Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, The OP said: HMA v Cawthorne - Accused fired a high velocity rifle into a room where four people had taken refuge from him. Mens rea for attempted murder was found because there was a deliberate intention to kill or a wicked recklessness in that the accused was indifferent as to whether death resulted from his actions. Petto v HMA - Accused set fire to a building to dispose of a body and argued there was no mens rea for the murder of someone inside the building who died from the fire. Court rejected that and convicted of the murder of the second victim. HMA v Purcell - Accused knocked down a child at a pedestrian crossing whilst fleeing police. Convicted of culpable homicide rather than murder because the accused's actions were not found to have intended to cause some personal injury. That's the Scots Law position on killing someone you didn't intend to, not sure about Norn Iron. IMO it'll be broadly similar and shooting at a crowd and killing someone you didn't aim for would be found to be murder. Carry on. Except they didn't shoot at the crowd did they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 10 hours ago, Kuro said: With you maybe cause you're clearly an idiot. In reality that's extremely easy to do, especially for teenagers with no formal training in firearms. I think you might have stumbled on a way this could have been avoided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kuro said: Except they didn't shoot at the crowd did they? This is the most moronic argument ever. They shot towards people and that is why they hit one of the people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, The OP said: This is the most moronic argument ever. They shot towards people and that is why they hit one of the people. No they didn't, Google it. They shot towards police/a police vehicle, with no intention of a bullet going toward those people. Unfortunately one did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, Kuro said: No they didn't, Google it. They shot towards police/a police vehicle, with no intention of a bullet going toward those people. Unfortunately one did. It follows from the Petto case that if you could have reasonably anticipated there would have been people in the direction in which you are shooting that you committed murder even if you were not aware of the precise position of the people concerned and did not intend them direct harm. It follows from the Cawthorne case that if you shoot in the general direction of people you are guilty of murder if a person died, even if it is not your intention to kill that precise person. You seem to be classifying the police as not people and trying to amend the law to reflect that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, The OP said: It follows from the Petto case that if you could have reasonably anticipated there would have been people in the direction in which you are shooting that you committed murder even if you were not aware of the precise position of the people concerned and did not intend them direct harm. It follows from the Cawthorne case that if you shoot in the general direction of people you are guilty of murder if a person died, even if it is not your intention to kill that precise person. You seem to be classifying the police as not people and trying to amend the law to reflect that. Well they can see the people so they're perfectly aware they're there. You could argue they shot in their general direction unintentionally due to the gun kicking and lack of knowledge on how to properly discharge one, but you couldn't possibly make the case they did it deliberately, which is what the last forty posts on here have been saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kuro said: No they didn't, Google it. They shot towards police/a police vehicle, with no intention of a bullet going toward those people. Unfortunately one did. So you're saying that this wasn't murder because Lyra McKee wasn't the intended target. You've suggested that the actual targets were police/security officers who were trying to maintain law and order. Had they succeeded in killing one or more of them, would that have been murder? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 11 hours ago, Kuro said: Did I say it does? She was killed by accident. That's all right then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 That’s another alias on ignore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: So you're saying that this wasn't murder because Lyra McKee wasn't the intended target. You've suggested that the actual targets were police/security officers who were trying to maintain law and order. Had they succeeded in killing one or more of them, would that have been murder? Of course. What a stupid question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: That’s another alias on ignore. Jeez Granny, you'll soon have no one left to talk to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I mean I do get the argument that if you want to shoot at person A but you miss and kill person B then that is culpable homicide rather than murder because you had no intention to kill person B but that is not what the law in Scotland says and the law in Norn Iron probably follows similar lines. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide can be fuzzy at best and the fact there is a distinction is probably a hangover from murder automatically being a capital offence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: Jeez Granny, you'll soon have no one left to talk to. Happy to have sensible conversations with posters who are not obvious trolls. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The OP said: I mean I do get the argument that if you want to shoot at person A but you miss and kill person B then that is culpable homicide rather than murder because you had no intention to kill person B but that is not what the law in Scotland says and the law in Norn Iron probably follows similar lines. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide can be fuzzy at best and the fact there is a distinction is probably a hangover from murder automatically being a capital offence. I think they'll have a very good case for voluntary culpable homicide especially in n Ireland where these things are much more common and politically charged. My point is though, just a simple fact that if the handful of posters hadn't disputed right at the start this all would have been avoided, they didn't mean to hit her. That's just a fact. Edited April 21, 2019 by Kuro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 12 hours ago, Kuro said: The fundamental problem over there is we have occupied and colonised a chunk of their country for hundreds of years and treated a massive section of the population as second class citizens in their own country. Its important to realise that we are the bad guys in the whole situation, not the people who resist our occupation by force. 11 hours ago, Kuro said: They didn't aim at the crowd at all. They're not serious revolutionaries. 11 hours ago, welshbairn said: Just local psychos and drug dealers then? 11 hours ago, Kuro said: Pretty much. So they're not resisting occupation by force and trying to become first class citizens, but are merely criminals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The OP said: I mean I do get the argument that if you want to shoot at person A but you miss and kill person B then that is culpable homicide rather than murder because you had no intention to kill person B but that is not what the law in Scotland says and the law in Norn Iron probably follows similar lines. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide can be fuzzy at best and the fact there is a distinction is probably a hangover from murder automatically being a capital offence. There must at least be some health and safety issue that the shooter and whoever supplied the gun and bullets can be charged with. Edited April 21, 2019 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, Jacksgranda said: So they're not resisting occupation by force and trying to become first class citizens, but are merely criminals. I wasn't talking about them specifically, I was responding to the Britnat trolls. We got on to them after. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, The OP said: I mean I do get the argument that if you want to shoot at person A but you miss and kill person B then that is culpable homicide rather than murder because you had no intention to kill person B but that is not what the law in Scotland says and the law in Norn Iron probably follows similar lines. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide can be fuzzy at best and the fact there is a distinction is probably a hangover from murder automatically being a capital offence. They shot indiscriminately at a group of people and killed one of those persons Open and shut Edited April 21, 2019 by Binos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said: Jeez Granny, you'll soon have no one left not to talk to. FTFY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kuro said: they didn't mean to hit her. They pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger. It wasn't going to end any other way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.