If the shaking him free bit is true, then it's murder. we're not even a jury, but if this is true, i've changed my stance in an hour...
I would like to think, if anything like my youth, you have a rapport with coppers, everyone plays the game, but no one apart from the psycho's would go out with intent to harm a copper. However, whether it still play's out like that with the youth today, I'm not so sure, I think due to the loss of proper community policing, some of that social fabric of understanding and respect, has broken down.
Not sure about that tbh mate. I don't think it's reasonable to apply pressure to a jury to force a verdict. And in this case, given that it couldn't be proved that they definitely intended to kill him, then they would have got off scott free, which would have been a terrible outcome.
sometimes you have to make your own law (this is why trumpy gets away with **** you can't prove anything or intent). stick me on the jury
Read the comments properly mate. What I'm doing is highlighting the issues the Jury would have discussed and taken into consideration. I'm not giving my judgement on what I think those lads knew or not.
I don't think they would be acquitted, if a verdict of murder is not reached. I assume, yes, they could go free, and it would require the prosecution to bring forward further evidence for a retrial....I thought the double jeopardy rule had been got rid of?
Yeah I'm not sure where that double jeopardy rule stands now. cba to google it, but as I understand it, if new evidence comes to light then you can be retried ?
i know what you are saying, i just hope the jury applies common sense a bit more. It's these rigid guidelines which also let dominic cummings theoretically not break the law and allows rich people to stay out of jail when theres not 100% conviction
Yep I agree. It just shows how complex these issues can be, when initially it looks cut and dry. Conversely it can be cut and dry and the complexities of the law can muddy the waters.
