You sure about that ? It was the prosecution's argument that they were zig zagging across the road to try and shake him off, but they could just have been driving erratically due to a combination of the speed, the panic and the fact that something (PC Harper) was throwing the weight of the rear of the car around. Are they responsible for his death, absolutely. Did they intend to kill him, probably not.
The sad part of what you say, even if true, is that no one gives a shhite about a coppers life inside, so not sure how they will be made to pay for it. Just taking the emotion out for the reality of the situation.
that#s pure anger at being robbed, your home violated. i think we'd all be pissed off, just most don't own a gun. but knowlingly dragging a cop for a mile down a road.....
oh now that i have heard they were zigzagging i can't believe they've not gone down for murder. When my mate Xi takes britain over i'll be sending hiag and daz to them boys first thing (not for gay sex although that might be a punishment although i think they may prefer the shoulder tap to that)
Everybody would be angry in that position. But the law allows you to apply reasonable force, if the lad had a weapon and was going for the guy, then anything goes. But you can't shoot somebody in the back when they are fleeing, no matter how angry you are. As for the Copper, did they actually know that they were dragging him behind the car ? And if they did, and as the prosecution stated, they were trying to shake him off, then could that be interpreted as them trying not to kill him, but instead trying to get him off of the tow rope so that he wasn't killed ? If they actually intended to kill him you could argue that they would have just reversed over him.
If they knew he was there and carried on, then his death was not only a direct result of their actions, but was a result of their complete disregard for what happened to him, and they knew he was being injured, potentially fatally. Which makes it murder. Which imo it probably was. They’ve got away with the true crime here for me.
many questions in that post... I'll only answer one......if they knew he was there, and in the rope, then zig zag won't help....they could have stopped....So in that case it's murder.
If you know someone is being dragged along by the car and you carry on driving at high speed then that's intent to cause serious harm in my book. Issue with this situation is that there's no way of proving whether or not they knew. But if they did then it's murder, plain and simple.
Yep I agree. If they knew what was happening, which means they had a chance to prevent his death, then it has to be murder. It's a big IF, and I can see why the jury has come to the conclusion that they have.
In as much that they might have been trying to prevent his death by shaking him free. I'm not saying that's what they were doing and I don't think that's a reasonable excuse, I'm simply highlighting how the Jury would have assessed all of the potential scenarios in trying to reach their decision.
I doubt they ever considered that as a serious option tbh. Ultimately the idea of whether they knew or not is something that could never be proved beyond reasonable doubt so this was always going to be the outcome.
you're all over the place mate. Either they knew he was there or they did not. Anyway, i'd love for you to be on a jury when i'm there, you'd probably recommend giving me a medal or something
the strange thing is, for once this conversation is running smoothly// some of you have jury service... I initially went out and said they didn't mean to kill him..And within an hour, people point out different factors....And this just us lot.// I guess deep in my mind i thought even pikeys wouldn't knowingly drag a cop to death.
I doubt it too. And like you say that's the crux of the issue. Nobody other than those 3 lads can know what was going through their minds. The zig zagging could have been them deliberately trying to shake him free, or it could have been the erratic driving due to speed, panic and the fact that there was a weight being dragged behind them. It can't be proved, and so the law had to be applied as manslaughter instead of murder.
The CPS have bottled it by going for murder and manslaughter. Had they just gone for murder then the jury would have been left with the choice of guilty or they walk.
Exactly. They wouldn't have been discussing the ifs/whats/maybes of if they knew they were there as that couldn't be established in the first place.
Yeah, it just goes to show how complex these issues can be once you start to get into the actual detail.
