Disgusting Judicial Decisions

[pipoz4444]

It is sad, but this seems to be the way the World (or at least Australia) is going.

With some many of these Soft C..ck Judicial decisions where a innocent persons life is now worth less than 8 Years, less off course reduction for good behavior etc. She will be back out on the streets, in six years or less.

That and the fact that she killed a great person (TW) who had much more value to the community that she does or ever will.

She should have got 20 years plus.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg71xGny2hk

[pipoz4444]

And another one

2 years GBB and 400 hours of community service? Baha

Where do they get these soft c...k judges from

[jackspratt]

Just to bring both of these up to date, in the first case above, there has been no appeal by the Crown against the 8 year sentence, so the DPP must have considered that appropriate.

However, the pissed lawyer is appealing against her conviction.

In the second case,, the DPP has taken exception to the sentence, and has appealed.

[pipoz4444]

Whilst not disgusting, I would say not enough.

I would have given him minimum Life without parole, if not the Death Penalty

I presume in this day and age you cannot sentence a teen to the death penalty no matter how horrendous the crime is that the teen commits.

Not being able to control one's anger, is not grounds for diminished capacity, in my view.

[jackspratt]

A few points to note, pipo:

- Schumaker was 16yo when he committed the murder,

- he received the maximum penalty possible for his crime ie 25 years to life, at his trial about 11 years ago

- Canada, as a civilised country, abolished capital punishment nearly 50 years ago

If you are interested in a really disgusting, and more contemporary legal decision, I recommend you have a read of this https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_e2pg.pdf

[pipoz4444]

It doesn't make it right JS,16 or not, he could have been tried as an adult". I suppose it depends on your view of the value of a kids life?

Canada, I believe, does allow for a youth to be transferred to adult criminal system for trail, as does the US (some states), UK (including Scotland). Quiet a few other Countries also allow for juveniles to be tried as adults for serious offences.

France sets the age at 16 years old and in Norway at 15-18 years old can subjected to the adult criminal justice systems, under their respective laws. And if i am not mistaken, in certain legal situations, Australia allows for juveniles to be subjected to the adult criminal justice system after a certain age.

So at 16 he was fully aware of right from wrong, enough to know not to beat a child under 2 years old to death.

Being perceived as a civilized country has little to do with Capital Punishments. Buy your definition these Nations /Countries must be uncivilized, including the one that you reside in. Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, still have it on their statutes and are hardly viewed as uncivilized by most people.

[jackspratt]

It doesn't make it right JS,16 or not, he could have been tried as an adult".

He was.

Being perceived as a civilized country has little to do with Capital Punishments. Buy your definition these Nations /Countries must be uncivilized.......

Correct, if they maintain and act on state sanctioned homicide.

[pipoz4444]

Hi JS,

We obviously have a different outlook on life, maybe on the value placed on it (particularly where a child is involved) and what consequences should be rendered again those who violently disregard the law, as in this particular case. And that is fine, each person is entitled to his or hers, own views on how the law should be administered. Yes I would advocate for the death penalty where a child is involved, given the child has no means of defense against and adult. Hence is is not a question of a fair fight.

According to google, some 27% of juvenile homicide offenders recidivate with a violent crime within 3 years of their release. That is not to say the offenders kill again (as details are not easily available) but some do. Simply put, many offenders of this nature, will repeat their pattern of behavior, in one way of another, when they are given the chance.

So, any comments on this. Consequences for the two men?? and or justified force by the Police or not

[tamada]

^
The two 'child killers' who abducted, tortured and murdered a 2 year-old in northwest England back in 1993 were both 10 years old when they committed the crime. One of them committed serious offences several times after his release in 2013 and re-release in 2017 and is currently in detention and not eligible for parole. The other one is not known to have re-offended after his initial release at the same time in 2001. They were both released with new identities and the recidivist needed a second new identity for the 2013 release. Rehabilitation and a new identity seems to have worked for one, while the other appears to be seriously damaged goods.

There are no consequences for the two Manchester airport thugs at the moment, as yesterday was the first day of their trial. The initial press releases at the time showed the policeman stomping and kicking, causing the usual backlash. The 'full picture' video showing them attacking and injuring three police officers FIRST didn't surface until several days later. However, a shyster lawyer still made much of it. The 'prequel' cctv footage that shows them attacking a member of the public, the act that the police were responding to, has only surfaced very recently. They now have a prominent and well-regarded human rights lawyer, so it will be interesting to see how he argues their 'self defence' defence.

[jackspratt]

Given that their trial is still in progress, I would have thought that awaiting the result of the trial, where all the evidence will (hopefully) be heard, would be the correct thing to do.

Isn't that how the western justice system is supposed to work?

Here is some further information https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624468nrd1o

Yes I would advocate for the death penalty where a child is involved,....

Do you see the irony there?

[trekkertony]

JS, on viewing both video clips, what do you think would be a fair and resonable outcome of the trial based on the content of the videos and without the window dressing provided by those attempting to control the narrative.

[AlexO]

Given that their trial is still in progress, I would have thought that awaiting the result of the trial, where all the evidence will (hopefully) be heard, would be the correct thing to do.

Isn't that how the western justice system is supposed to work?

Here is some further information https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624468nrd1o

Yes I would advocate for the death penalty where a child is involved,....

Do you see the irony there?

Given that a "Far Right" protestor was given a 2 year jail sentence for shouting at a dog these two 'gentle souls' if found guilty (on video evidence and police body cams there can be no doubt) they should receive life sentences.
I do think the cop was slightly over-enthusiastic in his application of appropriate force during the arrest but given the extreme violence they had been subjected too by the two 'gentle souls' who believe they are entitled to dish out their own for of justice, entirely understandable.
I agree that child murderers should be subjected to the ultimate sentence but would add terrorists involved in any form of killing of innocents to the list as well.

[jackspratt]

JS, on viewing both video clips, what do you think would be a fair and resonable outcome of the trial based on the content of the videos and without the window dressing provided by those attempting to control the narrative.

I've actually viewed 3 videos of the same incident, tony - perhaps you should have a look at this further one, which seems to have been missed by Sky News.



I see 2 Asian guys who are probably in deep trouble, and 1 thug copper who ought to be, after:

1. attempting to slam the green shirt's head into the cash machine

2. then kicking him in the head and attempting to stomp him as he lay face down on the floor

3. then going after the other brother who had surrendered and had his arms in the air, throwing him to the ground, and punching him in the head at least twice while he was on the ground and not resisting.

You (and pipo) may see it differently, but of course none of us were there, and are not hearing the evidence of those who were there, during the trial.

[Bandung_Dero]

So what's the betting on the Erin Patterson (Mushroom Killer) up coming sentence. I'm thinking life with a non parole period of 25 years = wishful thinking!

[AlexO]

JS, on viewing both video clips, what do you think would be a fair and resonable outcome of the trial based on the content of the videos and without the window dressing provided by those attempting to control the narrative.

I've actually viewed 3 videos of the same incident, tony - perhaps you should have a look at this further one, which seems to have been missed by Sky News.



I see 2 Asian guys who are probably in deep trouble, and 1 thug copper who ought to be, after:

1. attempting to slam the green shirt's head into the cash machine

2. then kicking him in the head and attempting to stomp him as he lay face down on the floor

3. then going after the other brother who had surrendered and had his arms in the air, throwing him to the ground, and punching him in the head at least twice while he was on the ground and not resisting.

You (and pipo) may see it differently, but of course none of us were there, and are not hearing the evidence of those who were there, during the trial.

Strange that you choose to leave out the multiple police assaults that happened between your points 1 and 2.
Suppose that has no bearing on the trial.
Kind of similar to the murderous attacks in Oct 23 have no bearing on what is happening in Gaza just now.

[Doodoo]

People who break the law or are suspected and after being apprehended need to shut their mouths and offer the authorities nothing until they have been taken to jail.
If they wish to argue that can be done back at the jail in the presence of an attorney.
Easy peasy
Otherwise, I have no problems with the authorities dealing with them.
This is what we have hired them for

[trekkertony]

Thankfully, the presence of videos will assist the court to reach a balanced decision, JS l am not surprised that you glossed over the vision of the tracksuited offender poleaxing the 2 female officers. Their courage in attempting to reingage with the offender in my mind is commendable.
As to the police officer who has been recorded as kicking/stomping the offender, he will be stood down pending the court outcome and face intense internal scrutiny whereby he will be given the opportunity to explain and attempt to justify his deviation from accepted police practice.
I wonder JS how you would have responded as a police officer in these circumstances. Does standing at a distance taking notes whilst your colleagues are being viciously assaulted ring a bell.

[pipoz4444]

Break down the Timeline

So this is the Younger Guy (Blue) some time earlier, having walked into Starbuck, confronted someone, then headbutted and punched that person twice, clearly looking for a fight, then walking off. Its obvious he has a problem. So Guy (Blue) is then reported to the Police, who then go looking for him.




The three police persons have a good reason to be cautious when they approach him and in all probability have already seen the camera footage of the incident in Starbucks and it beings,

0.27 1x Policeman and 2 x Policewomen approach the Guy (Blue) from behind (as you would given he is good at headbutting) and attempt to cuff him, bearing in mind that they are aware he has assaulted (headbutted) and given they have no idea if he is carrying any weapon. It appears that they actually have restrained and are about to cuff him, when this brother interjects.

0.32 Big guy (Grey) starts the assault on the Policeman and starts laying into him with punches. He is not allowed to touch, let alone punch a policeman.

0.35 Guy (Blue) then breaks free and tussles with the two Policewomen, whilst the Big Guy (Grey) lays into with punches pining the Policeman against the wall and only stops punching the Policemen and only backs off, when the Policemen pulls out his taser.

0.37 Meanwhile Guy (Blue) decks the first policewoman with a left round arm to the head and at 0.39 decks the second policewoman with a right round arm to the head and a left, not with one punch, but 2 or 3, and both Policewomen are down.

0.43 The Policeman has the Big Guy (Grey) partly subdued at arm’s length and the 2 Policewomen a good 3 meters away in the floor, so the Guy (Blue) leaps into action again and jumps the Policeman from behind, and starts punches him a number of times (3, 4 …), even though at the moment there was no physical interaction between Policeman has the Big Guy (Grey).

Policeman and Big Guy (Grey) had stopped at that point, and there was no reason for Guy (Blue) to jump the Policeman from behind and start punching him and then continue to drag him to the floor.

Guy (Blue) could easily have raised his hands like Big Guy (Grey) and called it a day. but decided otherwise to start his third altercation for the afternoon, attacking from behind.

In Rugby the ref would give you a Red Card for jumping into the pack from behind and throwing punches.

0.44 Guy (Blue) pulls the Policeman to the floor and I presume the process Guy (Blue) hits his head on the floor.

0.48 Policeman manages to get up of the floor and meanwhile Big guy (Grey) sits back with his hands on his head, contemplating the monumental ---- up, he has just made and how long he might spend in jail, given he was the one to throw the first punch at the Policemen and start the assault event some 16 seconds earlier. What a clever F..ck.

0.50 All eyes are now on Guy (Blue).

But that is a hell of a lot in 23 Seconds

0.54 Policeman kicks Guy (Blue) they head.

At this point in some other Airports, Guy (Blue) would be sporting a few bullets buy now, so he can count himself very lucky

So, look at Guy (Blue) and Big Guy (Grey for their actions between 0.32 and 0.48, because for me it was their aggression that initiated the it all, not that of the Police. What happened at 0.54 should not override what took place during the first 16 seconds when both individuals, assaulted 3 x Police.

I trust the Third Ump will also have a close look at the 7 or 8 punches that Guy (Blue) dished out to the heads of the Police persons, in that first 16 seconds, before he received his kick 0.54, (not forgetting the earlier headbutt in Starbucks), because in Rugby he would definitely get another Red Card for all that. Two Reds in 16 seconds on the field.

I suppose we will see the outcome in six months, time

Shades of Wille Mason

[trekkertony]

Pipoz4444 that is a well documented timeline breakdown.

[tamada]

Although the police had a job to do here, I consider the way they tried to apprehend and arrest the "guy in blue" wasn't very professional and probably didn't go along with their training or procedures. This may well come up in any defence argument. The first day of the trial had the policeman who delivered the kick and stomp citing fears for safety, but only after he "felt" as if someone was attempting to "move" his sidearm. He also claims he wasn't upset by the assaults on him or his fellow officers, and there was no "revenge" in what I consider his OTT physical responses towards the end of the incident.

The claim that "he was going for my gun" has been a classic defence for numerous American police officers after an incident and sometimes its factual but sometimes it isn't. For me, in this instance, it's a very weak excuse.

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be boxed in and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks. That's possibly due to the report of that first assault focusing on a "guy in blue", so they went for the "guy in blue." But they did it wrong by not isolating him first and neutralising any intervention. They rather "waded in" without due caution.

The pair of thugs are as guilty as sin, there's absolutely no doubt about it. However, there's probably one policeman who will bear some responsibility for how it ended and, what punishment will be served on the two thugs.