- Thread Starter
- #61
And apparently, if you can't afford the legal fees then you and I (as taxpayers) foot the bill instead.
UK home defence
- Thread starter pdg
- Start date
And apparently, if you can't afford the legal fees then you and I (as taxpayers) foot the bill instead.
No, you can't get legal aid anymore. for things like that. That's why the no win no fee solicitors are pushing and why many cases do go ahead when they shouldn't. Remember the tagline 'where there's blame there' a claim'?
Q&A: Legal aid changes
The government has removed funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:
- Private family law, such as divorce and custody battles
- Personal injury and some clinical negligence cases
- Some employment and education law
- Immigration where the person is not detained
- Some debt, housing and benefit issues
One report coming in is that while the burglar had a screwdriver with him which he attacked the householder with, he was actually stabbed with a knife and managed to run down the road with it stuck in him. The worst bit is though is that his mate was seen pulling the knife out of him! Obviously he didn't take any first aid courses or even watch films ( ie Black Panther.. best film I've seen for a while, those female warriors!) now the question is what killed him, being stabbed or his mate pulling the knife out. A good hypothetical debate coming up there!
- Thread Starter
- #64
Well, that's a start at least.
- Thread Starter
- #65
- Thread Starter
- #67
Ok, so back to the question posed earlier, asking what I would do if called to that scene, one dead and another saying he acted in self defence - but neither were known to me...
Kind of irrelevant when you consider the person who died was actually wanted by police in connection with another burglary against a pensioner at the time of his death - they'd issued "have you seen this man?" photos and everything.
Kind of irrelevant when you consider the person who died was actually wanted by police in connection with another burglary against a pensioner at the time of his death - they'd issued "have you seen this man?" photos and everything.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
- Thread Starter
- #69
I would call the police, and then leave before I had to answer any questions about why I was in a house where two guys I don't know are killing one another.
The question was based on "you" being the attending officer
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Travesty of justice!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43676359
Det. Ch. Insp. Harding said: "While there might be various forms of debate about which processes should be used in cases such as this, it was important that the resident was interviewed by officers under the appropriate legislation; not only for the integrity of our investigation but also so that his personal and legal rights were protected."
Det. Ch. Insp. Harding said: "While there might be various forms of debate about which processes should be used in cases such as this, it was important that the resident was interviewed by officers under the appropriate legislation; not only for the integrity of our investigation but also so that his personal and legal rights were protected."
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
I should know better, but: It is entirely how a reply is expressed. @pdg imho is coming too close to blaming the messenger, Tez3, not the law itself. I think that is why Tez3 is reacting in the way she is. Actually, again imho, she is being much more patient with pdg than she usually is with people who reply as he is.
Again @pdg you can wish for the law to be different, with different definitions all you want. And you can wait until you are king of the world and do it yourself. Or you can begin lobbying with your fellow countrymen to join you in changing the law. I suppose you have a legislature that votes on what laws are. At least part of that legislature is elected. If enough people let that legislature know they want a law to be different, and makes the members of that legislature believe they will be out of a job if they don't follow the will of the people, I expect the law will be changed. That is so in the USA. I wish you great good luck if your countrymen are like mine.
One thing that your are forgetting is as Tez3 pointed out, what the law says is what is legal. You can agree or disagree with that 'legal' definition of the law, but you will still be subject to it. I don't know about where you are from, but in the USA there are a couple of loopholes. The courts get to decide if a law is legal under the document giving the legislature their authority to make law. In our case, that is the US Constitution. If the court, usually the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) says a provision of a law violates the US Constitution, it will be deemed unenforceable. Even if SCOTUS makes no such determination, the president may decide not to enforce a law. Then it makes no difference what the law says or who agrees with it. Even if it is violated, no one will be arrested.
But those things are rare. BTW, I am speaking about federal law. Most States do it the same way.
As to why the definition from the dictionary cannot be used in place of the definition in law? Well, perhaps it could be. Whatever your founding document says. In the USA, the legislature is the only body that has that authority. But suppose we changed our constitution to say that lexicographers got to define law. Now suppose on the day some lexicographer has the duty to define murder, he is grumpy because he got up on the wrong side of the bed, tripped over the wife's pet cat, and the coffee maker didn't work. You sure you want him writing your law? While we are at it, why one particular lexicographer and not another, since as Tez3 pointed out, they don't always agree with each other? Maybe a college of lexicographers? Starting to sound like a legislature?
Now another point: normally laws are written so infractions of that law are within strictly controlled areas. That is, there can be no doubt what the infraction is. Otherwise, as Tez3 pointed out, many lawbreakers, including murderers will be able to say things that induce doubt in the minds of jurors, who are the real triers of fact, for instance, 'he tried to kill me first.' As a silly example, suppose you have a law that simply says if you kill somebody, you have committed murder. And you get charged with murder because you killed someone who was trying to kill you and a member of your family. Would you support that? Or would you prefer definitions of breaking a law that prevent too broad an application?
@Steve you stated you understood there was only one definition of murder. Think for a moment. Have you ever heard it said a man was being charged with murder 1? That may be a killing that is not legal and is premeditated. It may be a killing that is defined as so dangerous the perpetrator had to know it was likely to cause death; such as shooting an automatic weapon into the sky but towards a city. So no, there is not one simple definition of murder in most jurisdictions. Often even things like manslaughter have different definitions based on how the killing was done. I don't know how much interest you have in that, but it shouldn't be hard to look up.
I haven't read beyond Steve's post that I quoted, so I hope somebody hasn't already pointed out all the above. I have severe writer's cramp.
Last edited:
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I don't think there is one definition of murder. I think I was saying that intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.I should know better, but: It is entirely how a reply is expressed. @pdg imho is coming too close to blaming the messenger, Tez3, not the law itself. I think that is why Tez3 is reacting in the way she is. Actually, again imho, she is being much more patient with pdg than she usually is with people who reply as he is.
Again @pdg you can wish for the law to be different, with different definitions all you want. And you can wait until you are king of the world and do it yourself. Or you can begin lobbying with your fellow countrymen to join you in changing the law. I suppose you have a legislature that votes on what laws are. At least part of that legislature is elected. If enough people let that legislature know they want a law to be different, and makes the members of that legislature believe they will be out of a job if they don't follow the will of the people, I expect the law will be changed. That is so in the USA. I wish you great good luck if your countrymen are like mine.
One thing that your are forgetting is as Tez3 pointed out, what the law says is what is legal. You can agree or disagree with that 'legal' definition of the law, but you will still be subject to it. I don't know about where you are from, but in the USA there are a couple of loopholes. The courts get to decide if a law is legal under the document giving the legislature their authority to make law. In our case, that is the US Constitution. If the court, usually the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) says a provision of a law violates the US Constitution, it will be deemed unenforceable. Even if SCOTUS makes no such determination, the president may decide not to enforce a law. Then it makes no difference what the law says or who agrees with it. Even if it is violated, no one will be arrested.
But those things are rare. BTW, I am speaking about federal law. Most States do it the same way.
As to why the definition from the dictionary cannot be used in place of the definition in law? Well, perhaps it could be. Whatever your founding document says. In the USA, the legislature is the only body that has that authority. But suppose we changed our constitution to say that lexicographers got to define law. Now suppose on the day some lexicographer has the duty to define murder, he is grumpy because he got up on the wrong side of the bed, tripped over the wife's pet cat, and the coffee maker didn't work. You sure you want him writing your law? While we are at it, why one particular lexicographer and not another, since as Tez3 pointed out, they don't always agree with each other? Maybe a college of lexicographers? Starting to sound like a legislature?
Now another point: normally laws are written so infractions of that law are within strictly controlled areas. That is, there can be no doubt what the infraction is. Otherwise, as Tez3 pointed out, many lawbreakers, including murderers will be able to say things that induce doubt in the minds of jurors, who are the real triers of fact, for instance, 'he tried to kill me first.' As a silly example, suppose you have a law that simply says if you kill somebody, you have committed murder. And you get charged with murder because you killed someone who was trying to kill you and a member of your family. Would you support that? Or would you prefer definitions of breaking a law that prevent too broad an application?
@Steve you stated you understood there was only one definition of murder. Think for a moment. Have you ever heard it said a man was being charged with murder 1? That may be a killing that is not legal and is premeditated. It may be a killing that is defined as so dangerous the perpetrator had to know it was likely to cause death; such as shooting an automatic weapon into the sky but towards a city. So no, there is not one simple definition of murder in most jurisdictions. Often even things like manslaughter have different definitions based on how the killing was done. I don't know how much interest you have in that, but it shouldn't be hard to look up.
I haven't read beyond Steve's post that I quoted, so I hope somebody hasn't already pointed out all the above. I have severe writer's cramp.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
I see what you are saying, but ...
I think I was trying to say that intent was not necessarily the difference between murder and manslaughter. In my example of a person who carelessly fires a gun into the air, with a bullet then falling to the ground and killing someone, that person may not have had the intent to kill, or even wound anyone. No intent; but the act may be declared to be so reckless that the person should have been able to foresee the consequences and not have committed the act.
And I should have added that it depends on a given jurisdiction. Each one gets to define different acts as they wish.
In one of my previous post I listed, from the Crown Prosecution Service, all the various 'types' ( for want of a better word) of 'causing death' that would be liable for someone to be charged for. it define homicide and manslaughter. The CPS are the legal prosecutors on behalf of the Crown in the UK. All crimes here are persecuted by the Crown, I think ( only from watching television lol) that in the US it's the State that prosecutes. Anyway here's the list again.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Back to the OP, sadly the police have been unable to leave the pensioner alone because they are having to protect him from possible reprisals from the dead man's family and friends who've even laid flowers for the dead man outside the householders home. Lots of noise about how he didn't deserve to die, they should actually blame his accomplice as much as the dead man, the mate by eye witness accounts pulled whatever was used to been used to stab him with ( the police won't say but it will come out in the inquest) and ran off leaving his 'mate' to die. who needs mates like that?
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Back to the OP, sadly the police have been unable to leave the pensioner alone because they are having to protect him from possible reprisals from the dead man's family and friends who've even laid flowers for the dead man outside the householders home. Lots of noise about how he didn't deserve to die, they should actually blame his accomplice as much as the dead man, the mate by eye witness accounts pulled whatever was used to been used to stab him with ( the police won't say but it will come out in the inquest) and ran off leaving his 'mate' to die. who needs mates like that?
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
It is a little more complicated in the US. If a person commits a murder robbing a gas station, normally the State will investigate and prosecute. The federal government likely doesn't have a murder statute to cover that unless there is an Interstate tie in, or maybe even a potential one. But some things may require federal investigation by statute. If a bank insured by the US government (and most are) is robbed, that insurance creates a federal interest and the FBI would investigate and might prosecute. If the state also has a statute against bank robbery within the state, they could also investigate and prosecute. For any number of reasons, either jurisdiction might, and probably would, defer to the other. But in many circumstances, both jurisdictions may charge for the same criminal act, and without it being double jeopardy. See Is it Double Jeopardy to Charge a Crime at State and Federal Level? where the defendant beat the case in the state court (?) but the federal government had a different statute for that same crime, that had a federal tie in. After 7 years and an acquittal, man is convicted of killing Utah deputy gives more information, but doesn't mention the specifics of the federal tie in. At an appeal of the charging, the appeals courts noted there was no double jeopardy as the state of Utah and the federal government were separate sovereign entities. I read elsewhere that he received life plus 80 years. I don't know about the UK, but it is possible to give different sentences for each crime found guilty of. It looks like that is what happened. What it normally means is the even if he is allowed to be paroled from the life sentence, depending on the wording of the sentencing, he might be allowed to be paroled from both sentences, or after parole from the life sentence, then have to begin serving the 80 year sentence; effectively putting him in jail for the rest of his life, without having to fight any battles if life without parole was outside sentencing rules.
All easy to understand, right Tez3?
Of course for all I know, the UK law is also like that. We did assimilate a lot of law when we became our own country.
We are fairly simple, we don't have different agencies investigating, there's only the police (we'll leave out MI5), the prosecuting agency is the CPS in England and Wales and the Crown Service and Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. In Northern Ireland it's the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Laws can be different in each country.
You will only be charged by the relevant service in which ever country you are in, as they are the only ones who prosecute always in the name of the Crown ) which can cause problems in Northern Ireland from some groups who refuse to recognise the courts there).
Life is mandatory for murder but for everything else there is statuary minimum terms which is what tends to cause outrage when people consider the judge has given a lenient sentence or indeed too long a sentence.
Sentencing: Mandatory and Minimum Custodial Sentences | The Crown Prosecution Service
Life sentenced prisoners
The only sentence that is for an unknown time is to be detained to is 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'. for that you have to have a successfully 'guilty due to insanity' plea accepted.
You will only be charged by the relevant service in which ever country you are in, as they are the only ones who prosecute always in the name of the Crown ) which can cause problems in Northern Ireland from some groups who refuse to recognise the courts there).
Life is mandatory for murder but for everything else there is statuary minimum terms which is what tends to cause outrage when people consider the judge has given a lenient sentence or indeed too long a sentence.
Sentencing: Mandatory and Minimum Custodial Sentences | The Crown Prosecution Service
Life sentenced prisoners
The only sentence that is for an unknown time is to be detained to is 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'. for that you have to have a successfully 'guilty due to insanity' plea accepted.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I don’t get it. Are you saying that the person who fires the gun in the air might be charged with murder?
Look at dui accidents. DUI murder charges are very rare, and hinge on intent. Generally, like your careless gun owner example, because a person who is stupid and drinks then causes someone’s death didn’t intend to do so (or intent can’t be established) they are charged with manslaughter.
As I said before, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder in the USA. I’m not sure how that could be controversial.
