Paddy Power's "Big Brother" Betting
- Thread starter BrianH
- Start date
BrianH
At the Start
Yes, as he shot in the back someone who was running away
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Mel, the carrying of the handgun would be considered independant of the act of using it in self-defence. You would still be liable for carrying it. Infact, it might even harm your self-defence case as you would need a very good reason for carrying it in the first place. Why would someone carry a handgun if they did not intend to use it to harm someone else or use it to carry out a robbery for instance?
Brian, I know what you mean but there would still be a prosecution as all that is required is, what us lawyers refer to as :lol:, the actus reus and the mens rea. The former being the killing of the person in this case and the latter being the intention to kill or seriously harm. That would be enough to bring a prosecution for murder. Any justification (or defence) would be considered later.
Brian, I know what you mean but there would still be a prosecution as all that is required is, what us lawyers refer to as :lol:, the actus reus and the mens rea. The former being the killing of the person in this case and the latter being the intention to kill or seriously harm. That would be enough to bring a prosecution for murder. Any justification (or defence) would be considered later.
My thinking is that if you illegally hold a weapon, you probably intend to use it for an illegal purpose. If you end up shooting someone, I reckon it could be argued that you had obtained the weapon with the intention of shooting somebody and it would be invalid to claim self defense.
Then again, I'm probably wrong.
....
If I'd waited a minute our newly educated legal mind had the answer. How's the course going?
Then again, I'm probably wrong.
....
If I'd waited a minute our newly educated legal mind had the answer. How's the course going?
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Lordy - after less than 6 months into an OU course on Law he's a lawyer....
Does that mean that with A-levels in Biology & Chemistry that I'm a scientist???
BrianH
At the Start
Firstly it's the nominative rather than the accusative case - ie: "what we lawyers refer to..." rather than "us lawyers". What would the judge think?
Secondly, when the government was considering a knee-jerk reaction to certain of the tabloids' reponses to the Martin case by introducing new laws, both the DPP and senior police officers gave interviews to the media in which they explained that the existing law was perfectly adequate.
During these interviews a number of cases were cited in which the DPP had decided not to proceed with the expense of a trial because the evidence showed quite clearly that reasonable defence of person or property had been involved. Including at least one case which had resulted in the death of a burglar.
You have the books, look them up.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Lordy - after less than 6 months into an OU course on Law he's a lawyer....
Does that mean that with A-levels in Biology & Chemistry that I'm a scientist???
[/b][/quote]If you had paid any attention to my laughing smiley you would have known I was being utterly sarcastic.
Still, when did you ever let the true tone of a statement get in the way of a cheap dig?
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Firstly, it's "i.e." and secondly, it's "responses". God, I feel awful having to descend to the level of a PDJ-endorsed grammar-enforcer, but if that's the sort of oppositional tactic getting used... (Thirdly, it's "mens rea" :shy: )
There is no doubt that under certain circumstances, like the ones you describe, the DPP could decide not to proceed having given consideration to the full facts available to them at the time. You are absolutely right about that.
In general, however, all that is needed for a prosecution of murder to go ahead is the killing of someone and the intention, by someone else, to kill.
Big brother's great isn't it.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
With the random placing of your smiley, you could have meant anything. One usually places one directly after the part meant as a joke, not at the end of the sentence. Besides, since when can we believe a word you say anyway?
Oh, and you accuse me of cheap digs?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh, and you accuse me of cheap digs?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
P
Phil Waters
Guest
The position of my smiley, after careful consideration, was perfected.
I don't see the relevance in that question to our debate. In my writing that led you to respond, where therein did I require someone else's belief?
I don't see the relevance in that question to our debate. In my writing that led you to respond, where therein did I require someone else's belief?
BrianH
At the Start
OK, your error was one of grammar. The omission of the letter "s" from responses was a typographical error - I was never trained in typing in quite the same way as i was in the English language.
The use of "ie" or "eg" etc in place of "i.e." and "e.g." is a matter of style and certainly not considered erroneous.
As for Big Brother being great, I don't know as I haven't seen any of it.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
But surely if I type "what we" instead of "what us" qualifies as a self-style of typing?
Is perfection required when debating on here?
Is perfection required when debating on here?
BrianH
At the Start
No
Relkeel
At the Start
PDJ
Why the capital "H" for "Happy"?
Why the capital "H" for "Happy"?
BrianH
At the Start
He might be talking about one of Snow White's homeys
P
Phil Waters
Guest
The nominations are over and Craig (has he spoken yet?) and Mary are this week's nominated evictees after a kamikaze style of voting was unleashed on the contestants.
Unlike previous evictions these nominations certainly do not represent the true feelings of the housemates.
To sum up, Makosi had her secret mission to get the most nominations in order to find herself immune from the public vote (the one with the highest would be immune) and she achieved this along with Roberto and Sam, all three getting 4 votes. Makosi then had to nominate two housemates for eviction and she chose Craig and Mary.
Definitely an unfair reflection of events and feelings in the house and poor Mary looks extremely paranoid probably believing everyone has voted for her. She's likely to walk before the vote result comes in to avoid, what she might be expecting, getting boos.
If the general public had any sense (and general elections prove they don't), they would vote Craig out.
Goodbye Mary.
Unlike previous evictions these nominations certainly do not represent the true feelings of the housemates.
To sum up, Makosi had her secret mission to get the most nominations in order to find herself immune from the public vote (the one with the highest would be immune) and she achieved this along with Roberto and Sam, all three getting 4 votes. Makosi then had to nominate two housemates for eviction and she chose Craig and Mary.
Definitely an unfair reflection of events and feelings in the house and poor Mary looks extremely paranoid probably believing everyone has voted for her. She's likely to walk before the vote result comes in to avoid, what she might be expecting, getting boos.
If the general public had any sense (and general elections prove they don't), they would vote Craig out.
Goodbye Mary.
G
Griffin
Guest
Craig is a bit of a nobody really and I wouldn't miss him so he can go on Friday. I like Mary, it'd be a shame to lose her so soon because I find her interesting.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Would anyone have any objections to my breaking into the house and killing every last one of them? Do you think Ch4 would give me the £100,000 for it?
