Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

I'm not sure I understand your take here. You seem to be implying that the jury can interpret the law and somehow come to a decision that it was "Self-Defence". That they were following a truer interpretation of the 2011 act.

This is not the case, the judge instructs them on the options they have - none of which are "Self-defence". His interpretation is the valid one. And, incidentally, a much more credible one than yours.

To be fair, arguing the difference between what you said and how he described what you said, rather than addressing the actual point he was making is hardly good faith posting is it?

You absolutely understood what he meant, right? That he felt you were being hypocritical in wanting the system to be both objective and subjective where you would agree with the subjectivity.

It's certainly bad-faith posting to start the whole "Where did I say..." rubbish to avoid actual conversation when you know well the intended point.

He claimed I said something which I clearly didn't.

I have posted reams of opinion at stage, but here you are discussing me accusing me of avoiding conversation. 😂

I saw a Facebook post up giving a very different context of story such as the article you have put up. 350 likes in a few hours. 80 odd comments. Surely, it must be Russian bots!

I'm convinced, absolutely no need for Jury trials anymore, not when Facebook and The Sun can knock it out of the park in a few hours.

I'll send a letter to the Justice Department to tell them to disband immediately.

No I agree with the Jury handing down a sentence given the context of the situation. That's my opinion on the matter.

As I already stated, Power was stupid to go to his house, but this Kerrie lad by many many accounts was a trouble maker. Now I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there should be consequences for that.

Again, you're implying the Jury gave an opinion on the law and somehow this was disregarded. That never happened

No I didn't, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

In a case such as this where someone pleads defence a Jury has 3 options under the law.

The option they chose is the exact option under the law I wrote.

The Jury concluded that the accused honestly believed the level of force he used was necessary to defend himself, they then concluded that a reasonable person looking in would consider the force disproportionate

Option 2 if you will. Manslaughter.

Did you attend the trial? I don't believe so, so you would be much less informed than both the judge and jury. You're taking 4th and 5th hand information and stitching it into a story you like so you can be outraged at an injustice. This is just a fantasy, as you don't have enough information to be able to make a valid conclusion.

So in order to have opinion on a trial you must have attended, I guess you attended so, did you? 😏

The court reporting on this trial was extensive given it's nature and as far as I am aware the Judge didn't prohibit anything from being reported, so I think it safe and fair to assume all key evidence was reported on, unless you know of otherwise?

For clarity here are the 3 options

1. If a jury finds the prosecution has proven that an accused knew the force they used in response to an unlawful attack was disproportionate to the attack, and that a reasonable person would also consider the force excessive, that is murder
2. If a jury finds the prosecution has failed to prove that an accused did not honestly believe that the force they used was necessary for self-defence, but has proven that a reasonable person would consider the force used was disproportionate, that is manslaughter
3. An acquittal arises when a jury finds the prosecution has failed to prove that an accused did not honestly believe the force they used in response to an unlawful attack was necessary for self-defence and has also failed to prove that a reasonable person would not have reached the same conclusion

Go on, Explain it to me then. Why are literally 100s of accounts on Facebook just making it up in some grand conspiracy against this chap for absolutely no reason at all? It's all nonsense is it?

Also tell me this; Do ordinary people keep company with people who rob houses and have been convicted for it?

Yeah he was a lovely fella by the sounds.

Your last bit is just pedantic nonsense and you know it. And you talking about arguing in poor faith?

Guilt by association, more Facebook justice. 😂

In the event of an unlawful attack on you, you are entitled to defend yourself. That's absolute.

So it wasn't ever really a question of self defence, but how you defend yourself and what were the consequences of that defence.

There can be absolutely no question given the facts that accused was in fear of his safety and in fear of his mothers safety in their home at the time.

It's quite farcical when you think about it.

#Clueless

Maybe I took the wrong inference from your statement that the law needs to be strengthened to help juries.

I don't understand that, especially as your response was to point out that the jury were instructed in their options and selected the one they felt appropriate. What help do they need from stronger laws?

My understanding of what you meant was that the jury wanted to draw some other conclusion but the laws only allowed these "weaker" ones. Happy for you to clarify my misunderstanding if you like.

As for the other point "In order to have an opinion you must have attended", well you're just being silly. No honest reading of my post would imply that. Nor have I expressed any opinion over the outcome of the case, how could I since I haven't heard the evidence

You're skirting around the fact that you don't have enough information to have a useful opinion, but would prefer to still spout conclusions as if you had.

Enough humility to know what you don't know and post accordingly would serve you well.

If you actually read my posts instead of hilariously trying and failing to find gotchas in them you know exactly what strengthening of laws I was referring to.

You're skirting around the fact that you don't have enough information to have a useful opinion, but would prefer to still spout conclusions as if you had

Why are you actively trying to shutdown a debate based on the assumption that there is not enough information available to have that debate?

Again what pertinent information on a case that basically rests on a split second act do you think we are lacking?

Using the precedent set from other similar cases that I have mentioned, I am fully entitled to give my opinion on this case, as are you. But you seem to be badly struggling with that concept.

But hey, if you don't like that, there is an ignore function. 👍️