Whaley Bridge shooting

[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".