Your actions were justified, but youre still going down son

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by BrunoNoMedals, Dec 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BrunoNoMedals

    BrunoNoMedals LE Reviewer

    Teacher convicted of manslaughter


    So the bloke gets to his daughter's house to find her locked in a bedroom with the kids, while the husband goes postal with a cricket bat. Daddy, over 30 years the lads senior, gets the bat off him and gives him a swift crack to the swede. At the first opportunity he gets the plod involved.

    Obviously they nick him - he's just killed the bloke - but while the judge AGREES that the guy's actions were justified, that he's no risk and an all-round top bloke, he still sends him down.

    Surely, if the actions were justified and the old geezer isn't a threat, that constitutes grounds for release?!
     
  2. Welcome to the UK...
     
  3. That'll get drastically reduced on appeal.
     
  4. this bloke can't have been that unstable and violent if he was put on his arse by a 64 year old teacher.....
     
  5. BrunoNoMedals

    BrunoNoMedals LE Reviewer

    But it would have been feasible with a bloke who had all his faculties? Please...
     
  6. 64 is hardly zimmer frame territory, Chuck Norris is 68 :D
     
  7. who knows???? saying that I'm sure I wouldn't want to mess with Arnie Schartrzzzawhatever who has to be getting on a bit..........Fair point.




    Taxi......
     
  8. Arnie is 61 and Chuck Norris would kick his ass :)
     
  9. Question is, was there any need to hit him with the bat when he took it of him? If the answer is 'no' he's guilty. Sorry for the fella, but that's the law for you.
     
  10. From the reports the problem seems to be that the chap who was killed had already been disarmed and was on the ground. The report does not suggest that the fatal blow was either defensive or to stop a further assault, nor has there been any suggestion that the mans skull was abnormally week. Either it was a very poor defence or the guy was deemed legally to have over reacted.
     
  11. the judge did say his actions were justified.
     
  12. unfortunatly, even if the answer is yes, he's guilty.

    Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion", under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.

    Sometimes, the law just sucks.
     
  13. Google "find Chuck Norris" and hit the "I feel lucky button".
     
  14. BrunoNoMedals

    BrunoNoMedals LE Reviewer

    This is exactly my point. No mention is made of the level of violence or the defence story, granted, but if his reaction was excessive (beyond "reasonable force") then surely the judge wouldn't have agreed with the justification.

    Essentially the judge is telling him he was in the right, but sentencing him for being in the wrong. If the summation had made mention of excessive force, or another reason why his actions were uncalled for, then I could have understood the sentence a little better.
     
  15. Old ones are the best aint they. ALL HAIL CHUCK!