http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7919011.stm What on earth were the family thinking to allow this to be charged as manslaughter and not murder? 20 stab wounds should never be passed off as self defence and not intending to kill somebody, as if it isn't bad enough to leave the house with a weapon, and persecute someone who is awaiting trial(as disgusting a man as they may be). I feel quite nauseous, they should lock this guy up for life, vigilante justice should not be allowed.
That's a tough one. I guess you can provoke someone into attacking you and then kill them in self defense.
Even with that in mind isn't 20 stab wounds a bit excessive to claim self defense? I'd like to know if he was charged with carrying a deadly weapon too, or if that, combined with a previous attack on his property, was given any consideration as to whether this might be pre-meditated. Something just doesn't add up here.
As far as I know self defence laws state you can protect yourself using that which is deemed to be "reasonable force". I would have said that when you get beyond the point where you can escape or subdue the other person then anything you do afterwards becomes murder as you have a choice in your actions and are choosing to kill, presumably out of revenge. IMO stabbing someone 20 times is beyond reasonable, and is downright cold blooded.
I'm not an expert on British criminal codes, but typically one of the defining differences between "manslaughter" and "murder" is forethought. I.e., killing in a fit of passion, even if it does not constitute legitimate self defense, is typically not considered murder. And it seems pretty clear that the offender in this case, however base his motives or thin his self-defense justification, did not intend to kill the victim prior to their altercation. And while I can't comment on the specific circumstances here, it is not inconceivable to stab someone 20 times in self defense. It's actually harder to stab someone to death than it seems, particularly if they are able-bodied, aggressive and experienced in hand-to-hand combat (as the victim - a former police officer - apparently was). If you swing a knife at such a person, odds are that all you do is give them a minor cut on their arms or hands, which will just piss them off without disabling them in any meaningful way. If the person being stabbed is significantly overweight, they can take repeated stabs to the abdomen (and other areas) without much immediate effect. To offer an anecdote, a man who lived up the street from my parents tried to murder his wife a few years ago by attacking her with a butcher knife. Despite landing upwards of 50 knife blows on her, he didn't even succeed in preventing her from locking herself in the bathroom and calling the police, let alone killing her. Theoretically, you could stab someone in the chest or throat a couple of times and that would be it, but that's actually a pretty rare outcome in a struggle, unless you're an expert in knife-fighting. Also, the article says he was "stabbed" 20 times, but it seems more likely that most of the wounds were slashes, not actual stabbings, given the circumstances. So I have to wonder if the term "stab" isn't being misused here. In the end, though, it's difficult to find a jury that will display much sympathy for the rights of child porn offenders.
I may be wrong but I tend to recall the concept of keeping a weapon by the bed for self defense in case of a break-in is considered "forethought", likewise it is often the same case with those carrying a weapon on the street. At the least the guy displays a huge degree of naivity to believe he can attack somebodies property without them reacting, and coupled with the fact that this isn't the first attack certainly leads me to wonder what his motives were. It's possible it's bad reporting, however it also seems to be worded that the guy with the knife was on the ground, with the other guy on top of him. This doesn't leave many posibilities for any actual combat to occur, and I imagine it would be difficult to swing a knife with any effect in that position, but a stabbing motion would be possible, and very effective. Obviously people can take a variety of superficial blows, but actually being stabbed, even in the limbs, is seriously painful and often debilitating to some degree. Surely this guy could have got away after at most 5 blows if he wanted to? I'd be interested in seeing the wounds though. As much as I agree and think he might have deserved it, it's also rather problematic, not only because he was awaiting trial and not even convicted(although it seems a highly likely outcome), but because someone's punishment may be lessened on the basis of the victims independent crimes. That encourages vigilanteism and undermines the entire system.
The thing about cases like this -when you only read a couple of paragraphs covering what happened - is that you weren't in to court room - you didn't hear the evidence and the testimony presented. So its difficult to make any real judgements on the case.
Here in the UK the authorities, guided by the hands of unelected mindless busibodies, believe that the commiter of the crime deserves our help and guidance, and to hell with the victims...............
On that premise, Zombie, we shgould be helping certain people into the hereafter. The murder of a 23 month of toddler in Dundee, convicted recently, one of the ways of terror this child dies was being thrown across a room to hit a vertical wall with force. His mother came home and found him lolling about with his eyes rolling in his head'. She is a prostitute and a junkie. The childs died of 40 indentifyable injuries. The authorities are equally to blame and heads should roll, they allowed a baby to 'live' in a totally dangerous environment for 2 years of hell!!! We should not be helping this scum, we should be incinerating them. Imagine that poor child life of terror and despair and extreme pain. Nobody helped him. I would willingly and without pay, be the executioner.
Tell me ....why does any society need people who would commit cold-blooded murder? Why help them at all? Why keep them around? The world is mostly overpopulated now, what possible reason could there be to waste money on a murderer when that money could be used to help good people in need? Baron Max
Pretty sure they can kick up enough of a fuss to get it changed, if nothing else. It's like saying someone can burgle your house and then the prosecutor only charges them with breaking and entering. It would be a mockery.
Like I said earlier the guy leaving the house with a weapon concerns me on it's own. Not to mention the previous attacks. I also conceded it could be bad reporting when they say "stabbed", but IF it isn't then stabbing someone 20 times in self defence is surely excessive. See post #5.
No, it's not that simple. Evidence is required and if the prosecutor and the cops don't have the "right" evidence, then sometimes the best they can do is some lesser crime just to get the guy into jail at all. Baron Max
Not if the stabbings occur while the two struggled ...assuming some of the wounds were not lethal. Baron Max
Does the UK work the same as the US? Either way isn't that a flawed system? Settling on a lesser crime that is easier to prove rather than a trial for what they actually did? Surely in cases like this the LEAST it is(if he's guilty) is manslaughter, so why not try it as murder and if he is not guilty of that then decide on manslaughter.
How many stab wounds can a normal person take before they react to the damage inflicted? How big of a struggle is required to get to 20 especially when at least 1 was lethal? Like I said it could be mis-reporting, but apparently we aren't talking about 19 scratches here.
