Liverpool FC Forum

[112-1077774096]

in fact, i don't want to continue a spat with an idiot in a thread with such a topic, if you want to pm about the issue feel free, although then that would deprive you of the audience you so crave so move it elsewhere in the forum if you wish to.

[LFC2007]

No, not browsing the net, I studied law for three years at Uni. You clearly didn't study law, or you did and you have forgotton it, or your knowledge is outdated. Section 18 (OAPA) GBH is sufficient to constitute the mens rea for murder, it is common knowledge amongst anyone who has studied law. And your description is not coherent or factually correct, it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of English Law, for example what you say about GBH and manslaughter is incorrect. The crime of murder is only reduced to manslaughter if one of a number of defenses is successfully submitted, such as provocation or intoxication.

I don't crave an audience, I am getting the facts correct. I'm not trying to use empty rhetoric to smear another member like you are doing in an attempt to get one over.

[112-1077774096]

i have a law degree and served in the police for 5 years, members on here have always known that, and now suddenly you are made to look a fool and all of a sudden you magically have a law degree.

no doubt next week there will be a discussion the universe and all of a sudden you will have a doctorate in astrophysics   


just give it a rest, you make yourself look like an idiot with this attitude.

its like 'the ego has landed'


and like i say if you wish to discuss this then lets do it elsewhere, i said you can do it public, i have nothing to hide and if you are correct then you can feed your ego even more, however i doubt that you will continue this if as you should know if you check the internet that i am correct   


with regards to section 18 that requires intent, as does murder, murder requires intent to commit murder or GBH, however you can commit GBH without the intent so there can be no intent to murder, this is where manslaughter comes in.

next time try an answer without 30  minutes in between while you browse the net for the law, and i will come back with reasons why you are wrong or i will bring up stated cases to show what i am saying, any law student worth their salt will be able to that.

public or private, but in public lets do it in another thread   

[LFC2007]

I think you're the one who seriously needs to check up on their law, I am not lying, I studied law at A-level and then at Uni for three years. What you say is completely incorrect, it's not up for debate - the facts are wrong. I did not magically have a law degree nor have I made myself look like a fool, on the contrary you have demonstrated you know nothing remotely about law, except for the use of legal terminology that makes you appear to know what you are talking about. I don't care if everyone on this forum knows you have a law degree, nor do I care if you served in the police, you are wrong and that is a fact.

I don't have an ego problem, I think you have the ego problem here, hence the bragging about your supposed wealth of legal knowledge, when in fact you are talking utter tripe on this matter.

I am not browsing the net and I have not taken 30 minutes - you can't even get the time correct. I studied law and I have a reasonable understanding of the subject.


If you want to discuss this via PM that's fine by me, send me a message.

[112-1077774096]

ah the folly of stupidity.  do it in pm or elsewhere, you don't even have the brains to follow that simple request yet we are supposed to believe you have knowledge of harder things.

the funny this is that i don't even think you have read my posts, they are written in such a way that if you read them then you will understand them and you will then see that what i am saying is correct, if you truly do have a law degree, then go back and read what i have written and this time understand it, in fact I am not even contradicting your posts as such, but I am pointing out why something would not be classed as murder even though it could be, its not all about getting a murder conviction, its about getting a conviction and if you do not have the evidence for murder then you would go with manslaughter.

this is the difference between reading law and practicing law the harsh reality outside university. you push towards what you can win, there is a huge difference.

many crimes need intent in order for a conviction, in reality you will very rarely get a murder conviction when someone has intended to commit GBH, unless its obvious that the injury is likely to cause death (eg shooting), if you shoot someone you have to expect serious injury, if you stab someone you have to expect serious injury, if you punch someone and break their jaw you are not expecting serious injury so you intentions can be seen to be less.

remember the law is not black and white

[LFC2007]

many crimes need intent in order for a conviction, in reality you will very rarely get a murder conviction when someone has intended to commit GBH,

Indeed Peewee, the folly of stupidity:

QUOTE:

"the level of intent for murder is having the intent to take someones life and NOT TO COMMIT GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM"



Your knowledge miraculously changes, now GBH is acceptable as the required intent for murder, you talk of internet searches, I think this U-turn might just have been prompted by such a search.

And by the way, it is not very 'rare' it is in fact quite common, there are plenty of cases where an individual has been seriously injured and the intent for murder was oblique.

[112-1077774096]

not at all my dear friend, no need to search anywhere for my knowledge on this subject, and i still stick by my comment that the level of intent for murder is the intent to take life and not to commit GBH, again if you take the time to read my comments and understand the comments they will become clear to you.

if you don't want to understand the intricacies of what i have written then i can not be blamed for that, you seem to be trying to show some level of hypocrisy between my two comments when there is none.

the fact remains that you can commit GBH without the intent to commit murder, can you see the point I am making? if not then speak to a lawyer or someone with a law degree and they will explain it to you.

personally I am bored with going over the same thing again and again with someone who can not accept they are wrong on any subject, its pointless, its tedious, and its not even warranted, the thread has once again gone off at a tangent thanks to your desire to show some level of education.

strangely just like karim used to do

[LFC2007]

You cannot answer the question without the need to belittle me.

You contradict yourself in those two statements quite BLATANTLY.

Of course you can commit GBH without the intent of committing murder, that is not the issue, the issue is the intent required for murder and GBH is the lowest level of intent required for that offence, something which you just did a U-turn on.

The consequence of the case has to be death in order for GBH to suffice for the offence of murder, you have gone off subject to a completely different offence, not manslaughter but attempted murder. This has nothing to do with this case whatsoever.

You say:

"anything less than an intent to kill can not realistically be classed as murder, thats why we have the offence of manslaughter"

This is not true, the offence voluntary manslaughter comes into play when there are mitigating circumstances, the mens rea for murder, that is - GBH and and an intent to kill are the same. Unless you are arguing that this was a case of involuntary manslaughter in which case you are suggesting that the two boys could not have forseseen that their actions may result in death. Given the details of the situation, I consider this highly unlikely and the jury in the case of Jamie Bulger also found this.

[112-1077774096]

again it seems you have read what i have written as you quote me, but sadly again you have read it without understanding it.

like i said in my last post, it is pointless discussing things with you because you either do not understand what is written or choose to not understand what is written, if i could be bothered i could point out BLATANT inconsistencies with your posts which other posters would read and believe just to try and score points, but like i say there is no point as you wont back down and i wont back down, so i will go outside now and bang my head against a wall as that will give me more satisfaction than entering a long drawn out debate on law, which i know and you seem to be doing a decent job reading on the internet, can you see the futility.

if you pm me about the subject i may continue, but can you cope without your audience, obviously not as you still have not pmd me on the matter.

we can have a nice discussion about voluntary and involuntary, mens rea, etc etc etc amongst other things, ok sweetheart   

[LFC2007]

I understand it mate, you make vast U-turns on the basic facts of law, and know nothing other than what your scatty brain recalls - a few phrases or snippets of legal terminology. You don't even know the basics let alone the intricate parts, therefore it would be silly to continue in trying to reason with you.

Go ahead and bang your head against a wall, it won't make you any more intelligent and won't help plug the vast gaps in legal knowledge you have.

You have PM'd me Peewee, that conversation is underway, although calling me a Kunt to start off with is not what I had expected.

[112-1077774096]

does anyone have a sleepy smiley, i pmd you to point out that someone is having a go at you in another thread so you could get in there quickly and defend yourself, i was doing you a favour       knowing how much you like to defend everything you write and criticise others, quick he written something else, get in there before someone reads it and believes it   

[LFC2007]

You PM'd me to demonstrate your ability to belittle.

But you naturally avoid the issue when the contextual questions appear, you didn't even accept that GBH is widely accepted as the mens rea for murder - then you began backtracking once you realised what a t!t you made yourself look.

[112-1077774096]

oh dear   


still not read it and understood it, ah well i suggest we end this conversation now as you will never get it obviously. keep looking on t'internet and you may understand it at some point, maybe you will find a page that explains it rather than just states the law

[LFC2007]

There you go again, belittling instead of actually addressing the point.

Perhaps I should remind you, Quote:

"many crimes need intent in order for a conviction, in reality you will very rarely get a murder conviction when someone has intended to commit GBH"

Followed by:

"the level of intent for murder is having the intent to take someones life and NOT TO COMMIT GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM"



Sure Peewee, that law degree must have cost a hell of a lot to purchase on the net.

You haven't the slightest clue about law, oh dear....

Tara lad, perhaps once you've learnt the basics it may be worth commenting further..

[babu]

What the fuck is wrong with both of you?

why was there a need to destroy this thread? no-one give's a shit who has a law degree or not, particularly in this thread.