[quote]Loose Tool 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.
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.