Snoopy: What facts are there that you think justify shoving a person over from behind who has both his hands in his pockets?

If it were you or me we'd be charged with GBH or similar.

As to the law...

Page 1
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Sentencing Guidelines Council
FOREWORD
In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issues this guideline as a definitive guideline. By virtue of section 172 of the Act, every court must have regard to a relevant guideline. This guideline applies to offenders convicted of manslaughter by reason of provocation who are sentenced after 28 November 2005.
This guideline stems from a reference from the Home Secretary for consideration of the issue of sentencing where provocation is argued in cases of homicide, and, in particular, domestic violence homicides. For the purpose of describing “domestic violence”, the Home Secretary adopted the Crown Prosecution Service definition.
1
The guideline applies to sentencing of an adult offender for this offence in whatever circumstances it occurs. It identifies the widely varying features of both the provocation and the act of retaliation and sets out the approach to be adopted in deciding both the sentencing range and the starting point within that range.
This guideline is for use where the conviction for manslaughter is clearly
founded on provocation alone. There will be additional, different and more
complicated matters to be taken into account where the other main partial
defence, diminished responsibility, is a factor.
The Council’s Guideline New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 recognised the potentially more demanding nature of custodial sentences of 12 months or longer imposed under the new framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Consequently the sentencing ranges and starting points in this guideline take that principle into account.
Guidelines are created following extensive consultation. The Sentencing Advisory Panel first consults widely on the basis of a thoroughly researched consultation paper, then provides the Council with advice. Having considered the advice, the Council prepares a draft guideline on which there is further consultation with Parliament, with the Home Secretary and with Ministers of other relevant Government Departments. This guideline is the culmination of that process.
The Council has appreciated greatly the work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in preparing the advice on which this guideline has been based and for those who have responded so thoughtfully to the consultation of both the Panel and the Council.

1 “Any criminal offence arising out of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse by one
person against a current or former partner in a close relationship, or against a current or former family
member.” A new definition of domestic violence was agreed in 2004 (and appears in the CPS Policy on
Prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence, 2005) “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse
[psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional] between adults who are or have been intimate
partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.”
Page 4
The advice and this guideline are available on www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk
or from the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat at 85 Buckingham Gate, London
SW1E 6PD. A summary of the responses to the Council’s consultation also appears
on the website.
Chairman of the Council
November 2005

Statutory Provision

Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
Factors Influencing Sentence
The degree of provocation as shown by its nature and duration
The extent and timing of the retaliation
Post-offence behaviour
Use of a weapon
Sentence Ranges and Starting Points
Identifying sentence ranges
Factors to take into consideration

Sentencing Guidelines Council

MANSLAUGHTER BY REASON OF PROVOCATION
A. Statutory Provision
1.1
Murder and manslaughter are common law offences and there is no complete
statutory definition of either. ‘Provocation’ is one of the partial defences by which an offence
that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter.
1.2
Before the issue of provocation can be considered, the Crown must have proved
beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of murder were present, including the
necessary intent (i.e. the offender must have intended either to kill the victim or to cause
grievous bodily harm). The court must then consider section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957,
which provides:
Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the
person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both
together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to
make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in
determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said
according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.
B. Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
2.1
The Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos. 74, 95 and 118 of 2002)
(Suratan and others),
2
set out a number of assumptions that a judge must make in favour of
an offender found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. The assumptions are required in order to be faithful to the verdict and should be applied equally in all cases whether conviction follows a trial or whether the Crown has accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter by reason of provocation:
❏ first, that the offender had, at the time of the killing, lost self-control; mere loss of temper or jealous rage is not sufficient
❏ second, that the offender was caused to lose self-control by things said or done, normally by the person killed
❏ third, that the offender’s loss of control was reasonable in all the circumstances, even bearing in mind that people are expected to exercise reasonable control over their emotions and that, as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control.

**********************

This is the law.

(V): What facts are there that you think justify shoving a person over from behind who has both his hands in his pockets?


Really? Are you kidding me???

He has a gun in his pocket maybe???

You really cant think of any reasons??? Really??? I can give you two hand fulls if you need them

Snoopy: Im surprised that a Police Inspector would talk about it to a nobody....friend or not, surely it is classified information and he is releasing it into the public arena.

and also if he isn't on the case personally he is also only guessing the consequences, and if he IS on the case then he should be reported for disclosing this information. Even a blind man can see this.

Bernice: Excuse me!! Telling me what the law is illegal!!

And stop trying to flame me, it's getting old.

(V): What I want to know is this: Did that guy die simply from being pushed down or was there more that happened that we didn't see?

Artful Dodger: exactly

Artful Dodger: That is still being investigated, hence the two charges being possible... assault or manslaughter.

(V): Admittedly I don't know much about the case nor am I familiar with the law. Your descriptions rather remind me of the SS and some of their early antics of abuse. Given too much power, people can abuse others. So if this is the case, the officer should be prosecuted.

Czuch does make a good point on the personal responsibility front. If I were to walk into a biker bar, and call all the bikers a bunch of nanny fags, and they beat me to a pulp and then beat me some more, who would be at fault for my injuries? The bikers broke the law, but would I have no guilt in my own injuries? After all, had I simply stayed home or just gone to walmart, I'd be ok. Or say I walk into a biker bar and hand each biker a 100 dollar bill and tell them to have a good day, they might buy me a beer. Or they might beat me to a pulp and see if I had anymore money. Either way, whether I call them fags and get beat, or give them 100 dollars and get beat, I'm still beat up. Maybe dead. And to think I'd be just fine had I simply gone to the zoo instead.

Artful Dodger: The IPCC chief said that the police are our SERVANTS, not our masters.

It would be at least manslaughter under British law, depending on the circumstances.. maybe murder. I mean.. Bikers are supposed to be able to take insults.. if not.. why are they Bikers? Priesthood might be a better calling for them.

(V): Well I can agree with that.

Artful Dodger: I knew you would.

(V): I feel the same way as an educator. I work for the people.

(V): Im not flaming you...stop whingeing....

Bernice: of course not.

Bernice: yes thats my point to everyone seems to jumping to conclusions that this officer because of a 30 sec video clip must be guilty

i dont even understand why he is having this conversation because EXACT cause of death STILL ISNT KNOWN

Snoopy: Because this is a free country and I'm allowed to. We all have feelings and opinions on this, and as a free person I am allowed to have an opinion.