Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat  If someone genuinely wasn't involved, then they're by definition not at fault. |
How can you decipher who is and who is not involved in the death of a young woman though? Recent case law shows that merely kicking someone during an assault which leads to death, or even
starting the assault is not enough to find someone guilty of murder, so what are you basing your "genuinely wasn't involved" on? There are shades of grey in every case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat But the boy in question, according to the article, started the violence by aiming a flying kick to the head of his victim.
Whether or not he intended to kill anyone, he still did that - Something else there's absolutely no excuse for.
The fact that his victim subsequently died just makes his actions all the worse. |
I'll just reiterate Punk and Les, the quotes of the prosecution council via a BBC website does not constitute objective evidence of guilt, and even if he did start it, please see what I have said above. This does not constitute a mens rea for murder. Thin skull rule aside, if I slap my boyfriend and then five of my mates jump in an beat him to death does that make me guilty of murder? No, of course not. I may have initiated the attack, but I had neither the mens rea or took part in the actus reus. Just because this boy alledgedly initiated this attack does not mean he had the necessary mens rea or took part in the actus reus.
The fact that the girl died does not make the initial action worse, because as Les said, the initial action and the morality of the outcome are arguably independant from one another. A kick is a kick if the boy is without the necessary murderous intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Scapegoat Let's assume that any comments I make on this case are being made under the assumption that the kid did do what the article states he admitted to doing. |
Thats the most idiotic thing I think i've ever heard in my natural.
