The UK is safer with those strict gun laws...

[halvey]

It is a service to society that these kids should be named and their crimes exposed.

Yeah, that will stop them.

 

[Stand_Watie]

the only common way for a charge to be dismissed totally is for the victim to decline to appear to susbstantiate his statement.

Since the facts of the case were not really in doubt, this would have meant that he would refuse to substantiate his injury (this can be got round in some cases, especially issues of domestic violence), thus resulting in (legally) noone to be GBH'ed, thus no case.

As to why it was done, I rather suspect Kirk's defence team not wanting him cross examined before "their" trial.

So the victim refuses to testify against the criminals because he's afraid (rightly, apparently) of being prosecuted for his self defense.

Nice.

 

[iapetus]

agricola
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 1149


antlurz,

quote:If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED.



and if Barras and Fearon had been armed, then the verdict would have been different - but they werent, which is why he was convicted. As I said to beliketrey, if we are going to have a debate lets at least use facts, rather than imagined half-true scenarios.

Or maybe even if he had said "I thought he had a gun[1], and was falling back to a better firing position".

But Martin didn't make that defence - he just lied about what had happened. Shooting a teenager in the back, with an illegaly-held shotgun[2], and then lying about why you did it are not very good ways of getting the jury on your side, even if it was actually justified.




[1] A policeman I know told me of a man who, armed with a sword, confronted a burglar, in his home, in the dark. The burglar raised his hand, and the man saw a glint, thought it was a knife, and cut the burglar's hand off. Actually, it was just the burglar's watch, but the man was cleared because it was judged "reasonable" to believe he was about to be knifed.

[2] I believe he had formerly been allowed to own shotgns, but had lost his licence for some infraction of the firearms laws (and then not only kept the guns he wasn't allowed to own, but got more). Now, I'm sure many here will see that as showing how ineffective gun control is, but in the UK it would tend to make the jury think "Dangerous nutter".


Edited for typos

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Or Cheeky Sod