Off Topic Christmas, Boris and hypocrisy ...

dont know it was under a lying labour PM

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-16689348

Soldier 'killed disabled man' in Amesbury pub car park

A serving soldier killed a disabled man in a pub car park in Wiltshire when he punched him during a row, a court has been told.

The court was told Mr Garland had a birth defect which left him with arms half the normal length and his hands not formed properly, so was not able to defend himself.

The jury heard Mr Talbot had argued with his girlfriend Alexandra Smith over another man and was angry when he met "vulnerable victim".

Prosecution barrister Simon Edwards said: "There was no justification for the violence the physically superior defendant used towards Mr Garland that left him severely injured.

"The defendant struck Mr Garland on more than one occasion to the face and head with tragic results.

"He had little chance of defending himself or deflecting the blows because he was disabled in the sense that he had very short arms.

"There can be little doubt this defendant intentionally attacked his victim," the barrister added.

 

now we both know if the crime was perpetrated towards your family members you would have the exact opposite opinion to what you have just stated its a natural reaction

 

But a defence lawyer's job is to pick holes in the prosecution and you seem to be arguing against this?

 

I would want the guilty person found guilty and not an innocent one.

 

No I am saying if someone is found not guilty of murder and you have evidence that they did in fact commit murder then provide it to the authorities. If there is no such evidence then you, me and the whole of the judicial system do not know for certain that they did in fact kill someone as there is no evidence to prove that they did. Anybody can accuse anybody else of any number of things. The burden of proof lies with the person doing the accusing not the person being accused. If someone had to prove that they did not do something that would be absurd.

 

No I am not I know a lass who gets cases stopped completely on a technicality for rapists groomers murderers etc and the judge kicks it out that’s not a fair trial.

 

You are avoiding the question the person did murder somebody but was found not guilty did he not kill the person then?

 

This is true.

 

like i said earlier you have changed the subject so many times to prove a point, the guy still professed his innocents, you could line 10 experts up and ask them which Shute i tampered with,i honestly think no one could emphatically prove it, so it was an accumulation of evidence, and besides the point we were talking shyster lawyers trying to persecute soldiers on active service, this is not active service and therefore irrelevant.unless you want to go down yet another rabbit hole there are lots of lying money chasing lawyers, i put up loads of facts for you,please dispute them, instead of trying to change everything around off the subject till you get an aha moment

 

Not sure what is happening to these replies, this one was to Rooch, my previous one to Smg is not showing!

 

and if the video evidence shows who did it but a clever barrister got him off which has happened what then......but enough of this what iffs because anyone can play that game going around in circles trying to prove a point we come back to the same thing they are lying lawyers and lots of them

 

Is Rochester my mate.

 

You asked to to give you an example

Here's another, there's loads ...


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-16689348

Soldier 'killed disabled man' in Amesbury pub car park

A serving soldier killed a disabled man in a pub car park in Wiltshire when he punched him during a row, a court has been told.

The court was told Mr Garland had a birth defect which left him with arms half the normal length and his hands not formed properly, so was not able to defend himself.

The jury heard Mr Talbot had argued with his girlfriend Alexandra Smith over another man and was angry when he met "vulnerable victim".

Prosecution barrister Simon Edwards said: "There was no justification for the violence the physically superior defendant used towards Mr Garland that left him severely injured.

"The defendant struck Mr Garland on more than one occasion to the face and head with tragic results.

"He had little chance of defending himself or deflecting the blows because he was disabled in the sense that he had very short arms.

"There can be little doubt this defendant intentionally attacked his victim," the barrister added.

 

No I am not. How would you or me know whether they were guilty or not. If you actually know for certain that the person committed murder that would suggest that you have evidence that they did. It is your civic duty to provide this evidence and indeed a crime in itself if you failed to do so. If you do not have evidence that they did then you (or me) do not know either way.

 

I’ve lost track of what these have got to do with dodgy lawyers

 

then hang the bastard, but what if he had a better lawyer that got him off, and all this crap because some don't want the lying scum lawyers to face the music they have already been outed in parliament and laws are being changed to close the cash cow

 

Or the OP come to that ....

 

Sorry, this is becoming too weird for me, none of that has anything to do with me and I'm not to blame.

I don't support corruption from anyone.

That's my last word.

 

its always the same with lefties place a comment against their point of view then the go all around the houses trying to sicken you so they can spout more **** , have you been studying in the DH4 school of bs