8 years for cold blooded murder. Pathetic.

[mattx]

This country is going to the dogs:

 

BBC News - London riots: Darrell Desuze detained for Richard Bowes killing

[CHR1S]

I started to read the article, hit the man who fell and hit his head. Wasn't intended to kill him blah blah...

 

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said he took into account the teenager's previous guilty pleas to burglary and violent disorder at William Hill, Tesco Express, Blockbuster and Fatboys Thai restaurant on the same night.

 

WTF!?!

 

He pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, arson and theft so he went easy on him for manslaughter?

[Diello]

This country is going to the dogs

 

Going? I think it's already gone.

[mthomas08]

Going? I think it's already gone.

 

Agreed, theres another article in the Sun I think it is, man broke a childs leg while abusing his mother and only got a few days prison time 1 day more than it took the child to be released from hospital.

[aerospacemango]

Ok...so I'll play devil's advocate on this one....

 

Regardless of pleading guilty to other charges, the manslaughter charge is a different case. The fact that he hit the man, who then fell and banged his head (causing his death) means that a murder charge is not appropriate. Had it been a pre-meditated attack, then murder would certainly have been the charge.

[mattx]

Not appropiate maybe - this thug will be out in 3 years and claiming benefits and most probably robbing old folk.

[DT2]

It disturbs me that the arsonist who burnt down the store in Croydon got 11 years, and this guy (who was responsible for the death of a bystander) got only 8.....

[mthomas08]

Ok...so I'll play devil's advocate on this one....

 

Regardless of pleading guilty to other charges, the manslaughter charge is a different case. The fact that he hit the man, who then fell and banged his head (causing his death) means that a murder charge is not appropriate. Had it been a pre-meditated attack, then murder would certainly have been the charge.

 

He still murdered some one?.. When will people learn you knock some one out standing up what are they going to fall on? a soft bean bag?

 

Sorry still murder in my eyes, people dont think more than two seconds in front of them and wonder "Why me". He set out to seriously hurt the guy without regarding his health or what happened next. Think its time people like this got sent down.

[localzuk]

Ok...so I'll play devil's advocate on this one....

 

Regardless of pleading guilty to other charges, the manslaughter charge is a different case. The fact that he hit the man, who then fell and banged his head (causing his death) means that a murder charge is not appropriate. Had it been a pre-meditated attack, then murder would certainly have been the charge.

 

There's a long standing aspect of any legal case called 'Mens Rea', basically 'guilty mind'. The explanation of this is quite simple - if you should reasonably know that your actions can lead to something happening (eg. if you set fire to a piece of paper at a petrol station, it should be reasonably known that the entire place could go up), then you have 'guilty mind'.

 

In this case, every reasonable person knows that if you punch an old man in the head, he's going to fall over and hit himself on the floor.

 

That alone makes it murder in my mind. 8 years is pathetic.

[mole]

Agreed, people need to take responsibility and accept the consequences for their actions, if they've ended up killing someone by punching them then it's still murder.

[aerospacemango]

There's a long standing aspect of any legal case called 'Mens Rea', basically 'guilty mind'. The explanation of this is quite simple - if you should reasonably know that your actions can lead to something happening (eg. if you set fire to a piece of paper at a petrol station, it should be reasonably known that the entire place could go up), then you have 'guilty mind'.

 

In this case, every reasonable person knows that if you punch an old man in the head, he's going to fall over and hit himself on the floor.

 

That alone makes it murder in my mind. 8 years is pathetic.

 

But how can anyone KNOW that he is going to bang his head, suffer brain damage, and die?

 

Yes, thugs should be banged up, and for as long as possible, but you have to take everything into account.

 

 

Agreed, people need to take responsibility and accept the consequences for their actions

 

Sadly this has been missing from life in general for many years....

[localzuk]

But how can anyone KNOW that he is going to bang his head, suffer brain damage, and die?

 

Yes, thugs should be banged up, and for as long as possible, but you have to take everything into account.

 

That's not how the law works. If your actions could likely have that effect, if a reasonable person could expect it to happen.

[aerospacemango]

That's not how the law works. If your actions could likely have that effect, if a reasonable person could expect it to happen.

 

So then, how likely is that to happen?

 

If it really was "likely" then surely there would be many, many more deaths each weekend from fights in town centres?

 

The unfortunate death of the man was, i would argue, not a likely result of punching him. What if he'd had a hereditary weak spot in his skull?

 

I'm not here to defend the actions of a thug, but to defend the law's right to charge and convict on manslaughter, rather than murder.

[ButterflyMoon]

To my mind dead is dead no matter how the little thug did it or intended it to happen. IF he had not attacked the old man he would in all probability still be alive today. As for jail time he caused the death of a human being so should not get out!! 8 years is way too short a sentence. You can bet the old guys family will be suffering long after that sick excuse for a human being is released from jail.

[localzuk]

So then, how likely is that to happen?

 

If it really was "likely" then surely there would be many, many more deaths each weekend from fights in town centres?

 

The unfortunate death of the man was, i would argue, not a likely result of punching him. What if he'd had a hereditary weak spot in his skull?

 

I'm not here to defend the actions of a thug, but to defend the law's right to charge and convict on manslaughter, rather than murder.

 

To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that punching an elderly man in the face will have a likely outcome of that man falling down. I would also think that it is a distinct possibility that he could hit his head when he does so, which could cause death.

[Theblacksheep]

To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that punching an elderly man in the face will have a likely outcome of that man falling down. I would also think that it is a distinct possibility that he could hit his head when he does so, which could cause death.

 

Which by definition is not murder.

[localzuk]

Which by definition is not murder.

 

It is? As 'intent' in the eyes of the law is as I defined earlier as 'mens rea'. The old definition would make it not murder, but the definition in use within criminal law in the UK would make it so, as the culprit should reasonably have known the outcome of his actions so therefore he had intent.

[penfold]

So then, how likely is that to happen?

 

If it really was "likely" then surely there would be many, many more deaths each weekend from fights in town centres?

 

The unfortunate death of the man was, i would argue, not a likely result of punching him. What if he'd had a hereditary weak spot in his skull?

 

I'm not here to defend the actions of a thug, but to defend the law's right to charge and convict on manslaughter, rather than murder.

 

When you hit a man who is nearly 70 I would fully expect that it would have extreme consquences(and sadly in this case death). And not expecting this show complete disregard for another life.

[mthomas08]

This whole thing reminds me of those who speed/drink drive/tailgate. What if causing an accident during those moments?

 

Couple of points, community service, couple of months in prison: Even if the above clips another car which in turn rolls off the road killing all occupants.

Will most likely get away with all the above and not sent down for life. As we have seen in the so called justice system before where some one has done the above and totally got away with it. Sorry still murder and should be sent down for life.

[Busybub]

When you hit a man who is nearly 70 I would fully expect that it would have extreme consquences(and sadly in this case death). And not expecting this show complete disregard for another life.

 

True, but irrelevant for the purposes of proving murder.

 

To secure a murder conviction you have to prove that the defendent killed the victim (not in dispute in this case), AND that the defendent assaulted the victim with the intention of killing him (mens rea bit referenced above).

 

If the victim was assaulted purely for the purpose of inflicting injury, the fact that he subsequently died doesn't make it murder as the intent to kill wasn't there.

[Busybub]

This whole thing reminds me of those who speed/drink drive/tailgate. What if causing an accident during those moments?

 

Couple of points, community service, couple of months in prison: Even if the above clips another car which in turn rolls off the road killing all occupants.

Will most likely get away with all the above and not sent down for life. As we have seen in the so called justice system before where some one has done the above and totally got away with it. Sorry still murder and should be sent down for life.

 

Er, no. Same reason as previous post. Tailgating and clipping a car, resulting in deaths, is only murder if there is intent to kill.

[localzuk]

True, but irrelevant for the purposes of proving murder.

 

To secure a murder conviction you have to prove that the defendent killed the victim (not in dispute in this case), AND that the defendent assaulted the victim with the intention of killing him (mens rea bit referenced above).

 

If the victim was assaulted purely for the purpose of inflicting injury, the fact that he subsequently died doesn't make it murder as the intent to kill wasn't there.

 

You're mixing up the definition of 'mens rea' there. If the injuries being inflicted would, to a reasonable person, seem life threatening, then that would be 'intent'. Intent isn't quite the same as 'i intend to punch you in the face till you die'.

 

However, yes, a conviction requires actus reus and mens rea to be upheld basically.

[Miscbrah]

Edit - we already covered what I said.

 

Except for the part where I'd like the fscker locked up for another 10 ontop of that 8.

 

Still, hopefully someone will punch him back in prison. A lot.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Miscbrah

[GrumbleDook]

You're mixing up the definition of 'mens rea' there. If the injuries being inflicted would, to a reasonable person, seem life threatening, then that would be 'intent'. Intent isn't quite the same as 'i intend to punch you in the face till you die'.

 

However, yes, a conviction requires actus reus and mens rea to be upheld basically.

 

Things to tend to get a little murky when it comes to whether the intent was to murder or cause grievous bodily harm, and then knowing the probability that this could also result in death.

 

We also have to remember that not only is the age of the victim taken into account but the appearance of the age of the victim. It might sound silly but if someone is out in the streets during the right (has confidence and willing to get out there with little apparent fear) and is being physically active (stamping out fires, moving bins, etc) then it can be argued that the defendant didn't assess the age of the victim to be as old as he was, and that the victim would have been more capable of dealing with some physical aggression (you could argue ABH here) rather than be seriously injured and die.

 

Sat talking through a case with some friends recently there was raised about whether we are in a situation that people just don't understand death and injury anymore. We have already had recent discussions about people being desensitised to violence and its results ... and whilst ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law it can be a mitigating factor. This can (and does) lead to possible murder cases (GBH resulting in death) ending up going to manslaughter instead.

[mattx]

 

We also have to remember that not only is the age of the victim taken into account but the appearance of the age of the victim. It might sound silly but if someone is out in the streets during the right (has confidence and willing to get out there with little apparent fear) and is being physically active (stamping out fires, moving bins, etc) then it can be argued that the defendant didn't assess the age of the victim to be as old as he was, and that the victim would have been more capable of dealing with some physical aggression (you could argue ABH here) rather than be seriously injured and die.

 

I'm sure the thug who punched this man and killed him thought to himself, ' Oooo, he seems quite an active fellow, stamping out fires, moving bins etc, he won't mind if I punch him.....'