Whaley Bridge shooting

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I honestly don't know the ins and outs of our Jury system, so all of this is supposition on my part.

I do know that juries in this country are unpredictable. In the Bristol Colston statue case the jury returned a not guilty verdict when it seemed the four defendants were clearly guilty of criminal damage.

So if the jury in this case shared the views expressed by @LangleyBlue1970 and @GaudinoMotors on this thread could the result be not guilty?

Genuinely interested in knowing more about this.

They could be if they ignored the information regarding him telling the police that he was expecting them to return and that he’d sit waiting for them ready to shoot and kill them, then actually doing it.

That’s as premeditated a murder as it gets.

So, unless a juror decides to ignore how the law works, he’ll get convicted of murder.

You can’t not convict because the victim was a ****!

In the unlikely outcome where 3 do this, it’d probably be a retrial.

 

[melrose40yarder]

Where do you draw the line? Would you advocate shoplifters being shot in the face at point blank range?

How about fare dodgers on the tram?

No but like i said there has to be a detterant shoplifters for instance as long as they lift less than £1000 worth of stock get a £90 fine that cant be right.Sorry if this seems extreme stick em in a cell maybe feed them maybe not chuck em a blanket.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No but like i said there has to be a detterant shoplifters for instance as long as they lift less than £1000 worth of stock get a £90 fine that cant be right.Sorry if this seems extreme stick em in a cell maybe feed them maybe not chuck em a blanket.

I get it’s emotive, but you can’t execute people for being a scrote.

These two should have been in prison already, but the system has failed and they’ve paid the ultimate price.

I feel sorry for the farmer, but you can’t just execute people.

 

[mexico1970]

Are we still talking about Tony Martin here who had his sentence reduced to manslaughter served 3 years and is now living back in the house he shot the thieves?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Are we still talking about Tony Martin here who had his sentence reduced to manslaughter served 3 years and is now living back in the house he shot the thieves?

My daughters know these lads.
They broke in the night before and apparently nicked 20k.
Went back the next day to nick his guns so they could Rob a farm not far away that has a big weed grow.
Only thing is they told every fucker they were going back.
The farmer was waiting shot one point blank in the face apparently.
But he's been charged with pre meditated murder.
He had been broken into 17 times in the last 2 years and told the police next time I will shoot them.
He's meant to be a really nice guy .
Little bastards got what they deserved

 

[GortonBlue62]

They could be if they ignored the information regarding him telling the police that he was expecting them to return and that he’d sit waiting for them ready to shoot and kill them, then actually doing it.

That’s as premeditated a murder as it gets.

So, unless a juror decides to ignore how the law works, he’ll get convicted of murder.

You can’t not convict because the victim was a ****!

In the unlikely outcome where 3 do this, it’d probably be a retrial.

It's not unlikely. Many people share the opinion that that the law is wrong on this issue and that this guy had every right to act as he did.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's not unlikely. Many people share the opinion that that the law is wrong on this issue and that this guy had every right to act as he did.

That’s not how being a juror works.

 

[Ducado]

The laws are crazy.

Oh no go on Mr Burglar, you fill your boots ransacking my house. Do you want a brew? I'll go and start loading the stuff into my car for you. Not a problem.

You should be allowed to beat the living shit out of some skank breaking in AND not be found guilty.

This fuckin country.

You are, it's up to a judge and jury to decide if reasonable force has been used, and that's how it should be

 

[GortonBlue62]

That’s not how being a juror works.

In which case there would never be controversial jury verdicts. Juries are unpredictable.

 

[melrose40yarder]

I get it’s emotive, but you can’t execute people for being a scrote.

These two should have been in prison already, but the system has failed and they’ve paid the ultimate price.

I feel sorry for the farmer, but you can’t just execute people.

You may change your tune if anything happens to you or yours.Some years ago 2 undesirables broke into my fathers pub tied him to a chair poured petrol over him made him give the safe combination then through him out of the window luckily they threw him out of the one with a 5ft drop to a flat roof if they had used the next window he would have been seriously injured or dead. They got 10 yrs that is not right.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In which case there would never be controversial jury verdicts. Juries are unpredictable.

Juries listen to the evidence and make a verdict, partially shaped by the judge when attaching the offences to the particular laws breached.

The judge will likely say in their opening spiel that the jury need to make their minds up only from the evidence given to them in court and what the law is, rather than what they believe it should be.

The defence counsel will have their turn to try and shape self defence or temporary insanity from the repeated frustration of the burgalries.

This is all assuming he has done what was suggested on here and that he pleads not guilty.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You may change your tune if anything happens to you or yours.Some years ago 2 undesirables broke into my fathers pub tied him to a chair poured petrol over him made him give the safe combination then through him out of the window luckily they threw him out of the one with a 5ft drop to a flat roof if they had used the next window he would have been seriously injured or dead. They got 10 yrs that is not right.

Maybe so and I’m sorry your father went through that.

Laws should not be made emotionally though.

Ive been burgled twice. It horrid. No one was ever caught. I’ve never wanted someone to die for it though.

 

[melrose40yarder]

Emotion does not come into it i abide by the law as do the vast majority.The ones who dont need dealing with take Huntly for instance what purpose does he serve as far as im concerned none so use him for testing new drugs on instead of animals.Got to make crime not pay.

 

[Ducado]

It's not unlikely. Many people share the opinion that that the law is wrong on this issue and that this guy had every right to act as he did.

The law can be a blunt instrument but where do you draw the line? Say in your case you are allowed to shoot someone breaking into your house, so you shoot me put I was only attempting to deliver a parcel but you thought I was breaking into your house so you have the right to kill me.

It's a problem that the hang em high brigade can never get their heads around, humans are prone to lynch mob mentality we have laws to stop that happening, does it always work? No, is it always fair? No but it's been developed over hundreds of years to ensure that society is relatively stable.

I will say this though we are living with the consequences of years of austerity in this country, police forces have been cut, as well as everything else and society is starting to break down in the most alarming way I have known

 

[GortonBlue62]

Juries listen to the evidence and make a verdict, partially shaped by the judge when attaching the offences to the particular laws breached.

The judge will likely say in their opening spiel that the jury need to make their minds up only from the evidence given to them in court and what the law is, rather than what they believe it should be.

The defence counsel will have their turn to try and shape self defence or temporary insanity from the repeated frustration of the burgalries.

This is all assuming he has done what was suggested on here and that he pleads not guilty.

I know all that, and it doesn't add anything to the debate.

If people were entirely rational the jury verdict would be 100% predictable. People aren't entirely rational and jury verdicts reflect that.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I know all that, and it doesn't add anything to the debate.

If people were entirely rational the jury verdict would be 100% predictable. People aren't entirely rational and jury verdicts reflect that.

The biggest variance is because of reasonable doubt.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I honestly don't know the ins and outs of our Jury system, so all of this is supposition on my part.

I do know that juries in this country are unpredictable. In the Bristol Colston statue case the jury returned a not guilty verdict when it seemed the four defendants were clearly guilty of criminal damage.

So if the jury in this case shared the views expressed by @LangleyBlue1970 and @GaudinoMotors on this thread could the result be not guilty?

Genuinely interested in knowing more about this.

Oh I'm sure it could well be a guilty verdict.
Perhaps that's why some sometimes take the law into their own hands. It's a vicious cycle and battle between chicken and egg.

 

[GortonBlue62]

The law can be a blunt instrument but where do you draw the line? Say in your case you are allowed to shoot someone breaking into your house, so you shoot me put I was only attempting to deliver a parcel but you thought I was breaking into your house so you have the right to kill me.

It's a problem that the hang em high brigade can never get their heads around, humans are prone to lynch mob mentality we have laws to stop that happening, does it always work? No, is it always fair? No but it's been developed over hundreds of years to ensure that society is relatively stable.

I will say this though we are living with the consequences of years of austerity in this country, police forces have been cut, as well as everything else and society is starting to break down in the most alarming way I have known

Society is not breaking down. We live in a more tolerant civilised society than at any time in history.

FWIW I'm not in the 'hang em high' camp and if I was on the jury in the case described in this thread, despite having sympathy with the home owner, I'd uphold the law and vote guilty (that's obviously hypothetical as we don't know the facts).

But suppose I thought the law was wrong? Maybe I'd be bloody minded enough to acquit. Jurors are human beings with their own set of values and prejudices.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Society is not breaking down. We live in a more tolerant civilised society than at any time in history.

FWIW I'm not in the 'hang em high' camp and if I was on the jury in the case described in this thread, despite having sympathy with the home owner, I'd uphold the law and vote guilty (that's obviously hypothetical as we don't know the facts).

But suppose I thought the law was wrong? Maybe I'd be bloody minded enough to acquit. Jurors are human beings with their own set of values and prejudices.

One of the trials I sat on was an assault on a taxi driver.

The defendant was pretty obviously guilty, but the victim totally fell apart in the witness box and contradicted almost the entirety of his police statement.

Therefore we had to find him not guilty, because they didn’t prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

We had 2 jurors stick to guilty verdicts because the taxi driver and they were Muslim. We had to deliberate for 2 days before the 10/2 majority was accepted.

Had it have been 3 people, it would have been a non verdict and sent for a retrial, should the CPS deem it worthy.

 

[jimharri]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. We had a fairly high profile case in Mayo nearly twenty years ago...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_John_Ward

Padraig Nally became a bit of a hero to folk living in rural Ireland, particularly those living alone who were afraid of becoming victims of burglary. Out from his family, I doubt there were many tears shed for the "victim".