http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense Well terrifictraore, how did I not understand. Gerrard was not under threat of death or serious injury. Magee didn't lift a finger and Gerrard was flanked by 5 accomp... erm mates. How was he in any mortal danger?
Did you You did not mentioned charged and certainly implied he was guilty. It seems you are the one having trouble keeping up with your own dross.
Why did you omit the bit about human error? I think you'll find that it is accepted that there is human error in trials, hence re-trials and overturned verdicts. To state that an illegal act hasn't been committed if a not guilty verdict is arrived at is just plain wrong. All that means is that an illegal act hasn't been found to have been committed by the members of the jury. There is a big difference there, whether you choose to accept that or not.
Well, it's a damned sight better than yours, which consist of me having no knowledge of the law, even though my knowledge of what is and is not self defence seems to be a little more up to scratch than your own. Not difficult, given that you haven't stated what you feel constitutes self defence and how Gerrard's actions were in self defence.
Look Steve you're 100% wrong. It might click eventually. However you look at it, adding any variables you like, if the court finds you not guilty, you are not gulity of commiting a crime. The whole point of the court decision is to decide whether they have committed an illegal act. It is final. End of story. It doesnt matter if someone belives the verdict is wrong. That has no validity. What the courts say is final. That's realy is it. You just seem to have no understanding of law.
But what the court says isn't always final, hence re-trials. So how can there be re-trials and overturned verdicts if, as you continually to incorrectly imply, the legal system is fool proof? If you just stated: "if the court finds you not guilty, you are found not guilty of committing a crime" it would be correct, if a little strangely worded. But the fact that you continue to state that being found not guilty of a crime by the court means that you are not guilty, period, of committing the said crime is wrong.
Merrysupersteve does understand the law guys.. He is saying that you can be 'found' not guilty of an act that you have actually committed. The opposite applies too. Good lawyers know how to work the jury and the evidence. If a lawyer has a 100% case win rate, is it simply because he only represents innocent people? Hardly. It's a bit annoying that some of you keep insisting that 'not guilty = not done it'. It doesn't, at all. It's a verdict, nothing more. If a court 'finds you not guilty of a crime', B4F, it's as simple as that. They 'find' you not guilty of it. It doesn't mean that you haven't actually done the act you are tried for.
No he isn't. He has stated that you can be guilty of an illegal act even if you are found not gulity in court. That is 100% wrong.
Not necessarily. If that were the case then there wouldn't be an appeals process or the potential for a higher court to overturn a verdict. Personally I don't really care about the Gerrard case and am not saying that is the case now. But I don't believe you've made an accurate generalisation there.
Cheers. That is all I was saying. To suggest that being found not guilty of a crime means that you are definitely not guilty of the crime is wrong. Anyway, I think I'll leave this thread for a while. Gerrard was found not guilty, there is no re-trial and that's all there is to it.
Your basing your "judgement" on a very short,out of focus black and white cctv film wiki. What led up to the altercation? Did you hear the witness evidence? How many people were in the bistro that night?
No because you are confusing issues. An act, in and of itself, is neither legal or illegal. It is up to the authorities to prove that the act was contrary to statute and precedent and therefore became illegal. You are innocent until they can prove that the act you commited has contravened the law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with moral right and wrong. So in your instance. You have commited what the authorities have charged you with as murder. However, there may be circumstances in which your actions could be condoned as acceptable under law. However your moral judgement is that a murder has taken place.
****ing hell you're getting involved too. Obviously if there is an appeal the verdict could change. At the exact time a jury finds someone not gulity, they are legally not gulity of commiting that crime. At that point you cannot say they are guilty of an illegal act despite this verdict. It realy is that simple.
There realy is no helping you is there? At the point of the decision it is whole and final. You cannot be partly gulity and partly innocent. You either are or you are not. Should a retrial be permitted then that factual status can change to either guilty or not gulity.
Yes, legallythey're innocent. I won't disagree with that. But will you accept that such a verdict doesn't always '100%' prove that they haven't committed the act?
