Perjury

[spacecat]

]I'm asking you to qualify your predictions, which I assume you can since you often demand others to state and defend their own stance on a given issue

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

 

[joe-90]

It's simple really. It will become clear that it is an unsafe conviction. If hanging were still around they wouldn't receive the death penalty as the conviction is unsafe. For example, no-one knows who delivered the fatal blow - so do you say, "I don't know which one is the murderer, so hang the lot of them and let God sort them out"? Well would you? It wasn't a trial it was a circus. English law is based on 'intent'. I can only be charged with a crime (other than road traffic offence) if it can be proven that I had 'intent' to commit that crime. In this case it would be 'intent' to murder Lawrence. The odds are that the racist mob (that I have no sympathy for) had the 'intent' to give Lawrence a 'good kicking' for being black. They chased him as a mob with this 'intent' until one of them pulled a knife and decided (with intent) to stab Lawrence. Even THAT isn't 'intent' to murder. It may well have been 'intent' to cause GBH. The police then offered one of the gang (Norris) immunity from prosecution if he 'sang'. Therefore they must have been of the belief that Norris did NOT deliver the fatal blow - or they could not do that. The next thing we hear is that Norris has been convicted of the crime the police were sure he didn't commit. Are you guys getting it yet? All those years and all those millions of pounds they just HAD to come up with something. Remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6? It's a stitch up for political reasons - but it will come unstuck is Strasbourg. Do you still think it is a safe conviction? Well do you?

 

[cantaloup63]

Frankly - yes. Inasmuch as lawrence was beaten and someone within the cohesive group had decided to take a knife out of his or her pocket and use it. The subsequent refusal to cooperate and/or inform the authorities makes each and every member of the group equally as guilty of the pre-meditated killing (there was a time delay between the start of the beating and the subsequent use of the knife which means that whoever actually carried the knife took time to consider the action).

So, assuming (and that's a big word there!) that there is no other explanation as to how that blood got onto the clothing, their (denied) placement at the SOC has been confirmed.

 

[joe-90]

But they may not know who had the knife. Only one person had intent to seriously harm Lawrence. Find him and lock him up. What about the offer of 'immunity against prosecution'? It's a shambles and a circus - and you know it.

Foxy Knoxy comes to mind.

 

[Djnikon]

Foxy Knoxy comes to mind.

Quite a lot as it happens

 

[SALL2009]

I don't see that it was premeditated. They never set out to kill Lawrence. It was mob mentality thing. I reckon it's way too late to punish them now as they are no longer kids. I reckon they will get off on appeal. If I had committed murder as a teen, I really don't see that locking me up today would be justice. I'm not the person today that I was then - so why punish me now? The old me has long gone. Isn't it supposed to be about rehabilitation?

So what should be the cut off point for punishment for a crime?

Murder, rape, armed robbery, drug dealing all fair game, as long as you don't get caught for 15 years?

 

[joe-90]

Then find the guy with the knife. The others weren't aware of what he was going to do.

 

[cantaloup63]

Then find the guy with the knife.

How do you know they haven't?

The others weren't aware of what he was going to do.

How do you know this?

 

[Blasphemous]

Only one person had intent to seriously harm Lawrence.

In your opinion/belief.

Find him and lock him up.

But you're the one saying:

I don't see that it was premeditated. They never set out to kill Lawrence. It was mob mentality thing. I reckon it's way too late to punish them now as they are no longer kids. If I had committed murder as a teen, I really don't see that locking me up today would be justice.

So which is it? Lock them up or not?

 

[joe-90]

Find the one that wielded the knife. How about commenting on the big post I made? You asked my opinion.

 

[cantaloup63]

Then find the guy with the knife.

How do you know they haven't?

The others weren't aware of what he was going to do.

How do you know this?

 

[joe-90]

Because he would be charged with murder - the others would not.

 

[ellal]

So anyone who is a witness/alibi for a defendant who is convicted should automatically be prosecuted for perjury?

Only if they lie, especially if they say that their son was at home all night, then it turns out that their son had the blood of Stephen Lawrence on his clothes. How did that happen then? Let me guess, I suppose you think the Police planted it there?

The presumption was made that because there was a conviction, then the witness must be lying...

Therefore by that logic, whenever someone is convicted them anyone who has been a witness/given an alibi for the defence should be done for perjury...

I've no idea what happened, but it has been known for the police to do just that...

I can't for the life of me understand why you and your mate Ellal want to stand by the side of these people. They are murderers - they deserve all they get.

Show me where I've said I want to " stand by the side of these people"...

 

[cantaloup63]

Because he would be charged with murder - the others would not.

I asked how you knew, not how they do or don't. After all, you're making these brash and sweeping statements.

 

[ellal]

And ellal is the one who claims you can only be guilty of an offence if found so by a court of law.

And you of course can just say someone is guilty because you think so?

I believe that's called 'Numpty's law'...