Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Can someone explain?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Can someone explain?

Old 25th Jan 2020, 12:42
  #1 (permalink)  
419
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
Can someone explain?

Can someone explain how a person can attack someone with a machete, hitting them in the head at 6 times, slashing their arms, and cutting the tendons in a hand and then only get convicted of wounding with intent instead of attempted murder?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548
Just how serious does an attack need to be before it can be deemed to be attempted murder?
419 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 12:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Age: 42
Posts: 511
Maybe it was all a misunderstanding?

"Stand still, there's a snake on you! I'll hit it with this Machete..."
rudestuff is online now  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 12:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,101
The judge's decisions do seem very puzzling. The perpetrator has got 16 years, but how this wasn't attempted murder at first sight is a mystery. This miscreant had several previous charges (inadmissible in this case). He had an offensive weapon next to him, resisted arrest, no tax or insurance on his vehicle and on and on.
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 13:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 480
Here's your answer...https://uk.yahoo.com/news/machete-at...155712292.html

Or... UK justice is sh1t, judges are idiots and criminals have more rights than victims?

Out in less than 8 years and WILL offend again. Probably killing next time.

But that's PC for ya!
Kelly Hopper is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 13:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: France
Age: 65
Posts: 61
See what this lady has to say about it

Her business is defending people who have been tasered
https://twitter.com/khan_sophie?ref_...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Repos is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 14:53
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Whilst I share the disappointment at the lesser finding the fact is that murder is a crime of specific intent and if that intent can't be established then the offence is incomplete.
I find it harder to see how a machete isn't an offensive weapon.
Once again though, Taser proved it's worth.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 15:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 820
The link in post #4 provides the explanation. For attempted murder to be proved, the Crown must show conclusively that the offender set out to kill the bobby.
And there is no reason to expect he will be out in less than 8 years. I believe a 50% discount applies only to those who plead guilty at the first opportunity, so it looks as if the offender will serve 12 years, before the parole board get to consider him for release. And, if they are not satisfied, he could possibly do the full 16 years.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 15:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,627
Originally Posted by SpringHeeledJack View Post
The judge's decisions do seem very puzzling. The perpetrator has got 16 years, but how this wasn't attempted murder at first sight is a mystery.
There are only 12 people who know why and how he was found not guilty of attempted murder.

The judge isn't one of them.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 16:03
  #9 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 75
Posts: 237
I find it harder to see how a machete isn't an offensive weapon.
It is. For some reason the jury found him not guilty of possessing it. Unbelievable.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 17:54
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Originally Posted by UniFoxOs View Post
It is. For some reason the jury found him not guilty of possessing it. Unbelievable.
A machete isn't an offensive weapon per se; for example using one to clear overgrowth wouldn't be an issue.
As with many things it's the intent with which it's used that makes it an offensive weapon.
I would suggest that the moment it was taken in hand to attack the officer it became a weapon.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 18:00
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Tashengurt View Post
A machete isn't an offensive weapon per se; for example using one to clear overgrowth wouldn't be an issue.
As with many things it's the intent with which it's used that makes it an offensive weapon.
I would suggest that the moment it was taken in hand to attack the officer it became a weapon.
What I find hard to understand is that, according to what's been reported, he admitted having the machete in his van for self-defence, as he lived in his van alone. In other words, he possessed it with the intention of using it to cause harm to anyone who might threaten or attack him.

Quite how the jury reached the conclusion that he was not in possession of an offensive weapon under those circumstances is a bit bizarre. Then again, apparently the jury asked a question about his previous convictions, apparently, something that I would have thought they would have known could not be answered.
VP959 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 18:27
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 820
apparently the jury asked a question about his previous convictions
I thought that doesn't come out in court until after a verdict has been reached.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 19:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Surrey
Age: 63
Posts: 123
All this talk about carrying an offensive weapon in a vehicle has just led me to take some positive action.For years I have been driving around with one of those extendable batons in the boot of my car(think it's called an ASP),not for use as a weapon,offensive or defensive,but because it made an ideal tommy-bar for a large bottle jack that I carried when drawing a trailer,indeed the 3ft steel bar which slotted into the jack screw would have been a more terrifying weapon.however,having just done a little research,I see that they are considered to be an offensive weapon and cannot be carried in a public place,which includes ones car.So it has been consigned to the garage.
ex82watcher is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 19:56
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 50
I have a couple of ice axes in the boot of the car from time to time. Even in summer when camping on the Riviera (next stop:- the Alps).
DType is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 20:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Originally Posted by ex82watcher View Post
All this talk about carrying an offensive weapon in a vehicle has just led me to take some positive action.For years I have been driving around with one of those extendable batons in the boot of my car(think it's called an ASP),not for use as a weapon,offensive or defensive,but because it made an ideal tommy-bar for a large bottle jack that I carried when drawing a trailer,indeed the 3ft steel bar which slotted into the jack screw would have been a more terrifying weapon.however,having just done a little research,I see that they are considered to be an offensive weapon and cannot be carried in a public place,which includes ones car.So it has been consigned to the garage.
Eek! Sensible move. A baton is an offensive weapon per se and you'd have no defence to having one in your car.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2020, 23:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,627
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
What I find hard to understand is that, according to what's been reported, he admitted having the machete in his van for self-defence, as he lived in his van alone.
That contradicts the reports I've read (including the link in post #1) that Rodwan had claimed in court that he had the machete in his van for his gardening work

It would appear that the jury accepted that explanation.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2020, 01:08
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,865
I sincerely hope that his barrister's remarks about prosecuting PC Outten for tasering Rodwan are met with a suitable response by the Metropolitan Police. Recommending PC Outten for a commendation would seem to be appropriate!
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2020, 14:34
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,416
Why would the judicial antics, outlined above, cause any puzzlement or concern in a nation which was perfectly content, at the time, with the 'Guildford Four' and the 'Birmingham Six' procedures? The 'judicial system' is an orchestrated version of theatrical process which has little or nothing to do with 'justice' (or fairness). Hidebound by 'rules' introduced by members of the cast, the guilt or innocence of the accused relies on factors which are arbitrary, in the main. and dependent on the competence of one or other counsel and the gullibility of the 12.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2020, 21:57
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: France
Age: 65
Posts: 61
The terrorism trials of the 1970's don't really reflect what happens today in respect of prosecution decisions and trial procedures.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, The creation of the Crown Prosecution service shortly after, and The Criminal Prodecures and Investigations Act and various Criminal Justice Acts, have all changed the way cases are brought before the courts.
Repos is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2020, 22:31
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
That contradicts the reports I've read (including the link in post #1) that Rodwan had claimed in court that he had the machete in his van for his gardening work

It would appear that the jury accepted that explanation.
You're right, I misread the reports, however I believe he was lying, as he had a previous conviction for wounding with intent using a machete. It seems clear that he did not have the machete for his gardening work. Anyway, if that was why he had it in his van, how come it was so easily to hand that he was able to quickly grab it when stopped by PC Outten?

I would have thought that having such a "gardening tool" within easy reach of the driver's seat turns it from being an innocent tool to being an offensive weapon, much like having a hammer under your seat might do the same. One has to wonder how he managed to convince the jury with this tale.
VP959 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.