Epic WTF

What charges do you think would stick and what sort of sentence would you recommend for a 12-year old?

A Halfords bicycle for life.

with the forks on back to front.

Yeah, it's a tough one isn't it? I'm certainly not in favour of handing out excessive punishment in lieu of any sort of attempt to rehabilitate people who have done appalling things. I'm also certainly not in favour of throwing the book at 12 year old. I'm just not sure that losing the "right" to drive for a few years is going to do much to deter anyone from making similar decisions.

Whatever would result from the murder charge or maybe robbery that results in a fatality, I don't see why it switches to a traffic related offence just because he used a car to kill.

not in favour of throwing the book at 12 year old.

maybe if the book weighs 1.5 tonnes.

As per the comments in the article it's specifically not murder in this case, it would be closer to manslaughter.

The "Causing death by dangerous driving" offence is supposed to be a motoring equivalent of manslaughter.

AIUI the reason for having a single charge, rather than two separate charges, is it's less likely a jury would convict them of one lesser offence (the motoring one) and then acquit them of the manslaughter charge.

https://twitter.com/TokyoDilf/status/1708855387229753541

Murder is a very specific crime and applies to very few deaths
Murder requires premeditation and the intent to kill a specific person.
Hitting someone with a car, no matter how negligent or careless, is not murder.

And further to Greenbank: prosecutors prefer to go with a charge more likely to result in conviction.

If the car is used as a weapon then it is fair to assume that the injuries caused would be serious or indeed fatal. So a murder charge could be brought, but you would have to prove intent to injure first. However a jury could still except the ‘ I hit the wrong pedal ‘ defence.

Wonder what would of happened if it was the thief...seeing as in the past people have got in their cars to chase motorbike thrives and knocked the thieves off the stolen motorbikes

https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-chased-motorbike-thieves-jailed-for-10-years-after-killing-one-in-fatal-crash-12165611 so this gives out a message.

That's why it's so absurd that it's treated as a traffic incident, those pedals weren't his to press, it's a robbery gone wrong not somebody driving their car recklessly.

Murder requires premeditation and the intent to kill a specific person.

None of those three assertions are true.

You don't need premeditation - you can be having a row, punch someone or pick up a weapon and stab them with intent, and it's murder.

You don't need to intend to kill - intending to injure them (at any rate to the GBH/really serious harm level) is enough.

It doesn't need to be a specific person - set off a bomb intending to kill or injure, even though you have no idea who will be in the shopping centre or concert arena, and it's very definitely murder.

Hitting someone with a car, no matter how negligent or careless, is not murder.

And yet strangely the teenager in the Marcia Grant case was charged with murder, so it seems that the CPS disagrees with you

.

1 Attachment

I want. They also do Spam Teriyaki.

They haven't made a vegan Spam substitute yet. There's a reason for that.

Oh ffs

Unpleasant subject (and even worse media channel) but fitting for thread. Woman’s xl bully starts becoming aggressive. One day, out of the blue, it bites off her thumb and eats it. Several days later it hospitalises a ‘friend’. Then two months after mauling her it mauls her 63 y/o husband who punches the dog 30 times to no effect.

Despite all this, they think the breed should not be banned. These types of dumbfucks should not be allowed to own living suicide weapons, but they’ll keep acquiring them until laws change and are enforced because no number of random maulings will convince them the breed is too dangerous to own.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/11296347/xl-bully-ate-womans-thumb-dundee/

No. You have to prove intent to kill.
Intent to injure is not murder.
Also the intent to kill must be formed with a clear mind, not in the heat of a confrontation.
Intent to kill is extremely hard to prove, so prosecutors rarely use it unless they have definitive evidence that will convince a judge or jury.

And another one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-67004053
and another one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12588057/XL-american-bully-dog-mauled-toddler-rushed-hospital-arrested-man.html?ico=related-replace
and another one https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-mauled-three-dogs-south-145901002.html
and another one https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12592777/Womans-horrific-wounds-inflicted-Bully-type-dog-attacked-walking.html#article-12592777
all within the last week.
People talk about lockdown puppies coming of age and it being a problem, that's true, but we're also now at the time when lockdown xl bullys are turning 3 and becoming adult dogs. I can point out tons of "He just snapped, he's never done this before" stories from after they turn 3.

Interesting point about lockdown puppies coming of age. Hopefully laws and enforcement will get ahead of a potential wave of attacks.

Tangentially related, I’ve been thinking of what will happen when lockdown children around the world become young adults. Hopefully it won’t contribute to increased conflict due to the pandemic’s impact on their psycho-emotional development.

We had a couple moving in a few doors away with one of those dogs. In a few weeks it has made attempts at running after a friend of mine twice and my 7yo son once. Luckily it's been on a leash and the owner managed to hold it back, but fuck knows what would've happened otherwise

I thought if you knew your actions were likely to kill somebody it was murder. In the way that shooting someone was likely to cause their death, even if you only meant to shoot their eye out. Gawd that’s a high bar to jump.
In the case of the carjacking you can see why a death by careless driving would be the way to go, as they both carry the same upper sentence. And he’s pleading guilty.

Perhaps stuff like this is contributing to the violence in these breeds.
Comments such as “why are the ingredients not stated” and the dog in the picture having no teeth suggests they’ve got something to hide.

1 Attachment

Perhaps stuff like this is contributing to the violence in these breeds

I dunno, feed it to a corgi for a couple of years and see how many people it murders, I'd bet still 0.

No. You have to prove intent to kill.

The Crown Prosecution Service disagrees with you

with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)