Saturday, August 15, 2015

Can Anyone Explain?

A young thug goes to a dairy with the intent to carry out a planned robbery, carrying a knife, things deteriorate and the dairy owner dies in the arms of his distraught wife from stab wounds delivered by the alleged robber. The whole incident is recorded on cctv yet the perpetrator is deemed not to have murdered the asian dairy owner, he was only guilty of manslaughter suggesting the death only came about as an unintentional out come of robbery.

Another young man attends a 'twenty first' that is closed down due to drunken behavior. One of the attendees then has his brother set upon by one with no connection to the 21st but closely connected to The Headhunters Gang, when reaching the street. The unarmed party goer retires  somewhere nearby and arms himself with a long handled slasher, actually a "billhook" having a hooked blade and nothing resembling a much lighter "sickle" as proposed in the published evidence.  On returning to the street fight the slasher wielding man removes part of the skull of his brothers attacker who is still kicking his victim on the ground, causing the attack to cease.
There things might have ended but for the fact the now missing a fairly necessary bit of his head and apparently now dieing headhunter happens to have been shacked up with an in the past troubled young lady, the step daughter of the late Sir Paul Holmes that adds a completely unconnected celebrity angle in the minds of a childlike and inane media.

After a trial where evidence was so harrowing as to have members of the public leave due to its gruesome nature, Michael Murray is guilty of murder.

Call me naive, simple thick, dumb or any other descriptive but I need it to have it explained how one entring a dairy armed and intent on robbery with violence somehow kills at a lesser serious level, yet another armes himself in the middle of an unplanned street fight in a moment of serious escalating violence, is a murderer.

Personally the only sympathy I can find for any of  those involved in either serious acts of violence is poor old Mr Kumar and his still suffering family while all the other tales of mindless violence that results in far lesser persons, bashed, dead or damaged are of somewhat lesser moment, but as to how the difference of degree of culpable killing emerges as entirely inexplicable, hence my request.


Howie said...

Yeah, whether something is murder or manslaughter or indeed a crime at all should depend on Gravetodger's assessment of the quality of the victim. Fuckwit much old guy?

Noel said...

In the Kumar case the jury was tasked to confirm whether there was intent to commit murder with the knife he was carrying when he entered the store. Anyone who is familiar with the dark side knows that all the little ferals carry knives and don't give a toss about the law. Unfortunately "shake down" operations that frequently remove weapons from US streets they are illegal here.

In the Morris case the jury was tasked to consider if there was intent to cause harm with the bullhook. The nature of the injury was suggestive of a blow not of a defensive nature hence the murder conviction

gravedodger said...

Very helpful Noel, thanks.
According to Howie, should he in his role of organ grinders monkey be dispatched by a feral wielding a knife, using his warped intellect would that be murder, manslaughter or cruelty to helpless animals?

Nookin said...

Pest control.

Paulus said...

It was not a sickle - see Russian hammer and sickle.
It is bloody BILLHOOK and has been for hundreds of years.

Noel said...

The complication in the Kumar case was the offenders age. In the preliminary hearings the defence counsel neuroscientists would have had a field day describing how age developement would have stymied any ability for intent. Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

In the Kumar case, the defence turned the offender into the real "victim". That wasn't available in the Morris case.