trained in, surrounded by colleagues and in no immediate danger, could reasonably be assumed to be experiencing the same degree of panic, but we'll have to wait for the verdict.Indeed. Or a police officer killed by being dragged behind a vehicle, for over a mile? That’s murder in my book too, others didn’t think so.
Yes, certainly a strong case for a murder verdict in that case (though I take SPT's point).Indeed. Or a police officer killed by being dragged behind a vehicle, for over a mile? That’s murder in my book too, others didn’t think so.
Right now I doubt that they are, because they are asleep. It's the very early morning there and I doubt they make jurors deliberate all night, that's no way to get a sensible decision out of anyone. They will give them a meal and a hotel bed, and resume when people have slept and will make a reasoned decision rather than "yeah whatever - just let me go to sleep". So I imagine a resumption of proceedings mid afternoon UK time.We don't know - they're still deliberating.
I think a possible difference there might have been the strong possibility that the driver was panicking, which makes it difficult to be sure they intended to kill, which means murder would be a tough verdict to return. I'm less sure that an experienced policeman, using techniques they had been trained in, surrounded by colleagues and in no immediate danger, could reasonably be assumed to be experiencing the same degree of panic, but we'll have to wait for the verdict.
Yes, certainly a strong case for a murder verdict in that case (though I take SPT's point).
That's the difference between me and you. I try to be consistent, even when something doesn't fit my preconceptions.
Well yes, but you need to think about what the legal definition of 'commit' implies, in the context of the 'crime' under consideration. If somebody does something and somebody else dies, it's not automatically murder. It could be anything from pure, no fault accident to murder, via manslaughter, corporate manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving, whatever. The context of what happened, and what can be said to have been in the mind of the person doing the something, will be crucial. That's what I mean by the panic point, plus it alluded to something somebody else said, upthread.I couldn’t care less who anyone is. If they commit a crime, they should be punished. 100% consistently.
Cool. How about this: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/monarchy-and-royalty.253988/page-4#post-4325907I couldn’t care less who anyone is. If they commit a crime, they should be punished. 100% consistently.
That's not what he asked, and we all know. We all know 2 similar events, one (covid) situation, one allowed, one not. One rule, all the time? Yeah. Right.Did it kick off at the Price Philip mournings? I thought it was 100% peaceful, as one would expect.
Why would you expect it to be peaceful at a mourning for Prince Philip, and not peaceful at a mourning for a woman who had been killed?Did it kick off at the Price Philip mournings? I thought it was 100% peaceful, as one would expect.
That's not what he asked, and we all know. We all know 2 similar events, one (covid) situation, one allowed, one not. One rule, all the time? Yeah. Right.
Why would you expect it to be peaceful at a mourning for Prince Philip, and not peaceful at a mourning for a woman who had been killed?
Edit, what Stevec67 said, too.