Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

It's great to have someone in the know with more data. Can you give us your analysis of the subtle data to enlighten us all? Thanks in advance.

First, can you explain the term 'subtle data'? As I thought data was just data and didn't know it was trying to fool us all.

Well no, If someone dies pretty much instantly the force used by definition was excessive, especially when a blade is used.

Reasonable / Excessive is pretty much subjective and not based on anything calculable.

The use of excessive force therefore is not a tangible bench mark and completely down to the whim of Jury, or you and me.

In this case he stabbed him once, and the attacker fled.

Even if had stabbed him multiple times, you would think that would be excessive, but a Jury of the day may not come to that conclusion as referenced in a similar case or in the case of the 16 year old boy.

Now I know everything cannot be black and white and match nicely up with legislation.

But there is precedents based on the law and based on that going forward it certainly needs to be tidied up.

That is what the law says. The judge was just explaining their options to them.

If he used objectively reasonable force - not guilty of anything

If he used objectively excessive force but believed it was reasonable - manslaughter

If he knew he was using excessive force - murder.

Now, establishing what constitutes 'objectively excessive force' seems very tricky to me, but as I said in an earlier post, I'd imagine that the typical juror would naturally sympathise with the person whose home was broken into in situations such as these, and would be loath to find them guity if they could avoid it, so I wonder what evidence was presented that did make them reach the verdict they did.

so the judge got it wrong and you know better? righto.

I'm not sure I would describe the deliberations of a jury as a whim. they are the ones who decide if it is excessive or not if the case goes to trial.

we are discussing a particular case. you think the judge gave the wrong instructions to the jury. please explain how he was correct?

in what way was the judge wrong?

in what way were the judges instructions wrong?

i never said judges were incapable of fault. I asked what mistake this particular judge made in this specific case in the thread dedicated to that case. you are arguing against a point I never made.

It is the whim of Jury because they don't have to explain their decision.

I think in cases like this more emphasise has to be placed on situation at the time and the mindset of the people involved. I know Jurys are instructed to examine the facts of the case which is correct, but when terms like reasonable and excessive are completely subjective and that subjectiveness is the deciding factor in if someone walks free or has their liberty removed.

For all the best will in the world of dealing with the facts of what happened in the moment, people still after time, use hindsight, The Judge and Probation service, 'you could have acted differently to end the attack' - it's infuriatingly simplistic. This lad has been deemed to be of moderate chance of reoffending because he couldn't tell the probation how he could have acted differently. That is farcical.

I'm reminded of Sully - The miracle on the Hudson. Where they tried to stitch him up for "crashing" the plane. They put several pilots into a flight Sim and all the pilots got the plane safely to airport. When they were then forced to use pilots who had no idea what was about to happen everyone of them crashed the plane.

Oh Facebook isn't reliable enough for you is it not

No, I think I have made that crystal clear, now please stop making a holy show of yourself and stop responding to me.

No, you stopped making arguments because your clueless and have no good arguments to make. That's why. Good day

you can't exclude subjective decisions from criminal law. funny though you then go on to mention "reasonable assumption" which is subjective in itself.

If they didn't then it would have found him guilty of murder.

Prior to 2011 is was based on what force was objectively reasonable, then 2011 changed that. Appropriate force or what he/she honestly believed to be appropriate.

Based on the decision they decided it was an honesty held belief so it was self defence, and by the inappropriate instruction then meant guilt of a lesser charge even when the 2011 act makes no such distinction between reasonable force and believed reasonable force.