None footy but how can muhammed rodwan be cleared?

Ok he's been locked up for other charges but how can someone who has attacked a police officer with a machete be cleared of attempted murder? Even Frazier how can he be cleared of possession of an offensive weapon?

Surely swinging a 2 foot machete at someone is an absolute slam dunk of a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon. What defence can there possibly be?

 

As Bartyke will tell you, attempted murder is harder to prove than murder itself. All about the intent.

 

Has to be pre-meditated to be murder I think.

 

But the offensive weapon charge is just a slam dunk isnt it? Surely you don't have to prove any intent there, if you have it in your possession you are guilty if you don't you aren't

 

Murder: Intent to cause really serious harm required.

Attempted murder: Requires intent to kill.

 

Ahh fair enough.

 

Even worse, his defense barrister suggested surprise that the PC hasn't been disciplined for excessive force for using his taser to save his life.

You literally couldn't make that up.

 

It was the jury that found him not guilty of attempted murder: bonkers.
Hence the lesser charge convicted of.

 

That woman is a disgrace and shouldnt be allowed to continue with her profession, let someone with a machete attack her or her family see if she still thinks that

 

Behave, it’s her job. Not allowed to continue with her profession because she tried to defend her client? I could never, ever do it but someone has to otherwise our system of giving everyone a fair trial would be over.

 

I get shes got to try and 'defend' her client, i.e limit the punishment but proposing that the police officer who was attacked should be disciplined for excessive force is absolutely ridiculous! That isnt defending her client that is empowering the dangerous criminal.

 

Its his third such attack. Convicted rapist as well if i remember correctly.

 

Agree, how can you be found guilty of wounding with intent and it was accepted the machete was used but not guilty off an offensive weapon. Barmy.

 

Completely agree. Defend her client, that's her job. That means trying to prove innocence or in this case, where that's not an option, try to provide mitigation for his actions.

But to suggest the PC did anything wrong to justify a disciplinary is just so off piste it deserves to be ridiculed. If she was in any way taken seriously then the country would be more fcked up than I thought.

 

apparently, for it to be an ‘offensive weapon’ it has to be proven that’s what it was intended for, he claimed it was in his van as he had been using it on a gardening job so it was something he had to hand and just grabbed it, so wasn’t a ‘weapon’.

 

Never have a golf club in your bedroom for just such an occasion, but you can get a massive heavy torch under your bed and argue it was their in case of
Blackouts. Seems like we’ve spent hundreds of years developing a legal system which allows us to live in one of the most stable societies on the planet. We have access to legal recourse beyond the wildest dreams of 2/3 of the planet, the hang em’ high brigade need to put their pitch forks away and go read some Dostoyevsky, or at least pipe down and appreciate what they’ve got.

 

so if some bugger comes at you with a machete you now have to decide if he's just pillocking , or maybe just intent on a bit of light maiming before you decide what the appropriate response is?

 

The thing is there are people who believe she is justified with her comments as she is doing her job and defending her client! Absolute madness!

 

The excessive force was nothing to do with the taser. It was for grabbing him around the throat and pulling his hair out. Something the PC admitted was dangerous. The judge however said that this was an "unattractive submission that he (PC Outten) was using excessive force in circumstances when you had assaulted him and forcibly resisted arrest".