Ah they all say they weren't guilty......
prisons are full of innocents all banged up by bent coppers.
UK home defence
- Thread starter pdg
- Start date
Ah they all say they weren't guilty......
prisons are full of innocents all banged up by bent coppers.- Thread Starter
- #22
Well, no actually.
If I was saying murder meant eating a carrot because that was my understanding of the law, then I'd be wrong.
I can disagree with a legal definition all day long and never be 'wrong'.
In fact, this sums it up fairly well:
To expand, I disagree with the procedures the police are obliged to follow in certain instances, and I disagree with certain legal definitions.
It's quite possible for me to do that without saying the police are wrong for following said procedures, and it's quite possible for me to disagree with the definitions set in law without saying you're wrong for knowing them.
- Thread Starter
- #23
Ah they all say they weren't guilty......
That's unfair and untrue.
A good proportion are in prison because they got stitched up by their lawyer
Ok so give us your reasons why police procedures are wrong and what you would do to change them plus what impact that would have, how you would change the law to accommodate these changes.
If you were a police officer who comes across two people, one dead with a knife in his guts, the other alive and telling you he killed the dead man in self defence, what action would you take, bearing in mind you know neither of the people.
However when you talk about legal definitions the only definition that is correct is the legal one because it won't work if everyone is using their own definitions. The legal definitions of murder and manslaughter have been worked out, refined and considered for a couple of thousand years by many wise and learned experienced people. That you don't think they are correct is interesting. The thing with legal definitions is that they are legally binding and well...... legal!
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199551248.001.0001/acref-9780199551248
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/legal-glossary/
- Thread Starter
- #26
The legal definition is what I would change, to bring them more into line with the dictionary definitions, and adjust procedure accordingly.
In this particular case, that would mean a manslaughter arrest, most likely without immediate detention.
That would be situational.
Come across that in the street, most likely arrest and detain the living person while investigation continues. There is no other sensible option. But initially I'd probably lean toward manslaughter with the option to 'upgrade' to murder if investigation shows it's required.
Compared to:
Attend an address where calls had been received of a burglary in progress to find the homeowner (who is almost 80) alive and slightly injured, while someone half his age is dead - arrest under suspected manslaughter pending investigation and only detain if he was 'known'.
Bear in mind, you've said yourself that most police work entails dealing with the same people over and over again, so the likelihood exists that the dead guy was known. Checking the identity of the householder is a straightforward process that needn't take long.
- Thread Starter
- #27
So why the disparity between the legal definition and the linguistic description?
First and foremost, my opinion is that the legal definition should follow the linguistic description.
So, murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and succeeds.
Attempted murder = a premeditated action that is intended to result in the death of another, and fails.
If you can't show that the death was the intended outcome of that action, then it's not (attempted) murder.
If someone shoves you and you punch them, they fall over, hit their head and die - that's not murder because it wasn't the intended outcome.
You can defensively swing a knife (or a hammer, or a bat, or a fist) with or without intending to cause death.
If you can't align the legal definition with the linguistic description, choose a different word.
For balance, if the linguistic description is the thing that has changed then it's that which is wrong.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Can the police in the UK interview someone without arresting them?
- Thread Starter
- #30
As far as I'm aware, yes.
It requires consent - I'm unsure as to whether any information would be subsequently admissable as evidence (but I suspect it would be).
It's possible they may have to place you under caution to conduct an admissable interview...
@Tez3 would be able to clear this up I'm sure.
You know anyone can write a dictionary and basically give any definition they want, plus established dictionaries often have variations in definitions. Why would a lexicographer have a better idea of law than someone who is trained in law?
Why would you lean towards that though, as a police officer you aren't supposed to lean one way or another but investigate facts.
80 year olds aren't incapable of murder 80-year-old man murders fellow octogenarian; gets shot down by police
The police officers follow procedures to ensure that if a case comes to court ( and that case could be the trial of the man who 'ran away', not the householder, you wouldn't want him to get off because the police didn't follow procedures). Procedures have to be seen to be done otherwise the media and the people will assume there's things that were hidden. If the householder is cleared, the family of the dead man could take him to civil court, if the police do their job they won't have a case. So much more to think about than many think.
As I said anyone can write a dictionary, the legal definitions ensure everyone is on the same page, literally.
Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.
Again doesn't have to be premeditated.
Good luck with that one, you will have murderers all over claiming that and getting away with murder. 'I didn't mean to kill them' yeah right.
that's why in those cases they aren't charged with murder..................
Who says you can't do that, using a weapon even killing someone with one is allowed for in our law.
You are assigning too much credibility to lexicographers and linguists who don't agree among themselves anyway. Our laws are written in plain English and understandable, I don't understand why you think it should be changed to dictionary meanings.
Yes you can be cautioned and interviewed without being arrested.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/117583/pace-code-g-2012.pdf
Of course you realise that with the second man still at large the householder may be safer in police custody?
Definition of murder and homicide in UK law.
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Manslaughter
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Manslaughter
- Cases where Death Results from the Unlawful Supply of Drugs
- Encouraging or Assisting Suicide
- Infanticide
- Familial Deaths and Serious Physical Harm
- Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) And Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
- Thread Starter
- #33
That's a different type of situation. It's also amply covered by my thoughts.
Slight bump, people get out, argue, punch, die = manslaughter.
If you chase someone down with intent to attack them "for retribution" = premeditated attack = murder.
Therein lies part of the problem.
When I'm king of the world there will be a single, government independent lexicographical institution for each language, with control of the official form of that language. That will be the ultimate reference from which legal definitions must be sourced.
That'll sort that out.
Mmm here's a word for you... bollocks
You realise of course all your 'definitions' are actually covered by existing law. There's a lot more definitions you haven't thought of as well.Your slight bump etc isn't charged as murder but I'm guessing you know that and are actually just bumping your gums for fun.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
It's the difference between acknowledging how things are, and how they should be. @pdg seems to be suggesting that things might be different. Whether he has an informed opinion or not, it's still an opinion. I don't get the impression he's suggesting you are incorrect.
Maybe in the UK. I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Regarding my last question, I guess what I am really asking is whether there is a distinction in the UK between being detained, being arrested, or just being interviewed.
- Thread Starter
- #36
Can I have a verifiable definition of that word please?
A bit yes and a bit no.
While it's true that a lot of "my" definitions are amply covered by existing law, I simply have a disagreement with the choice of words that conflict with linguistic descriptions.
There are very few laws that I have a fundamental disagreement with (and most of those are incredibly minor and some are civil rather than criminal law), I would just name a few differently so that a more fitting "message" is conveyed.
A few things that I do have issues with:
The implied (by "the system") notion that a road rage incident is treated differently to if both parties were pedestrians leading up to the incident (widely reported over the past few years that road rage incidents are to be treated more harshly).
The term "hate crime". Aren't we all supposed to be equal? Why is it legally worse to attack someone because of their apparent ethnicity than because they're randomly present? Why is it that it's not allowed to be a hate crime if (say) an Indian attacks me because I'm white, but it's classed as a hate crime if I attack him even if his creed has nothing to do with it?
Oh, and just the term "hate crime" anyway. It's not like a "love crime" really exists. Who in their right mind, ever, has thought "you're lovely, I like you so much I think I'll cut your arms off"...?
- Thread Starter
- #37
That's my interpretation too, which in some cases is apparently at odds with the legal definition...
Yes, there can be.
You can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. This can be entirely voluntary (although, I know of instances where a voluntary interview under caution was initiated, and when the interviewee decided they didn't want to volunteer any more information they were placed under arrest...)
You can be arrested without being placed under caution (but not subsequently interviewed until under caution too I believe), but I don't think that happens often.
There are many ways of being temporarily detained, one of which is being placed under arrest.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
- Thread Starter
- #39
And I'm referring what I think should be the case in the UK (the first part, the definition) and what I believe is the case (differences between caution/arrest/detention, whether consensual or enforced).
I don't know what the differences are between the US and the UK, and I certainly can't say that one is more "right" than the other - only whether I personally agree with the definitions...
Shh no you can't cos then the Americans will know what it means and I won't be able to use on here.
If an Indian attacks you because you are white it is a hate crime, not sure why you'd think it wasn't. It's not necessarily a hate crime if you attack him, the motives behind the attack will determine the charge and how it's recorded. The police will record a racial hate crime as just that, they don't record which race/colour attacked who. 'Hate crime' isn't always about skin colour or ethnicity either it can be against LGBT people as well as religious groups and the disabled.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...oads/attachment_data/file/467366/hosb0515.pdf
Depends which country you are in, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different arrest laws. There's also different laws that affect arrests for terror related crimes.
Similar threads
