There is a camera on that main door so they should be able to see who entered and when - which may explain how they were able to pick them up so quick. The Police guard Edmonton bus station { roughly 12 police and PCSOs } they are there every school day - started about four years ago.Edmonton Police station is built like a fortress { with heavy swing down bars on all floors } and is only a short walk from where the guy was killed - lets hope they get what is coming to them.
It's a good job you never condemn people who have not been charged or convicted isn't it? Hang on a minute, you do if they are police officers.
How come that isn't irresponsible posting?
Point me to the post where I did that? (And that mean gave a clear indication that a particularly individual/s who had been arrested on suspicion of an offence were guilty of a crime, not just guilty of bad behaviour...)
Point me to the post where I did that? (And that mean gave a clear indication that a particularly individual/s who had been arrested on suspicion of an offence were guilty of a crime, not just guilty of bad behaviour...)
For starters you did go on at length about the Blair Peach case, and named the murderer, despite him not being charged or convicted.
You have claimed many guilty of other things when not charged, as you well know.
For starters you did go on at length about the Blair Peach case, and named the murderer, despite him not being charged or convicted.
You have claimed many guilty of other things when not charged, as you well know.
He hasn't even been arrested. No proceedings active, therefore no contempt in what I did.
And by the way, the Metropolitan police have named him too. As has several documentaries.
In fact, he's even admitted he himself is the named man (although denies killing Peach).
So yes, I'm happy to admit that but there are no criminal proceedings so it's utterly irrelevant here. If you can't see that, you clearly don't understand the law.
In fact I'll say it again. It is highly likely Alan Murray killed Blair Peach. Even the Met says that. In a manner that amounts to murder. It's wholly different to a case where juveniles are currently under arrest and proceedings active.
As for your second point. No I have not - not when proceedings are active.
The assumption of guilt before trial is in itself something we should not condone.
Particularly when the suspects are juveniles; and given we are talking about 5 young people, highly improbable (even if one struck the fatal blow) all are going to be even charged for murder.
So four have been released on police bail. One remains in custody. Given usual bail rights are witheld for murder (even for juveniles), I think it likely the four released are NOT suspected of murder.
I hope that makes the thread starter think a little before making assumptions.
So four have been released on police bail. One remains in custody. Given usual bail rights are witheld for murder (even for juveniles), I think it likely the four released are NOT suspected of murder.
I hope that makes the thread starter think a little before making assumptions.
Murder is when there was planning involved, I think. According to Wikipedia, bail could mean that they'll have to attend trial.
In some countries, granting bail is common. Even in such countries, however, bail may not be offered by some courts under some circumstances; for instance, if the accused is considered likely not to appear for trial regardless of bail. Legislatures may also set out certain crimes to be not bailable, such as those that carry the penalty of capital punishment. Even for lesser crimes, bail will not be granted if it is deemed likely that the accused will flee or commit the same offense before trial.
I don't understand why some people get so worked up over assumptions we all make assumptions if you hear a news story like this it's normal to think either they did or did not do it.
From what we know so far I assume they did or at least one of them did if we find out more news later I may change that assumption.
In this case there are a few options
1) They (or at least one of them) did it
2) The guy was in a argumentative mood and pick another argmunt with someone else
3) Someone else picked a argument with him
4) Some nut just killed him at random
5) Someone wanted him dead and picked that day to do it
There is more options obviously but out of those until we hear more option 1 is the most likely scenario.
And (although it probably was), we don't even know it was a knife. All we know is the victim was stabbed.
Damilola Taylor for example, was stabbed with a shard the attackers picked up at the scene (they didn't carry it with them). In fact the stabbing didn't even kill him but only slightly pierced the skin and was pretty superficial - what killed him was he fell a few minutes later and the shard pierced an artery. Hence manslaughter not murder.
And (although it probably was), we don't even know it was a knife. All we know is the victim was stabbed.
Damilola Taylor for example, was stabbed with a shard the attackers picked up at the scene (they didn't carry it with them). In fact the stabbing didn't even kill him but only slightly pierced the skin and was pretty superficial - what killed him was he fell a few minutes later and the shard pierced an artery. Hence manslaughter not murder.
Yeah, stabbing someone doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a knife.
And (although it probably was), we don't even know it was a knife. All we know is the victim was stabbed.
Damilola Taylor for example, was stabbed with a shard the attackers picked up at the scene (they didn't carry it with them). In fact the stabbing didn't even kill him but only slightly pierced the skin and was pretty superficial - what killed him was he fell a few minutes later and the shard pierced an artery. Hence manslaughter not murder.
thats strange it sort of puts the blame on the victim for falling. but remember who put the shard in is body in the first place etc which led to his death. i would be more than happy if that was murder instead of manslaughter for that.
Comments
It's a good job you never condemn people who have not been charged or convicted isn't it? Hang on a minute, you do if they are police officers.
How come that isn't irresponsible posting?
Point me to the post where I did that? (And that mean gave a clear indication that a particularly individual/s who had been arrested on suspicion of an offence were guilty of a crime, not just guilty of bad behaviour...)
For starters you did go on at length about the Blair Peach case, and named the murderer, despite him not being charged or convicted.
You have claimed many guilty of other things when not charged, as you well know.
He hasn't even been arrested. No proceedings active, therefore no contempt in what I did.
And by the way, the Metropolitan police have named him too. As has several documentaries.
In fact, he's even admitted he himself is the named man (although denies killing Peach).
So yes, I'm happy to admit that but there are no criminal proceedings so it's utterly irrelevant here. If you can't see that, you clearly don't understand the law.
In fact I'll say it again. It is highly likely Alan Murray killed Blair Peach. Even the Met says that. In a manner that amounts to murder. It's wholly different to a case where juveniles are currently under arrest and proceedings active.
As for your second point. No I have not - not when proceedings are active.
The assumption of guilt before trial is in itself something we should not condone.
Particularly when the suspects are juveniles; and given we are talking about 5 young people, highly improbable (even if one struck the fatal blow) all are going to be even charged for murder.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/five-boys-aged-13-and-14-held-after-man-is-stabbed-to-death-9926937.html
Just thought I might throw that in there after three pages of armchair legalese.
For those who wield power absolutely, but for discussion on an insignificant forum, who gives a crap.
*Applauds* :cool:
I hope that makes the thread starter think a little before making assumptions.
Murder is when there was planning involved, I think. According to Wikipedia, bail could mean that they'll have to attend trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail
Being on bail does not mean they won't be charged with any offence. I never suggested it did.
From what we know so far I assume they did or at least one of them did if we find out more news later I may change that assumption.
In this case there are a few options
1) They (or at least one of them) did it
2) The guy was in a argumentative mood and pick another argmunt with someone else
3) Someone else picked a argument with him
4) Some nut just killed him at random
5) Someone wanted him dead and picked that day to do it
There is more options obviously but out of those until we hear more option 1 is the most likely scenario.
Yeah, murder does mean that you intended to kill someone and there's no mention of planning.
Actually you do not even need an intent to kill. You need an intent to cause GBH.
So he was carrying a knife to peel his apple with,?
So one then.
And (although it probably was), we don't even know it was a knife. All we know is the victim was stabbed.
Damilola Taylor for example, was stabbed with a shard the attackers picked up at the scene (they didn't carry it with them). In fact the stabbing didn't even kill him but only slightly pierced the skin and was pretty superficial - what killed him was he fell a few minutes later and the shard pierced an artery. Hence manslaughter not murder.
Yeah, stabbing someone doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a knife.
After looking at the article again, where does it say knife?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30479640
thats strange it sort of puts the blame on the victim for falling. but remember who put the shard in is body in the first place etc which led to his death. i would be more than happy if that was murder instead of manslaughter for that.
Yeah, it might have been his IPhone.
Answer the question in my earlier post.