The law is an ass part 64738

Boy searches for differences between murder and homicide, searches and watches video of a schoolboy stabbing another to death and then takes knife to school and stabs somebody to death. Not guilty of murder. I mean seriously? How the hell can you take a knife tonschoop, pull it out and ram it into soembodies heart without being a murderer. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

There's very little detail in the media reports. However, QC's on both sides, four days of evidence, and the jury were able to dismiss murder and convict on culpable homicide after just one hour and forty minutes of deliberation. That suggests to me that the evidence was fairly straightforward, the legal arguments were properly put, and that the jury was readily able to reach a conclusion with the better information they had about the case (both legal and factual) than any of us.

 

I have to concur with my learned friend.

I once had to do jury service may yaers ago and anyone who had not attended court would wonder, from the reporting, how the little scrote in one case was acquitted. However, after 4 hours of deliberation, whilst most of us agreed he was probably as guilty as sin there was sufficient reasonable doubt, given the argument his defence put forward. In that situation we had to return 'Not Guilty'

The system isn't perfect but it is better than trial by media, vigilantism and mob rule. Sometimes they get it wrong (I suspect Pistorius case was one of those times when it came to the charges and initial sentencing) but the system has checks and balances and extreme anomalies, particularly in sentencing are often rectified.

I am not so sure the Judiciary are quite as independent from Govt as they once were -e.g. How can 'Kettling' pregnant women and office workers not be defined as unlawful ... "False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent." Common sense says 'yes' the law says 'no'!!

I do think the system of sentencing can be a bit arbitrary and unfair when government interferes with the judicial process though - 'so called 'guidelines and 'minimum terms' - and some of the err.... 'learned judges' ' go a bit past their sell by dates' and should be put out to grass.

 

In my opinion any person who leaves his/her house with a knife intends to use it. Self defence is no argument.

 

Exactly.

Especially when he also had a knuckle duster with him and had just been viewing videos of school kids stabbing people.

 

All other points aside, is no one else worried about this proliferation of court cases using (often tenuous) internet searches as proof of guilt?

 

Yes and no. In a way yes because internet searches can be for many random reasons that are often completely unrelated to what they seem to be about. At least in my random life they are anyway. On the other hand they do help to prove whether something was predetermined or not.

 

I guess the kid successfully found out the difference between murder and homicide then!

 

It looks that way doesn't it. Looks to me like he did a bit of research and then attempted to murder somebody whilst staying just on the side of homicide. Which makes the judgement a joke as surely his research actually makes him guilty of premeditated murder

 

I'm missing what this is in reference to though.

 

Surely that would only apply if he'd searched the difference between culpable homicide and murder. Not homicide and murder. Not that either can be taken as any indication of premeditation in isolation.

 

There has obviously been more to the case than the snippets folk are picking out and commenting upon on here. It's like watching 15 minutes of a football match and deciding on the basis of that who has been the better side.

 

Crock of *****; what happened to part 64737?

 

Hamsters at football matches

 

My bad; I thought that was part 64736.

 

It was both. Part 64736 was animal cruelty part 64737 was entering a football stadium drunk. You really need to pay more attention

 

I will try harder in future.