Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.


We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.
The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes (and
most of the general public)

"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.

We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.

That happens world wide, most obviously with self defence.

The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it seemed
they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes (and most of
the general public)

And in the law's eyes too.

The most common situation where a jury lets someone
off when they are clearly guilty in the law's eyes is when
someone kills someone else when the killed person is
say asleep etc instead of just telling the cops about the
physical abuse they have suffered or as well as telling the
cops about it and that not stopping the physical abuse.

Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.

We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.

That happens world wide, most obviously with self defence.

The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes
(and most of the general public)

And in the law's eyes too.

The most common situation where a jury lets someone
off when they are clearly guilty in the law's eyes is when
someone kills someone else when the killed person is
say asleep etc instead of just telling the cops about the
physical abuse they have suffered or as well as telling the
cops about it and that not stopping the physical abuse.


One of these cases the baddie was shot in his car after assaulting the
female security guard and was probably no threat at the time he was shot.
She got off, and so she should have in this instance.
She has not worked as a guard since and it was a few years ago now.

Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.

We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.

That happens world wide, most obviously with self defence.

The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes
(and most of the general public)

And in the law's eyes too.

The most common situation where a jury lets someone
off when they are clearly guilty in the law's eyes is when
someone kills someone else when the killed person is
say asleep etc instead of just telling the cops about the
physical abuse they have suffered or as well as telling the
cops about it and that not stopping the physical abuse.


An other one was a policeman who with forethought took his police pistol
and went to a house and shot someone who had been molesting some of his
families children.

F Murtz wrote:
[snip]

An other one was a policeman who with forethought took his police pistol
and went to a house and shot someone who had been molesting some of his families children.

You're claiming that he was a bigamist?

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.

We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.

That happens world wide, most obviously with self defence.

The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes
(and most of the general public)

And in the law's eyes too.

The most common situation where a jury lets someone
off when they are clearly guilty in the law's eyes is when
someone kills someone else when the killed person is
say asleep etc instead of just telling the cops about the
physical abuse they have suffered or as well as telling the
cops about it and that not stopping the physical abuse.


One of these cases the baddie was shot in his car after assaulting the
female security guard and was probably no threat at the time he was shot.
She got off, and so she should have in this instance.
She has not worked as a guard since and it was a few years ago now.

Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

In message , F Murtz
writes
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.


We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.
The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes (and
most of the general public)
It is for the prosecution and defence to determine whether it is murder
or manslaughter The jury's job is to find guilty or not guilty. It is
then the judges job to pass sentence, taking into account the law and
any extenuating circumstances.
--
bert

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

What was I saying about civilisation?

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

What was I saying about civilisation?

Just your usual mindless silly stuff.

We don’t have anything like what you clowns get at the football alone.

Let alone your recent rioting.

Or entire city blocks put to the torch in the not all that long gone past.

"bert" ] wrote in message
news
In message , F Murtz
writes
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.


We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.
The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it seemed
they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes (and most of
the general public)
It is for the prosecution and defence to determine whether it is murder or
manslaughter The jury's job is to find guilty or not guilty. It is then
the judges job to pass sentence, taking into account the law and any
extenuating circumstances.

And in practice the jury can decided that the accused
is not guilty even when they obviously are and the
prosecution and the judge get to like that or lump it.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

What was I saying about civilisation?

Just your usual mindless silly stuff.

We don’t have anything like what you clowns get at the football alone.

Let alone your recent rioting.

Or entire city blocks put to the torch in the not all that long gone past.


Well, as a general rule, we don't either, but just because you haven't had
such things to date, doesn't mean that they're not hiding round the corner.
Riots and out-of-control behaviour can erupt any time anywhere. Population
concentrations are volatile beasts, and it often doesn't take much to spark
off this sort of thing. Social media use hasn't helped in this regard.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

What was I saying about civilisation?

Just your usual mindless silly stuff.

We don’t have anything like what you clowns get at the football alone.

Let alone your recent rioting.

Or entire city blocks put to the torch in the not all that long gone
past.

Well, as a general rule, we don't either,

That varys, you do as a general rule with
mindless violence after the game with football.

but just because you haven't had such things to date, doesn't mean that
they're not hiding round the corner.

We haven't had any of those I listed in more than 100 years
now, so they clearly arent hiding around any corner.

We've never had a full civil war either and
never did burn anyone at the stake either.

We've never had anything like your full warfare over christian sects either.

Riots and out-of-control behaviour can erupt any time anywhere.

Nope, full riots just don’t happen at all in some places.

Let alone entire city blocks put to the torch or the sort
of mindless looting etc you lot have just had recently.

Population concentrations are volatile beasts, and it often doesn't take
much to spark off this sort of thing.

It does here.

Social media use hasn't helped in this regard.

That wasn’t the problem when you lot had entire city blocks put the torch.

You just don’t see anything like the same level of mindless violence
after sport games have finished in the US like you see in europe for
some reason. Maybe that is the nature of the game played. You
don’t see it in Britain after cricket either. Or rugby either.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yeah, someone else shot a burglar in the back as
he was running away and killed him. He got off too.

What was I saying about civilisation?

Just your usual mindless silly stuff.

We don’t have anything like what you clowns get at the football alone.

Let alone your recent rioting.

Or entire city blocks put to the torch in the not all that long gone
past.


You really shouldn't believe everything you see in the papers, or on the TV.
On the football side of things, you are about 30 years out of touch. There
is not a lot of football violence any more, because those identified as
protagonists are banned from the grounds. This is readily and robustly
enforced by the police using modern identity technology. Whilst I would not
minimise the riots of a couple of years back, they were actually nothing
like as bad as the media portrayed them. Whilst there was some fire setting,
it certainly wasn't "entire city blocks". There was a furniture store which
caught badly, and was destroyed, and this was shown over and over on the TV.
It turned out that that fire was set by one almost middle aged individual,
not a gang of youths ...



Well, as a general rule, we don't either,

That varys, you do as a general rule with
mindless violence after the game with football.


Nope. In general, not any more ...



but just because you haven't had such things to date, doesn't mean that
they're not hiding round the corner.

We haven't had any of those I listed in more than 100 years
now, so they clearly arent hiding around any corner.


100 years is a vanishingly small period of time in the grand scheme of
things. I fail to see how you can project 100 years of past, into the
future. You cannot know that you will not suffer exactly the same thing next
week. All it needs is for the wrong circumstances to come together, and this
can be tripped by the smallest thing - maybe some new law introduced by your
government.



We've never had a full civil war either and
never did burn anyone at the stake either.


We are by no means unique in having had civil wars. Probably most countries
in the world have at some point in their history, and many continue now.
It's a lot harder to have one though in a first world country that's massive
with a small and spread out population.


We've never had anything like your full warfare over christian sects
either.


Again, not unique, and actually in a different country, not geographically
bonded to us.



Riots and out-of-control behaviour can erupt any time anywhere.

Nope, full riots just don’t happen at all in some places.


If you honestly believe that, I think it's a bit naiive ...



Let alone entire city blocks put to the torch or the sort
of mindless looting etc you lot have just had recently.

See above ...


Population concentrations are volatile beasts, and it often doesn't take
much to spark off this sort of thing.

It does here.


See above ...



Social media use hasn't helped in this regard.

That wasn’t the problem when you lot had entire city blocks put the torch.



They weren't, as I said, but in fact ****ter and FaceAche were completely to
blame, as small bands of youths intent on causing havoc, spread the whole
thing about via those media, to rally much bigger groups where the police
weren't, thus evading capture and remaining free to carry on their mayhem.
It was entirely due to the fact that these episodes are *not* common, that
the police were caught on the hop, and ended up mis-managing the situation,
and using outdated crowd control models to try to return order to the
streets. This was just another fairly small factor which escalated the
situation disproportionately.



You just don’t see anything like the same level of mindless violence
after sport games have finished in the US like you see in europe for
some reason. Maybe that is the nature of the game played. You
don’t see it in Britain after cricket either. Or rugby either.

That is true, but again, riots can and do occur almost anywhere for the
smallest of reasons tipping the balance when an unfortunate set of
circumstances come together. Although not sport related, there were serious
riots in Los Angeles not so long ago, and those were on a *much* larger
scale than what actually happened in the UK.

Arfa