Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Got another Jade Goody on our hand here iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Got another Jade Goody on our hand here iyam. The police gave her cancer? It all makes sense now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17523 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Looks like I was right."Knapton said there was a plausible biological explanation for stress being a trigger. Stress is associated with a surge of the "fight or flight" hormone adrenaline, which causes blood to be diverted around the body and puts an extra strain on the heart." If it hadn't been that it would have been Ukraine's equaliser. Probably tongue in cheek I know but that's essentially correct, he would have died from a generalised reaction to stress. That wouldn't happen in a healthy person. It is quite possible to get through life without getting stressed to the point of an unprovoked violent assault, I guess even you must have gone a week without one, eh? Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3953 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Looks like I was right."Knapton said there was a plausible biological explanation for stress being a trigger. Stress is associated with a surge of the "fight or flight" hormone adrenaline, which causes blood to be diverted around the body and puts an extra strain on the heart." If it hadn't been that it would have been Ukraine's equaliser. Probably tongue in cheek I know but that's essentially correct, he would have died from a generalised reaction to stress. That wouldn't happen in a healthy person. It is quite possible to get through life without getting stressed to the point of an unprovoked violent assault, I guess even you must have gone a week without one, eh? Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It's completely correct, just whether it's provable* in court is a different issue. It's no different to someone maybe having a arterial weakness which gives (and leads to a fatal bleed) on a very minor blow/knock (or even under such stress too). *rention on "proof", "reasonable doubt" & "the colour of the carpet" excepted Don't get me wrong I think the police officer involved will get off scott-free, I just don't think they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges. This is basically the taser dilemma; you're not allowed to have one because it's a "potentially lethal" weapon (which it is) which can kill in several ways including a manner very similar to this incident (as well as being deemed as assault and torture). But it's ok for the police to use them in very minor and unnecessary circumstances, because then it is "non-lethal" (even if it kills someone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges. This is basically the taser dilemma; you're not allowed to have one because it's a "potentially lethal" weapon (which it is) which can kill in several ways including a manner very similar to this incident (as well as being deemed as assault and torture). But it's ok for the police to use them in very minor and unnecessary circumstances, because then it is "non-lethal" (even if it kills someone). Just the sound of the things is enough to make one jump out of yer skin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Institional racism - check DNA - check Tasers - check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right". Remember: ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Institional racism - checkDNA - check Tasers - check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right". Remember: ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL You brought manslaughter up, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right". Remember: ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL You brought manslaughter up, not me. Aye, because it is that level of culpability, even if it wouldn't be deemed so in court. You can pedant about it all you want, but you know what Fop means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Institional racism - checkDNA - check Tasers - check I'm "right" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17523 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I was going to reply but it's a bit pointless really, life's too short. Fop, I really can't tell if you are a wum or actually mentally deranged, that's the honest truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Funny how the copper hasn't come forward yet and his colleagues seem clueless as to his identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right". Remember: ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL You brought manslaughter up, not me. Aye, because it is that level of culpability, even if it wouldn't be deemed so in court. You can pedant about it all you want, but you know what Fop means. Says the bloke who's just pulled me up on a typo I don't know what you mean exactly tbh. I think the police are in the wrong but you're saying it's manslaughter yet at the same time suggesting that wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Forgive me but I can't see how that isn't a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges. Good point. They look after their own without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17523 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Funny how the copper hasn't come forward yet and his colleagues seem clueless as to his identity. He has actually, was on the news this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 If it's not provable in court it isn't 'manslaughter' given that's a term which applies specifically to criminal charges. Absolutely true, but just because someone gets away with it doesn't make it "right". Remember: ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL You brought manslaughter up, not me. Aye, because it is that level of culpability, even if it wouldn't be deemed so in court. You can pedant about it all you want, but you know what Fop means. Says the bloke who's just pulled me up on a typo Lost your sense of humour already I see - it's one of those days for you, clearly. I don't know what you mean exactly tbh. I think the police are in the wrong but you're saying it's manslaughter yet at the same time suggesting that wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Forgive me but I can't see how that isn't a contradiction. If someone clearly kills someone else in cold blood, but gets away with it legally on a technicality is that ok? If you think it is, then yes you don't have a clue what Fop is talking about. If you think it is not, then you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Funny how the copper hasn't come forward yet and his colleagues seem clueless as to his identity. He has actually, was on the news this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3953 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Funny how the copper hasn't come forward yet and his colleagues seem clueless as to his identity. He has actually, was on the news this morning. Slight Fair play to him although I'd also ask why they are allowed to wear scarves as masks very much a la protesteors which he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Funny how the copper hasn't come forward yet and his colleagues seem clueless as to his identity. He has actually, was on the news this morning. Given they'd visually identified several of the police that were there by then, he didn't actually have much choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17523 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Fwiw Fop of course I think the police have a case to answer. But you're assertion what has happened is akin to manslaughter is typically doolally. It would be interesting to see if any "civilian" assaults which produced stress-related heart attacks led to more serious charges. Good point. They look after their own without a doubt. Maybe a lawyer on here can say if there's any precedent for this? I'm vaguely aware there have been similar cases but no successful convictions. For me anyway, the important point is the amount of force used, not the consequences, which iirc is basically how the law works. It seemed unecessary in this case but not massively excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) Not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the differentiation made in law over such matters but without blindly showing absolute faith to the ability of the UK legal system to get everything correct, I think it's a good thing that that differentiation exists. I don't think terms like 'clearly kills someone else in cold blood' are particularly helpful to the debate either. Edit: answer to post 120. Edited April 9, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now