T Nation

Manslaughter

I cannot believe what type of criminal acts that lead to someone�??s death can be convicted of manslaughter.

A guy here just got 6 years for killing someone (he could be out in less than half) he jumped up and down on the guys head and it was not deemed as murder, as he did not intend to kill him! Fuck that if you jump on someone�??s head and they die it should be fucking murder and you should get 20 years minimum!

I do not know is a lot of it is due to plea bargaining and in a effort to save court costs the prosecutors settle for a manslaughter charge?

Anyone else seen similar stories? Or agree with how lax the law can be in this area?

[quote]Electric_E wrote:

I cannot believe what type of criminal acts that lead to someone�??s death can be convicted of manslaughter.

A guy here just got 6 years for killing someone (he could be out in less than half) he jumped up and down on the guys head and it was not deemed as murder, as he did not intend to kill him! Fuck that if you jump on someone�??s head and they die it should be fucking murder and you should get 20 years minimum!

I do not know is a lot of it is due to plea bargaining and in a effort to save court costs the prosecutors settle for a manslaughter charge?

Anyone else seen similar stories? Or agree with how lax the law can be in this area?
[/quote]
Jena 6. Signal Hill beating of white girls by 50 black youth on Halloween 2 years ago.

[quote]Electric_E wrote:

I cannot believe what type of criminal acts that lead to someone�??s death can be convicted of manslaughter.

A guy here just got 6 years for killing someone (he could be out in less than half) he jumped up and down on the guys head and it was not deemed as murder, as he did not intend to kill him! Fuck that if you jump on someone�??s head and they die it should be fucking murder and you should get 20 years minimum!

I do not know is a lot of it is due to plea bargaining and in a effort to save court costs the prosecutors settle for a manslaughter charge?

Anyone else seen similar stories? Or agree with how lax the law can be in this area?
[/quote]

Let’s be clear, manslaughter is still criminal homicide. You can intend to kill, but still be convicted of manslaughter. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “manslaughter” as: “(t)he unlawful killing of a human without malice and without premeditation and deliberation.”

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is that murder requires malice while manslaughter does not. When you kill someone in the heat of passion, generally, the offense is manslaughter. Therefore, jumping up and down on someone’s head in the heat of passion, in the absence of malice, is manslaughter.

I remember another retarded story about a robber who broke into someones home, fell through the skylight and broke his leg. He then goes on to sue the home owners and wins.

If anyone wonders why liberals should be despised and hated they should take a look at what they have done to britain. Britain has become a very violent society.

It is no surprise though when the penalty for repeatedly kicking someone in the head till they are dead is only three years. This is the same sentence that they have given for several happy slapping murders.

Do you remember a farmer named Martin who got life in prison for shooting two home invaders who attacked him in the kitchen of his farm house? Do you remember how the thug who died was lamented in the press as a lovable rougue who didn’t deserve to be “ambushed”.

How the fuck can they call shooting someone who has broken into your home to attack you an ambush?

An ambush is when you lay in wait for someone to come a long a route they would normally be expected to be travelling.

The British people have some of the most fucked up values of any people I have ever known.

.

http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=200107200000

Here is a link. First one that came up.

EDIT: There are some definite inaccuracies. But it is a starting point if you want to search further.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
If anyone wonders why liberals should be despised and hated they should take a look at what they have done to britain. Britain has become a very violent society.

It is no surprise though when the penalty for repeatedly kicking someone in the head till they are dead is only three years. This is the same sentence that they have given for several happy slapping murders.

Do you remember a farmer named Martin who got life in prison for shooting two home invaders who attacked him in the kitchen of his farm house? Do you remember how the thug who died was lamented in the press as a lovable rougue who didn’t deserve to be “ambushed”.

How the fuck can they call shooting someone who has broken into your home to attack you an ambush?

An ambush is when you lay in wait for someone to come a long a route they would normally be expected to be travelling.

The British people have some of the most fucked up values of any people I have ever known. [/quote]

Let’s lighten up the mood with this hilarious affair.

Gun T-shirt ‘was a security risk’

A man wearing a T-shirt depicting a cartoon character holding a gun was stopped from boarding a flight by the security at Heathrow’s Terminal 5.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7431640.stm

I think most manslaughter convictions are a joke. I would change the definition. Manslaughter should be the accidental commission of some action which resulted in the death of another. Jumping on someone’s head is not an accident, you clearly intended to harm the person regardless of whether or not that person died. It’s not like I’m going to stomp someone’s face in while thinking “Gee, I hope this guy doesn’t die!”

In my book, if you accidentally run over someone in the street because you didn’t see them, that’s manslaughter. If you stomp on someone’s head and they end up dying, that’s murder.

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
I would change the definition. Manslaughter should be the accidental commission of some action which resulted in the death of another. [/quote]

You know, accidentally causing the death of another is generally not considered a crime deserving jail time. The difference between an accident (negligence) and a criminal act is the intent to cause harm. In EE’s example, there has been no indication that the guy didn’t intend to cause harm. Without knowing all the facts, my guess is that the prosecution couldn’t prove he committed the crime of stomping with malice aforethought. There may be a distinction between UK law and US law on this point though.

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
I would change the definition. Manslaughter should be the accidental commission of some action which resulted in the death of another.

You know, accidentally causing the death of another is generally not considered a crime deserving jail time. The difference between an accident (negligence) and a criminal act is the intent to cause harm. In EE’s example, there has been no indication that the guy didn’t intend to cause harm. Without knowing all the facts, my guess is that the prosecution couldn’t prove he committed the crime of stomping with malice aforethought. There may be a distinction between UK law and US law on this point though.

[/quote]

No the British judiciary have lost the ability to judge right from wrong. Case in point, last year a man was stoned to by a group of thugs with the most devastating blow being delivered by a brick which shattered his face. The gang walked away after the attack they were heard joking “we killed him”. As a result of the assault the man had a massive heart attack and died. The gang was not charged in the death because the judge said there was no proof the assault had caused the heart attack.

Personally I think that if you assault someone and they die a little while later as a result you should be held accountable, because you shouldn’t have assaulted them. The possibility of catching a murder case is a good reason not to assault people. Unfortuneately the judiciary don’t see it that way.

The British have their own sense of reality that only they see. I’ll give you some examples. Say you see an old lady being beat to death by a thug and you step in to save her. In Britain they call that being a “have a go hero” “taking the law into their own hands” or in other words you are a vigilante. In Britain you can be held legally liable for that. That is why a couple of months ago a young woman was raped in the middle of a busy intersection with cars driving by and noone stopped to help. People were afraid they would be charged with assault for stopping a rape.

In America if you stop a rape they don’t call it taking the law into you own hands. In America it is called being a good citizen rendering assistance to a fellow citizen in distress. In America you can legally detain that rapist and summon the police, it’s called citizens arrest.

The American concept of taking the law into your own hands is when someone ignores the proper legal channels (the police, the courts) and goes out and takes revenge on someone. The British and Americans have a totally different mentality. I personally think the Americans have the correct view on this.

Farmer Martin was another example of the different mentality in Britain. He was characterized as inflicting the death penalty on someone who was merely committing burglary, which is not so. Mr. Martin was a 65 year old man who was defending himself from home invasion by two strapping young thugs. Home invasion is a violent crime in the same sense that rape is an act of violence. In the British press the violent thug he shot was lionized as nothing more than a loveable rogue while Mr. Martin was villified as a gun nut who layed in wait to ambush someone in the kitchen of his own home.

The court gave Mr. Martin life in prison for killing someone who assaulted him in his own home. Meanwhile thugs routinely beat people in the head till they are dead and it merely gets a slap on the wrist.

The situation created by all this lawlessness is that the labour party has an excuse to turn britain into a police state, which they are doing.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The court gave Mr. Martin life in prison for killing someone who assaulted him in his own home.
[/quote]

He is out of jail now, for what it is worth.

Martin is out but his life has been destroyed. His reputation is the horrible old man who laid in wait for someone to break into his home so he could ambush and shoot some poor loveable kid.

The fact remains that he was treated way more harshly than a group of thugs who beat a man to death and filmed it so they could entertain themselves with the murder.

In Britain there is all this hand wringing going on about how can they stop youngsters from carrying knives. They never admit that the reason why so many kids are carrying knives is because the system has proven itself to be useless in protecting people.

Young people are illegally carrying knives because they feel they have a much greater chance of being assaulted than of being arrested. When someone can only get three years for stomping on someones head till they are dead it makes sense.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Martin is out but his life has been destroyed. His reputation is the horrible old man who laid in wait for someone to break into his home so he could ambush and shoot some poor loveable kid.

The fact remains that he was treated way more harshly than a group of thugs who beat a man to death and filmed it so they could entertain themselves with the murder.

In Britain there is all this hand wringing going on about how can they stop youngsters from carrying knives. They never admit that the reason why so many kids are carrying knives is because the system has proven itself to be useless in protecting people.

Young people are illegally carrying knives because they feel they have a much greater chance of being assaulted than of being arrested. When someone can only get three years for stomping on someones head till they are dead it makes sense.[/quote]

If you have to defend yourself in Britain, don’t wait around until the cops show up afterward. If you have to kill someone, don’t take your chances with the courts.

A guy is on trial in the UK now for “spreading hate” on his blog, which amounted to documenting Pakistani Muslim crimes in Luton.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Martin is out but his life has been destroyed. His reputation is the horrible old man who laid in wait for someone to break into his home so he could ambush and shoot some poor loveable kid.

The fact remains that he was treated way more harshly than a group of thugs who beat a man to death and filmed it so they could entertain themselves with the murder.

In Britain there is all this hand wringing going on about how can they stop youngsters from carrying knives. They never admit that the reason why so many kids are carrying knives is because the system has proven itself to be useless in protecting people.

Young people are illegally carrying knives because they feel they have a much greater chance of being assaulted than of being arrested. When someone can only get three years for stomping on someones head till they are dead it makes sense.

If you have to defend yourself in Britain, don’t wait around until the cops show up afterward. If you have to kill someone, don’t take your chances with the courts.

A guy is on trial in the UK now for “spreading hate” on his blog, which amounted to documenting Pakistani Muslim crimes in Luton. [/quote]

Thanks for reminding me. A couple of months ago a business owner coming out of his business was attacked by a knife wielding assailant. Despite being stabbed he was able to wrestle the knife away from his attacker and killed him instead. The business owner has been arrested for murder.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Martin is out but his life has been destroyed. His reputation is the horrible old man who laid in wait for someone to break into his home so he could ambush and shoot some poor loveable kid.

The fact remains that he was treated way more harshly than a group of thugs who beat a man to death and filmed it so they could entertain themselves with the murder.

In Britain there is all this hand wringing going on about how can they stop youngsters from carrying knives. They never admit that the reason why so many kids are carrying knives is because the system has proven itself to be useless in protecting people.

Young people are illegally carrying knives because they feel they have a much greater chance of being assaulted than of being arrested. When someone can only get three years for stomping on someones head till they are dead it makes sense.

If you have to defend yourself in Britain, don’t wait around until the cops show up afterward. If you have to kill someone, don’t take your chances with the courts.

A guy is on trial in the UK now for “spreading hate” on his blog, which amounted to documenting Pakistani Muslim crimes in Luton.

Thanks for reminding me. A couple of months ago a business owner coming out of his business was attacked by a knife wielding assailant. Despite being stabbed he was able to wrestle the knife away from his attacker and killed him instead. The business owner has been arrested for murder. [/quote]

Wow. just wow. I’d rather live on some glacier somewhere than in that type of environment where common sense is flipped upside-down.

I can’t totally understand how most of my family continues to live there. It is other-worldly the way things have gone there.

Many years ago when the film A Clockwork Orange was released it caused such a shock to the British (because it showed the way the country was going) the British board of Film Censors (BBFC) banned the film in 1974. The ban lasted till 1999.

Britain today has gone way beyond the Britain of A Clockwork Orange.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Many years ago when the film A Clockwork Orange was released it caused such a shock to the British (because it showed the way the country was going) the British board of Film Censors (BBFC) banned the film in 1974. The ban lasted till 1999.
[/quote]

Kubrick pulled the film himself. The ban was lifted upon his death.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Many years ago when the film A Clockwork Orange was released it caused such a shock to the British (because it showed the way the country was going) the British board of Film Censors (BBFC) banned the film in 1974. The ban lasted till 1999.

Kubrick pulled the film himself. The ban was lifted upon his death. [/quote]

Will you please stop making sense? What makes you think anybody here is interested in facts?

Party-pooper!

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I can’t totally understand how most of my family continues to live there. It is other-worldly the way things have gone there.
[/quote]

Is it the free dental care?