Never felt so angry at an article...

[rpguk]

HarryW said:

Simples both are equally guilty of murder, one may only be an assistant to the murder but the worse that can come of it is they both get long stretches instead of one long and the other not so long. I can live with that.....

But I presume there is no evidence that they were both involved. The innocent party could have been out of the room when it happened and not noticed any injury for some time.

Let's say theoretically that it was him and she was in the shower when it happened. She's lost her child we'd then lock her up simply because they can't pin it on him? What a terrifying prospect!

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

They're both guilty at least of negligence, which led to the murder. Any competent legal system would have them both off the streets. We just don't have one.

From the CPS, through the legal profession to the police, we are sadly lacking.

How can one be guilty of 'negligence' if the other is (or it can't be proven otherwise) not involved / aware? If you extrapolate the legal changes you'd need to make in these circumstances, you'd end up with serious implications for innocent people being convicted. A competent legal system isn't a 'catch all' one where innocent people go to prison easily.

It's a totally unsatisfactory outcome, but unfortunately a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold leaves a few cracks for guilty people to slip through. I bet the investigators / prosecutors are gutted they can't find a way to bring a charge against one of them.

[AJL308]

HarryW said:

Simples both are equally guilty of murder, one may only be an assistant to the murder but the worse that can come of it is they both get long stretches instead of one long and the other not so long. I can live with that.....

How do you know?

As far as what we know goes - one did a murder and one is completelt innocent. No evidence to conclude that more than one of them was involved.

[AJL308]

Magog said:

I thought this type of situation was what the 'causing or allowing' offence was designed to address.

Both of those offences require action on behalf of the accused; you have to either do something or fail to do something.

If one party is innocent and had no influence over the death then 'causing' or 'allowing' doesn't come in to it. Whether 'allowing' has any relevance to murder is another matter.

Edited by AJL308 on Saturday 27th June 01:44

[AJL308]

eldar said:

Neither saw fit to call any assistance for several hours?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they are both guilty to some degree or another.

Convicting either one for murder is a very different matter though.

As to your specific question; one will simply say "I was too scared of him/her".

[AJL308]

FredClogs said:

Lie detector would sort this out, they use it in the states to guide police enquiries and Jeremy Kyle uses then to very good effect.

I can't believe this will end here.

Seriously? Jeremy Kyle? Is this now some perverse evolution of Godwins Law we need to inform Snopes.com of?

[AJL308]

Murph7355 said:

Either one of them could have prevented it....

So, you were there then?

[AJL308]

unrepentant said:

Well it probably wouldn't be murder anyway as it's unlikely their intent was to crash and kill the pedestrian. What happened to "joint enterprise" though?

The particular crime is not the point.

The fact that they couldn't prove who was driving is.

[AJL308]

Halb said:

Kill them both.

Even though one of them didn't do it?

If a murder happens in your street is it OK if the state comes round and kills your family just on the off-chance that one of them did it?

Edited by AJL308 on Saturday 27th June 01:46

[otolith]

What symptoms was the baby exhibiting between the assault and the ambulance being called? Did the other partner have any reason to suspect that the assault happened?

[carinaman]

Waterboard them both.

[JensenA]

AJL308 said:

Halb said:

Kill them both.

Even though one of them didn't do it?

If a murder happens in your street is it OK if the state comes round and kills your family just on the off-chance that one of them did it?

Edited by AJL308 on Saturday 27th June 01:46

Are you one of those scummy Defence Lawyers by any chance? The type that knows perfectly well that one, or both of them, is responsible for murder, but who has no concept of morality, or justice, and simply argues the case for the defence on technicalities.

It is obvious that both of them were in charge of the child, and that both of them have colluded in the cover up. A genuine loving mother would have called an ambulance immediately, regardless of wether she, or her partner had thrown her child against the wall. Prosecute them both and let a Jury decide.

[MarkRSi]

It's not like they were forced to live together. Even if only one of them did the actual crime, the other should take responsibility for choosing to live with the sick fker.

[andymc]

Joint enterprise

[AJL308]

JensenA said:

Are you one of those scummy Defence Lawyers by any chance? The type that knows perfectly well that one, or both of them, is responsible for murder, but who has no concept of morality, or justice, and simply argues the case for the defence on technicalities.

It is obvious that both of them were in charge of the child, and that both of them have colluded in the cover up. A genuine loving mother would have called an ambulance immediately, regardless of wether she, or her partner had thrown her child against the wall. Prosecute them both and let a Jury decide.

Really - people on here are saying that both of them should be locked up, water-boarded, killed or some combination of the above when one of them is likely wholly innocent yet I'M the one who has no moral compass!!!

This is nothing to do with legal 'technicalities'. There is no evidence to conclude which one of them did it. You cannot avoid that ans it is not some obscure legal loophole.

Face it, people, you included, just can't deal with the fact that the evidence simply isn't there and can't emotionally cope with that fact so need to start making rididulous statements safe in the knowledge hat you will never have to act on them your self and that no one else will either.

[AJL308]

andymc said:

Joint enterprise

Already been discussed and it doesn't apply. If there were evidence of joint enterprise then they would have charged them. Joint enterprise is not the same as being in the vicinity - all the participants have to agree to carry out an unlawful act and, as the whole point of the discussion is that there is no evidence then joint enterprise isn't relevant.

[DragsterRR]

My friend recently got hit and killed on a pedestrian crossing by two lads street racing.
First car hit him, he went over the roof, second drove over him and dragged him under the car for 50 yards.
The police are struggling at the moment to prove who "killed" him. The first impact or the second.

[ATG]

williamp said:

Halb said:

Kill them both.

..yes but one of them is innocent. And is saying the other person did it. What more can that person do??

Yes but I'm very angry with the justice system, so kill them both anyway.

[ATG]

Boydie88 said:

Yep, that hit me hard - ...

Oh, diddums!

[Boydie88]

DragsterRR said:

My friend recently got hit and killed on a pedestrian crossing by two lads street racing.
First car hit him, he went over the roof, second drove over him and dragged him under the car for 50 yards.
The police are struggling at the moment to prove who "killed" him. The first impact or the second.

fking hell. So sorry for your loss. I thought when it came to street racing everyone involved is guilty by association? I hope that gets resolved as it should with both serving lengthy jail sentences.