how can they say justice has been done?

Question

a close friend of ours was murdered last year and the bloke who did it got let off with nothin he claimed self defence when he was stampin on our friends head which killed him how can he get off and get nothing im so confussed ... it started outside the pub with a bit os pushin and shovin then the other bloke punched my friend to the ground and in stead of walkin away he stamped on his head and thats what killed him how can he get away with it i dont understand

Answer 1

As stated by others here, the justice system seems overburdened like that here in the US.

I don't buy the fact that it was not an "intentional" act. The law would consider the "average person" who thinks that "stomping upon ones head" could cause serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, the "intent" needed for a murder conviction should have held. Yet, this case was most likely heard with a jury making the ultimate decision.

Juries are funny about making decisions based upon facts they hear that the general public doesn't hear.

You have my heartfelt condolences for the loss of your friend. In the meantime, I'd suggest you charge those elected judicial officials with better responsibility towards the welfare of the good citizens instead of the thugs!

Best wishes.

Answer 2

If there had been an alternative charge of manslaughter, then perhaps the jury would have convicted on that and the family and friends could have derived some comfort from the fact that the person concerned did not get away scot free. I am at a loss to understand how this defence of acting in self defence succeeded anyway, as self defence must involve the use of only "reasonable force" and stamping on someone's head can never, ever be reasonable. I am so sorry.

Answer 3

It is wrong and as a lot of the posters here say it's a sad state of the way the law works in this country.
However, a bit more information would probably give rise to a better answer but with that said, anyone who stamps on someones head when they are down deserves a very long sentence in my book and claiming self defence is a farce.
There's a very thin line between self defence and assault.

Answer 4

No offense but, I would want to know more details of the case before making any comment on this. All of you posters here are quick to rail on the criminal justice system (including a police officer who is sworn to uphold the law) without even knowing all of the facts. This is how people get a negative impression of the criminal justice system. She said the defendant claimed self-defense and the guy was stomping on his head. Just a hypothetical but what if the guy was pointing a gun at the perpetrator while he stomped on his head? Would that change your mind about the outcome? Why don't you ask for all the facts before making outrageous claims about the state of our criminal justice system. Over 90% of those charged with crimes are convicted. We don't have a rampant system of judges who cry when they have to send someone to jail. Most judges are former prosecutors and many are former police officers.

Answer 5

Just like here in the US...there are apparently "mitigating factors". Now just what those may be is anyone's guess. This made the papers didn't it? If so I'm sure they explained why the jury or judges came to this conclusion and gave him no jail time.
Lesson here is don't get into pissing contests at watering holes.
Sorry about your buddy. The law is a quirky thing sometimes.

Answer 6

To prove murder you must prove malice and aforethought in other words you have to plan and intend to kill someone not just lose your temper in a fight.There must be more here than your telling us because a jury obviously didnt just hear the facts you given us to arrive at their verdict.

Answer 7

It is typical of the sorry state of the law in this country. The offender always gets off with such a pathetic sentence, the judges are to old and need sacking.
Bring back hanging for murder and perverts.

Answer 8

seems wrong,ive had a lot of trouble with police and been prosecuted for silly things yet something this serious nothing gets done,the whole system seems corrupt

Answer 9

It means that they could not prove it that is why now if i see an incident I record it on my phone then there is proof sorry for your loss but what goes around comes around and they will get what they deserve

Answer 10

My hubby's been doing jury service this week. Yesterday the jury found not guilty a man who'd spent 10 months on remand - 10 months at the tax payer's expense, when he was innocent. I'm really sorry to hear about your friend. Just goes to show that sometimes the law is an donkey.