Are We Allowed To Discuss The Copper Being Prosecuted For Shooting Low Life Criminal Scum?

[ToraToraTora]

If so can we have paramters, the last 120+ post thread was trashed and I do not no why. Thanks

[Peter Pedant]

Miss ! we did ! discuss the shooting of Chris Kaba and the thread got deaded ( thx to Prince Chas)

why not reinstate it - or better not ever to have deleted it?

we covered: whether a reasonable belief that the shooter was in danger or a bystander , was a sufficient defence

and decided it was

we covered the sock cases ( that Andie got a cobb over) - where  there was NO gun but a sock but still  a reasonable belief.

we brushed past Gibraltar - "we all thought they were armed" - IRA lawyer " no we didnt. THEY knew they werent armed so what were they doing pointing their socks at you?" - oo-er fuzzy answer ( in court)

 

 

[Peter Pedant]

we got our knickers hopelessly in a knot over intention. Shooting with intention to hurt is murder ( or could be) and going "oops I didnt mean that!" is manslaughter by gross negligencce

we got hopelessly confused over precedent - and whether the precedent of a car having four  wheels was suffiient to  cite in the instant case - and decided it wasnt.

and then Andy who is easily the most articulate mod - got a literary hump about something  and I went off and read the Kenova report. The rest is history

[Prudie]

Writing lots and lots of words doesn't equate to be articulate. I'm surprised someone as superior as you thinks so.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Prood - Miss mod says if we dont discuss the shooting and  spend time sniping at each other, the thread gets deaded

You  heard it from her. I didnt read the  posterior end of the thread ( = what came later) and  perhaps the fatal  error was committed then.

The thread SHOULD have been about naming one party ( = the defendant) who had persuaded a judge that it  was too dangerous to name him. On appeal the idea of public justice won out

( for Prood -  more words)

[andy-hughes]

PP - //

No Andy  ( one of the most articulate mods on this planet) was getting a good tablespoonful of Law O level  and

like tar water in Great Expectations - didnt like it much ( thx to uncle pumblechook) //

I have asked you before - please leave me out of your nonsensical piffle.

Thank you.

 

[andy-hughes]

There is one post tennuously addressing the subject of the police officer accused of murder, out of twenty-five.

If this trend continues, this thread will be deleted - by me, so you have fair warning, and you know who is deleting and why.

We can return to the subject, or we can lose the thread.

Thank you.

[Buenchico]

The previous thread was removed by me because it included discussion of matters which are currently sub judice.

[ladybirder]

TTT why do you not change a BA if a better one comes along later?

[royfromaus]

 sub judice.

 

Here we go again...

[Modster]

An explanation has been given for the removal of the other thread, so this one will be closed now.  Both decisions will be reviewed by the Eds on Monday.

[ABSpareEditor]

All sorted. Enjoy your discussion > https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1864815.html

[ToraToraTora]

Thanks ED.

[Peter Pedant]

oh does my summary bear any relation to what was actually written? The case last week was about releasing the name of he defendant

what do the mods think it is about ?

The judges were very keen on open justice