24 Oct
11:45am, 24 Oct 2024
46,512 posts
|
SPR
That article does say this which I agree with "The key issue in the Blake trial was therefore not the level of harm he intended to cause to Kaba but whether he acted lawfully, ie in self-defence, and to protect colleagues, as he had claimed in court." |
24 Oct
12:09pm, 24 Oct 2024
25,893 posts
|
larkim
Murder requires an intent only to inflict grievous bodily harm, not to kill. Maybe a shot in the leg still constitutes that if death results, which contradicts my "shoot in the foot" suggestion. But it wouldn't constitute attempted murder if that was the only shot taken. And sentencing may well mitigate the punishment if there was clear evidence that it was a shot at the foot and "something" happened to mean that the shot fired actually caused the death of the individual. Manslaughter was probably never on the table because that requires either diminished responsibility on behalf of the perpetrator, gross negligence on behalf of the perpetrator or doing some "unlawful act" (falling short of intentional GBH) resulting in the death. I can't see how a police officer in the course of their duties shooting at a potential suspect could ever fit one of those categories. |
24 Oct
12:21pm, 24 Oct 2024
17,982 posts
|
jda
“Serious harm” not GBH. Actually I thought recklessness as to the likelihood of serious harm was enough but that’s in Scotland only. So “I only meant to nick his ear” would seem to be a defence in England.
|
|
24 Oct
12:23pm, 24 Oct 2024
25,895 posts
|
larkim
No, it is grievous bodily harm - see cps.gov.uk
|
|
24 Oct
12:26pm, 24 Oct 2024
25,896 posts
|
larkim
Though for practical purposes, they are one in the same; and I think both GBH and murder remain common law offences anyway.
|
|
24 Oct
12:40pm, 24 Oct 2024
17,983 posts
|
jda
Ok sorry I was looking at wikipedia. But it seems a bit inconsistent with the cases where someone dies after a punch is thrown - surely the result of a punch is not normally GBH but the lower category of ABH. It's all a bit moot as shooting someone in the head who dies as a result is surely enough intent for murder (in the absence of a lawful excuse for doing so).
|
24 Oct
12:44pm, 24 Oct 2024
22,147 posts
|
Cerrertonia
jda wrote: That argument has certainly been used by other police officers as a reason why anonymity should've been kept in this case. The argument was that one of the reasons that Kaba's fellow gang members were not named in court reporting was to prevent revenge attacks on them for the nightclub shooting, but no such protection was given to the police officer doing his duty who would now be under threat of being the victim of reprisals by an armed gang.
BTW I saw some tabloid headlines in a shop yesterday suggesting that Kaba's gang have a price on the policeman's head. Just for some context. I didn't look closely. |
|
24 Oct
12:47pm, 24 Oct 2024
25,897 posts
|
larkim
Yep, there's a grey area between ABH and GBH which can be subjective. Then you get into the "egg shell skull" doctrine stuff about taking your victim as you find them - which might mean a punch that a boxer can withstand kills someone with a fragile skull. It's the harm that results, rather than the nature of the physical act that's important.
|
24 Oct
1:51pm, 24 Oct 2024
2,454 posts
|
rhb
larkim wrote: rhb wrote:"and tried to kill police officers with the car" Citation needed. He was simply trying to drive away, no? Using the car as a weapon making the officer fear one his colleagues would be killed was the line I understood. It could be argued that the officers placed themselves infront / beside / behind the car. It could also still be argued he was simply trying to drive away not drive over them. This is v.different to someone who aims their car at a cyclist with intent, which is itself different to the all too regular smidsy. |
|
24 Oct
2:39pm, 24 Oct 2024
25,898 posts
|
larkim
I disagree with a lot of that. A police officer putting themselves in front of a car with someone they want to detain inside it is no more culpable for them getting run over when the driver intentionally drives off than a police officer who puts themself in the line of fire in the course of dealing with an armed situation is culpable for them being shot. Having a mechanically driven 1 tonne machine at your disposal doesn't make it any less of a weapon simply because it's most common use is to drive to the shops.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
