DS Forums

 
 

Shirley shooting Phil was not an accident......


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-10-2014, 21:00
Imogen_Galeonti
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 456

I;m baffled that many people think it was an accident. No it wasn't..

Watch the last scene again from yesterday's episode. Shirley was literally about to shoot Phil in the last scene but Sharon attacked Shirley but she failed to stop Shirley shooting Phil. So it wasn't an accident as Shirley was about to fire the gun to Phil (and she succeeded).
Imogen_Galeonti is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-10-2014, 21:12
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
If you take a gun with you and wave it around and threaten people then yes it intent, it wasn't a accident.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:15
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
If you take a gun with you and wave it around and threaten people then no it intent, it wasn't a accident.
Correct in the eyes of the law because of what she did she would be charged with attempted murder. Some people don't understand how the law works but because she went there with intent and had waved it around if someone tries to get it out of your hands and it goes off it the person who did that is considered the guilty party.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:20
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
The end shot was an accident. I don't think she would have actually shot him. She shouldn't have been waving a gun around but the actual shot was fired when her and Sharon were grappling over it.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:23
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
Correct in the eyes of the law because of what she did she would be charged with attempted murder. Some people don't understand how the law works but because she went there with intent and had waved it around if someone tries to get it out of your hands and it goes off it the person who did that is considered the guilty party.
She didn't go there with intent. She only pulled the gun out of her pocket after they had goaded her and even then had no intention of using it. She thought Sharon had planned to use the gun and wanted to tell Phil about it. Now I don't condone what she did after in pointing it at them but we have no proof that she was going to use it. It didn't go off in an outright scenario, so it's hard to say what would've happened. Phil didn't think she was going to use it. And I'm not saying that makes it okay, I know the seriousness of pointing a gun at someone but the OP's point is that she was definitely going to use it when we don't know that.

All of this is by the by as spoilers indicate that the police don't find out about Shirley's involvement.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:25
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
The end shot was an accident. I don't think she would have actually shot him. She shouldn't have been waving a gun around but the actual shot was fired when her and Sharon were grappling over it.
Morally you may feel that way but legally that isn't the case. Legally she is responsible. There are many precedents which back this up. At some point on your course you will learn about this and how to deal with it if someone becomes violent and what the law says.

Legally she would be arrested for attempted murder if they told the complete truth.
Ronnie, Phil and Sharon would be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm. Phil and Ronnie would probably get short jail sentences with due to their previous. Sharon would probably not as it was her first offense but would not be able to be landlady of the Albert as she would have a conviction.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:26
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
She didn't go there with intent. She only pulled the gun out of her pocket after they had goaded her and even then had no intention of using it. She thought Sharon had planned to use the gun and wanted to tell Phil about it. Now I don't condone what she did after in pointing it at them but we have no proof that she was going to use it. It didn't go off in an outright scenario, so it's hard to say what would've happened. Phil didn't think she was going to use it. And I'm not saying that makes it okay, I know the seriousness of pointing a gun at someone but the OP's point is that she was definitely going to use it when we don't know that.

All of this is by the by as spoilers indicate that the police don't find out about Shirley's involvement.
Exactly.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:27
Scrabbler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 31,192
She didn't go there with intent. She only pulled the gun out of her pocket after they had goaded her and even then had no intention of using it. She thought Sharon had planned to use the gun and wanted to tell Phil about it. Now I don't condone what she did after in pointing it at them but we have no proof that she was going to use it. It didn't go off in an outright scenario, so it's hard to say what would've happened. Phil didn't think she was going to use it. And I'm not saying that makes it okay, I know the seriousness of pointing a gun at someone but the OP's point is that she was definitely going to use it when we don't know that.

All of this is by the by as spoilers indicate that the police don't find out about Shirley's involvement.
If she didn't intend to shoot him then surely the safety catch should be on?
Scrabbler is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:31
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
Morally you may feel that way but legally that isn't the case. Legally she is responsible. There are many precedents which back this up. At some point on your course you will learn about this and how to deal with it if someone becomes violent and what the law says.

Legally she would be arrested for attempted murder if they told the complete truth.
Ronnie, Phil and Sharon would be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm. Phil and Ronnie would probably get short jail sentences with due to their previous. Sharon would probably not as it was her first offense but would not be able to be landlady of the Albert as she would have a conviction.
Legally, I agree but if Sharon hadn't tackled her, whether she would have actually fired remains to be seen. The gun went off during that tackle so technically it was an accident, if that makes sense? Like say if someone threatened someone with a knife and then someone tackled you and got stabbed - that would be an accident.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:32
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
If she didn't intend to shoot him then surely the safety catch should be on?
Exactly she took it off and said she was going to shoot them. Does not matter if you believe she would or not. If you grapple with someone who does that the person who had the gun doing that IS legally responsible. I get we may feel differently morally but the law is very clear on this.
Moment she made threats that fulfilled the mens rea of the crime.

Not that it matters Shirley gets away with it anyway so she wont get into any trouble. But I am not going to change the law because some people are unaware of it.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:32
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
If she didn't intend to shoot him then surely the safety catch should be on?
yeah but Shirley's not an expert in firearms, was the catch on when Sharon and Ronnie had the gun?
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:33
jamesc_715
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South West England
Posts: 4,636
Interesting. I watched the final scene and Shirley looked like she was gonna shoot Phil. Don't forget, she aimed her gun to Phil and Sharon from the Vic window.
jamesc_715 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:35
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
Legally, I agree but if Sharon hadn't tackled her, whether she would have actually fired remains to be seen. The gun went off during that tackle so technically it was an accident, if that makes sense? Like say if someone threatened someone with a knife and then someone tackled you and got stabbed - that would be an accident.
Yes. You will learn this on your course. If someone threatens your life with a firearm and you tackle them to get the gun away from them and it shoots someone the person who brought the firearm in and threaten them pointing it at them would be legally responsible.
Now she would be legally responsible. However in mitigation at her sentencing she might get some time off it due to what you say but it would still be mitigation would not get her away with it. So her jail sentence might be reduced if the Judge choose to accept that as mitigation but she would go to jail for a while.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:36
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
yeah but Shirley's not an expert in firearms, was the catch on when Sharon and Ronnie had the gun?
Yes.
In the episode prior we had Shirley pick up the gun and take the safety off and prime it. So yes it was on.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:37
LHolmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,021
Exactly she took it off and said she was going to shoot them. Does not matter if you believe she would or not. If you grapple with someone who does that the person who had the gun doing that IS legally responsible. I get we may feel differently morally but the law is very clear on this.
Moment she made threats that fulfilled the mens rea of the crime.

Not that it matters Shirley gets away with it anyway so she wont get into any trouble. But I am not going to change the law because some people are unaware of it.
I think people get your point, that even though she didn't outright shoot him she would still be legally held responsible for it but technically the gun going off was an accident. The OP's point is that she was going to shoot him before the grappling took place when it's impossible to say what would've happened.
LHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:37
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
Yes. You will learn this on your course. If someone threatens your life with a firearm and you tackle them to get the gun away from them and it shoots someone the person who brought the firearm in and threaten them pointing it at them would be legally responsible.
Now she would be legally responsible. However in mitigation at her sentencing she might get some time off it due to what you say but it would still be mitigation would not get her away with it. So her jail sentence might be reduced if the Judge choose to accept that as mitigation but she would go to jail for a while.
To clarify, I am aware that legally she went over there with intent and the result was still the same and so she would still be held accountable. I should have written that above.

On a level it was an accident and it is impossible to know if she would have actually shot but in court she would be held responsible as she did intend to shoot at one point, even if she wasn't going to go through with it, the intent was there.

EDIT:I don't think she is a cold blooded 'attempted' killer though, she was pushed to the edge and broken by Phil, and not in the right frame of mind.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:41
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
To clarify, I am aware that legally she went over there with intent and the result was still the same and so she would still be held accountable. I should have written that above.

On a level it was an accident but in court she would be held responsible as she did intend to shoot at one point, even if she wouldn't have gone through with it, the intent was there.
Yeah. I can see morally why you people may feel different, I don't but I have a huge issue with gun crime.
I am sure she could use it as mitigation. But if I was her lawyer I wouldn't bother and I would go for an insanity defence which I think she could get.
But we know Shirley gets away with it so it wont matter. I did love Ronnie clocking on instantly what it would mean for the family since it was her gun lol. There was no way Shirley was going to be grassed up by them.

Just saw your edit I don't think she is either. That's why I think there are other things to take into consideration. Yes she is legally responsible for there are mitigating factors.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:42
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
She still took the gun, she said she wanted to earlier to Dean and aimed it out of the window at both Phil and Sharon before hand, this happened.

She took the safety catch off as well.

She waved it about and threaten them, she still pulled the trigger, so it's not a accident, and wouldn't be in the eyes of the law.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:46
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 31,001
I do hope not.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:47
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
Attempted murder is attempted murder however you try and spin it. Yet another one to add to the list. That's Abi and Shirley to add to Ben, Phil, Ronnie, Stacey, and Dexter.
J-B is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:50
Ell_Ren
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,495
Yeah. I can see morally why you people may feel different, I don't but I have a huge issue with gun crime.
I am sure she could use it as mitigation. But if I was her lawyer I wouldn't bother and I would go for an insanity defence which I think she could get.
But we know Shirley gets away with it so it wont matter. I did love Ronnie clocking on instantly what it would mean for the family since it was her gun lol. There was no way Shirley was going to be grassed up by them.

Just saw your edit I don't think she is either. That's why I think there are other things to take into consideration. Yes she is legally responsible for there are mitigating factors.
Completely agree with everything you have said there. I wasn't clear enough if my first post, we have touched on this but not in depth. But I understand the legal side and the intent to shoot, even though the actual shot was accidental, the original intent was there. Insanity defense is always an interesting subject to cover, there are so many different aspects to it.

You'd think with Billy, Sharon, Ben, Jay, Ronnie, the Carters and Phil knowing that someone would slip up but without the gun or witnesses, I guess it would be hard to back it up later on down the line anyway. I wonder how the interaction between these characters will be when she returns and how she will return.
Ell_Ren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:54
lotty27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wine cellar *hic*
Posts: 17,562
Correct in the eyes of the law because of what she did she would be charged with attempted murder. Some people don't understand how the law works but because she went there with intent and had waved it around if someone tries to get it out of your hands and it goes off it the person who did that is considered the guilty party.
Spot on.

She didn't go there with intent. She only pulled the gun out of her pocket after they had goaded her and even then had no intention of using it. She thought Sharon had planned to use the gun and wanted to tell Phil about it. Now I don't condone what she did after in pointing it at them but we have no proof that she was going to use it. It didn't go off in an outright scenario, so it's hard to say what would've happened. Phil didn't think she was going to use it. And I'm not saying that makes it okay, I know the seriousness of pointing a gun at someone but the OP's point is that she was definitely going to use it when we don't know that.

All of this is by the by as spoilers indicate that the police don't find out about Shirley's involvement.
I beg to differ. She took the gun from under the sink, put it in her pocket and took it to Phil's with her. Why did she do that? She wanted it to wave in Phil's face and threaten him. Was she really going to use it? Ultimately I don't think so but she broke a few laws just carrying it and pointing at someone. At her age she should know that you don't play games with guns, that they're dangerous and in inexperienced hands like hers can be fatal.

I know Shirley has her fans, I think the character's fascinating myself, but there really is no excuse for what she did.
lotty27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 21:54
cooler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,177
Why did Sharon take the gun into the Vic anyway on her wedding day, leaving it in an open bag?
cooler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 22:01
J-B
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,324
Public Service Announcement:

Please all remember when you're posting that Shirley is guilty of attempted murder with absolutely no question about it. No matter the struggle with Sharon or anything else - the law is quite clear about it. She took a loaded gun to the house without it's safety catch on, pointed it at the person she showed intention to shoot, and shot Phil. The fact that she struggled with Sharon means absolutely nothing.
J-B is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2014, 22:03
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
Why did Sharon take the gun into the Vic anyway on her wedding day, leaving it in an open bag?
Denny packed it in her bag, she stupidly put it in a make up bag and left it in her bedside draw.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25.